From: KL (vib.roy4s_at_gmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 10 2006 - 16:34:55 PST
> Innovative products need not be original, they just need to be
> better than
> your competitors.
true, prime example - iPod. Apple's "new" tablet would fit into that
too.
Apple's version wouldn't be original, they would make it the best.
> Consumer Tablet Computer sales are tiny compared to PC sales.
> Vertical
> markets are still the primary target of tablets, a realm where
> business
> customers get to dictate design and functionality.
price & horrible design has been holding them back, IMO. Prices are
coming down,
& MS has done fixes on the UI. Granted that I wouldn't use one even
if someone paid me,
but UI has improved over version 1.0, significantly. I remember
trying one of the first batches
at a store and was amazed that someone would actually buy one over a
laptop.
easy tasks were tedious. if you tried to drag items, tablet often
guessed - create a selection rectangle,
forcing the user to carry out commands over and over. ridiculous!
tablet sales are tiny, yes, but their potential is monstrous. one of
my professors uses a tablet to give lectures.
as horrible it is, benefits are clear. lecture notes can be posted on
the web or even sent
to students as email attachments, and that's only the beginning.
Mainframes were replaced by workstations in the early 80's;
workstations replaced by portables in
the early 90's, I see the current portable form factor being replaced
by the tabletpc form factor. it just hasn't
been done right, but please argue that this is not the future. Apple
tablet may not come now,
but it is coming.
> Again, MS is likely "content" with XP Tablet edition because:
> - adapting existing code was cheaper than writing new code from
> scratch
agreed, version 1.0 wasn't anything more than XP with a touch screen,
and some bundled software.
> - makes it dead-simple to run Windows apps on tablets, don't need
> to port to
> some esoteric platform
agreed - Apple has "Universal" binaries and will stick with that.
Even current OS X
is suited to a tablet. the dock is ingenious IMO.
> - someone probably thought "if it looks just like their PC, people
> will be
> more apt to use it." - it's proven that UI habits are hard to break.
agreed and this is the reason that apple has such a tough time
against Windows & will have a hard time against tablets.
It is a uphill battle. What i find interesting how Apple's strategy
seems to have changed. Instead being THE innovator, they
wait for others to come up with a new product, study it, wait for
revisions, and then innovate, aka the iPod.
Very similar to how Microsoft's did it back in the day. I think Steve
decided that he's going to beat Microsoft at their own game.
Apple has one of, if not the best ID team in the world. If Microsoft
wants to claim to have such "innovative" products -
he'll show them how its done. I like that man.
I'm curious to hear your comments on the demonstrated UI on the NYU
page. I am very, very impressed by it. I don't know
how well it would do in a tablet but its fantastic UI for certain
tasks performed on a desktop computer.
It seems so incredibly "natural" to use.
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 10 2006 - 17:00:10 PST