4 ms·

Uncompelling. It fails to answer the question, "What can I do with this thing that I can't do right now with my phone or laptop?" Compare it to the original TV

Uncompelling. It fails to answer the question, "What can I do with this thing that I can't do right now with my phone or laptop?" Compare it to the original TV ads for the iPhone, which were both beautiful and informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lfmlKYZ-vU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lfmlKYZ-vU

Groxx 17y ago
And you think that's what this is for? The iPhone was a phone game-changer. Smart-phones had been around quite a while, but few did them very well at all, much less super-user-friendly. The tablet market, for comparison, has been languishing in cheap crap that barely works, or large, very expensive, poorly programmed (for tablet experience) laptop computers that swivel. Battery life has also typically been very short. Now, what's the exact opposite of all those? It's not meant to compete with a laptop or a phone, it's meant to open a new market, or at the least change the tablet market.
- cheald 17y ago
  My counterargument to this has been that the iPhone succeeded so wildly because it was so many devices or references that you'd otherwise carry. Phone, camera, GPS, MP3 player, map, contact book, and who knows what else. It consolidated a lot of existing things-in-your-car into one pocketable device. The iPad (and tablets in general) don't do that. They are, at worst, really big iPod Touches, and at best, underpowered laptops that are relatively hard to type on. They don't really address any gaping holes in the user market, except "I'd like my phone to have a bigger screen when I'm reading a news article on the john", which is an awfully narrow use case for a device that expensive. I'm sure it's going to sell decently, but I really don't think it's going to become integrated into our daily lives like the iPhone has. It'll sit on coffee tables and bathroom reading shelves and be useful there, but it's not going to become the extension of our connected lives like our smartphones are. Even if it's meant to be an in-between between a tablet and a phone, I'm not sure what problem they're trying to solve. It feels like they're inventing a problem, wrapping the solution in shiny Apple plastic, and marketing it as a world-changer. Remember the Apple TV? The most revolutionary thing about it is the battery life for a device with a display of that size. It'll be interesting to see how it actually holds up in real-life usage; if Apple has managed to actually crush it out of the park like they're promising, that technology is going to get a lot of use. I don't think this application of it is going to be quite the revolution that some are hoping it'll be, though.
  - Groxx 17y ago
    I've seen that side argued before, and it definitely has merit. I'll still disagree, especially as some phones did nearly all that anyway, but it is valid. As to the AppleTV in particular, I'm not surprised it didn't do very well. DVRs have actually gotten pretty good, and they're usually bundled with your connection, so there's huge competition in that market. Also, most people aren't particularly interested in watching youtube on their TV, so the internet-capable side of it is largely wasted. But I'm hugely interested in UI, so I probably see more influence than it actually has.
marze 17y ago
When you combine the super-fast UI with a 10 hr. battery life and a $500 price tag (not to mention a $15 / month data plan without contract), you get "compelling". This ad is focused on speed and capability. Perhaps future ads will put it all together.

Groxx 17y ago

And you think that's what this is for? The iPhone was a phone game-changer. Smart-phones had been around quite a while, but few did them very well at all, much less super-user-friendly. The tablet market, for comparison, has been languishing in cheap crap that barely works, or large, very expensive, poorly programmed (for tablet experience) laptop computers that swivel. Battery life has also typically been very short. Now, what's the exact opposite of all those? It's not meant to compete with a laptop or a phone, it's meant to open a new market, or at the least change the tablet market.

cheald 17y ago
My counterargument to this has been that the iPhone succeeded so wildly because it was so many devices or references that you'd otherwise carry. Phone, camera, GPS, MP3 player, map, contact book, and who knows what else. It consolidated a lot of existing things-in-your-car into one pocketable device. The iPad (and tablets in general) don't do that. They are, at worst, really big iPod Touches, and at best, underpowered laptops that are relatively hard to type on. They don't really address any gaping holes in the user market, except "I'd like my phone to have a bigger screen when I'm reading a news article on the john", which is an awfully narrow use case for a device that expensive. I'm sure it's going to sell decently, but I really don't think it's going to become integrated into our daily lives like the iPhone has. It'll sit on coffee tables and bathroom reading shelves and be useful there, but it's not going to become the extension of our connected lives like our smartphones are. Even if it's meant to be an in-between between a tablet and a phone, I'm not sure what problem they're trying to solve. It feels like they're inventing a problem, wrapping the solution in shiny Apple plastic, and marketing it as a world-changer. Remember the Apple TV? The most revolutionary thing about it is the battery life for a device with a display of that size. It'll be interesting to see how it actually holds up in real-life usage; if Apple has managed to actually crush it out of the park like they're promising, that technology is going to get a lot of use. I don't think this application of it is going to be quite the revolution that some are hoping it'll be, though.
- Groxx 17y ago
  I've seen that side argued before, and it definitely has merit. I'll still disagree, especially as some phones did nearly all that anyway, but it is valid. As to the AppleTV in particular, I'm not surprised it didn't do very well. DVRs have actually gotten pretty good, and they're usually bundled with your connection, so there's huge competition in that market. Also, most people aren't particularly interested in watching youtube on their TV, so the internet-capable side of it is largely wasted. But I'm hugely interested in UI, so I probably see more influence than it actually has.

marze 17y ago

When you combine the super-fast UI with a 10 hr. battery life and a $500 price tag (not to mention a $15 / month data plan without contract), you get "compelling". This ad is focused on speed and capability. Perhaps future ads will put it all together.