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

131–140 of 186 posts

Re: The Chair

#131

Post by Derbasti »

deong wrote: post #105
rbarooah wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but for most non geeks, the Xoom doesn't do much beyond the built in apps, whereas the iPad has 65,000 apps they can use today. That might be different in a year's time but the average user would be crazy to choose a Xoom over an iPad 2 now for that reason alone.

Maybe I'm the weird one, but in nearly a year of using my iPad every day, I've simply found that apps don't matter nearly as much (for me) as they do on a phone. There are a handful of really popular apps like Kindle and Twitter, but those are also the ones that run everywhere. Looking at my iPad usage, there are only about 10-12 apps I use regularly. Most of them have equal or better Android versions (browser, mail,…

Don't forget games, though. You might not use them, but many people do. Gaming is still way superior on iOS in comparison to Android.

Although, for non-gamers, I fully agree with your argument.

Re: The Chair

#132

Post by Jun8 »

Excellent points about how Apple's perception of iPad has changed in a year. I also loved this:

"Good iPad apps can make the iPad feel not like a device running an app, but like an object that is the app. GarageBand isn’t a musical app running on an iPad. It turns an iPad into a musical instrument."

So true. But the most insightful quote is at the very end:

"But there are other things any competitor could copy, easily, but seemingly don’t even understand that they should, because such things aren’t technical."

That's it! In order to compete effectively, you need to fully understand your adversary's strengths, which I don't think Motorola, Samsung, and others fully grasp. They still brag about the dual core, and this or that technical detail. I have yet to see apps as polished as iPad's on Android. When they come (and when Android has a better app store), then Apple needs to be worried.

Re: The Chair

#133

Post by rbarooah »

dannyr wrote: post #87
rbarooah wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people for sure - like the 20% who buy MP3 players other than iPods, but most people bought Android in tbe beginnig because they couldn't buy apple or because apple was more expensive.

Now, Android phones are genuinely competitive with the iPhone, but they got there because they had real advantages in availability and price from day one. Android tablets don't have those advantages.

Re: The Chair

#134

Post by rbarooah »

barrkel wrote: post #81
rbarooah wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're saying that people who buy iPads buy mostly iPhone apps to run pixel doubled in order to save money?

Re: The Chair

#135

Post by rbarooah »

Andys wrote: post #83
rbarooah wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From a technical standpoint, probably not. But those we apps don't exist today, and people are buying tablets now based on what apps can do for them.

Re: The Chair

#136

Post by emehrkay »

brisance wrote: post #35

One thing that drives me crazy is how each competitor focuses on one or two things, usually hardware specs, and use those things to extol its superiority over Apple's offerings. That's like a car maker homing in on horsepower or number of cup-holders to sell a car. If I were to run a tech company competing in this space, I would do the following: 1) Get rid of the nonsensical names. There's a good reason why car make…

*All luxury car companies' cars have letter + number combo names. Well, until you get to ultra-luxury, bently, aston martin, etc

Re: The Chair

#137

Post by johnyqi »

I seriously don't see how competition can catch up with Apple any time soon. They build such infrastructure and line of products, all tight extremely well together, looking amazing and they keep improving it almost every 3 months so that from competitors perspective even to decide from where to start is extremely puzzling.

I can tell for sure that Android will take most of the market, maybe even 60-70%, but this will not be because of quality or user experience, it will only be because of cheaper prices, low end products and trying to please mainstream. But I'm pretty sure that Apple will be happy with their part of the cake with high quality products, high margins and very loyal and happy costumers. Just brilliant from any point of view.

Re: The Chair

#138

Post by wmeredith »

dannyr wrote: post #64
tumult wrote: post #2

The tech press needs to play up the competition to the iPad as much as possible, because drama drives clicks. But the reality is that Apple's iPad is so far ahead of everything else that it's almost out of sight. Have you used one of the 'iPad killers'? That is not competition. It's a joke. You can't even buy any of them, except for Samsung's Galaxy Tab. [And the Motorola Xoom, but only at retail Best Buy in America,…

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…

> Android is selling more than the IPhone.

I'm pretty sure they aren't selling anything. Ask Detroit about making up for no profit on volume. Android is being propped up by Google search revenue.

Re: The Chair

#139

Post by rbarooah »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #112
rbarooah wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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? I believe the parent is trying to claim that blown up android phone apps on Xoom are no worse than blown up iPhone apps were when the iPad first came out.

Which is irrelevant because when the iPad came out there are more than 3,000 dedicated apps, many of them from household brands, and there was no competition.

I'm not saying the Android tablets aren't competitive with how the iPad was at launch. I'm asking why a regular consumer would choose an unproven tablet with a tiny number of apps over a proven tablet with 65,000 apps today.

Re: The Chair

#140

Post by blub »

isleyaardvark wrote: post #124
blub wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly reasonable - the only similarity between Android and iPhone is the form factor, they can still hate the differences, and there are important differences.

> the only similarity between Android and iPhone is the form factor That's a huge similarity, though. Didn't the original Android plans have a keyboard and look like a Blackberry? And what about the talk about using a stylus with a touchscreen - that talk didn't die until after the iPhone came out.

Android is a copycat, I don't deny that, but it has important differences that make it better than the iPhone in certain cases and viceversa. You can hate iPhone because you can't install apps outside the AppStore for instance and that's not even related to the hardware.

That being said, I don't think that touchscreens should win against keyboard phones, both have certain advantages. A stylus is not necessarily a bad thing either. e.g: drawing, using the phone with gloves on, etc.

Post reply on HN