Technologizer

[Note: The original headline on this story was "Microsoft: iPad is "Humorous." Microsoft PR head Frank Shaw tweeted that he found that title misleading. After contacting him and listening to his complaint, we've changed the headline to make it more specific.]

It’s an understatement to say that Apple’s iPad generated a lot of chatter when it was announced on Wednesday; the scuttlebutt actually slowed down the Internet. Even Microsoft couldn’t help but weigh in, criticizing the iPad for being a “locked down device.”

“It is a humorous world in how Microsoft is much more open than Apple,” Brandon Watson, the director of product management in the developer platform at Microsoft, told me in an interview yesterday. With Microsoft’s platforms, developers can build whatever they want, and target a broad array of devices using the same skill set, he added.

Watson claimed that many developers of applications for the iPhone OS–which the iPad uses–are not making money. Developing applications for the iPhone and iPad is expensive, he said, because iPhone OS uses the Objective C language rather than Microsoft’s more pervasive .NET platform. And Apple’s control over the platform has alienated some people that make software for its products, he said.

It’s certainly true that there has been some griping about Apple’s development policies, and not every app is a winner. Facebook developer Joe Hewitt famously protested against the control Apple is exerting over its hardware (he is now praising the iPad), and argued that Apple is setting a “horrible precedent.” The Free Software Foundation protested the iPad on Wednesday for being an “unprecedented extension of DRM” into a new class of computers.

I think that the FSF’s argument may have merit, but Microsoft’s criticism misses the target altogether. What Apple has envisioned with the iPad isn’t a traditional PC–it’s more of an appliance. You don’t tinker with your television; you turn it on and consume services. The iPad’s Apps are like services. And despite what Watson said about iPhone developers failing to make money, some are clearly doing exceptionally well.

When Microsoft released its Tablet PC back in 2001, it grafted handwriting recognition onto Windows. That capability extended Windows into new (such as engineering and medical services), but the Tablet PC was still essentially a PC running Windows. Windows 7’s multitouch enhancements create a more natural user interface for PCs, but a PC is still a PC.

The iPad isn’t a PC. I’ve gone on trips to Boston and Washington DC over the past several weekends, and spend hours riding Amtrak and on Wi-Fi-enabled busses. I didn’t bring a laptop with me, because I didn’t want to lug one around, and didn’t really need to have a full fledged computer with me. My iPhone provided me with entertainment along the way. Truth be told, I would rather have had an iPad with me to surf the Web, listen to music, watch movies and read. If the price comes down even further, Apple’s got a winner.

Yet another iPad question: How hard will it be to buy one of these things?

When the original iPhone went on sale, there were thousands of people willing to wake up at the crack of dawn and wait in endless lines to buy one. Same thing for the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS, although in all three cases much of the madness would have been avoidable in an utterly rational world–it was possible, late in the first day of sale after the throngs had dispersed, to stroll into an Apple Store and pick up a phone with little or no wait.

With other Apple products–not to mention 99.99% of products from other tech companies–this doesn’t happen. I don’t recall it happening with iPods even when they were at the height of their popularity.

Right now, the blogosphere is awash in debate about the iPad, deeming it as everything from the next tech revolution to a big yawn. Massive lines on day one to buy the thing won’t be a definitive confirmation of the gizmo’s worth. But they will be one data point regarding the level of interest among real people. (And yes, I’m aware that it’s in Apple’s interest to whip up as much frenzy as possible for debut day–which we know will be in late March, although the company hasn’t specified the date.)

I’m not a chip geek, so I can’t really judge this story. And I persist in thinking that it’s too soon to judge the Apple A4 chipY inside the iPad, period. But the article I’m linking to says the A4 is mostly existing technology from venerable chip designer ARM, not innovative new stuff from Apple. (It also ends with some angry ranting which doesn’t do much to increase its credibility–but like I say, I’m not in a position to judge…)

As I spent a little hands-on time with an iPad at Apple’s event yesterday morning, jabbing away at the on-screen keyboard felt oddly familiar. It wasn’t a familial similarity to the iPhone keyboard–the fact that the iPad’s keyboard is so much larger gives it a completely different personality. But my fingers seemed to be telling me that they’d had a similar experience before.

This morning it dawned on me: The iPad keyboard feels a lot like the one on the first computer I ever bought with my own money, the Atari 400.

Continue reading this story…

“Apple’s 9.7-inch OLED tablet PC is expected to have a cost of about $1,500-1,700, the report explains, adding that OLED panels are pretty expensive and suggesting prices should only fall in time.”–9to5Mac.com, 11/19/2009

“As the world waits with bated breath for an Apple tablet, one thing is for certain: the rumored tablet with a 10-inch touchscreen won’t be cheap. Most new-fangled Apple products cost the proverbial arm and leg, and it’s unlikely an Apple tablet (which the blogosphere calls the iSlate) will break this trend…the likely price point is under $1000. If Apple holds true to form, that will mean $999.”–CIO, 1/5/2010

“A key factor for the tablet’s success will be price. Yair Reiner, an analyst for Oppenheimer & Co., said in a research note last month that the tablet would be priced at about $1,000, citing sources. One challenge: Apple’s MacBook laptops start at $999.”–Wall Street Journal, 1/5/2010

“Sure, the tablet we expect Apple to launch on January 27 will probably have more than its share of cool factor. But do you want to spend $1,000 or so for bragging rights?”–PC World, 1/19/2010

“Apple may price the tablet at about $750, putting it between the $399 top-of-the-line iPod Touch and the $999 entry- level MacBook notebook, said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York.”–BusinessWeek, 1/27/2010

I could go on. If there was a genuine surprise at yesterday’s iPad launch, it was the starting price: $499. Apple, in its Apple-esque way, calls tht “unbelievable.” Well, maybe: my jaw didn’t drop, especially since it’s for a model with relatively little storage (16GB) and no 3G wireless. And some of the features that folks expected would add to the sticker price, including a camera and/or an OLED display, aren’t there. It’s one of the rare instances of Apple defeaturing a product to hit a particular price point, which I take as a sign that it does indeed want to sell iPads in vast quantities from the get-go.

But at $499, the iPad is a plausible netbook alternative, or an upgrade from the iPod Touch. And even the top-of-the-line iPad will be $830–well short of the hefty price that everyone “knew” the Apple tablet would go for.

Bottom line: all the pre-analysis of the tablet’s appeal and chances of success predicated on a starting price around a grand turned out to be irrelevant. We need to start over again, and judge the produce Apple announced at the price it’s charging.

What say you?

I’m not the only person with lingering questions about the iPad, and there are far more than 25 things left about it that aren’t entirely clear. So I asked my Twitter pals–I’m @harrymccracken there–what their #1 remaining question was. I got lots of good responses. If you’ve got answers, or informed speculation, or even more questions, please dive in…

Continue reading this story…

Like John Gruber says, the iPad is a remarkably fast gadget. (The only thing that seemed less than near-instantaneous about it during my time with a unit today was the speed of the Wi-Fi–which is the one thing that Apple has the least control over.)

Gruber raves about the Apple-designed A4 chip at the heart of the device and says it looks to be the best mobile processor in the world; I wanna get a better sense of the real-world battery life before I come to any conclusions on that front. And presumably the fact that the iPhone OS was written for slow CPUs and is now running on a fast one is a major contributor to the overall sense of speed.

But if you’ve got $499 to spend on a secondary computing device and are trying to decide between an iPad and a netbook, the sheer zippiness of the iPad is going to be a major point in its favor.

I’m already having visions of the Stevenote in which Jobs explains to us why Apple is moving Macs from Intel chips to Apple’s own CPUs…

Last week, I asked you to participate in an experiment: trying to predict a bunch of details about Apple’s tablet by voting on multiple-choice questions, then aggregating the results into a unified set of prognostications. Almost 300 of you participated. After the jump, we’ll see how you did. (Oh, and a note: Mike Munsell won our drawing for a $100 Apple Store Gift Card–congrats!)

Continue reading this story…

In the end, the one thing about Apple product events that’s utterly predictable is this: Some of the rumors will turn out to be true, and some of them will turn out to be false. And until you know which are which, it’s pointless to too many waste brain cells on trying to form any opinion at all.

This morning, we learned enough about the product we now know as iPad to start thinking about it seriously. But it’s not like all has been revealed. In fact, I’m still asking questions rather than coming to conclusions.

After the jump, in rough order of importance, 25 things I’m wondering about.

Continue reading this story…

Okay, one prediction while there’s still time to make them, but only one: From here on out, monochrome e-readers–even the good ones–are going to feel like part of the past, and industry will be surprised by how many consumers are willing to give up 90%+ of their battery life for color. Remember when the first color PalmPilot came out and the long-life monochrome models quickly went away?

Game publishers await the tablet.

McGraw Hill equals loose lips.

The big news is content.

One man’s tablet dreams detailed.

Visionary Alan Kay: tablet fan?

What the tablet’s killer app?

Tablet patents: still coming in.

Alleged tablet e-book pricing information.

Apple’s 1995 tablet concept video.

How Apple launches its products.

_______________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

“Insanity,” novelist Rita Mae Brown wrote, “is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” By that standard, the long history of tablet computers doesn’t quite count as insanity–manufacturers have tried a variety of form factors and features over the years. But the results are the same, over and over again: failure. It’s the classic example of a gadget that the industry keeps coming back to and reintroducing with all the hype it can muster–and which consumers keep rejecting.

Today, Apple is announcing its first true tablet. It took the company thirty-four years to get around to it, and it’s just about the only outfit in the business that abstained until now. Whether the device looks brilliant or misbegotten, all evidence suggests that there won’t be much that’s repetitious about it. Even so, it’s worth looking back at more than two decades of attempts to get tablets right–none of which really succeeded, and some of which failed on a monumental scale.

Continue reading this story…

This is your almost-final reminder: I’ll be at San Francisco’s Yerba Buena Center tomorrow, Wednesday 27th at 10am PT to live blog Apple’s unofficial-but-yes-it’s-true tablet launch. Please join me at technologizer.com/appletablet for up-to-the-second coverage and conversation.

I kind of suspect that just about everyone who hangs out with me tomorrow morning will have multiple browser windows open so they can skim multiple sources of coverage. So what the heck–I’m making it easy. Our live page has links to the coverage pages at Engadget, Gdgt, Gizmodo, iLounge, Macworld, Slashgear, Ubergizmo, and Wired–and I may add more sources before the event starts. (Actually, feel free to suggest ‘em.)

See you there, I hope!

Ahead of Apple’s anticipated unveiling of its tablet device later this week, the house lights have turned on, and the opening band is playing. Apple managed to (temporarily) break through the hullabaloo by announcing its 1st quarter earnings today.

Apple posted a net quarterly profit (US GAAP) of $3.38 billion on $15.68 billion in revenue. That earned stockholders $3.67 per diluted share as compared to $2.50 per diluted share for the same period one year ago. Among the highlights are:

• International sales accounted for 58 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
• Macintosh computer sales increased 33 percent over the year-ago quarter. 3.36 million were sold.
• Apple sold 8.7 million iPhones in the quarter (a 100% increase)
• Apple sold 21 million iPods in the quarter (an 8% decrease).

“We are very pleased to have generated $5.8 billion in cash during the quarter,” said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO. “Looking ahead to the second fiscal quarter of 2010, we expect revenue in the range of about $11.0 billion to $11.4 billion and we expect diluted earnings per share in the range of about $2.06 to $2.18.”

Doubtless to say, Apple’s tablet will affect its revenue into the foreseeable future – one way or another. We are also witnessing a shift to a product mix heavier in connected devices. One lingering question is: what is going to happen with Apple TV? Hopefully the company will answer more questions than it raises on Wednesday– the orgy of prognosticating is killing me.

The fact that anyone’s giving even a nanosecond of thought to whether this might be a real leaked ad for Apple’s tablet is evidence that madness has descended upon us…

Last week, I asked you to help me kill time until Apple (probably) announces its tablet by participating in an experiment: a group prediction about its features, name, and price. Nearly three hundred of you pitched in. Here’s part two of the project: aggregating your responses into one big collective guess. (Part three will come once Apple unveils the thing: We’ll go over our prediction and see how we did.)

The predictions are based on your answers to a series of multiple choice questions. In instances where you were allowed to select more than one answer, any answer that more than 51% of you chose counts as a prediction. In cases where you were only allowed to select one answer, the one that received the most votes counts as a prediction, even if it fell short of a true majority.

(There is, of course, nothing the least bit scientific about any of this. But given the lousy track record of professional Apple pundits, I figure it stands at least as good a chance of being accurate as any other method short of finding someone within Apple who knows what he or she is talking about and has very loose lips. )

Continue reading this story…