4 ms·

Surely any technology company is trying to predict the future and create products that people want. The iPad was, what, 5 years after Microsoft's tablets, the d

by rythie 16y ago

Surely any technology company is trying to predict the future and create products that people want. The iPad was, what, 5 years after Microsoft's tablets, the difference is that Apple can execute well. Most the of the other vendors, Motorola included, don't control their OS.

cletus 16y ago
Actually if the iPod, iPhone and iPad stories have taught us anything it's that Apple is visionary (whether or not you, personally, agree with that vision or not is immaterial; the market has generally decided in their favour). Everyone else is just copying last year's Apple product with a shotgun approach with no idea of why they're in the market (other than Apple is in it), what their vision for their product and company is or what consumers actually want. There are also countless examples to prove that just because you take a working formula and add stuff to it, it isn't by definition any better. In fact, it can be worse.
- danenania 16y ago
  Maybe you're right, but you completely ignored his point that the IPad isn't really the first product of its kind.
  - cletus 16y ago
    And the iPhone wasn't the first phone or even the first smartphone. And the iPod wasn't the first MP3 player. His point about being first is misguided. It's more accurate to say Apple was the first to do each of these things right. The competition are simply mimicking what Apple already did right and, in doing so, chasing last year's model.
    - danenania 16y ago
      Maybe you should reread the post. You've actually just restated his supposedly "misguided" point that Apple succeeds due to its excellent execution of existing product concepts, not by inventing those concepts.
  - toastedrhino 16y ago
    You can't actually believe this. I'm not sure how you define "first product of its kind," but as far as I'm concerned Apple created the first tablet with a multi touch OS targeted at consumers. You can argue that the crap tablets MS and its partners put out beat Apple to the punch, but that's missing the entire point. Nothing that was released prior to the iPad was anything like the tablets that people have decided are so exciting now, and to pretend they were is disingenuous at best.
    - danenania 16y ago
      "You can argue that the crap tablets MS and its partners put out beat Apple to the punch, but that's missing the entire point." Actually, that is the entire point. That's exactly what is being discussed. Apple did not invent the tablet, they took an existing idea and improved its implementation dramatically. "Nothing that was released prior to the iPad was anything like the tablets that people have decided are so exciting now, and to pretend they were is disingenuous at best." The IPad certainly evolved far beyond its predecessors. That doesn't mean it took nothing from those designs. Clearly there are some similarities if they've all been labeled 'tablets'. To pretend there aren't is disingenuous at best :-/
tdfx 16y ago
Where Microsoft failed with tablets was trying to shoehorn desktop Windows onto a device with a touch interface. I'm planning to ditch my iPhone soon but I still consider it to be the biggest disruptive event in mobile history since middle class people started carrying cell phones. It really did set the standard, and also proved that there was room for a brand new ecosystem of applications that was done correctly (who else would use Obj-C otherwise?). They just naturally followed their success into the tablet market.
extension 16y ago
Microsoft's tablets were PCs. The iPad is a giant iPhone. Similar form factor, far from the same product category. The iPad is best compared to a console gaming system: an entertainment appliance with a curated application library. Marrying that to the tablet form factor was the winning insight. "Invention" is probably a better term than "clairvoyance" for what Apple does. They aren't so much predicting the future as creating it.

by rythie 16y ago

cletus 16y ago

Actually if the iPod, iPhone and iPad stories have taught us anything it's that Apple is visionary (whether or not you, personally, agree with that vision or not is immaterial; the market has generally decided in their favour). Everyone else is just copying last year's Apple product with a shotgun approach with no idea of why they're in the market (other than Apple is in it), what their vision for their product and company is or what consumers actually want. There are also countless examples to prove that just because you take a working formula and add stuff to it, it isn't by definition any better. In fact, it can be worse.

danenania 16y ago
Maybe you're right, but you completely ignored his point that the IPad isn't really the first product of its kind.
- cletus 16y ago
  And the iPhone wasn't the first phone or even the first smartphone. And the iPod wasn't the first MP3 player. His point about being first is misguided. It's more accurate to say Apple was the first to do each of these things right. The competition are simply mimicking what Apple already did right and, in doing so, chasing last year's model.
  - danenania 16y ago
    Maybe you should reread the post. You've actually just restated his supposedly "misguided" point that Apple succeeds due to its excellent execution of existing product concepts, not by inventing those concepts.
- toastedrhino 16y ago
  You can't actually believe this. I'm not sure how you define "first product of its kind," but as far as I'm concerned Apple created the first tablet with a multi touch OS targeted at consumers. You can argue that the crap tablets MS and its partners put out beat Apple to the punch, but that's missing the entire point. Nothing that was released prior to the iPad was anything like the tablets that people have decided are so exciting now, and to pretend they were is disingenuous at best.
  - danenania 16y ago
    "You can argue that the crap tablets MS and its partners put out beat Apple to the punch, but that's missing the entire point." Actually, that is the entire point. That's exactly what is being discussed. Apple did not invent the tablet, they took an existing idea and improved its implementation dramatically. "Nothing that was released prior to the iPad was anything like the tablets that people have decided are so exciting now, and to pretend they were is disingenuous at best." The IPad certainly evolved far beyond its predecessors. That doesn't mean it took nothing from those designs. Clearly there are some similarities if they've all been labeled 'tablets'. To pretend there aren't is disingenuous at best :-/

tdfx 16y ago

Where Microsoft failed with tablets was trying to shoehorn desktop Windows onto a device with a touch interface. I'm planning to ditch my iPhone soon but I still consider it to be the biggest disruptive event in mobile history since middle class people started carrying cell phones. It really did set the standard, and also proved that there was room for a brand new ecosystem of applications that was done correctly (who else would use Obj-C otherwise?). They just naturally followed their success into the tablet market.

extension 16y ago

Microsoft's tablets were PCs. The iPad is a giant iPhone. Similar form factor, far from the same product category. The iPad is best compared to a console gaming system: an entertainment appliance with a curated application library. Marrying that to the tablet form factor was the winning insight. "Invention" is probably a better term than "clairvoyance" for what Apple does. They aren't so much predicting the future as creating it.