Flummoxed, again

The last time I took a snapshot of the iPad death watch it was March 9th, 2010. Almost a year ago. The now-classic quotes are reproduced here.  Last May I wrote:

Apple keeps a tight lid on new products so that competitors don’t get a head-start on copying, but in the case of the iPad, advance knowledge would not have had any impact. Competitors look at the iPad and see nothing.  They’ll only react once the market explodes and they start to feel belated pain.

I thought that would be that. As the success of the product would become self-evident, predictions of imminent demise would trail off. The pain of share loss would prompt a wave of challenger copycats. Imitation would be the the best form of flattery.

But no.

Critics were not silenced. One year, 15 million units, and $9.2 billion later I went back to the source of the quotes and found the following (published quotes dated after March 9th 2010). (Cited from with some editing for brevity and relevance):

  • “Problematically, the Android competition is just as expensive as the iPad lineup, so Apple obviously feels free to continue gouging consumers on iPad pricing.” Paul Thurrott, Windows IT Pro, 3 March 2011
  • “Apple’s iPad 2 might be ‘magical’ but it still should’ve been better It needs more G’s. It’s still just a toy” Zach Epstein, Boy Genius 2 March 2011
  • “11 reasons NOT to buy an iPad 2 Reason 5: Competition David Gewirtz, ZDNet, 23 February 2011
  • “Given what I’ve seen of Honeycomb and Motorola’s excellent tablet, Cupertino will have some serious catching up to do with their iPad 2.” J.P. Mangalindan, Fortune, 4 February 2011
  • “We very carefully chose our tablet processor, the Nvidia Tegra 2, and to really compete it will take [Apple] some time. You know, [Nvidia] is well known for graphics.” Jonney Shih, Asustek Computer, 3 February 2011
  • “If you were to ask me in two years time, will Apple have less than 50 percent of the global tablet market, I think that’s a certainty. Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics, 31 January 2011
  • “We have an extreme focus on the innovation of LePad and LePhone because these products will dominate the future market. Though Apple is winning a significant share in the Chinese market, it has not gained a clearly leading position yet. Our advantage is we know this market better.” Liu Chuanzhi, Lenovo, 27 January 2011
  • “The iPad may still be the lone leader, but with 100+ competitors on the way, it won’t likely keep its majority market share unless the pending next generation iPad really addresses all the complaints about the current version, like a missing camera and a lack of a USB port, and the company has to add those features without a major price increase – a tall order, to be sure.” James Brumley, Investopedia, 13 January 2011
  • “Hands-on PlayBook demonstrations at CES showed its differentiation in multitasking and performance, which may be difficult for Apple/Android to rival.” Mike Abramsky, Royal Bank of Canada Analyst, 11 January 2011
  • “Apple Inc.’s popular iPad is getting its strongest competition thus far as consumer-electronics manufacturers unveil tablet computers with bigger screens, front-facing cameras for video chatting and more.” Rachel Metz, AP Technology Writer, 3 January 2011
  • Apple may be simply trying to get in ahead of Research in Motion’s aggressively priced PlayBook or combat the early success of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab.” Rick Aristotle Munarriz, The Street, 29 December 2010
  • 4. Competitors are coming. Brett Arends, Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2010
  • Reason 6: WiFi is still unreliable David Gewirtz, ZDNet, 16 December 2010
  • “I can’t imagine anyone under the age of 30 wanting an iPad. A PS3, Wii, GameBoy, or even a useful laptop maybe, but an iPad? Furthermore, I do not recall ever seeing anyone under 30 actually using an iPad.” John C. Dvorak, PC Mag, 13 December 2010
  • “We hope our tablet PCs can reach a global market share of 10-20% initially, and become the market leader in two to three years.” Gianfranco Lanci, CEO and President, Acer, 26 November 2010
  • “It’s a nice-to-have product, for those of us who don’t have a budget, but is it a must-have product? I don’t think so.” Ashok Kumar, Analyst, Rodman & Renshaw LLC, 12 November 2010
  • “Steve Jobs never says anything without thinking through it carefully. But I think in this case he may be a little afraid of this category. And he’s finding whatever he can to attack because he sees [seven-inch tablets] as a challenge to the dominance of the iPad.” Adam Hanin, VP Marketing, Viewsonic, 1 November 2010
  • “There could literally be millions of first-generation iPads gathering dust in people’s home offices already. This product is the tech industry’s biggest MacGuffin yet.” Paul Thurrott, Windows IT Pro, 23 October 2010
  • “I cannot see a need for the thing.”John Dvorak, MarketWatch, 22 October 2010
  • ”For those of us who live outside of Apple’s distortion field, we know that 7″ tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience.” Jim Balsillie, Research In Motion, 20 October 2010
  • “iPhone and iPad have been amazing products that have opened new markets. But I do not think they will own either market in a few years. Android will.” Fred Wilson,, 18 October 2010
  • “The constant search for an ‘iPad killer’ and the sheer multitude of tablet computers launching in the next 18 months should make Apple aware that its competition is fierce and will only become tougher.” Barbara E. Hernandez, PCWorld, 5 October 2010
  • “HP’s New Tablet Could Be an iPad Spoiler HP’s decision to bundle a tablet computer with its new $399 printer could make trouble for competitors.” Cliff Edwards and Aaron Ricadela, Bloomberg Businessweek, 23 September 2010
  • “Our tablet will be better than the iPad.” Chang Ma, VP Marketing, LG, 20 August 2010
  • “Not only is Apple typically lost in the enterprise, but it focuses very little of its time there. And with a new, potentially more compelling tablet coming — the Cisco Cius — the iPad’s success in the corporate world could be short-lived. Here’s why:… 10 The power of Windows” Don Reisinger, Channel Insider, 5 August 2010
  • “I don’t think there is one size that fits all…I’ve been to too many meetings with journalists who spent the first 10 minutes of the meeting setting up iPad to look like a laptop.” Steve Ballmer, Microsoft, 29 July 2010
  • “ […] It still isn’t the device that I’d take to a meeting because it has no input.” Bill Gates, Microsoft, 2 June 2010
  • “Which means I end up on the iPad — and tablets more generally — where I started. Tablets will not create a new category, but will supplant (or merge with) one or more of the current substitutes: smartphones or netbooks.Here I am less optimistic about the iPhone and webOS than I am about Android. ” Joel West, professor of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, College of Business at San José State University, 30 May 2010
  • “The iPad is useless. Beautiful, but useless. The iPad is too heavy. It’s awkward to hold and view in public. It’s fragile. It requires expensive accessories to protect it and extract more functionality. ”Josh Belzman,, 20 May 2010
  • “Mum, the iPad is not ‘amazing.’ It’s just marketed very well, both by Apple and its culpable partners in mainstream media. ” Paul Thurrott (in response to comment by Mum), Paul Thurrott’s Super Site for Windows, 26 April 2010
  • “In short, I don’t get the ‘magical and revolutionary’ vibe that Apple chief executive Steve Jobs touted at the iPad’s January unveiling.” Rob Pegoraro, Washington Post, 9 April 2010
  • “The first troubling sign is the fact that you can still get an iPad today. They didn’t sell out. The pure slate form factor has failed all these years because, other than for vertical applications, people want and/or need a keyboard for regular use. The fact of the matter is that a touch screen or bluetooth keyboard just doesn’t compensate.” Jonathan Yarmis, Ovum, part of Datamonitor Group, 6 April 2010
  • “I don’t get it. It costs $500 for the basic model, when you could get a laptop with a lot more functionality for about the same price. The iPad hype machine has been in full effect this week, and I still think it’s just that—hype. ” Alex Cook, Frontier Outlook, 3 April 2010
  • “As far as what this means to Apple, one thing to keep in mind: Even if the iPad sells more than the iPhone did in its first year, it’s still only around 5% of the company’s revenue. So it’s a very small slice. From there, it probably doesn’t grow as large as the smartphone market. So, if you’re buying under rumors, keep perspective in mind. The iPad’s a great product, but it’s probably not a game-changer.” Eric Bleeker, Analyst,, 31 March 2010
  • “The iPad will remain an expensive, niche device compared to all-purpose netbooks.I think that one of the iPad’s most important uses will be for reading ebooks and publications. Even so, though, when it comes to the marketplace, netbooks will sales still far outstrip those of the iPad.” Preston Gralla, PC World, 30 March 2010
  • “Don’t Believe the iPad Hype. Apple has sold out pre-orders of the forthcoming device, but it could all be a marketing tactic. By not manufacturing enough iPads for the initial launch date, is this a case of Apple shooting itself in the foot?” Mike Schuster,, 29 March 2010
  • “‘iPad Killer’ May be Palm’s Last Hope”Tom Bradley, PC World, 20 March 2010
  • “Even if your company has relented and now supports the iPhone, as growing numbers of businesses do (70% of the Fortune 100 are at least testing it, says Apple) you’ll want to say “No” to the iPad and other tablets. Here’s why: 8. Speaking of money, there is no money in the company budget to pay for iPads. 9. Not supporting iPad will be the enterprise norm. Robert McGarvey, CIO Update, 16 March 2010
  • “This morning, the fool’s parade gets started. Apple is taking online “pre-orders” for its iPad tablet, which is supposed to begin shipping on April 3. Buying a new kind of product sight unseen is foolish. Especially given how mysterious Apple has been on what the iPad can do and what restrictions on capabilities and media access it will place on users and content providers.” Galen Gruman, InfoWorld, 12 March 2010
  • “The recent launch of Apple, the iPad tablet, has won the award for the second edition of Fiasco Awards delivered this Thursday in Barcelona. From the more than 7,000 people who voted via the website, 4,325 have considered it the fiasco of the year. Fiasco Awards, 2010, 11 March 2010
  • “I think I’ve mentioned this once or twice before, but it bears repeating until it sinks in: the Apple iPad is not unique, nor necessarily the best of breed in the media tablet sector it is spearheading. And it ain’t gonna help Apple shareholders any.’” Anders Bylund (TMF Zahrim), 11 March 2010

From this critical review, it looks like 2011 will indeed be the year of the iPad 2.

  • Evan

    2010 was the year of android, from 5 million in 2009 to 67 million in 2010 😉

    • Evan

      already one downvote, so many android haters 🙂 nevermind

      • YossarianLives

        It is hard having to accept that not everyone has balanced and unbiased view as yourself.

        Thank god you are here to offer the clarity of true stats that fit an arbitrary measure for an entirely irrelevant point.

        Where would intellectual discourse on the internet be without people like you?

      • Evan

        good sarcasm 10/10, my original post had nothing to do with sarcasm, or apple hate, it was just to quote a stat and an inference from that, (you can go and reread the post again if you don't understand that) something which Horace does very well and a million times better than mine and I am trying to learn that approach. For so many people not to like that, shows that there are many people who don't like android on the principles of religion? , philosophy? , culture? or jealousy, I don't know and I don't care. It is fun to irritate android haters, they are every bit as naive and stupid as apple haters

      • YossarianLives

        Forgive me but
        – "nothing to do with sarcasm" yet you choose to use the wink emoticon.
        – You assume that the first person who disagreed with you was an android hater.
        – "It is fun to irritate android haters" People may take you seriously if you didn't go out to deliberately goad as in "It is fun to irritate android haters"

        So despite the evidence that you have enough physical form that enables you to type, I do have to ask if you are for real?

      • Evan

        wink was not an attempt at sarcasm, it was just meant as a lighthearted jab, that is what winks are meant for, my god, you take so much meaning out of a wink, so it felt funny to me, that a person should downvote an innocuous post. Yes there are android haters just like apple haters or microsoft haters. That is a fact of life.

      • ______

        I don't think you understand emoticons.
        Also, it is too much of a leap to think that a down vote for you is "hatred" of Android, it just means the quality of your post is rather poor for one or more reasons.

      • WaltFrench

        “It is fun to irritate android haters…”

        Evan, this is why you got downvoted. Your comments hijack a discussion about dispassionate analysis, and foul it with BS about Android haters and the like.

        I, for one have no hate of Android; I salute Google's acumen in creating a computerphone with which to be able to transition their core advertising business to mobile. Also, Verizon, for recognizing only a year after they dismissed Apple's supposed genius marketing, that they were in high danger of losing their dominant position unless they got behind "Droid" (which most Americans think is the alternative to Apple), big time.

        Good business, based on insight and logic, by all three parties I've mentioned, OK? Now, is the ramp-up of Android volume, predicted by all, and uniquely exposed here as great for carriers' profits, but without profits for Google, the manufacturers or the app writers, relevant to how Apple took the moribund tablet market and totally unexpectedly, explosively created the iPad market? It was anticipated by exactly 1 analyst, whose thoughts we're trying to discuss here, and he did not trot out drivel such as yours.

        I advise that your irrelevant enthusiasm will be better appreciated at a tailgate party or however "apple haters" congregate; you will be more appreciated there. And that silly smirk about emulating Horace makes you sound juvenile; the only similarity I see in the posts is the English language.

      • Evan

        Thanks for responding, I take it you are one of guys who downvoted me, nothing more to say. Didn't realize liking Horace was a character flaw akin to a juvenile.

      • Evan

        unsolicited advice learn to ignore people you don't like. So my posting 2010 as the year of android is equal to drivel, you sir are an android hater.

      • kevin

        We downvote comments we don't like or don't agree with. Has nothing to do with Android hater or lover; you sir, have a chip on your shoulder.

      • Evan

        🙂 let me see, 84 downvotes and counting, by tomorrow, maybe I will have around 1000 downvotes I guess, all for just calling 2010 as year android and that too in half-jest

      • ______

        But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the entry on this blog, which is calling out all the people that make prognostications that have been proven wrong and will be again.
        Your post adds nothing to the discussion, even the most biased person would be able to plainly agree with the fact that the people quoted here would have to eat/have already eaten crow, and then back away.

        But no, you're plugging away, guess you're craving the attention.

      • KenC

        Dude, your original post was a TOTAL non-sequitur. Can you at least stay on topic?

      • Evan

        ok how is it non-sequitur, maybe you are thinking that because 2010 is the year of android, it is not the year of IPad. I didn't mean that either not fully, I think the wording was a little too provocative, how about 2010 was the year of android too.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        Good comment, wrong setting. If the quotes in this post were referring to the success of iPhone, your zinger would really hit home. You'd still get negative feedback because this is a site for Apple lovers, but it would not be perceived as trolling for attention. This is an article about tablets, and Eric Schmidt himself (last year) said, "You might want to tell me the difference between a large phone and a tablet." I'm sure Android will sell lots of Honeycomb tablets eventually, but only because Apple proved it could be done.

        Unlike many who read this site, I think Google is right up there with Apple in terms of innovation among the huge tech companies. To be sure, I view Android as a "me too" OS that blatantly copycatted iOS and ripped of IP from the entire field. But the social impact of Android will likely far outstrip that of iOS in the coming years. Google has had plenty of high-value contributions to our modern daily lives. The 20% time that engineers spend working on pet projects is really unique, and leads to more innovation than the company could ever generate with a top down approach to project management.

        The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is Google's unwillingness to come clean regarding its motives. The management team walk a tightrope between its altruistic messages and its fiscal objectives that comes off as disingenuous. At least Apple is willing to say "we make great products, for profit." Google isn't scanning the worlds entire written history purely for the greater good; they are doing it to draw eyeballs to advertisements. Google maps, gmail, cloud services, Android, Chrome, etc. all share this same objective.

        At the end of the day, Google is democratizing information and connecting untold millions of people to the internet. They are lowering barriers to entry for individuals and small businesses in numerous fields. They are accelerating the adoption of technology, moving computing power outside of offices and into all aspects of life. This is all really great stuff, and most of it is free*. Unfortunately, there will always be an asterisk next to Google's version of free. The company acts as though the billions of advertising revenue is somehow divorced from the dissemination of user data, as though Adwords buyers are just putting up billboards along the highway. If this were the case, the company wouldn't be worth almost $200 billion. The reality is that for all of Schmidt's high-minded talk of openness, Google is very proprietary and secretive about its own data. He acts offended that Facebook would have the audacity to NOT share its user info with Google search engine, with a whiny entitled tone that makes Paris Hilton sound grounded. The secret of Google's success is that they are making everything public and free* to the user base, then selling the users to the highest bidder. For my money, I'll take the evil closed iOS instead.


        Maybe people are just tired of being told how much of a "success" Android is when it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast and the experience of using the device is still a joke.

        Used a Galaxy Tab extensively recently, the pile of garbage was sat there with a black screen on the web browser running in the background taking up 90% of the processor. What a joke.

        Let me guess "OH WAIT FOR HONEYCOMB!" how much longer am I going to have to wait for this "success" of Android to be genuine, every step of the way I just get told "the next version will fix it" when I could just by an iPhone or iPad which fixed it from the start.

      • Evan

        don't worry about android, google is happy with it. It has succeeded much more than they expected. I guess their heart is somewhat divided between chromeOS and android for tablets. Lets see what happens. And the Android OEMs are stupid really, pricing their tablets so excessively and the tablet market may not suit android at all over the long run.

      • Relayman5C

        Google's success is defined by advertising revenue, not by the quality of the user experience. Apple has a different metric for success.

      • Evan

        if people stop visitng google search, their advertising revenues will vanish into thin air and most of their profitability, adsense, youtube are not as profitable. Google makes money from advertising, but they provide a bunch of services and yes their user experience needs to be good. People are not dumb to visit google

      • Relayman5C

        I was talking about advertising in terms of Android. The only reason Android exists is to provide a means for Google to sell advertising. The quality of the user experience is secondary. I don't Google makes a penny off of the sale of the phone.

      • kevin

        They might even be subsidizing the carriers with their advertising revenue…

      • Evan

        wrong, google primarily bought android as a hedge against microsoft and like many others were predicting the end of PCs, their initial UI was kinda blackberryish, advertising was a secondary thought. How can you think of advertising with a zero user base of mobiles

      • capnbob66

        Prove it.
        Unless you have some primary evidence, we can all go back to the logic that has been repeated many many times that it was about Advertising. They saw PDAs growing in complexity and capability, saw that mobile would be big and they had no guaranteed access to it, saw prototypes of the iPad/iPhone in 2005 and bought Android as a hedge.

      • Iosweeky

        From a stockholders perspective, I cant wait for apple to release there own search engine and make it the default option for their 100 million + computing devices they sell annually to typically affluent buyers.

      • Evan

        Apple is not keen on becoming just a device maker for affluent buyers. That is what I suspected from long, and this is what Tim Cook said recently. Also, the only thing hampering Apple from producing low cost phones, is the threat of cannibalization. Apple is sucking away a lot of profits from carriers through the hidden subsidy model as a result of which the typical end user is not aware of the real cost of IPhone, so I guess if Apple does sell a low cost phone, they will have to sell it direct to customer at lower marings, that is the dilemma facing Apple. Also it might lead to fragmentation of the app ecosystem, how do they handle all this, will be interesting to watch.

      • Evan

        search engine is a hard problem to solve, just ask Bing, trying desperately to gain marketshare, despite having over 50 percent of the browser market share and forming a tieup wth yahoo.

      • ElCommenter

        Bing is a terrible search engine

      • Evan

        this article does a good job of summarizing a lot of things

      • PatrickG

        So the salient question here is why even bother to post such a complete non sequitur. That has been the thrust of the commentary in response to you adolescent little jibe, because that is how it appears. This is not your usual Apple lovefest site, nor is it an Android haterz site. Horace does some very acute analysis, and invites a high degree of intelligent discussion – for the most part. It's simply that your commentary had nothing at all to do with the article and was entirely akin to the usual fanboyish drivel that gets flung around on other blogs and is not welcomed by the usual commenters here. Stop trying to defend what you have alluded to being a silly wise-crack and move on or contribute materially to the discussion of the article.

      • KenC

        Dude, you don't speak for Google, so stop pretending you know how they think. Asymco's site is known for intelligent discourse, but your trollish behavior, yes, your posting is trollish, the way you try to take over every conversation and turn it into some fawning debate over Android, when the topic is something completely different is the definition of trolling. It ruins the intelligent discourse.

        Please try to stay on topic, there are times and opportunities for you to post about your pet topic, just try to respect Horace and the others on this site by doing it when appropriate.

      • Evan

        ad-hominen attacks huh, nevermind. Posting that 2010 was the year of android is not trollish, yes I had no way of knowing that this post referred to just tablets alone in a rather narrow semantic sense, I thought it referred to consumer technology as a whole and yes I am entitled to my POV, despite what you say. I don't fawn over android, but I do like google and android is just a part of google and I am not even sure how much android contributes to the google stock price. I don't see how posting that 2010 was the year of android is in any way a disrespect to Horace. Jeez

      • KenC

        You don't even know what an ad-hominen attack is. I never attacked you. I only pointed out your behavior is inappropriate and that there is a time and place for your original comment. You turn every post into a post about you or your favorite topic, the very definition of trolling.

        You have shown no respect for Horace or others. Your posting is totally self-indulgent.

      • lb51

        It sort of is ad-hominem, but not ad-hominen as Evan states. "Does not speak for Google, since not an employee, therefore stop speaking". That could be interpreted as ad-hominem fallacy.

        Also, Evan makes a point of 2010 was the year of Android. I am not a fan of Google, never was; I don't like the half-done approach that Google takes. However, I do appreciate their entrepreneurial spirit. I am sure if they hired the "right" types of employees, Google could easily be in Apple's position. Maybe they will in the next 5 years. Success is not a right, all the companies fight for the privilege.

      • ElCommenter

        Android is an open-source "me too" OS (all other companies with decent operating systems like Palm/HP and Apple keep their software proprietary), therefore device manufacturers can just put it on there for free and have imitations of many of the features of iOS. That's the only reason why it's successful — it's free. If Android was proprietary like BlackBerry OS, WebOS, iOS, etc. it would have nowhere near the market share it enjoys today. There's a pretty good chance Google only works hard on it for publicity and ad revenue anyway.

      • ______

        Ohh Evan
        You say:
        " yes I had no way of knowing that this post referred to just tablets alone in a rather narrow semantic sense, I thought it referred to consumer technology as a whole and yes I am entitled to my POV, despite what you say."

        From the post:
        "The last time I took a snapshot of the iPad death watch it was March 9th, 2010"
        "One year, 15 million units, and $9.2 billion later I went back to the source of the quotes and found the following (published quotes dated after March 9th 2010)"

        Even the most basic knowledge of English and the most basic interest in the matter (otherwise why else would you post here) will guide the reader to believe that this article is about the iPad.

        The fact that you say you couldn't figure that out and yet commented means:
        1> You didn't read it and went straight to the comments.
        2> You read it and went to comment.

        Either of those implies that you are basically trolling. Why?
        1> Obvious troll. No interest in reading the post
        2> Even more troll like, since the post is about x. You talk about y, then claim you didn't know it was about x.

        So allow me to correct you:
        – YES you had a way of knowing this post referred to tablets alone in a "rather narrow semantic sense" (what utterly rubbish use of English)
        – YES you're entitled to your POV
        BUT, YES we're entitled to tell you your POV is a non-sequitur, senseless, irrelevant. That doesn't make us Android haters, I guess it just makes us dislike your kind. No enjoyment in discussion with you, no intelligence, no useful discussions. Just trash, non stop.

      • Evan

        you can call me a troll no problem and no offense taken none. I didn't start all the flaming, you guys did, I just made a statement, so hard to ignore eh ?

      • kevin

        The Android OEMs might not be stupid; they are pricing in order to make a little bit of money on the product. It would be even more stupid to price it break-even or at a loss, and hope to make it up on volume!

        Because OEMs don't have the foresight to see down the road AND because Google either doesn't have the foresight or is unwilling to share it, these OEMs cannot see what they really need to invest in hardware-wise to be successful. That is the problem with the hardware-software split model and/or the lack of vision. Apple moved way ahead of them on flash RAM and touch displays and low-power central and graphics processors and retail stores and on and on…

      • Evan

        google does share the next version with some choice OEMs, some OEMs are more favoured than others.

      • kevin

        The next version is not far enough into the future for the OEMs to make investments that could drive down future costs.

      • Wow. Setting records here, buddy.

    • asymco

      It depends what you measure as significance. You could celebrate proliferation or you could celebrate honor, notability, beauty, magnificence, distinction, delight, splendor.

      In other words quantity or glory?

      • Evan

        wow, I am not as eloquent as you, no wonder you make lots more money than me. Let me think of a suitable riposte. Brain is working hard.

      • Evan

        I wouldn't call it quantity v/s glory, Google and Apple have different goals and visions and different means to get to their goals and no I would not call Apple's vision as inherently better than Google's vision for the consumers or the society at large.

      • YossarianLives

        If their visions are so different why do they keep copying them and every other tech company they can't simply buy out of competition?

      • Evan

        google is digitizing all the books and mapping out all the streets, who is doing that ?

      • rattyuk

        …Without permission. Internet theft promoted as philanthropy…

      • Evan

        go and read this

        no it is not just philanthrophy alone, it is more or less commercial but fits in with google vision

      • Evan

        and here is the settlement website, so if you have any copyright over out ot print work, go and remove the permission to the out of print book.

      • rattyuk

        The problem is that they started that initiative as theft – they didn't care who owned the copyright.

      • Evan

        scanning out of print books is not theft, I agree this was a fit initiative for something like government to do, but governments you know are mostly incompetent worldwide. If it was theft, Google would have been fined heavily or penalized sufficiently and ordered to drop the project. Has the project been stopped. Google is continuing the project. And the Government would have ordered Google to delete the scannings right ? they have not done that. Google cannot wait for the slow machinery , there are afterall 129 million books to digitize. They didn't care maybe were a little roughshod, but I am glad about that. It is not as if somebody was trying to digitize the books before Google huh.

      • Evan

        my guess is google would have won any lawsuits over a protracted period of time, but time would have been lost and they would have lost that trust with authors, so they opted for some sort of settlement. It is not as if anybody is reading all those out of print books.

      • rattyuk

        Evan. Give it up. You must have something better to do on a Friday. Surely.

      • Evan

        ok I give up, Who would've thought that Walt French was so juvenile to see drivel in this post "2010 was the year of android". Aaah something is wrong with me surely.

      • Kizedek

        Unfortunately, just being postmodern or politically correct about all this doesn't make you insightful. You don't have a leg to stand on if this is how you carry on discourse.

        1) Why should I care what you call it?
        Apparently commenters here cannot make a judgement on what you have said through about 20 posts, but you can make a judgement on Apple's motives? Oh?
        2) You can't quite bring yourself to see any qualitative difference between Apple's vision and Google's, and yet you are quite prepared to make snarky comments and judgements about how other posters here and how they do see some qualitative differences. Oh?

        Well, there are qualitative differences between the visions of the two companies. Several posters have pointed them out to you; they are the subject of numerous articles; then there are the very evident differences in character and presentations by the CEOs; and then there is the trust and satisfaction with which customers view Apple products and services; among other things.

        So, unless you are prepared to discuss something concrete and back your opinions with something other than vague postering, then I suggest you make yourself a little less prolific on these boards.

      • Evan


        1) yep don't care, you and me can live without discussing stuff, world is big,
        I did not make any judgement on Apple's motives, none at all, not a single thing

        2) Most of the commentators have a pretty poor opinion of Google, oh they are just an ad company is the common refrain. They don't get user experience, they don't care about end users. My wife works in Google in a pretty senior position and I do know a little bit more about what drives them, because of that insight. And on top of that yes I admire Google for what they are trying to do.

        I don't like doing deep discussion with people who call me trolls and juveniles and indulge in personal attacks just for liking Horace. Sorry. It is bit much to do that after getting blasted eh 🙂

      • PatrickG

        Well this would explain your adulation of Google, and support of Android in a thread not about either of those two subject unless you cleverly derail the discussion by inserting additional material to feed to derailment. Well done sir. You are better at redirecting than an officer at the scene of an accident. Happy that you admire Google, not a sentiment widely held here but fine.

        Hope they are able to get the leverage they need to keep building on their ad business without unnecessarily reaching for private information, like all the SSNs and location information they required for the childrens' coloring contest, or the wifi data collected accidentally.

        See, they problem have with Google is that there are far too many "accidents" with personal data, or data acquired through non-transparent means and statements like Eric saying in effect "if you don't like us taking pictures of your property without your permission, move." Clearly a high degree of corporate altruism and sense of corporate ethics. Any company that has to use it's motto on a daily basis to remind themselves to "don't be evil" ranks highly in the annals of most public-minded company ever.

      • lb51

        I am not sure if companies have different goals, especially publicly traded companies. The goals are set by the investors. However, companies can have a different approach toward the investor's goal; which Google and Apple approach differently. Vision is something or someway a business uses to help it's employees stay on track to follow the approach to reach the investors goal.

    • Good thing 2010 is over. 😛

    • And how many manufactures was this growth spread over? Let's compare that…

    • Synth

      You are completely missing the point of Asymco's articles. Yes, Android has had spectacular unit growth and Google is benefitting, to the tune of around $5 billion in mobile last year. But this growth is mostly because the telcos and OEMs are swapping out their previous dumb OSes (WinMo, Symbian, various home brew OSes) for Google. They are not really any better off financially because of the switch.
      Meanwhile, Apple, who was not even a mobile player five years ago, is taking 50% of the entire cell phone profits with just 4% of the cell phone unit share. (I believe around $20 billion in revenues last year.) Now what happens when Apple gets 6% of the unit share or even 8% of the unit share?

      And btw, this article was about the iPad specifically and slates in general. 2010 was NOT the year for Android slates and if the OEMs can't get their prices down to iPad levels, 2011 won't be the year for Android slates either.

      • WaltFrench

        Allow me to abridge your insights just a bit: Computerphones such as Androids boost data plan revenues; for all but the most avid users they likewise produce generous margins as telcos' voice plans do.

        I personally don't think that Android would have enjoyed much of ANY adoption had not Verizon realized how important this business would be to their growth. (The iPhone saved AT&T's flagging business and reversed its trending-down share, after all.) Android remains a minor feature on the other three of the Big 4 US wireless co's.

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      There were not 67 million Android tablets sold in 2010.

      Or are you talking about smartphones? If so, that is a shame. We are very specifically talking about iPads and other tablets. They are the PC-sized mobiles.

      • Evan

        I agree iPad was a huge success, but I felt emergence of android was a bigger thing, I just thought that maybe he was pointing out IPad was the defining trend in consumer electronics or technology last year. If the argument was only about tablets, then yes I am wrong, but if the argument is about consumer electronics, then the entire thing becomes subjective. Nobody expected android phones to succeed either. WebOS a technically superior OS failed at Sprint.

      • Evan, you are correct, you are wrong.

      • kevin

        So somehow you thought Horace's point in his writing was that 2010 was the year of the iPad? So you were trying to offer instead that it was the year of the Android? If so, you needed to put more words around your response, and hopefully in doing so, you would've realized that Horace's point was not that 2010 was the year of the iPad.

      • Evan

        yes might be a little convoluted, thats what I felt. What I felt was IPad was not the most important phenomenon in 2010, I believe growth of android was as important and the facebook phenomenon was probably even more important. Yes they are unrelated, but they are related to consumer facing business finally.
        You can go and check Horace did respond to my post and I also responded, and I got the impression that maybe Horace did agree, now maybe that is non-sequitur(maybe Horace did not mean that the 2010 is year of IPad, I don't know) that is all there is to it, I suppose disagreeing with Horace is allowed on intensedebate.

      • capnbob66

        The iPad was the birth of a new class of device, a new computing paradigm and one that will set the direction of industries.
        Android was an OS that benefited from the coincidence of OEMs and carriers all running screaming from the coming behemoth that was iPhone. Yeah – world changing./s
        If Android did not exist, there would be more RIM and Symbian sales and maybe WP7 would not have been DOA but little else. Shifting a lot of units because it was shoveled into the market wholesale is not such a big deal.

      • Evan

        here are some of android achievements
        1) it has dramatically reduced the power of OEMs, OEMs have now become dumb OEMs ala how carriers have become dumb carriers
        2) android has contributed to the downfall of symbian and Nokia
        3) Android ensures that all the mobile computing innovation happens in US. Europe and Asia are now just markets to be exploited and milked(like how the hollywood movies does, there isn't a comparable movie industry anywhere, can you imagine the implications, number of jobs created in US), as an European I feel a little sad, all the key technological things are going to US.
        4) Android has disrupted Microsoft, which is a good thing on balance for everybody including Apple and consumers, there is now no possibility of a monopoly emergence, microsoft will not win by default. If Microsoft has to do well, it has to be good.
        5) Google a zero player in mobile, has now become one of the dominant player in just 2 years, say what you will about android success, but to go from 5 to 67 in one year is one heck of an impressive thing. Nobody expected it, not even Google I daresay.

        PS: It does not matter if Google is not making huge amounts of money per device, as long as android is profitable and Google has said repeatedly that android is profitable, I think it is fine. Google, facebook and twitter are by defintion post PC companies. PC was just a vehicle to consume google, facebook, twitter services. Post PC started with Google. Apple ultimately is more of a threat to microsoft, amazon and facebook. Google's rivals are microsoft, amazon, ebay and then facebook.
        It might be a dramatic thing for Apple to have captured so much of the mobile industry profits, but Apple is a device maker, it has the experience and legacy of building devices. Google has no legacy nothing of developing software. Android is their first platform. I also think Apple more or less created a new market, they haven't stolen any profits from Samsung, Nokia etc, because these companies were not really making much of profits in the first place and Nokia was still growing its profits y-0-y.

      • rattyuk

        Midnight and you're still posting? Really? Look duck this article was put up to list all the naysayers thoughts on how the iPad would flop and, how going forward, how the iPad 2 has sent them all back to the drawing board.

        Don't believe me? You probably spent too much time here yesterday promoting Android to miss out on this story for example:

        "It has led to Samsung, purveyor of an Android 3.0 tablet by the name of Galaxy Tab 10.1, to look more closely at its own hardware and pricing model and, according to executive VP Lee Don-Joo, "improve the parts that are inadequate." We don't know what those are, specifically, however he notes that "Apple made [the iPad 2] very thin" and also goes on to say that Samsung will be rethinking its pricing strategy with the Tab 10.1. It was originally going to cost more than the 7-inch Galaxy Tab, but in light of Apple's new product, Samsung might have to cut into its profit margins… or maybe even forgo profits altogether to make its new Tab a success."

        What is the point of you posting "Android Achievements" in an article about predictions of iPad demise, other than to reinforce Horace's claims. Give it up already. But for the sake of completeness I'll bite.

        "it has dramatically reduced the power of OEMs, OEMs have now become dumb OEMs ala how carriers have become dumb carriers"
        That is a selling point? I think what you are saying is that manufacturers are fighting each other tooth and nail to deliver me-too products. From where I'm sitting that pretty much looks like a lose-lose proposition.
        "android has contributed to the downfall of symbian and Nokia"
        And Apple had nothing to do with that at all? I fear you are claiming too much. Apple kicked the high end stuffing out of Nokia first.
        "Android ensures that all the mobile computing innovation happens in US. Europe and Asia are now just markets to be exploited and milked(like how the hollywood movies does, there isn't a comparable movie industry anywhere, can you imagine the implications, number of jobs created in US), as an European I feel a little sad, all the key technological things are going to US."
        Ah so now it all makes sense. You're European so a large chunk of your anti-Apple bile is based on the not-invented-here syndrome. Buddy. Google is mostly American too.
        "Android has disrupted Microsoft"
        Again a very short sighted view. Ballmer laughed at the iPhone on release. He's not laughing now. Nothing to do with Android and everything to do with the iPhone.
        "Google a zero player in mobile, has now become one of the dominant player in just 2 years"
        Depends what you mean by dominant player. Google may turn Android into a billion dollar a year revenue stream for themselves. You do realize how much Apple earns from the iPhone every quarter?

        RE: PS
        The problem is that Google has effectively destroyed the competition for Apple's iOS devices. It may not be apparent now but look, Symbian was once the biggest OS market share. It is now falling, and with the MS deal it will fall faster. Android may take that space but it is definitely a Pyrrhic victory.

      • unhinged

        "RE: PS
        The problem is that Google has effectively destroyed the competition for Apple's iOS devices. It may not be apparent now but look, Symbian was once the biggest OS market share. It is now falling, and with the MS deal it will fall faster. Android may take that space but it is definitely a Pyrrhic victory."

        This is a very interesting point. Apple took out the competition to Windows several years ago by attempting to sue the maker of every Mac copycat OS based on the "look and feel" argument. Had they succeeded against Microsoft, the world would be a different place – but they didn't, and by taking out potential competitors they made it a two-horse race that Microsoft led for about 15 years.

        Google may have simply attempted to be another horse in the race, but the consequences have been that Microsoft, Nokia and Palm (and now RIM!) have all been forced to dramatically adjust their approach. These four may still end up as viable competitors in the platform market, but Apple is clearly benefitting from the disruptive influence of both its own and Google's actions.

      • capnbob66

        Those achievements are pretty weak and are mostly shared by Apple:
        1) Apple killed OEMs with no OS. Android gave them back a modicum of power (skinning). Android is actually giving carriers their power back – way to go!!
        2) Apple has taken the vast majority of Nokia profits (which is the major transfer in the market) Symbian has still been growing despite Android.
        3) US centric BS – whatever. Key innovations happen in Apps – they can happen anywhere
        4) MS disruptions happened before Android. They EOL'd WinMo due to iPhone not Android. The most you can say is that Android has given OEMs something else to do. Not a major deal really.
        5) That is an "achievement" of no more merit than Apple or MS were "made " by their OSs. The thing is that it hasn't benefited Google that much and is on the backs of the OEMs and carriers who are reacting to iOS not to Google.
        Basically you come back to massive unit sales growth. I repeat BFD – just wandering down the path already carved for them…

    • kevin

      What does those numbers have to do with iPad. Those 5m and 67m are mostly Android smartphones, so it's irrelevant when talking iPad. This blog entry had nothing to do with iOS, so again, those numbers are irrelevant.

      Evan, your posts are generally missing the point, sometimes unsupported by evidence, or just flat-out wrong. That's why they get down-voted – people are disagreeing with you but not finding it worth their time to respond.

    • Evan

      so long suckers, and I won't comment any more, not a fun thing to discuss with a bunch of apple fans with android hate bubbling in their heads. I feel sorry for all those android haters. Learn to keep an open mind and leave the bitterness behind. Life is short, entropy is creeping up on all of us and in another 20-30 years, none will be around to talk or discuss anything about me or Apple or Google or android or iOS. We will all be dead.
      User experience, google goals, money, profit, dollars nothing matters, what matters is time, and time is running out for all of us, spend it wisely with people you love and not vilifying a person who likes android.

      1) This is a trollish comment. My first one ever on any message board.
      2) I feel sorry for anyone named Evan who will try to comment here, he will downvoted into oblivion by all the android haters regardless of whatever he says.
      3) Thanks for giving me a platform, never received so many downvotes before. It still baffles me
      4) I may be incompetent and a numbskull, thank you all for pointing me out. I will try to improve my moronic levels of IQ(<100), maybe a visit to the shrink is in order.
      5) It feels good to expose some of the apple fans as nothing more than android haters

      God bless you all

      • is available, I suggest you buy it and pour your soul into your own blog where you can find an audience that appreciates your insightful analysis peppered with Google insider information.

        Go forth Evan and Godspeed…

    • ElCommenter

      Even if Android sales trump iOS sales, no one Android phone will outsell the iPhone. No one Android tablet will outsell the iPad. Android is on around 5000 devices or something. iOS is on three. That's why the OS market share debate does not mean as much as Android fans say.

    • Sundar from India

      2010 was neither the year of IPad nor the year of android, it was the year of beginning of downfall of Microsoft as finally in jan 2011 both android and iOS device activations overtook the rate of adoption of windows OS(WP7 + their desktop OS)

      "Consider that Flurry has detected over 250 million unique iOS and Android devices in the market, and is detecting more than 750,000 new devices daily" from

      7 copied per second comes to 615K per day. I am sure WP7 is negligible.

      IPhone asteroid in 2007 and the hypercane after effect(android which copied IPhone UI and microsoft distribution strategy but much more effectively giving it away for free) induced by the asteroid has killed off not the OEMs or carriers but Microsoft. Hypercanes were induced by the asteroid, just like how google was inspired by Apple IPhone. OEMs were in any case living on crumbs earlier, now too they will live on android crumbs. Carriers will become dumbpipes but survive, but microsoft is dead.

      The Empire built by Bill Gates has been breached finally by both Google and Apple. Time to celebrate it.

      The billion dollar question is if IPhone is the asteroid, hypercane is Android, then who are the mammals who took over planet earth from dinosaurs(Microsoft), I speculate it is facebook.

    • Sundar from India… speculation on hypercane killing off the dinosaurs,

  • This one's quite professional Apple bashing:

    "I have a lot of respect for Steve Jobs and Apple's products. It's just a shame that all the truth-bending destroys the keynotes."


    • HTG

      Read Roughly Drafted on this knob….

  • I wonder how many of these articles are CPM induced (writing for page views not quality). The Thurott article also included two of those Ads that Cover the page and force you to click the corner to remove. Stay classy blogosphere.

    • Evan

      oh I dunno about the rest, but Paul Thurrott has microsoft blood running in his veins

      • rattyuk

        Paul has been pretty good about Apple recently, applauding Apple's single disk delivery of Lion and pondering why Microsoft can't make it that easy…

      • eyez00

        Agreed. And in his recent lookback at the iPad 1 he's slowly changed his view.

        Admittedly his view of the iPad 2 was very low-key but he seemed even more dismissive of the Android "competition".

        Paul'll back on track as soon as there's a MS-Win8 touch screen tablet on sale, although that wouldn't be this year will it!?!

      • rattyuk

        I think they are planning 2012… Will Ballmer be in charge then?

    • capnbob66

      It's a definite. See how many comments Josh Topolsky's exploration of the concept of post-PC over at engadget is doing. It is an order of magnitude more than even a normal hot article.
      I personally think it was a good piece by him (I would, I suppose), but given the fandroid hordes over there, it was also GUARANTEED clickbait. Ka-ching!!!

  • Critics will always be critics but you're right the facts and the numbers($) speak the really story here as in any other technology success story.

    • asymco

      I'm not sure if Sibelius was the original artist to say this, but he deserves the quote: "Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic."

      (And yes, there is a statue put up to Sibelius in Helsinki).

      • asymco


        "Never pay any attention to what critics say…Remember, a statue has never been set up in honour of a critic!"

        Bengt de Törne "Sibelius: A Close-Up" (London: Faber and Faber, 1937), p. 27.

        via Wikiquote

  • Anyone who has handled a Playbook (or at least this month's pre-release demo version) and thinks it can compete with the iPad in the consumer market should leave the industry & go cover cement companies.

  • I remember when the whole GUI and mouse interface was first popularized by Apple in 1984

    • Øyvind

      …and who ridiculed Apple for the mouse and said it would never catch on in the public? John Dvorak.
      Even if his predictions are always wrong, at least he is consequent…!

    • fdsfsdfds

      implying people don't learn from their mistakes

      • Ted_T

        Those would be the people who hire/read Dvorak unfortunately, as apparently he is still gainfully employed,

  • Jon T

    Trumpeting Android's success is well and good but behind the scenes it's a different story – many Android users are piloting it, while iPhone users are on their second or third ones, and are likely to remain loyal. Not so with Android. 2010 was most likely a pyrrhic victory for Android.

    And on topic, the iPad is becoming a tool of the ordinary people. The experts, the commentators, the competition, cannot believe what they are seeing, which is why that list of negative comments above is so long.

    • Evan

      ok I will go out on a limb here and say there will be 150 million + new android device activations(across all variants with market installed) if patent lawsuits don't force them to stop. Lets come back and see in 2012 Jan.

      • Hamranhansenhansen

        And? Mobile phones is a 1 billion per year market. Giving away 150 million free phones gets you what exactly? Will Android Market pass Nokia and RIM's stores in revenue? Will Motorola make a profit shipping Android? What is the point exactly?

      • Evan

        who is giving a free phone ? where ? aah are referring to the carrier price ? And who cares about motorola, they are just one player. About android market things might change this year, in any case, I have no faith in that IHS or some shady operator which brought out that report.

      • capnbob66

        So you make stuff up and then discount actual research by people obviously more qualified than you. Quite an MO you have there. Congrats.
        Shouldn't you be off to Engagdet by now, though I suppose your MO would not be very unique over there.

        AD…. hominem.

      • Sundar from India

        if you think you are an expert and like apple and hate android and on the top of it cannot make coherent arguments and resort to vituperative, virulent attacks on people who like android, you are better off on macworld, appleinsider,9to5mac etc forums or conversing with John Gruber 🙂 John Gruber is the Paul Thurrott equivalent but for Apple. Thats what they do there all the time. Praising Apple and bashing Android. You bring nothing actually to the discussions on asymco. God its so easy to expose android haters

      • capnbob66

        The term Android Hater would only hold any water if I was exhibiting an irrational dislike of Android based on no objective position.
        My rational position is that Android is perpetual beta software, based on a 2nd rate business model (MS c.1995), whose goal is to deliver customer data to advertisers.
        I don't bash Android, I was bashing ill considered adoration by Evan and constant efforts to back up the indefensible. Android is welcome to its market share but not to claiming that the confluence of desperation from OEMs Carriers and Google in REACTION to iOS is as laudable as defining the category or segment, pioneering and investing in global ecosystems, actually focusing on developer monetization and building a uniquely successful business model and supply chain.
        I won't say you bring nothing to Asymco because I read another of your posts that was moderately interesting but just butt out of this one.

    • Evan

      *new android device activations in 2011, I believe 150 million is conservative figure to be on the safer side

      • asymco

        That's not an unreasonable figure. There were about 300 million smartphones sold last year and the growth could be to at least 500 million this year. 30% share is reasonable for Android.

        My own iOS estimate is about 145 million.

  • Ekalb

    Is there anyway to discern which of these people are on the MSFT payroll?

    • millenomi

      Ironically, Microsoft finally seems to have gotten why experience design is a good thing in product building, and is one of the few that have (alongside, IMHO, Palm).

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      If the name is Thurrott then yes.

  • Norton

    It is rather interesting the debate surrounding the iPad was more on ideological grounds. Those who were strong in their conviction about the status quo must’ve felt hard to look beyond from the bottom of their wells.

    Anyway, without great software (or solutions), the iPad would not be able to sustain the paradigm shift. I was in awe with the GarageBand demo on the iPad 2, and blown away by the price. Only problem with the iPad is you really need one per member of the household, not a shared device like one TV or PS3 or Wii or Xbox.

    • Alan

      I'm not sure Apple sees this as a 'problem' 😉

    • Lee

      lol, Alan.

      I have been in a consistent situation since the first iPad came out: I like the product, have liked it when I've played with it in the Apple Store, but felt it wouldn't fit in my life. My iPhone is my constant companion and does pretty much everything I want my mobile device to do (at least what I *currently know* what I want my mobile device to do), I'm provided a laptop by my work, and any place I'd take an iPad I'd want to do things that I don't think it can handle efficiently or for long periods of time. It doesn't feel like a laptop substitute for my needs, and it replicates most of what my iPhone already does.



      In recent weeks, I've read a lot of commentary on the iPad and what it has turned out to mean to the people who own them, and I now think I've been looking at it the wrong way: it's not a replacement for a laptop, it's a replacement for my desktop. Perhaps not a replacement literally (I still need a hub to hold all the data and do advanced operations on it, but it does do 95% (that may be hyperbole, lol, but it's still "most") of what I currently do on my desktop.

      Two things that are still hurdles to my making plans to purchase (it's not a slam-dunk on my budget): I'd want it to be a multi-person tool (multiple accounts, one for each family member), and I'm not sure the iPhone doesn't do all this anyway. Plus the iPhone is by its nature a single-person device anyway; it excels in my environment as it is now. So in that sense I agree with Norton.

      I do believe that when evaluating whether something is worth the money, that if you see a product that you think offers a *small* improvement over your existing solution (say, using iPad instead of iPhone for computing away from the desktop) it is still worth it if that small improvement affects you every day, or multiple times per day. It's a small per-day benefit over a LOT of days.

      So I'm still on the fence. Were I in a better financial position — perhaps not even a lot better — I would go ahead and do it. I think it would be a very positive thing in my life.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        To me, it is the ultimate bedroom internet device. The iPhone is great, but it sucks for reading long articles or books. Laptops are uncomfortable to prop up in bed. Our iPad gets used by the whole family throughout the day, but at night it is mine. It's also great to check email, stock futures, and news first thing in the morning. Also, the battery life is awesome; you're not constantly thinking about plugging back in. I know you're not soliciting advice, but that is my two cents anyway.

      • Yowsers

        When you have a Mac, an iPhone and an iPad, you find a certain sorting out of the apps: some are really better on the iPhone, others are made for the iPad, and some work well on both (like Maps — when you need to pull up a map, you are happy to do it with whatever iThing you have in hand).

        1 iPad per person seems to be the rule — each person's usage pattern and app selection essentially makes it a very personal device. Jobs' focus on their new apps and "what you can do with it" is really honing in on why people are excited about it.

        Some people sneer that "it's for consumption only". We know that it's capable of far more than that, but the consumption part is a very legit job it does. I don't know about you, but I consume one hell of a lot of info each day. The iPad has become one of my main consumption intake. And content all flattens out, too — I don't care whether it is a blog, a website, a book, and PDF, etc. — it's just all content to me now, and the iPad is excellent at delivering it.

      • Sander van der Wal

        iPad's screen is big enough to make viewing things on it a pleasure. If you need to type a lot, then you need something else.

        It will never be a multi user device. Reason, onevof its big advantages iscthat it is immediately ready for you, no waiting. That advantage disappears when somebody else is holding it and is not willing to give it to you.

  • People have different reasons to write things like those quoted here. I'd guess that most of those are really to get page views. However, they have to appear to be objective, otherwise no respectable person would err to read those. Well in that sense one can say that Google has made the world worse, as several of those sites contain ads provided by Google and the money made from those depends on page views.
    A couple of things: 1) Apple is one of the most reliable companies at the moment in delivering products at a steady pace (well, let's forget the white iPhone) 2) it is fascinating to see, how iPad is a member of Apple product family, the family features bind them together.
    About Android, it is a race to the bottom, it is fragmented by design, it is a statue built on clay feet, Google hoping to have the imagined golden head (no one else profits that much from it). It just is a lot easier to say 'Android' than 'Android-based', the relation between Android and products is not an identity.

    • I very much appreciate your comment here. However, consider your comment that Apple consistently supplies products, except the white iPhone. If you were to add the adjective excellent to products, then that would eliminate your exception, right? Apple provides a product when and ONLY when that product is excellent, which the white iPhone wasn't.

  • At some point, the naysayers and competitors run out of constructive criticism and hide in their own reality distortion field. Funny how the tables have turned.

  • Objective See

    iPad 2's announcement sunk Motorola Mobility share price by 10% in two days, wiping out $820 million in MMI's market cap.

  • I still can't understand the appeal of the iPad – just as I can't really understand the appeal of other Apple products. It would be unwise, however, to generalize from this. Millions out there see something in their products – and the 145 million number for 2011, much to my continued confusion about the matter, sounds just about right.

    • millenomi

      It is possible to understand their success analytically(*) through the lens of user interface/interaction design principles; in fact, it helps to understand how a device with fewer bulletpoints in the features department flies better than any competitor — features add complexity.

      iOS thrives on nurturing the feeling in the user that the complexity they experience, if any, is fully understood and manageable. This made the first iPhone a success in spite (because) of all the things it lacked. This in turn allowed Apple to get an head start on a market of applications — a market they *shaped* to their will via reviewing. This in turn deprived their competitors of developer attention, which is a scarce resource; even when competitors came, they touted a better platform — not just in prices, but also in API design and basic featureset (Bonjour, IAP, Core Audio etc etc etc).

      The trap is uber-simple: use the halo to bring 'em in (to the Stores, via word of mouth etc.); then make sure the device delivers the basic functionality they envision better than any competitor does, day after day. Competitors may do more, but they are liked much less; they aren't *satisfactory* to use.

      This has long been a problem of the industry, which I — in my infinite naivete and foolishness — choose to ascribe to tech figures in general. "User experience" cannot be bolted onto a project; it must be part of it from the start; system architects, however, tend to think of a problem as made of several independent components, and think "user experience" is just another module that can be developed independently from everything else. This was, I hear, behind Nokia's "oh it's just a problem with execution, how hard can it be to fix?" — and now they've lost their independence to a company that, willing or no, seems to have started learning this very lesson (MSFT).

      And the bare, simple truth is: other products simply aren't as satisfying to use, at any level of the chain, be it using them, showing them to your friends, developing for them. Apple made a product that was superior in that particular field, started grabbing market and mindshare by offering slices of the pie, and then turned that into a self-sustaining propulsive force no one can match at the moment. Since they've gobbled up all the scarce resources that count (development, high-margin users, supply chain) even those who "get it" like ex-Palm have little hope of gaining a foothold.

      All of the above IMHO, and you're encouraged to pick it apart.

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      They're just better than everyone elses' products. It's that simple. Design, construction, usability, technology … all better.

  • Michael Salmon

    Personally I hope that they are correct, or at least partly so.
    A USB, Firewire or Thunderbolt port wouldn't go astray although I have to admit that Apple is better at knowing what I really need than I am.

    More than anything I think that Apple should have to work harder to keep the developers loyal.
    In some ways Apple is taking M$'s place and I am not convinced that they are going to behave any better.

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      iPad has USB in the dock connector. You can consider the dock connector to be a 4th kind of USB connector and cable around it just like you would have to do with micro USB. A desktop USB will not fit. FireWire was dropped from the dock connector in 2007 or so. Thunderbolt likely shows up in a couple of years. Again, in the dock connector. Right now, the flash storage in iPad is not fast enough to need Thunderbolt.

      • famousringo

        The Thunderbolt port won't be for connecting your iPad to your PC, it will be for connecting your PC to your iPad (or iPhone).

        A single connection gives your device full access to a fast network, a large display, vast storage, keyboard, and other peripherals. Who needs a PC in this scenario? You extend your mobile computer into a desktop computer, ideally suited for all those desktop productivity tasks which don't require large computing resources (which is what 95% of us use our workplace PCs for).

        The Motorola Atrix has the right vision, it just doesn't have the right hardware or software to do it properly. Apple is moving the pieces into place with Thunderbolt and Mac OS 10.7. I expect them to deliver on this vision within a few years.

  • Oh dear. This really is laugh-out-loud funny.

    The Fiasco Awards 2010 (You know, the one that was "won" by the iPad) is now a finalist in the Fiasco Awards 2011:

    At least it shows these guys have some perspective. And an ability to laugh at themselves.

  • I love this one especially:

    "The iPad may still be the lone leader, but with 100+ competitors on the way, it won’t likely keep its majority market share"

    Precisely BECAUSE there are 100+ competitors on the way, Apple will maintain market domination. It's got it's components chain locked in and it's developer community well paid. Other manufacturers will have to compete for components, driving their prices up or their margins down. Other manufacturers will face commoditization as "just another Android device."

    I see Apple's share dropping to 75% and maintaining at that for the next decade. That may be too little but we'll see.

    • Synth

      Also because of the "100+ competitors" developers will face an ever growing dizzying array of specs and form factors. The Xoom is widescreen, but the RIM and HPalm are not, for example. And should they jump in the virus infested, "everything-is-free" Android market or should they wait for Windows, HPalm or RIMQnx?

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      Nobody seems to remember the iPod these days. It was only 10 years ago.

    • WaltFrench

      @CW, I'll bet somebody at Apple has even taken a SWAG at its optimal market share, and figured that if they crept too high, competitors would be sicking [sic 😉 ] the DoJ on 'em etc. It'd also be advantageous have a Moto to try to compete against the Lenovos and Acers, forcing Moto to compete most defensively against the lowest-cost set.

      My own guess was more like 80%. It'd be advantageous for Apple to let a modest number of can't-afford-to-compete-aggressively types around it to starve out any strong competitor in the ecosystem business. Much better to have a Zune Store, an Android Store, a Verizon Store all fighting and none able to make the big deals with TV, movie, news or apps.

      In the non-consumer space, RIM and Moto reinforce the desirability of the tablet for Enterprise use, but the benefit goes almost all to Apple. As long as Apple watches out for the security aspect, the only likely angle I can see the pretenders end-running Apple in the corporation.

      I guess Moto is the stalking horse in the consumer space; Apple had best watch out that Moto gets so cash-starved that they fail and consumer perception of "tablets" turns into either (a) Apple as a high-priced yuppie/corporate toy, or (b) junk.

      Apple could certainly have afforded to knock $50 or $100 off its high-end prices, which appear to have better margins and not so many sales that it'd be expensive, to say that you just plain CAN'T spend as much on an iPad as on a (an?) Xoom, but they pointedly did not. I assume they don't want to look, or actually be, predatory.

      • Two thoughts.

        1.) If Apple has a "safe from antitrust" market share target I'd put it at 5% below whatever Microsoft had before they ran afoul of DoJ.

        2.) Perhaps the iPad 3 that people thought would be debuting next fall won't be an iPad 3 but a student edition in time for school purchases. Carbon fibre shell. Cheaper price. No 3G. Made for school age kids. Sort of a "My first Apple." It would be the sort of product differentiation without fragmentation that Gruber would like.

      • Yowsers

        Market share alone doesn't trigger anti-trust; it's the abuse of it, or taking anti-competitive actions, that will get the man after you. AAPL could take 5% more market share than whatever MSFT did — just so long as they don't engage in illegal behavior, they should be Ok (but no doubt complained about, looked at, snarked at…)

      • Kizedek

        CW, as Yowsers says, there is the abuse of it.

        But this is what I find funny:
        How can there even be a monopoly in the first place… when there is no category? Is it a Media Tablet? Is it a Tablet PC? Is it a large iPod?

        Obviously, all the surveys quoted on this site don't think it is significant enough to count with netbooks on the one hand, or with phones on the other. They can't bear to think it impacted netbook or PC sales, either. All these quotes suggest it is not significant nor going to be significant in any way.

        Therefore, who cares if it has 100% of "some" product category? Can you be accused of monopoly if you are the only name in town for a particular thing and everyone associates a type of product with yours? Like the iPod? And everyone else just gives up?

        Are JCB in trouble for their digger market share? Are Kleenex in trouble for their tissue market share? Are Johnson@Johnson in trouble for their Q-Tip market share?

    • PUNDIT: Apple Projected To Lose 25% Of Marketshare!

  • Duncan

    It ain't a complete quote summary until Rob Enderle shows up. How did Dvorak and Thurrot make this list and Enderle didn't?

    • gctwnl

      Earlier on Bloomberg TV, Rob Enderle had this to say about the hype surrounding Apple's iPad:
      Nothing can live up to this hype – even if it was made out of fairy wings and ran on pixie dust it wouldn't make it.

      The tech analyst — who has made a name with his consistent pessimism towards Apple products — claims that the new gadget "is a good offering; it's not a perfect offering." Enderle also predicts that Apple will have to slash prices in order to meet their own sales expectation…

      But, to be fair, Rob also was somewhat positive (out of character) and even predicted (jan 2010) that iPad 2 would be 'huge'!/Enderle/status/8290638320

      Enderle is also so consistently wrong that it cannot be random, his output must be wired incorrectly from his perfect analysis machine.

  • Mark Benson

    I only hope android OEMs price their tabs lower or at least at par with IPad2 starting cost. I mean they are getting the OS and all the software R&D for free from Google. Let them have a bunch of higher priced models. But this is ridiculous on the part on the part of Android OEMs. Master move by Apple. I never thought I would say this, but Apple is cheaper than the competitors.

    • Relayman5C

      Ironically, the only way to compete with Apple on price is to cut quality. Quite a reversal from the PC wars, eh? I'm waiting for the competitor who matches Apple's quality but then can't ship because they can't get the components (flash and displays come to mind).

      • Kizedek

        IS it a reversal? I think Apple was always about the quality. If a PC or laptop actually came in a metal enclosure, lasted five years and had a sharp, color-accurate screen for anywhere near Apple prices, I never saw one.

        Apple simply chose not to compete in the bargain basement market. Lots of commenters point out how a BTO Dell with the comparable capabilities of a Mac would set you back more.

        Apart from the economies of scale and the supply chain of components as you mention, I think this is a whole new ball game, it really is the post-PC era…

        I think what was always true about Apple's quality is just more evident now. You can't disguise the disparity in quality by hiding at the low end or simply throwing a load of components and specs into a shoddy enclosure. A tablet is truly a PC with a capital 'P'. It's really hands-on and personal — nowhere to hide.

        Apple did to some degree help define the original PC market as first movers. But pretty quickly, everyone's personal experience of a PC was in an office with an IBM-compatible. Not so this time around. Apple has universal exposure with the internet and with their retail stores and with presence in many other retail outlets. Everyone knows what tablets there are, and knows what the price is. They can sit them side by side at most large computer retailers.

        But this time the consumer can't say…. "well, I really like the Mac quality compared to the Dell, and it might be worth it, but it's just going to site under my desk where no-one can see it." With a tablet, you literally live with your choice, every hour.

    • kevin

      One problem is that Apple is sharing its OS and software R&D across all its products including the more expensive Mac, so the incremental amount due to iPad isn't that much. So the "free" OS, though helpful, isn't enough, as Apple is also pounding them on hardware component costs and retailing costs. The OEMs (nor Google) don't have enough vision to invest in hardware earlier than Apple.

      And if you were an OEM, and if Google even told you what it thought was coming in two to five years, how confident would you be to make big bets given the chance that Google could change its mind (and not care not one iota about its impact on you)?

  • The lack of a camera (for Skype) was a deal breaker for me on iPad 1, but iPad 2 looks like a must buy

    • 2sk21

      Exactly my reaction too. I plan to be lining up at the Apple store on March 11.

  • Pingback: Holy Clam Chowder Batman! Asymco calls everyone out who talked s*!t about the iPad | Macgasm()

  • Oliver Pfeiffer

    I think sooner or later there will be no big differences in the hardware by the vendors so it will come more to the eccosystem, the image of the companies and the distribution channels. I doubt that the price will be a big point for winning the market because Apple will keep putting pressure on it so there will be no "disadvantage" for Apple.

    Much more interesting for me will be if the bulk of the "smartphoneandroids" and "blackberries" will love to stay in there ecosystem or if the users will switch between there smartphone and tablet OS. These figures will show if the tablet market share will follow the smartphone market or will be separated and may be able to turn shares in the smartphone market.

    I think the interconnection of this markets will be very important to analyze for future tablet market outlooks. Is the decision for a platform preliminaries for future purchases? Which market will influence or be more dominant?

    • kevin

      The Nielsen US data showed that younger people bought more Android-based phones. Some believe its primarily because younger people (18-34 yo) generally have lower incomes, and Android-based phones are cheaper; with BOGO or just free handsets, and in many cases, coupled with having cheaper plans on Sprint and T-Mobile.

      Since iPads will likely be cheaper than other name-brand tablets and 2-year contracts aren't required, will younger people buy iPads? If so, will iPhone become more attractive (even if it's still more expensive)? This will be an interesting case to watch. (Apple will likely foul this up by launching a new cheaper model.)

      • Iosweeky

        $499 ipad is pretty expensive for someone on a low income, can't see any teenagers buying any, they will stick to the ipod touch for now and upgrade to an iPad once they hit the workforce or get one for tertiary study.

        However that will change once it drops to the $399 (or even $299) price point sometime down the road in a year or two, and it enters the realm of the mass market early majority birthday/Xmas gift from parents price range.

      • kevin

        You're likely correct about teenagers, but I (and the Neilsen data) was pointing to 18-34 year olds, many of whom I hope are already in the workforce or tertiary study.

      • dongmin

        iPad 1 is already down to $399.

        If you're not looking for the latest/greatest, iPad 1 should do the job.

  • Adrian Meli

    Good collection of comments-it has been a bad bet to go against Apple and Steve Jobs for quite some time now. I have a hard time understanding how the Motorola product or anything priced similarly to the Ipad will take any market share. ie. if someone can get an Ipad for $500 why would they pay $450-600 for another tablet, even if it has a better screen or other features. People will pay up for the cache of Apple (similar to Nike shoes), the app store, and for betting on the winning platform and future innovation. Why invest yourself in a me too product at a similar price. I am still waiting to see how low Vizio can get their price point to, as that is the only company I could see making a dent. That said, if Apple does a good job seamlessly integrating the Ipad, Iphone, AppleTv, Macs, etc. the ecosystem will be almost impossible to touch. – Adrian Meli

  • stsk

    Horace, what's wrong with you?

    It appears that there is an epidemic of some sort of disease that has rendered tech analysts completely delusional. (most have historically been demonstrably stupid, but now it's "walking down the street shouting at shrubbery" delusional).

    What is the source of your immunity? How have you escaped this plague of idiocy?

    • Sergio

      He lives in Helsinki, where the Nokia reality distortion field must counteract both the pro- and anti-Apple reality distortion fields 🙂

  • Dick Applebaum

    Crowds R us!

    My favorite for next year's update to this article is this headline:

    "Apple's iPad 2 to Enter a Very Crowded World"

  • Dick Applebaum

    Will these Android tablets be able to AirPlay to the GooglleTV?

  • James

    I think these pundits simply can’t wrap their minds around the fact that not every technology “war” ends like Mac vs. PC did. They don’t understand that things are much different now, and the things that Apple excels at – build quality, ease of use, elegant software, retail experience – actually matter to lots of consumers.

    What’s funniest to me is that we went through all of this already with the iPod – how many times did we hear that the iPod would lose to a plethora of rivals that would be here “any day now”, carbon-copying its advantages at a reduced price and wiping it out of the market? Of course, that didnt happen, but we’re still hearing all the same arguments about the iPad – even though Apple is in a much stronger position now than they were 10 years ago!

    • kevin

      US university and business school professors still insist that Mac vs. PC was all about closed vs. open. It's got to be the most shallow analysis I've ever seen.

      Given that teaching as dogma, and since Apple still does not license to other OEMs, and curation is equated with closed, and all other factors are viewed as inconsequential, then of course, the pundits conclude Apple is going to lose. Someday. It's just a matter of the next Android update; it's inevitable.

      Apple will eventually show again that the PC "victory" really was mostly about everything else, and not primarily about open vs. closed.

    • Viswakarma

      The only reason PC became successful was IBM was entrenched in the Big Businesses with its mainframe based applications and good networking (TCP/IP) was still infancy. Then Microsoft shafted IBM with OS/2 V1 and screwed Apple by threatening to stop developing the crappy Basic for Mac. The "Sugar Water Seller" John Sculley got scared and let Bill Gates have his way. Then the dumb Apple Board of Directors listened to John Sculley and got rid of Steve Jobs, the Visionary. Then, Microsoft became a monopoly by crushing its competitors with underhanded tactics and bullying. The era of Microsoft monopoly essentially brought all innovations in the field of personal computing to a halt. Then Tim Berners-Lee developed internet using Steve Jobs' NeXT Computer and its technology. The internet gradually started to undermine the Microsoft hegemony. It is this Next OS that spawned the Mac OS X and iOS under Steve Jobs Vision to focus on the common end-user and driving nails into Microsoft Coffin.

      One should read the book "Accidental Empires" by Robert X. Cringely to understand the history of personal computing &lt ;;.

      • Jan Larsson

        Perhaps you should read that book yourself. There never was any MS Basic for the Mac. And I dont think Apple wanted it for much the same reason they dont want Adobe Flash. And we can say much bad about Microsoft but Bill Gates learned quickly from IBM how to serve the corporate IT-departments, made good use of this knowledge and was (is) richly rewarded for it. Microsoft still owns that market – with no serious competitor in sight. Now they are close to falling even in this market – but caused by their own mistakes, not by competition.

  • davel

    I guess the diversity of opinions creates a market.

    I stopped reading this long list of quotes about what is wrong with the ipad one or two.

    This morning I read that Samsung is going back to fix their offering after seeing what the new Apple tablet looks like.

    In looking at the flurry of tablet offerings from the competition I was struck that outside of a bigger or smaller screen, a newer cpu, and for a few LTE, no one really offered something compelling.

    There are two things I would like Apple to provide for their tablets.

    1) Higher resolution screen
    2) LTE

    I am half hoping that the rumors of a Sep iPad 2.5 are true and Apple introduces an iPad with a better screen – for perhaps more money and LTE for VZ and their expanding 4G footprint.

    That said, after looking at the video on the Apple website, I think Apple will dominate the tablet market this year with the hardware/software package as well as the Apple ecosystem. At this price Apple's iPad is a very compelling value proposition.

    • My guess is that the higher res screen will come, but that there are too many manufacturing issues to work out. Mass producing 70 million screens is pretty hard. I doubt Samsung could make 70 million AMOLED screens in a year.

      As for LTE, I doubt Apple will add it until they can make sure that they can still pump out 10 hours of battery life. The LTE phones out right now all have horrible battery life.

    • Iosweeky

      I think the September iPad 3 rumor that John gruber could be a disaster for apples iPad 2 sales in the September quarter, especially if the mainstream media start running with that story and potentially dissuading a lot of buyers from picking up the iPad 2 (just when it should be hitting full stride from a sales perspective).

      • kevin

        Apple calling this the year of the iPad 2 was likely a strong hint that there is no iPad 3 coming in 2011.

        An improved screen and LTE are on the drawing board. The screen is still too expensive but that $3.9B investment is likely going a long way toward getting that, and Apple will likely get to a retina display before anyone else.

        As for LTE, past experience shows that Apple chooses not to be quick at implementing faster cellular network speeds, probably for two reasons: 1) until LTE is widespread, it won't be valued by the mainstream consumer; and 2) LTE chipsets are still big and power-inefficient.

  • sl149q

    How long before Apple allows you to run iPad apps on you MacBook?

    Reasonably easy to emulate the arm architecture on a Mac to run the current apps and they could make fat binaries an option for developers who want to get the best speed in both environments.

    That would bring together the two separate universes into a single ios based one for developers.

    • millenomi

      That would overlook the fact that Apple is in the user experience business and that the touch UX works very poorly on a desktop computer, and vice versa.


  • Kizedek

    Steve Jobs spoke of the intangible with his slide of the signpost: where technology and liberal arts cross. He said there is a human dimension to each product that they try to build in, and most competitors leave it out completely.

    • millenomi

      It has to be note that that sentence is mostly marketing fluff; that is, it's not descriptive of any concrete process.

      The concrete way in which that sentence manifests is with user experience as the heart of design, and allowing marketing to hook in users to then have the superior UX keep them on the platform.

      • Kizedek

        And what is UX if it is not the "human dimension" element? ie, real people needing to do real things on the device?

        Yes, the UX is the heart of Apple's design — the human dimension is the heart of it. I would certainly agree with you, if by UX you mean more than what is happening on screen.

        But I think Apple do look at UX in total — a marriage of both software and hardware. Things like the scroll wheel on the iPod, and backlit keys, and glass finish of the track pads, accelerometer in the iPad2 to detect keystroke weight… all these physical things cross the barrier between technology and humanities and are "built-in" (as Jobs said and I noted) precisely in order to "humanize" their products.

        Now, maybe they do have a really rough product all the way through the development and design process, and they come along later and say, "hey, maybe we could make this more user-friendly by adding this or that new bit of technology." And then they successfully market that as though they had thought of it all along. Maybe. Maybe it is "not descriptive of any concrete process".

        But if so, they sure seem to be a heck of a lot luckier than their competitors. Some failed RDF, huh? A superior and very concrete device is delivered through lots of hard work — but that hard work was completely unfocused (cause you know what control freaks Apple aren't) and the result of who knows what utterly serendipitous and magical process — and Jobs (the ruthless guy who cut all kinds of product lines when he returned) can't quite convince us that they they continually refined their product nor had any concrete vision for it throughout the whole development until it just popped out kind of as it did and someone in marketing had to justify it. Sure, I think I understand you.

      • millenomi

        I was just pointing out that "adding a human element" isn't descriptive of an actual process — it's not a recipe you can ask a development team to follow without getting a "huh? how?" in return.

        "Focusing on UX in your design", instead, can be turned directly into a list of concrete steps (for instance, researching psychology and usability, structuring your testing process so systemic tests performed by users are performed often and their result shapes further development, etc.) It is one concrete way to achieve the abstract goal of adding "a human element" to applications.

        The difference between the two is the difference between marketingspeak on a feature list and Apple.

      • Your argument is UX unfriendly.

        Priorities turn into Process. It really is that simple.

  • Chester

    Fingers in ears – na na na na na na na na na na.….…
    “Analysts” – are they virtually all lying toadies or unbelievably ignorant/blind/stupid. What colour is the sky in their world and who believes it?
    Let those who believe android (slash Windows) is so wonderful just buy it and try to use it themselves. Stop telling me what kind of idiot/mindless slave to fashion I am for using devices that I find usefull and enjoyable.
    From observation over the last year, the only people who have android are those who’ve had to or wanted to get a new phone and have been conned by a salesman (it’s like an iPhone only better/cheaper), they wanted more than their old “feature” fone/basic phone or think they’re actually buying an iPhone because it looks like one. Droid only seems to be a choice for nerds or diehard windows type masochists. The overwhelming evidence appears to be that iDevices are actually a choice and the Eco system is utilised by choice – not because a hitler has brainwashed them.
    They are never pushed by carriers or salesmen. I suspect potential customers are actively discourage from picking ipads/phones and wonder what the penetration would be if they were pushed with the same pressure as the droids

  • David

    The only option for iPhone 4 to iPhone 3GS communications, though. I look forward to iPhone 5 when I can pass my iPhone 4 to the wife.

  • Chester

    Whoops – slipped and published. Supposed to be… pushed like Droid and windows fone seven.
    Many thanks to Horace and his enlightening site. It’s such a relief that there are places like this with brilliant observation and analysis amongst the unbelievable volume of shite and lies and (not so hidden) agendas (as always, follow the money) on the net. Do people really take investment advice from those self appointed advisors/analysts?

  • calebcar

    The people who wrote this may be trolling for hits, but there's a more important population that's acting like these comments are true- wall street. last year's growth rate was 70%. PE of 22 and forward PE or 14 only make sense if Ipad 2 is the failure these guys say it is.

    • Yowsers

      Good point. Very good point.

      Fundamentals explain price pretty decently only in the long term, but does rather badly in most time frames under 3-5 years (speaking broadly here, which brings to mind that joke technicians have that fundamentalists are right, of course, but have lousy timing).

      One assumes that the traders and institutional players who trade stocks all day can assess the prospects of AAPL and it's products accurately (iMac, iPod, iPhone and iPad), and make fundamental value judgement calls accordingly.

      To a point — yes.

      What I get from these financial analysts and traders (see Seaking Alpha) is that they and the posters Asymco quoted above work off of the same biases, fears, mis-perceptions, agendas and flat-out misunderstanding of what they're looking at. Both are in the business of figuring out and predicting where future value lays, and position accordingly.

  • 21tiger

    "Hands-on PlayBook demonstrations at CES showed its differentiation in multitasking and performance, which may be difficult for Apple/Android to rival.” Mike Abramsky, Royal Bank of Canada Analyst, 11 January 2011"

    Sorry, I'm Canadian, but wow, what a bunch of homers. Guys, put the drugs down, and take a peek outside of Toronto, eh? The vaporware BB v1.0 software is going to beat Apple's iOS? Seriously. High. And. Drunk.

  • Pk de cvile

    How could you miss this classic from Rob Enderle?

    "Apple is way behind in the PC market and effectively changed the dynamic by introducing the iPad and convincing folks that the future are tablets. They did the same thing with iPods, and iPhones. Before the iPod, the hot players were little Flash-based things and after Apple convinced folks that Flash-based players were stupid, the company introduced their own and sold them in high volumes. In phones, people liked small devices (remember the Motorola RAZR?) and hated big screen phones until Apple introduced the iPhone and changed their minds. Now Apple dominates that segment. With the iPad, a form factor that generally failed in the market for much of the last two decades, Apple has again convinced consumers that what they didn’t like they should like and the PC vendors are playing catch-up – and not ion a particularly impressive way. An revealing event: AMD’s CEO and the head of strategy were fired because they didn’t have a tablet strategy after one of AMD’s most profitable quarters ever.

    The fact that Apple repeats its strategy successfully and the vendors don’t just amazes the hell out of me and I figure it gives Steve Jobs a chuckle from time to time. I believe there is a Warner Brothers Cartoon plot in this and Jobs is the Roadrunner."

    – Feb 25, 2011

  • Koen van Hees

    All these quotes are spot on. If you thinking Apple has à future welling these things you are delusional.

    Written on my iPad

  • Waveney

    Well since Steve Jobs has firmly positioned the iPad as an Post-PC device, they now have another moniker to vent their 'wisdom' on.

    Here's another one from march 3rd 2011
    In the meantime, where exactly is the entire pad scene going to head? I think it's headed towards commoditization, as it becomes a simple reader and gaming device, targeting Angry Birds and whatever new games appear.
    All this will be available on pretty much any tablet, and I'm not seeing the clear edge Apple got from four years of head-start development work. John C Dvorak – again,2817,2381389,00.a
    … and a whole lot more of similar disconnected thoughts.

  • I use my iPad for work, with Keynote for presenting (I make the ppts on a PC first however) . Surfing the web. Reading 10 ebooks so far. The kids play games and educational software like the Solar System. Work email and calender. and Chatter for collaboration. I take my meeting notes in Evernote synced to the cloud.

  • And for those who insist it's a consumer not a producer device. I've also written 70,000 words of a Sci-Fi novel on the iPad in my daily commute. It's not a PC replacement. It's a post PC device.

  • Kenth

    @Jan Larsson. Please read this article regarding Microsoft Basic. There was no Apple Basic for the original Mac, only MS Basic. And remember, the Folklore site is created/published by one of main creators of the Mac. Very interesting reading!

  • Danthemason

    They all lined up, each with his own bucket of excrement, and hurled away to see what would stick. What folly.

  • Well, it's paid bashing against Apple using an ad hominem attack.

    In contrast, I do like this discussion:

    Being a developer, I abandoned the Android "platform" in late 2009. Even after re-evaluating in 2010 and 2011, I think, Google is unable to come up with some sort of layer, that wouldn't put all the burden of writing a hardware abstraction layer on the developer.

    Android development reminds me of the old times with winCE and PocketPC, where you couldn't be sure if your software runs on a consumer's device, without having one (device that is. and back then customers were also rare.)

    So all this bashing against Apple does not make Android a better platform.

  • Pingback: Post–PC är Apples affärsmodell och iPad har ingen konkurrens | MaxiMac()

  • Pingback: iPad 2 Launch Notes | Monday Note()

  • Pingback: 640K still enough « Lavonardo()

  • I think what's happening with Nokia and Microsoft is a perfect illustration of the futile efforts at work to topple Apple. Whether you like Apple or not, it's clear that they're at the top of several piles. With tablets, it's obvious. The nay-sayers won't ever stop regardless of how factually correct they are. If you've got more than 50% of the profit and 90% loyalty, that's a wonderful business model. It's one that's not going to be repeated easily.

    Microsoft's relationship with Nokia, I believe is doomed to fail:

    The pundits are out to lunch when it comes to Android mounting a successful assault on iPad this year. They're out to lunch if they think companies will continue to produce phones with no margins for very long.

  • unhinged

    "These deathwatch articles continue to illustrate the amazing obtuseness of the professional industry pundits, who, even after hundreds of millions of devices sold, still basically can't see their hand in front of their face."

    Or it could be that they see all too clearly, know that they have no effective response and fight with whatever tools they have at their disposal.

    Apple has at least three years' worth of lead on their competitors right now because they've been designing the iPad since the early 2000s. That gap is going to close IF would-be competitors get the chance to do their copycat thing, and the only way they can do that is to stop people from buying the Apple product until their own product is ready. They can't try to do what Apple did because they have short-term targets to meet, and those targets have not been defined as part of a long-term strategy but as the numeric return that shareholders want to see (or they'll take their capital elsewhere).

    Microsoft did exactly the same thing: denigrated the existing product, promised that whatever they made would be better, and allocate just enough resources to it to convince the market that they were serious about being the number one competitor. The original creator either gave up or was swamped by the massive influence MS exerted on the IT "reporting" world (which then "informed" potential purchasers of their "best" option) or by the leverage MS had with their existing customers and installations, and the status quo was maintained.

  • Pingback: iPad predictions, badly done – iPad Resources()

  • Pingback: Lay open to ridicule doesn’t kill anymore | Benoit Octave()

  • His Shadow

    That is a world class collection of retards you got there…

  • Pingback: The Future of UX // UX Café()

  • Pingback: The PC market overview for Q1 | asymco()

  • Globle Apps

    All things about this post is really informative to learning about biography. Thank you very much for this. I must visit your site again to see more useful updates and i hope you will come with more useful updates..