iPad: Gateway drug to Mac addiction?
Summary: The iPad is not a notebook replacement - although many will use it that way - but the high-end of Apple's wildly successful iPhone OS (iP/OS) product line. Will it be a bridge to Mac use by millions of iP/OS users?
The iPad is not a notebook replacement - although many will use it that way - but the high-end of Apple's iPhone OS (iP/OS) product line. The iPad's form factor is less important than the 140,000 cheap iP/OS apps and the 75 million people already using iP/OS.
Eye on the wrong ball Commentary on the iPad announcement has centered on its potential as a notebook computer replacement. But that is backwards: the iPad is an iP/OS device and is an upgrade for iPhone OS users.
Why is that important? Apple has sold some 75 million iPhone OS (iP/OS) products between iPod touches and iPhones. And they're selling more -- 10,000,000+ more -- every quarter.
If 10% of the iP/OS users upgrade to the iPad in the next year, that's a ~12 million unit total market. Not bad, as Apple sold a mere 3.36 million Macs last quarter versus 8.7 million iPhone's + only-Apple-knows-how-many - but maybe more than the iPhone - iPod Touch.
The halo effect iP/OS has introduced tens of millions to Apples user interface design, App store, iTunes, Safari, touch I/O, Apple pricing and the pleasures of a well-designed, always-on, wireless handheld computer. Will there be a halo effect for the Mac?
Hello! Of course.
It wasn't long ago that observers debated the iPod's halo effect. If people liked the iPod would that lead them to buy Macs?
No one is debating the halo today. Mac sales have continued to rise despite a global recession and average sale prices double those of their Windows competitors.
But wait, there's more That is just the beginning. The iPad has the form factor and battery life that make it attractive for all sorts of walking around business apps in warehouses, hospitals, construction sites, shop floors and stores.
For example, those handheld scanners that package delivery firms use? They cost $1500+. Ruggedize an iPad with a silicone skin, add a Bluetooth scanner and get more functionality for half the cost.
The Storage Bits take iP/OS systems aren't a notebook replacement. They are the latest version of the handheld computer market that Palm pioneered in 1996 - and that Apple's Newton muffed in 1993.
Despite the impressive numbers of iP/OS devices, they don't guarantee iPad success. Apple has problems communicating the iPad experience ("magical" really, that's the best they could do?) which is disturbing. But if it succeeds, Mac sales will follow.
Whether it succeeds or fails, the iPad does raise the bar for the rest of the industry. All of us will benefit from that.
Comments welcome, of course.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Utter Drivel.
"Whether it succeeds or fails, the iPad does raise the bar for the rest of the industry. All of us will benefit from that."
Excuse me? What incentive is there for the rest of industry to "raise the bar" from a failed product that wasn't their own?
This authors' post is nothing but pure and utter drivel and demonstrates a complete lack of insight into the aspects of business.
If my competitor fails with a product this is hardly motivation for me to work harder now is it.
Not at all.
which really was a game changer.
Welcome to the computer industry
successful computer industry innovations build on prior, usually less
successful, products. Before Google there was Yahoo and before
Yahoo there was Alta Vista.
There were dozens of computer systems before the IBM 360 family
took the world by storm in the in 1960s, dozens of PC vendors before
the IBM PC took off, several LAN file systems before Novell and, oh
yes, many smartphones before the iPhone.
Observant people - do you know any? - who build products do, in
fact, look at what has gone before to try to understand what worked
and what didn't. Whether Apple sells 1 or 50 million iPads, you can be
sure that people at Google, Microsoft, Dell, Palm, Nokia, Acer and
many more will analyzing the product and consumer reaction to it in
detail to glean what lessons they can.
That is how real businesses do it. Observe and learn.
Uhhh... no
No, there weren't - at least at any level worth considering. There was the IBM 1401 (4k) and that's about it for business.
Computerization at the business level basically commenced with the 1401 series in the early 60s. There was absolutely no wide-spread computerization prior to that. That lasted a couple of years before the 360 series made an impact.
>>dozens of PC vendors before the IBM PC took of<<
Wrong again. There were a couple of CP/M systems and a sparsity of dev tools. Development on CP/M really started only in the late 70s (about 1977/78). When "IBM" DOS was introduced, there was an immediate switch, because of the name, "IBM" and the perceived reliability.
>>several LAN file systems<<. Again, quite wrong. '83 was the year of the LAN. DOS systems pervaded business and local connectivity was needed. Novell was the first. Sure, they may have been some minor players, but they had no influence at all.
In all cases, need was the motivator, trust clinched the deal.
Get your facts right, please.
@no_axe_to_grind
Yes, there was, IBM was the "new kid" on the block so to speak. Remington for example, had a mainframe that was much faster and better than IBMs. The big difference was IBM matched up their mainframe to existing tabulating machines that made theirs much less expensive than Remington's replace everything approach. Cheaper and droves of salesmen is what made IBM in those days.
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/remington_rand
https://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/history/index.htm
Agree, but the point is...
The author would have us believe that "go-befores" set the standards on which other platforms were built, and it just ain't so. Those were innovative days - there were few precedents (I don't want to get into DOS/CP/M similarities and whether PCDOS was copied or whatever - that's been discussed endlessly), just a lot of people recognizing needs and building solutions.
That is really beside the point...
You proved Robin's point for him ...
You don't even make any sense.
Um, yes they do
family took the world by storm in the in 1960s<<
No, there weren't - at least at any level worth considering. There was
the IBM 1401 (4k) and that's about it for business. "
That's just total garbage. Even IBM had predecessors, such as the 7000
series. But to totally write off the likes of UNIVAC, who created the
industry, and NCR, Control Data, Burroughs, and Honeywell, and the
ubiquitous General Electric is just to engage in revisionist history. All
these companies had commercially successful machines in the
mainframe market.
">>dozens of PC vendors before the IBM PC took of<<
Wrong again. There were a couple of CP/M systems and a sparsity of
dev tools."
Bull. From the TRS-80 to the TI-99, Coleco ADAM to the Atari 400,
the various machines from Sinclair/Timex and Commodore, not to
mention Apple, there most certainly were multiple PC vendors prior to
the IBM PC, and they were in no way all CP/M systems either.
Nor was the switch in any way "immediate."
Finally, claiming that Novell was the first, and that, conversely, no
machines were locally networked prior to NetWare is just simply
absurd. They may have been the first commercial success, but saying
that simply PROVES Robin's point. It in no way bolsters yours, as
others have already pointed out.
"In all cases, need was the motivator, trust clinched the deal."
And in all cases of commercial success, they built upon the endeavors
of others, both their successes as WELL AS their failures. Claiming
otherwise is just ridiculous.
"Get your facts right, please."
Indeed.
What?!
happening) then other maker will "try harder"? You're kidding right?
They won't think "there's a product category even Apple couldn't make
a success - we'll avoid that"?
Now the examples you point out were all products that were
successful! Sure the later iterations were even more successful, but
they built on success.
Now there are exceptions, of course, it the product failed for a
particular reason then, sure, you might address that than release
something similar - but total flops, hardly inspiring...
Drivel
marginal success, yet by demonstrating the viability and vision of a PDA
a whole industry succeeded. Now wipe that drivel off your chin for not
having better insight into business models.
RE: iPad: Gateway drug to Mac addiction?
But I do have to agree with Robin on one thing...
Is it?!
these products is their "pocket-ability". Sure the OS is a scaled up
version of the iPhone OS (Which is OS X, with the "Mac experience"
replaced with something suitable for a touchscreen device) but the
whole form-factor is totally different, this product will be used in very
different ways to the iPhone.
The iPhone is something you'd use in "short bursts" you might look
something up, or send an email - not settle into a chair for extended
use (for one thing the battery life doesn't allow that). The iPad IS
meant for longer usage than the iPhone. Now you're right it isn't a
laptop, despite the name, laptops tend to be used at desks, and they
don't lend themselves to use in other settings (trying to use a laptop
on a tiny fold-down tray on an aircraft is particularly problematic). The
iPad IS designed for just these settings, places where you might well
be separated from most of the "flotsam and jetsam" of your work. The
viewed in such a context the iPad's design start to make sense. Here
the relaxed "casual" nature of the iPad's UI is a pleasantly unobtrusive,
leaving the content (be that email, the web, video, reading material,
or indeed music) almost completely divorced from the usual
distractions of traditional "desktop operating systems".
For many such a quiet, refined, and subtle working environment will
be far more productive. This is computing for "the third place". The
effect of this is likely to be highly viral.
Not a serious tool?
My friendly lawyer already uses an iPhone for pulling references during
discussions. Now he will have a larger platform, and I think he'll get
one as soon as he can. I'm also thinking of Trial support. References,
documents, etc.
Medical environments? Could be awesome. Just look at OsiriX and
expand that thought. Collections of patient files and test reports.
References.
And for students in med school the references and online text books
alone would make for a powerful market.
The iPad is going to be a pretty serious productivity tool for many
users. But it is going to take imagination on the developer's side to
maximize that utilization.
And, like the computer industry in general, those who invest in their
beliefs will be the first to benefit financially.
There's More...
they will support SSH access from the iPad to desktop
OS's, both Mac and Windows.
That will mean access to any application is only a click
away.
How we'll integrate control of our desktops with the
multi-touch of the iPad remains to be seen, but It's
going to be pretty interesting.
RE: iPad: Gateway drug to Mac addiction?
enjoy!
"the halo effect"?
Troll effect
construction. And seeing as the 27" is the only model having major
issues, and is not the most popular member of the line, I doubt we'll see
this having much of an effect on sales.
Sure...