Languages is a new app that provides offline translation for 12 different languages, and it looks great. Only 99¢. Sold.
Languages is a new app that provides offline translation for 12 different languages, and it looks great. Only 99¢. Sold.
But any Apple analyst who gets upset over this should be ashamed for failing to understand one of Apple’s core philosophies. The company does not compete on price, it competes on quality. Apple does not sell to “everybody” — it sells to those who appreciate a premium product, and who are willing to pay a premium for it. Build quality aside, iPad comes with a more developed ecosystem, with a bigger choice in apps and accessories. Those who see value in this will pay for that value — as they have for every Apple product that has succeeded before.
I think Segall is assuming a philosophical reason for a higher price when there’s a very simple, pragmatic reason for it: it’s hard to make a tablet device with quality materials and build for a low price while maintaining a decent gross profit margin, and if they’re going to have to drop the price, they would be better off doing that when they know the market won’t sustain it than they would right out of the gate.
Segall is absolutely correct that Apple competes on quality and is trying to build products that fulfill their goal, but where he errs is in arguing that Apple doesn’t also want to sell to everybody. They want to sell to as many people as they possibly can while still making a good product. Their goal is not to make a premium product and sell it to people willing to pay for it; their goal is to make a great product and sell it to as many people as they possibly can.
The original iPad illustrates this. Apple sold it, out of the gate, at $499. For quite a while, this was very aggressive pricing—competitors could not make a comparable tablet, let alone one with the same build quality, at that price-point. Apple took a smaller (but still very solid!) margin in return for making the iPad a more enticing idea for people. They wanted people to think that not only is it a great device, but it’s also a very good price, too.
Apple wants the iPad to be something that nearly everyone wants and can own, but they don’t want to compromise what an “iPad” is to do it. This isn’t about being a premium product. It’s about being a great product. There is a difference.
Brilliant ad. It shows someone playing the piano on an iPad, then a second person slides in the iPad Mini and begins playing as well. Very simply, it shows that the iPad Mini does everything the iPad does, and it shows what the iPad can do. This isn’t just about a more convenient way to browse the web—it’s about doing things that just weren’t possible on a PC before.
From the point of view of a school, I don’t think the iPad mini will enable a lot of new 1:1 programs. The reason that we don’t have more isn’t purely money. After all, devices cheaper than the iPad have existed for years – they’re called Netbooks – and we don’t have hundreds of schools full of 1:1 Netbook programs. I think, for a full-time 1:1 deployment, you’re still going to want to use a full-size iPad.
Speirs doesn’t think the iPad Mini is going to be very important for education.
For work or leisure, I can’t help but being curious about the iPad mini. There have been times I wished I had a smaller, more portable iPad.
I’m just as curious as Federico. I use my iPad 3 a lot. Every morning, I read the New York Times, read my RSS feeds, and catch up on Instapaper. In the evening I use it casually for browsing the web or reading books. During the day, I use it in class, and sometimes use it to write.
So I primarily use it for reading, and the iPad Mini’s size is obviously ideal for that. It’s small and should be easier to hold for a while. But, of course, it isn’t retina—and I do love reading text on the iPad 3′s retina screen. And without testing one, I don’t know how well the on-screen keyboard will work for writing.
For now, I don’t think the iPad Mini could replace the regular iPad for what I do. In a couple years, though, my bet is it could.
I’ve been playing it this morning and it’s a very good game. It’s fun, engaging and quite attractive. I don’t play a lot of games on my iPhone, but I like Letterpress a lot.
Checkmark was just updated to 1.1. Among other things, Checkmark can now do recurring reminders. It’s a great app I use often. Highly recommended if you’ve got little tasks you need to be reminded about.
Today, Apple announced a retina 13-inch Macbook Pro, brand new iMac, updated Mac Mini, and, of course, the iPad Mini. That’s a lot to announce, and I think this was one of Apple’s best events in the last few years.
It’s exactly what was rumored: a retina 13-inch Macbook Pro at $1699. It looks like an excellent computer. Last week, I asked how the new 13-inch Macbook Pro would fit with the Macbook Air, since it is a thin and light device. After all, the 13-inch Macbook Air weighs nearly 3 pounds and is 0.68-inches thick at its thickest point, and the retina 13-inch Macbook Pro would, I thought, be roughly comparable. My guess was that Apple would keep both of them separate because the 13-inch Macbook Pro would still be too expensive.
It turns out that while they are roughly comparable (the Macbook Pro weighs 3.57 pounds and is 0.75-inches thick), “roughly” is the key word there. The Macbook Pro is a little bit bigger, but has a much better display, two USB 3 ports, two Thunderbolt ports and HDMI. Moreover, it’s faster, starting with a 2.5 GHz i5 processor and 8GB of RAM.
Perhaps, when the Macbook Air gains a retina display (which could be a while, for performance, battery life, and price considerations), there will be less of a distinction between the two. For now, though, my speculation came too soon.
While there were rumors Apple might announce an updated iMac at today’s event, as far as I can tell, Apple kept the new design a secret. And the new design is incredible—it’s ridiculous that there’s a computer in something so thin. It’s a beautiful, beautiful computer.
The new iMac also has a hybrid flash and hard drive disk which Apple calls a “Fusion Drive.” OS X treats it like a single disk, and it will move applications and files between flash storage and the hard disk depending on how often they are used. Apple says that the result is that it’s almost as fast as SSDs, but has the storage of regular hard drives. It’s a configurable option, and as far as I can tell there’s no indication how much it will cost yet.
The new iMac is the Apple I love. Incredibly-designed and beautiful computers that seem a little impossible, and unique features like the Fusion Drive that aren’t there for the sake of making a feature-list one item longer, but because they genuinely make them better computers for regular people.
When introducing the iPad Mini, Phil Schiller spent a significant amount of time explaining why the iPad Mini is different than competing 7-inch tablets. His argument is that those tablets, both because of the smaller screen size and the software they run, use what amount to scaled-up phone applications. The iPad Mini, though, is large enough to use iPad applications without difficulty—so it’s a real iPad, but at a smaller size.
Earlier this year, I speculated that a near 8-inch iPad could not comfortably do everything the full-sized iPad can, and therefore it would be a risk for Apple to release a smaller iPad now. After writing the article, Joel Bernstein convincingly argued that not only could such an iPad run scaled-down iPad apps, but it would do so without much compromise. The screen would be large enough, he argued, for tap targets on the regular iPad that follow Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines to be the same size as they would be on an iPhone—something none of us have a problem with. In other words, not only could an iPad Mini run regular iPad apps, but it could do so without compromising what the iPad is capable of.
Bernstein was absolutely right, and that’s what Apple has done. My speculation was incorrect; if it works as well as it appears to, the iPad Mini will be basically as functional as a full-sized iPad.
I’m glad I was wrong, because the iPad Mini looks like a terrific device. While it’s a bit disappointing that it isn’t a retina display, it is incredibly light—just 0.68 pounds. For comparison, the plastic, 7-inch Kindle Fire HD tablet weighs 0.86 pounds, and the Kindle Paperwhite weighs 0.47 pounds. The iPad Mini is going to be very, very good for casual use, and especially for reading. I use my iPad more than my Mac, because I read the New York Times on it each morning, read RSS feeds, Instapaper, and iBooks. For all of those uses, the iPad Mini will be a much better device.
I think that’s going to appeal to a lot of people. It does everything the large iPad does, but does it in a size that’s much easier to hold and easier to bring around with you. It also does it at a cheaper price—$329 for the 16GB version.
I am a bit surprised by the price, though; I expected $299, because that seems like a significant psychological price barrier to break through for the iPad. $329 is a bit of an odd price, too, especially for Apple. I think it indicates that they’re pushing the bounds of what they can do at the low-end while still maintaining the same level of quality. This is an iPad just as well designed and beautiful as the iPhone 5, but for less than $350. That itself is incredible.
What it indicates, too, is that Apple thinks the iPad is a very different kind of device than the cheap Android tablets or the Kindle Fire. Those other devices are literally larger phones, with software that is not very different. Those devices are, at best, for browsing the web, playing games and maybe reading books, but they don’t do any of those things particularly well, in Apple’s eyes. Schiller’s talk about how much better equivalent applications are on the iPad versus the Nexus 7 made that argument. Instead, in Apple’s view, the iPad is today’s PC. It can browse the web better than those devices, play better games better than them, and read books in a more enjoyable way, but it can also do much more. It’s a device for students to use in the classroom, for doctors to use in the office, for writing, for creating art. Apple doesn’t think they need to strictly compete on price because they have not only a better product, but an altogether different product that people want.
That’s excellent positioning, and I think Apple needs to make that absolutely clear in how it presents the iPad to people. They should not only show that it you can browse the web and play games and read books with it, but show it being used in the classroom by students. Show how doctors are using it. Show how artists are using it. Show how regular people are using it every day to replace their PC. By doing so, they will make clear that the iPad is not just a tablet like the small, cheap competitors. It’s much more than that. And if that’s what people think, being in the same ballpark with price will be acceptable.
Apple appears to be thinking along the same lines with the iPad Mini’s first ad. In it, a person is playing the piano on the iPad Mini, using Apple’s Garageband. What it shows is that the iPad is capable of much more than browsing the web or playing games. That’s only the beginning. Whatever application you use, it becomes that application. It’s a very good ad.
Apple fully believes that the iPad is the next PC, and while they want to make it as affordable as possible, they also don’t want to compromise what it’s capable of. The iPad Mini seems to fulfill that, while making it more capable in some ways because of its size and weight. And with a smaller price, too, I can’t see this being anything but a success for Apple.
I don’t think the Surface ad is as effective as Apple’s were, however. It’s not because the spot is bad — I actually think it’s pretty damn clever. But Apple went with the brand building after it had introduced the world to the iPod. People knew what white headphones meant in 2007. I’m not sure people know what a keyboard case is about in 2012 quite yet.
Just look at the very first iPod ad Apple aired. It showed a guy dancing around with his white earbuds, but only after he had the thing hooked up to his iBook to transfer music to it.
Stephen makes a good point. Apple’s first iPod ad showed precisely what the iPod does—you sync your music to it, and then you can have all of your music wherever you go. A thousand songs in your pocket. Microsoft’s Surface ad, by comparison, is introducing a very new kind of product as well, but it doesn’t do much to explain what it does and what’s unique about it.
The ad does, though, show that it’s a tablet by Microsoft, and the center of the ad is the keyboard case—which I suppose is what Microsoft thinks is what’s unique about Surface (the convenience of a tablet and the power of a PC). Perhaps that’s enough; the ad is engaging, so that might be enough to get it stuck a bit in people’s minds and push them to look up what Surface is.
I think what this reflects is the confused purpose of Surface. In reality, it’s a nicer PC with a touch interface, which doesn’t exactly make for a good tagline. Apple’s intent for the iPod was singular and focused, so “A thousand songs in your pocket” stuck. It was blazingly clear what it did and why it was unique. From the way Microsoft positions Surface, though, it looks like a nicely-designed PC in a tablet form-factor. Is that it? Is that the sell?
The software company, based in Redmond, Wash., said net income for its fiscal first quarter which ended Sept. 30, dropped 22 percent to $4.47 billion, or 53 cents a share, compared to $5.74 billion, or 68 cents a share, for the year-earlier period.
Windows revenue dropped 9 percent and revenue from the division which is responsible for Office dropped 2 percent. IDC reported that PC shipments dropped by 8.6 percent in the same quarter.
Some of this is absolutely due to Windows 8′s impending release, but it’s also clear that the PC market is in decline and Microsoft’s revenue and income is along with it.
Microsoft is releasing Windows 8 and Surface from a position of weakness. It must be a success, because while the traditional PC will continue to sell well for years, there’s no growth left in it. It’s hit the high water mark. Growth, today, is in mobile—smartphones and tablets—and Microsoft’s smartphone business is terrible. They’ve been left behind and now they have to catch up.
Windows 8 is not only a transition for Windows, but it’s a transition for Microsoft as a company. This is the point where they have to move from sitting back and minting cash from the PC sales, and try to create a new future for their company.
If Windows 8 fails, it won’t kill the company, but it will raise some serious questions about what the future of Microsoft looks like. It could end up rich but invisible; important to businesses and computing and technology but not, in any immediate way, to normal people.
This is why it built Surface. It’s an “extension of Windows,” explains Panay. Windows 8 is too important to let other companies’ shitty PC hardware screw it up. Even though there are well over a billion PCs running Windows, Surface is the first PC that Microsoft has created itself in its nearly 40 years of existence.
Great piece by Buchanan that points to a problem for Microsoft: I don’t think it’s at all clear what the point of the Surface is. Is it just a more portable notebook that can be used like a tablet? Maybe that’s it, but the RT version won’t run existing Windows applications, so that doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps the Intel Surface will make good on this vision, but that version will be decidedly more expensive and will weigh 2 pounds.
Maybe a tablet device with Microsoft Office will be enough to make it a success. I don’t know. If I had to bet, though, it wouldn’t be for this release to be a huge success.
John Paczkowski reported today that Apple will announce a retina 13-inch Macbook Pro next week alongside the iPad Mini.
Exciting news for sure (especially for me, because my current Mac—a 2009 13″ Macbook Pro—is testing my patience), but I wonder how a retina 13-inch Macbook Pro, sans optical drive, will coexist with the Macbook Air. In essence, it will be a Macbook Air, so what happens to the Air? Does the 13-inch model disappear, leaving only the 11-inch? Do they ditch the Macbook Air sub-brand all together and make the 11-inch the smallest Macbook Pro? If that’s the case, why not just call the smaller MacBooks, Macbooks?
Or do the Macbook Airs stick around as we know them, and the new retina 13-inch Macbook Pro stay a little thicker and get better graphics performance and battery life? I suppose that’s a possibility, but the division between the 13-inch Macbook Air and Macbook Pro seems forced and out of step for Apple.
UPDATE: I missed the obvious possibility, which is the 13-inch Macbook Air sticks around because the the retina 13-inch Macbook Pro will be too expensive. I think that’s what’s going to happen, but at this point, the “Air” brand doesn’t mean much for the 13-inch model. Since the retina 13-inch Macbook Pro should be quite thin, the difference between the two will be screen resolution and price—which “Air” has little connection to.
Kara Swisher reports that Apple has hired Amazon’s William Stasior to run their Siri unit:
Apple has hired major Amazon exec and prominent search technologist William Stasior to run its Siri unit, according to sources.
At the online retail giant, Stasior has been in charge of A9, Amazon’s search and search advertising unit. The former AltaVista exec co-founded the independent company and has run it since Udi Manber left for Google.
Siri isn’t just a feature. It’s a strategy.
It’s simple, has a very focused purpose—get you information quickly without interrupting what you’re doing—and that’s it. Wearable computing is coming.
(Via The Beard.)
Though it will launch in the App Store under the guise of a video conferencing tool, a capability which it provides natively, MindMeld is actually an information-driven application which listens in to your conversation and attempts to understand what’s being said. Once it figures out what you’re talking about, MindMeld will try to create a model of the conversation’s context, and from that it will attempt to locate and display relevant information from many different sources. “We’re listening to the last ten minutes to predict what you need in the next ten seconds,” Tuttle told Ars. “We’re trying to make it so you never have to explicitly search for something you’ve already talked about.”
The iPhone started as a web communicator, but these mobile devices are going to be assistants.