“The Glendale Galleria store in California sold out of all their iPad 2s within 45 minutes of opening their doors (thanks, Michael K.). According to multiple reports via Twitter, users were unable to choose the model they wanted.”
“Jefferies analyst Peter Misek on Friday argued that earnings estimates for Motorola Mobility are too high for the second quarter and 2011 because sales of the Xoom and Atrix haven’t lived up to expectations.”
The Sage Gruber’s contortions to position Apple’s subscription pricing scam as “good for consumers” are getting so wild that he’ll be a high-level yoga master before you know it:
“Why not allow developers and publishers to set their own prices for in-app subscriptions? One reason: Apple wants its customers to get the best price — and, to know that they’re getting the best price whenever they buy a subscription through an app. It’s a confidence in the brand thing: with Apple’s rules, users know they’re getting the best price, they know they’ll be able to unsubscribe easily, and they know their privacy is protected… So the same-price rule is good for the user, and good for Apple”
John’s being obtuse here. How would a publisher offering a lower price than that offered through Apple’s store be bad for customers? It wouldn’t – it would be bad for Apple. Customers could choose to vote with their wallets – take the lower price on offer elsewhere, or take the convenience and privacy advantages of using in-app purchasing.
By the same logic, any large retailer could use its position in the market to force suppliers not to allow anyone to undercut it, and claim that it was simply ensuring “its customers got the best price”. I’m sure Wal-Mart would love its customers to “know that they’re getting the best price” by contractually obliging people not to sell their products for less elsewhere. Nothing to do with hobbling the competition, oh no sir.
Brilliant comment from “Chucky” on a post from from Michael Tsai:
Microsoft in 1997 had a very specific corporate strategy. They had a temporary situation of great market leverage. And rather than concentrating on making better products for their users, they began to concentrate on two objectives:
1 Using their leverage to avoid the rise of middle-wear.
2 Using their leverage to grab a rent-seeking slice of the commerce their users did out on the internet.
Microsoft in 1997 was willing to be incredibly evasive and disingenuous in its pursuit of those goals.
Does any of this remind you of Apple in 2011 in any way?
Apple has steadfastly avoided the creation of middleware on iOS – stuff like Flash, which acts as a layer between the OS and the application. And it is now using its leverage over the platform to grab a slice of all the commerce people do through apps.
Who’d have thought that Steve Jobs would have stuck so closely to the playbook written by Bill Gates?
“Call it a deal with the devil or whatever you want, but Apple is the one that came up with devices that are so appealing, and a content-distribution model that is so effective, that it has sold 10 billion apps in less than three years, and created a whole generation of users who look to it for content such as newspapers, magazines, e-books and games. Putting your eggs in Apple’s basket is a great way to get them to market — but just remember who owns the basket, and who you have to pay for carrying it, and who controls the route to your customer. Meanwhile, over in the corner stands Google, waving frantically.”
“Ballmer was right not to make any major tablet announcement, showing off something that wasn’t ready. Any zealous tablet push would have led to bloggers, journalists and Wall Street analysts making iPad comparisons. By staying away from Apple and iPad, Ballmer kept the message pure, which is good marketing. Ballmer set the keynote agenda on his terms rather than taking the position of following a competitor. Surely there was temptation, and pressure, to directly respond to iPad. Ballmer showed leadership by waiting.”
Joe is absolutely right. The last thing that Microsoft needed from this year’s CES was another version of the Courier debacle. By focusing on products that it was ready to announce rather than products the pundits think it needs, Ballmer did the right thing – and, of course, copied something straight out of the Apple marketing playbook.
I’m only slightly obsessive about note taking applications. I actually use more than one at once – DEVONthink for organising notes around projects, Evernote for filing just about everything else.
One of the ones that I’ve used in the past is Circus Ponies NoteBook, which on Mac was a great note taking application, particularly if you like to take notes as outlines. And now, thanks to an iPad version, I might well take another look at it.
What’s good about Circus Ponies Notepad for iPad? There’s a couple of features which stand out. First, the user interface looks pretty lovely, like a decent paper notebook but with plenty of easy-to-access features. Second, it’s not just text only – there’s tools for diagramming and drawing too, which is handy if you suddenly want to add a mind map or sketch. And finally, you can import PDFs and annotate them, so if you have documents you want to annotate it should be easy.
It’s not, though, cheap: £17.99, which makes it a pricey piece of software in iPad terms, but worth it for notes-obsessives like myself.
“If you want to make stuff, in other words, the cloud isn’t quite ready for you—and that means Chrome OS isn’t quite ready for you, either. Will it be when (and if) Chrome OS netbooks actually hit the market next year? That’s tougher to say.”
One wonders how many of the people decrying the iPad as “only for consumers, not creators” will be getting as angry about Chrome OS? My bet is “none”.
“In the two months since the iPad launched in the UK, YouGov has found that 96% of the 713 iPad owners surveyed owned products such as an iPod, iPhone or Mac.”
Why would this be a surprise? Given that Apple utterly dominates the MP3 player category with over 70% market share, it would be a surprise if most people surveyed hadn’t owned an Apple product. When you’ve sold over 225 million music players alone, you’d be hard-pushed to find anyone likely to buy something like the iPad who hasn’t bought an Apple product.
1. Computing is heading towards a new, simplified era.
I’ve written about this before, but fundamentally: we’re on the cusp of a revolution in simplicity. Easy to use touch interfaces are the final piece of the jigsaw, and will devices easier to use than ever before.
2. The most important thing about the iPad is the battery life.
Yes, it’s a lovely screen and runs great apps and its easy to use. But none of this would matter if it didn’t also have the ability to be thrown in a bag at the start of the day and not plugged in again till the end. Not having to consider power makes a massive difference in how usable a device is. It’s the one thing about the iPad that really lifts it from cool toy to essential.
3. When it comes to broadband, speed is less important than always-on.
Yes, it’s great to have 50Mbits/sec pipes into your home. But it’s much, much more of a game-changer when you have 1Mbits/sec on a mobile device that you carry everywhere. Ubiquity trumps speed.
4. In five years time, not using your own name is going to look as old-fashioned as an AOL-style handle now.
Hundreds of millions of users have got used to the idea that they use their own name online, via Facebook. It hasn’t hurt.
5. “The hobbyists” are losing control… and they won’t like it.
Up until now, computing and technology’s culture has been largely determined by a group I call “the hobbyists”. Traditions like anonymity and the primacy of code have been part of the unwritten law of the Internet. That era is dying, and “the hobbyists” don’t like it. Expect culture clashes between this old Internet and the new one.