One of the most limited, locked-down and under-featured gadgets went on sale in the US today. And while lacklustre demand for the iPad will disappoint Apple, people who feel let down by the company's poor iPhone support will likely be chuckling contentedly.
It's a safe bet that most people in the iPad's target audience will already have iPhones — which are also limited, locked-down and under-featured.
When the iPhone 3G first came out, supposedly the best mobile phone in the world, it didn't even have picture messaging or Internet tethering support, which had been standard on other mobiles for many years. Apple had the cheek to announce these as major new features when they were eventually added in a software update. Absurd. They should have been built in to the phone all along.
The iPad will be of greatest appeal to people who are "on the go", yet it has been pushed out the door without 3G support. So if you don't have access to a nearby WiFi spot then you'll be holding what is essentially a disconnected brick with no world awareness. Is this really what the online generation wants?
Personally, while I don't have any sympathy for Apple, if the iPad doesn't sell well then it will be a terrible shame for magazine and newspaper businesses. If their future really is digital then there needs to exist a large-screen hand-held device such as the iPad, and it needs to be widely used. In a way this actually makes me feel more anger towards Apple, because their "screw the customer" business model is now going to hurt other businesses that would be relying on delivery vessels such as the iPhone and iPad for content distribution.
Meanwhile, iPhone users waiting for the Opera Mini web browser to be approved for the App Store have been kept waiting by Apple for eleven days and counting.
I've been following some of the online discussions about Apple's delay in approving Opera, and the expectation that they will eventually reject it. Some people suggest that when Apple does reject it, they'll claim that it's a legitimate customer-oriented decision due to the "duplicate functionality" of Opera, ie: the iPhone already has a built-in web browser, so why would any customer ever want to use a different one?
So I thought it was worth pointing out that dozens of alternative web browsers have already been accepted for the App Store. The crucial difference with Opera, of course, is that it has a good reputation, it's better than the built-in Safari browser, and people actually want it. That will dent Apple's image.
US consumers DON’T flock for yesteryear gadget
One of the most limited, locked-down and under-featured gadgets went on sale in the US today. And while lacklustre demand for the iPad will disappoint Apple, people who feel let down by the company's poor iPhone support will likely be chuckling contentedly.
It's a safe bet that most people in the iPad's target audience will already have iPhones — which are also limited, locked-down and under-featured.
When the iPhone 3G first came out, supposedly the best mobile phone in the world, it didn't even have picture messaging or Internet tethering support, which had been standard on other mobiles for many years. Apple had the cheek to announce these as major new features when they were eventually added in a software update. Absurd. They should have been built in to the phone all along.
The iPad will be of greatest appeal to people who are "on the go", yet it has been pushed out the door without 3G support. So if you don't have access to a nearby WiFi spot then you'll be holding what is essentially a disconnected brick with no world awareness. Is this really what the online generation wants?
Personally, while I don't have any sympathy for Apple, if the iPad doesn't sell well then it will be a terrible shame for magazine and newspaper businesses. If their future really is digital then there needs to exist a large-screen hand-held device such as the iPad, and it needs to be widely used. In a way this actually makes me feel more anger towards Apple, because their "screw the customer" business model is now going to hurt other businesses that would be relying on delivery vessels such as the iPhone and iPad for content distribution.
Meanwhile, iPhone users waiting for the Opera Mini web browser to be approved for the App Store have been kept waiting by Apple for eleven days and counting.
I've been following some of the online discussions about Apple's delay in approving Opera, and the expectation that they will eventually reject it. Some people suggest that when Apple does reject it, they'll claim that it's a legitimate customer-oriented decision due to the "duplicate functionality" of Opera, ie: the iPhone already has a built-in web browser, so why would any customer ever want to use a different one?
So I thought it was worth pointing out that dozens of alternative web browsers have already been accepted for the App Store. The crucial difference with Opera, of course, is that it has a good reputation, it's better than the built-in Safari browser, and people actually want it. That will dent Apple's image.