Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

rinich.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#51

Post by philk »

I really like some of the points of your blog post, namely:

- Apple does marketing really well.

- Apple does ridiculously awesome UIs

- Complaining about the fact that it's not particularly technically impressive is irrelevant, most people buy Apple products because of the magic rather than tech specs.

However, thinking about it some more I can see a few problems for the iPad in general:

- Two of the previous 'magical things' Apple produced - namely the iPod and iPhone, had a clear application to get people in the door. In the iPod case it was n-thousand songs in your pocket, in the iPhone case it was 'look, it's an iPod you can make calls with'. People were already sold on portable music players and phones beforehand, Apple just took that need and made a much more awesome device.

- The iPad on the other hand does not have such a clear application. All of the cool stuff like maps/music/games and things can already be done on the iPhone (which most people will be carrying around anyway). The other side - normal web surfing, applications, writing, graphics, etc. - is handled quite nicely by Apple's laptops. I'm not sure why someone would buy an iPad instead of an iPhone, and then, once they have an iPhone, I'm not sure what the iPad offers that makes it worth the extra $500.

- Apple have had beautiful, well marketed things in the past that haven't conquered the universe (the G4 cube, for instance, which was lovely). Marketing isn't always enough.

Still, I have to love Steve Jobs if only for his ability to (apparently) congruently gush that as a tablet the iPad is much better than either phones or laptops, both of which his company sells lots of.

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#52

Post by rinich »

philk wrote: post #51

I really like some of the points of your blog post, namely: - Apple does marketing really well. - Apple does ridiculously awesome UIs - Complaining about the fact that it's not particularly technically impressive is irrelevant, most people buy Apple products because of the magic rather than tech specs. However, thinking about it some more I can see a few problems for the iPad in general: - Two of the previous 'magica…

That's my favorite part about Apple: When they introduce a product that makes other products of theirs look obsolete. I used to love my laptop's multitouch until I tried a Magic Mouse; now my scrolling all feel stodgy.

I agree that the iPod and iPhone were much easier sells. But I suspect that the iPad will be seen as a superior product. I mean, the one thing Apple does not corner the market in is standard computing. OS X machines lose out to the Windows market. If anything, this is an entry into that market, same as netbooks were; if you look at this as a cheap, simplistic laptop that just happens not to be a clamshell, then it makes more sense. People looking for a good deal can buy this, and it handles basic computer-y things for them, and it turns out that they don't need all the cruft modern computers bring with them.

But actually in this case I've got some perspective, because last month my mother began asking me about the tablet. She owns an iPhone but no laptop; she likes my laptop but doesn't want to drop that much money for something she won't use much. Her questions were things like: Can I watch a movie on one? Can I check my email? Can I read books? For somebody who needs to do basic computer things like email and Internet, but who doesn't need anything specialized, there's nothing you need that the iPad can't do. (I'm curious as to how many people in the US own laptops. I've never thought about it before.)

As for the G4 cube comparison (though that made me think for a second!), I think there's one huge difference: The OS. This is easily the best operating system ever made in terms of usability. There's almost no abstraction. No mouse, no doubleclicking, no app folder, no dock, no task bar... you push a button and it launches something, and that thing is usually designed so that it makes perfect sense without instructions.

I didn't get why that was a big deal until I saw the streaming keynote and actually looked at the applications. I'd bet that Youtube on an iPad is simpler and funner than Youtube on a Macbook, because there're fewer steps to going about doing anything. The simplicity of the OS allows for far more elegant app design, to the point where I think people will notice and be sold on that design alone.

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#53

Post by adw »

rinich wrote: post #45
pyre wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? No one in that 90% does something like build a resume in Word/OOWriter?

And you can't make a resume in iWork? I think that part of Apple's announcement was more significant to a certain crowd than we're giving it credit for.

If you can hook up a printer, this does everything my sister (she's a social worker) needs to do with a computer, cheaper and more reliably.

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#54

Post by benatkin »

rinich wrote: post #44
benatkin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it's just "potential" radical significance. I think the advertising claims are quite verifiable by looking at the specs and comparing with the iPhone's success, and thus it's a slam dunk. I think you made a strong argument that those who say it's not going to be a big deal because it lacks GPS and a camera aren't representative of the target audience.

Indeed! But all sorts of things can happen to stop it from becoming truly radically huge. Certainly it'll sell well at first — so did the Kindle. I wouldn't call the Kindle radical, though, even if it is pretty big (and a damn good product at that). By "radical" I mean "so big every family has two". I can imagine that happening, but I wouldn't take it as a given.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize you were speaking proper English rather than Internet English, and thus "radical" actually meant something far removed from the ordinary. I've been spending too much time on twitter where "awesome" often means "not bad".

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#56

Post by rinich »

adw wrote: post #53
rinich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can't make a resume in iWork? I think that part of Apple's announcement was more significant to a certain crowd than we're giving it credit for.

If you can hook up a printer, this does everything my sister (she's a social worker) needs to do with a computer, cheaper and more reliably.

(That actually gets me thinking — do we know anything about the iPad's printer compatibility? Did I miss some announcement about that?)

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#57

Post by pyre »

csmeder wrote: post #16
rinich wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now my entire blog's in a very stream-of-consciousness mode. I'm writing lots of long unedited things every day just to get it out in time for an upcoming major revision. I submitted this because I was a bit irked at how commentary here is steadfastly ignoring what the iPad is and how it's going to be sold. I enjoy critics as long as they understand what they're criticizing. Aaronsw's post was enough to provoke…

Your essay is great. It makes me feel less alone in this world. I didn't find it full of vehemence. ` It is okay to speak with force. At times force is needed to cut through layers of of mental resistance. New ideas that we don't understand scare us. We fear what we don't understand. The points you are trying to make are over the head of most people. 99.9999999% don't get "it". If they did we would have more companie…

> The iPad is not a solution to the question of: whats a better computer or whats a better phone. Just as the iPhone wasn't a better Razor.

The iPad is a consumer device in the truest sense of the word. It's a device that was built to make it as easy as possible for the user to consume media whether it's the Web, movies, music, photos, etc. Plain and simple.

Oh, and comparing the iPhone to the Razr is a bit of a strawman. There have been plenty of PDA-phones in the past: WindowsMobile phones, Palm PDA-phones, etc. They just never did provided a good enough interface to the user to really take off. So yes. The iPhone was an evolutionary leap instead of a revolutionary leap.

> At times force is needed to cut through layers of of mental resistance. New ideas that we don't understand scare us. We fear what we don't understand.

At the end of the day, the iPad is a consumer electronic device not a solution to world hunger. Please get some perspective. Writing a blog post praising the iPad when everyone else is disappointed with it is not some sort of 'shining moment' for journalism that will be recognized by generations to come as a turning point when the tide of Apple-haters was stemmed, ushering in the new Golden Era of Apple.

> 99.9999999% don't get "it"

I'd say that 98% of people don't even know that Apple had a keynote today.

> If they did we would have more companies that could compete with apple not just copy apple.

Most other companies are not in Apple's business. They are making hardware with some software thrown on to push the hardware, or they are selling some software for some hardware. Most companies don't have the attention to detail that Apple does. Yea, sometimes they screw things up (sometimes badly), but OS X doesn't have parts of OS7 hanging around in it the way that Windows Vista still had some little-used apps with icons from the Windows 3.1 days. Most other companies are just pushing their product out the door to turn a profit, but Apple prides itself on projecting an image of quality they way that a high-end car-maker does.

I also really don't like it when people get all uppity about 'copying.' "Who copied who" is a tired game in the software/hardware industry. The real issue is when someone copies something and claims it as their own, not when someone copies something. People adopting the techniques and methods of others is how progress is made.

If you want to play that game, then Apple copied the entire idea for the gui/mouse interface from Xerox. Apple also copied the functionality of Time Machine from countless other utilities that were mostly relegated to the realm of system admins (or 'power users' in the case of Linux/BSD + rsync/rdiff). You might say 'but they copied it better.' But if you want to start talking like that then you better suffix 'everyone copies Apple' with 'poorly' lest you imply that 'copying' at all is a bad thing (and there should be a stigma attached to it).

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#58

Post by jrockway »

rinich wrote: post #36
jrockway wrote: post #34

If HN ever wanted to make some money, I would be glad to pay to not have to see articles like this one. Seriously though, the article is pretty good -- I can feel the stickiness of the jizz on his keyboard.

Oh, jrockway. Here's to our upcoming 2-year anniversary of you being a fucker and my calling you a fucker. You've been with me since the start! I think it's all right for me to call Apple my favorite company. If we want to be douchesnobs, they've earned their pedigree. More red dot design awards than any other company in history, more black pencils, an impressive list of advertising trophies, and business sales that…

Your article is pretty good, but it just gets annoying when every article on HN is about how the iPad is going to solve world hunger with its super-shiny screen. It wasn't you personally that I was reacting to, but rather the onslaught of similarly-themed articles whenever Apple releases a new product. (The jizz reference reflects well on your writing ability, but not so much on Apple. The fact that your article exists proves the points your article makes. Excellent. :)

As an entrepreneurial advertising major who enjoys industrial design, I think it's safe to say I've got a good excuse Apple.

And I think it's safe to say, that as someone who makes a living from writing software, that I am not going to like devices that restrict users from running my software... even if it has a really pretty case. (I have eyes. I know Apple's stuff is beautiful.)

FWIW, I was a long-time Apple fanboi, diligently lining up to buy whatever new product they had the first day it was available. But then one night, I was debugging some software, and some debugging functionality didn't work because Apple specifically broke it to prevent someone from reverse-engineering iTunes. (Google "PT_DENY_ATTACH".) I formatted my Powerbook that night, switched to Linux, and never looked back.

Apple's not going to win me back with a nice screen or great marketing. When they stop selling music and videos with Restrictions Management and when anyone can run any code on any of their devices, Apple will be my favorite company too. But I doubt that will ever happen.

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#59

Post by rinich »

jrockway wrote: post #58
rinich wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, jrockway. Here's to our upcoming 2-year anniversary of you being a fucker and my calling you a fucker. You've been with me since the start! I think it's all right for me to call Apple my favorite company. If we want to be douchesnobs, they've earned their pedigree. More red dot design awards than any other company in history, more black pencils, an impressive list of advertising trophies, and business sales that…

Your article is pretty good, but it just gets annoying when every article on HN is about how the iPad is going to solve world hunger with its super-shiny screen. It wasn't you personally that I was reacting to, but rather the onslaught of similarly-themed articles whenever Apple releases a new product. (The jizz reference reflects well on your writing ability, but not so much on Apple. The fact that your article exis…

Yep! We've gotten into a lot of these discussions before. (I hope you took my comment lightheartedly, and not as a personal insult — it's more my way of saying we'll agree to disagree here.)

Usually I'm not a fan of the slew of Apple articles. This time I thought it warranted some, but even so it's very over-the-top. For whatever reason we've all decided to hate the shiny thing with the terrible name. I thought it might be fun to chip in with my opinion, which I'd written as a private blog entry a bit earlier.

I'm satisfied with the compromise Apple and independent developers have reached with the iPhone. If I can jailbreak at any time and get more freedom for my machine, then I'm fine with ceding it for the time being. Maybe some point in the future I'll turncoat and go after something more open, but I'm moderately retarded as a programmer at the moment and I've been slow to develop.

This is an aside, but, based on your last comment: Does Apple sell music with DRM anymore? Now they sell their files as unlocked m4ps with an option to convert to aac. That stopped me from downloading mp3 copies of all those albums, so I was satisfied; is there a restriction still there that I somehow missed?

Re: iPad: Or, why you have to look at the advertising

#60

Post by adw »

rinich wrote: post #56
adw wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can hook up a printer, this does everything my sister (she's a social worker) needs to do with a computer, cheaper and more reliably.

(That actually gets me thinking — do we know anything about the iPad's printer compatibility? Did I miss some announcement about that?)

We don't. Looks like the big gap in the featureset to me.
Post reply on HN