5 ms·
Agreed. An obvious example from the real world is the tablet. Prior to the introduction of the iPad, Microsoft and its partners had shipped lots of models of t
by tjogin 15y ago
Agreed. An obvious example from the real world is the tablet.
Prior to the introduction of the iPad, Microsoft and its partners had shipped lots of models of tablets for over a decade and they were all failures.
Then came the iPad. The iPad didn't succeed because Apple presented it well. It succeeded because unlike all of its predecessors it didn't suck.
- powertower 15y agoSometimes the market is just not there, and it's more about the timing.
- tjogin 15y agoSo you're saying that one of the spectacularly failed Windows powered tablets from yesteryear would succeed today, because the "timing is right"? No. Those products were terrible, horrible, awful products, that's why they failed. The timing for tablets is evidently perfect now, and yet not all tablets are succeeding in the market. Because they suck.
- jolan 15y agoExactly right. They weren't even true tablets, they were laptops with swivel screens and a stylus.
- erohead 15y agoThere is more than just market/customer timing. It comes down to available components. Li-poly battery tech + cheap lightweight capacitive display + available 3G radios and networks also heavily contributed to the success of iPad.
- tjogin 15y agoOf course, but again, that doesn't explain why other tablets are failing today. Motorola's Xoom contains those same parts, yet its sales are terrible. Because it sucks.
- jodrellblank 15y agoThe Steve Jobs WWDC 1997 speech that was linked on here the other day - he was talking about his dream for the future, and mentioned that he doesn't want a hand writing computer with local storage like the Newton, he wants a screen and a keyboard which syncs to the network data stores where his data is. iPad pretty much does that, at least for email and buying audio and video and apps from iTMS. Windows tablets didn't - they were local data, handwriting based, windowed Apps, like a movable desktop. They didn't just fail because their spec was poor and their tech was early, they failed because they weren't a compelling thing to use, they were like an ordinary computer but worse.
- spitfire 15y agoNo. The windows tablets that have been available since the 1990's were simply shit. They were simply a flat screen running windows with a pen. and that idea hasn't changed a bit since windows for pen computing in 1991. Same old windows+a pen interface, and it's absolutely horrible. It wasn't timing, it was simply that Microsoft didn't get that a tablet was something different.
- powertower 15y agoThe problem is that a "flat screen running windows with a pen" was the pinacle of what could be brought to market at that time by anyone. Microsoft tried.
- msbarnett 15y ago> The problem is that a "flat screen running windows with a pen" was the pinacle of what could be brought to market at that time by anyone. Microsoft tried. The problem is that, if a "flat screen running windows with a pen" is a shitty experience that nobody in their right mind would buy, you're better off not bringing it to market. Microsoft didn't earn a gold star for "trying"; they wrecked their brand by associating it with ten years of shitty tablet products nobody wanted. Sometimes it's better to realize that if the tech doesn't exist to let you execute your product well, you're better off not harming your brand by executing it poorly.
- rbanffy 15y agoNewton and Palm proved you could have a acerem-and-pen computer that didn't suck. It's just that Microsoft will never lauch anything that competes with Windows: they'll just graft the current fad on to of it