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

The Chair

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 186 posts

Re: The Chair

#81

Post by barrkel »

rbarooah wrote: post #67
orangecat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for now an average user would be silly to buy a Xoom and only have blown up phone apps "Blown up phone apps" are much better on Android than the pixel doubling that the iPad does for iPhone apps. Android apps aren't hardcoded for a specific resolution, so most of them work well on tablets even without being specifically designed to.

But that's irrelevant because people aren't using pixel doubled apps on the iPad. They are using specially designed apps. Are you seriously claiming that apps developed for android phones are as good as the dedicated iPad apps?

That's not true. Ipad apps are usually gratuitously more expensive and if you buy them, you won't be able to use the app on your iPhone and iPod too. For most apps I stick with the standard version. Mind you, I only use my iPad rarely, usually for distraction on plane journeys; not recharged more than once a month.

Re: The Chair

#82

Post by robin_reala »

rbarooah wrote: post #76
dannyr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "Xoom" with "G1"/"Android" and "IPad"/"IPad 2" with "IPhone". Pretty much exactly what people said more than 2 years ago.

True, but with the phones there were lots of people who couldn't buy an iPhone to use on their carrier or wanted something cheap. Android phones had a captive market. iPads are more useful, cheaper and not limited by carrier. Why would a non-enthusiast buy an Android tablet based on the idea they they might get better over time, when iPads are good now?

Carrier argument doesn’t really come into it - we’re in the same situation in the UK but the iPhone’s been available on every major carrier since the 3GS.

Re: The Chair

#83

Post by Andys »

rbarooah wrote: post #43
jrockway wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more interesting benchmark would be "time spent in each app". Sure, there are eight trillion apps for the iPad. But I bet most people spend 95% of their time in the browser (or an ebook reader), and the other 5% of their time in the email app. Guess what, you can do that with a 386 laptop from 1995. Apple's success comes from convincing people, through marketing, that they want to do that on an iPad and not on some…

I think that's probably true for some parts of the user base - particularly the more tech savvy - it's effectively true for me - I'll concede twitter and reeder as not much more than an extension of the browser or an ebook reader. However I think you're underestimating how many non-tech savvy users find appliance-like apps much easier to understand than the web. Yesterday my wife borrowed my iPad to use with her moth…

Is there any reason this Craiglist app couldn't be a web app?

Re: The Chair

#84

Post by ZeroGravitas »

The big elephant in the room is that there actually is no product category of "iPad" for Apple to dominate. I agree with the Gruber of 6 months ago who thought that phones and tablets would merge into the same product category, which he called "tablets" and I'll call "webpads" since I think that's the key distinction between them and the Microsoft tablets and smartphones that preceded them.

Apple thinks there will be 3.5 inch webpads, and 10 inch webpads and that they are two totally distinct markets, so it doesn't matter if you lose share in one of them. Everyone else thinks you can have 3.5, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 even 12 inch webpads and that they're made from 99% the same commodity hardware and software.

Android is in the process of returning Apple to single digit marketshare in the small webpad category, a story that tech churnalists have missed because they live in a rich, old, white, U.S.-centric, gadget-obsessed bubble. I'm fairly certain it'll happen even faster for the iPad.

Re: The Chair

#85

Post by 6ren »

akashs wrote: post #15

It's a bit unfortunate that most of the post is a bunch of gushing about how Apple is so amazing. Unfortunate because there's a very insightful point in that second to last paragraph. The chair is definitely part of Apple's genius when it comes to the iPad. It shows us that this isn't a laptop or a PC and the iPad doesn't fall into the paradigms we're used to. It's something new, meant for you to use when you're rela…

Oddly, in the Apple store I visited, you had to stand up to try the iPad.

Re: The Chair

#86

Post by Tycho »

rbarooah wrote: post #36
blinkingled wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm no - most existing Android apps work and look good on the Xoom. Better than the iPhone apps looked on the iPad. I gave it to my wife who has an iPod touch and she has yet to complain about lack of apps - I found most of what is needed for her. So lack of apps is not really a burning problem.

You're seriously trying to claim that blown up android phone apps, many of which don't even rescale properly, are competition to the dedicated iPad designs? Have you looked at iPad apps lately? Even if you don't include iMove and GarageBand that were just announced, how about OmniGraffle, Sketchbook, Inkpad, the Korg Apps, Reeder, Osmos, iWork, etc.

I think Art Rage 2 is the killer app, so far

Re: The Chair

#87

Post by dannyr »

rbarooah wrote: post #76
dannyr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "Xoom" with "G1"/"Android" and "IPad"/"IPad 2" with "IPhone". Pretty much exactly what people said more than 2 years ago.

True, but with the phones there were lots of people who couldn't buy an iPhone to use on their carrier or wanted something cheap. Android phones had a captive market. iPads are more useful, cheaper and not limited by carrier. Why would a non-enthusiast buy an Android tablet based on the idea they they might get better over time, when iPads are good now?

"Why would a non-enthusiast buy an Android tablet based on the idea they they might get better over time, when iPads are good now?"

The same way that people bought Android phones when it first came out. Not everybody wants Apple.

Re: The Chair

#88

Post by dagw »

marze wrote: post #38

High definition movie editing, on a phone (iMovie on iOS)? It is amazing to see how far things have come in since 2007. In 2007, if you said you were going to download an app to edit a high definition movie on your smartphone you'd be institutionalized. When the iPad was announced last year, it appeared to be a somewhat risky move on Apple's part, lest it cannibalize Mac sales. Now, just a year later, Apple could tak…

In 2007, if you said you were going to download an app to edit a high definition movie on your smartphone you'd be institutionalized.

Why? I don't recall the first time I saw a phone that came with video editing software, but I'm pretty sure it was before 2007. So if someone had said "in a few years this software will be easier to use and can edit even higher resolution video than it can today", I would have replied, "well, that sounds obvious"

Re: The Chair

#89

Post by ZeroGravitas »

lloeki wrote: post #70
dannyr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I still remember when the 1st Android phone came out (G1). A lot of people were dismissing it because the IPhone had a 2-year head start. Interface was ugly, phone is thick like a brick, only on 1 carrier, the smallest of the Big 4 at that. Well, how did that turn out? Android is selling more than the IPhone. A proper tablet OS didn't arrive until last month and people are already saying it's almost too late for…

Not selling more in Europe where Apple dominates. The only Android device cracking around here is the Galaxy Spica, not quite the same league as the iPhone.

IDC predicts Android to be the second best selling smarphone OS in Europe Q1 2011, that is, now. The first is, of course, Nokia which undermines your claim that Apple dominates on a second level. (Also, in the UK RIM is, somewhat inexplicably, the premier choice for young people and recently overtook Apple's web market share).

Re: The Chair

#90

Post by MrScruff »

phil wrote: post #52
alecperkins wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways it doesn't even matter if they have competition or not, since Apple effectively defines the category and the expectations of the users. Even now, smart phones are generally playing catch-up to the iPhone. Yes, there is some innovation above and beyond Apple; Windows Phone 7 is surprisingly impressive, and the Web OS notification system is arguably superior. But, the comparison always comes back to the iP…

> defines the category and the expectations of the users It's stunning how long that has been true. The modern desktop OS is patterned after the Macintosh, modern laptops all use the form factor introduced by the Powerbook 100s, and now all the best phones are made to look like an iPhone.

Exactly. The thing that gets me is people claiming they hate Apple and Apple products while eulogising competing products that are derived from a category that Apple defined in the first place.
Post reply on HN