This week we became aware of the specs for the RIM Playbook. But before that, reviewers were digging into the Motorola Xoom. When I find a really extensive 10 page review, I take note, and here it is: “Ars reviews the Motorola Xoom.”
Along with the RIM PlayBook, it’s becoming clear to me that these manufacturers have fallen into wishful thinking: if only they create a tablet with similar (or a few superior) technical specifications, they will enjoy a healthy fraction of the tablet market. After all, customers really don’t care where they get their tablet or how well it serves them. Motorola and RIM are just good old fashioned household names for companies that build superior consumer products, right? Yeah. Right.
For example, here’s how RIM will (instantly) claim that the PlayBook will have tens of thousands of apps at launch. Hey, RIM. You could be an instant winner! (Not.)
Jim Dalrymple sums it up: “RIM’s PlayBook strategy is now clear — they don’t have one.”
One of my favorite topics is Android fragmentation, especially when the article has charts and some compelling analysis. Of course, the upshot of all this is the impact in the enterprise. With the Apple iPad, you get one really good OS well integrated into a 10-inch tablet. That makes it easy for companies to standardize. See what you think after reading: “Android’s Tablet Issues vs iPad 2.”
If fragmentation weren’t bad enough, the way Google may have run roughshod over the IP of others is now coming to light. Android’s competition is taking a two-pronged approach. Microsoft is seeking licensing, which will drain profitability, and Apple is using the courts. Here’s a summary of Google’s copyright problems with Android: “Google’s Android faces a serious Linux copyright issue (potentially bigger than its Java problem)”
Despite the ravings by RIM’s CEO about the PlayBook, what is it that people actually want to buy? An inconvenient question to be sure. Here’s a survey: “Who is the manufacturer and what tablet device are you planning on buying?” It makes me wonder: what if the tablet competition were to ask its customers before they go into production: “What kind of tablet would make you immediately stop thinking about an iPad? How would it function? What could you do with it?” Maybe they’d rethink their product plans. Instead, as the survey affirms, Apple’s competition is toast. I’ll reiterate: one year from now, only Apple, Hewlett Packard and Samsung will be selling tablets in any significant numbers with market shares of 65:25:10 respectively. The rest will be a memory.
Along those lines, as I’ve said before, Apple’s competitors are relegated to using specs to lure the geekier of customers to their own tablets. However, Apple has created this game and has set the rules. One rule is that specs don’t matter all that much, so long as the tablet performs well. Here’s the obituary: “RIP feeds and speeds” by Michael Gartenberg.
Notice to the competition: You can’t win. You can’t break even. You can’t change the rules. And you can’t even get out of the game. Exhibit # 947 for the execution (:-)
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to Apple’s competitors. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and art and it lies between the pit of your fears and the summit of your knowledge. This is the dimension of Apple imagination. Your next stop: The Dead Zone. (With homage to Rod Serling.)
How much faster than the iPad 1 is the iPad 2? How do both compare to the iPhone 4 in benchmarks? This benchark article at TUAW has a nicely laid out chart that showcases the A5 in the iPad 2. “iPad 2 benchmarks show impressive gains over original model.” It’ll make you happy you bought an iPad 2.
Everyone wants to love Apple, and we’re enamored by its products. But the messy details behind the scenes, the personalities, the missteps, and the crazy things that happen — stuff that you never hear about — can only be described by someone who worked for Apple for 22 years and who can eloquently document insanities and inanities behind the scenes. If you’ve an appetite for this kind of thing, check out: “Apple’s Psyche.” WARNING! You could lose your Apple virginity reading this article.
Dan Frommer thinks The Daily is dead. (In my own language, the Daily has been pinged.) Here’s his explanation. To that, I will add that The Daily apparently wasn’t spectacular enough to stay in the news cycle of all the other news sources. Ironic. And a lesson learned for Mr. Murdoch.
I am always alert to how the youngest of Apple’s customers feel about its products. I am sure Apple pays attention to that too. While the most experienced amongst us grew up with UNIX, the Apple II Red Book, and assembly language, the youth of today are approaching computers, and now the iPad, differently. Insights galore are found here (and don’t be misled by the title) “The iPad is 99% more open than any other computer.”
Finally, here’s a really cool product I discovered: Air Display. It allows you to turn a display on a second Mac into a second or third display on your current Mac. However, is does have some limitations. Check it out: “Air Display for Mac Review: Spare Macs Become Spare Screens.”
That’s it until next week.