“No, it’s not because of Apple hype, fanboy delusion, media gullibility, dirty tricks or anything else,” Elgan writes. “Apple’s multi-touch user interfaces are appealing to use for reasons most users, reviewers, bloggers and journalists don’t fully understand.”
“Apple does understand,” Elgan writes. “The company knows how, why, when and where to combine multi-touch, physics and gestures and an enormous repertoire of user interface design elements into something simple and exhilarating to use. They know this because they’ve been working on the problem full-time for seven years, guided by some very clear design sensibilities.”
“Any ‘iPad Killer’ will have to at least approximate the interface sophistication of the iPad itself,” Elgan writes. “So far, nobody has come even close. Quite the contrary. Competitors thus far have demonstrated a conspicuous lack of emphasis on user interface design. And that’s why they fail.”
Elgan writes, “Apple has probably sold 2 million iPads already, and it hasn’t even starting selling it internationally. If somebody doesn’t do something quick, the iPad will become the new Microsoft Office — the standard we’ll never be able to get rid of… iPads will remain three times more expensive than rivals, and still win almost all the customers.”
MacDailyNews Take: Like iPods? Like Macs? Like iPhones? Neither of which are “three times more expensive than rivals,” Mike. Comparable rivals, not junk with stripped down features, shoddy build quality, horrible user interfaces, etc. Why would you want to “get rid of” something that’s elegant and works for people? Answer: You wouldn’t if you’re thinking clearly and/or didn’t irrationally hate Apple.
Elgan continues, “The future looks grim for real competition in the fast-growing touch tablet market. An iPad killer — or even a serious competitor — is possible. But it had better happen soon — before it’s too late.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Go for it.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Zane V.” for the heads up.]
Any mention of Android? If it’s making all these inroads in the smartphone market, it stands to reason it will do it in tablets as well.
The author does indeed have a chip on his shoulder against Apple. His point is not that he dislikes the iPad, in fact, he finds it “exhilerating.” He’s just decrying the fact that nobody can or will take the care and pay the attention to detail that Apple does, but on the cheap.
I think the answer to his question is contained within the question itself.
He was probably waiting for the Slate.. wait that got canceled..
“Before it’s too late” = “Before my Microsoft stock drops to $1.79 a share.”
I’d cut Mike a bit of slack. He’s no Thurrott or Enderle. Sure, he might be over the top, but when he says “before it’s too late”, he means for competition. Apple is the finely honed machine that it is because it’s fought for every inch of turf. But Apple will not be made better by having an MS like dominace. Co
petition is good for everyone. Look at what the lack of competition in OSes saddled us with for 15 years.
“What a God-awful loser. Period.”
At least he admits Apple earned their success.
As Bill Clinton said to the Haiti SuperPower Junta, also needs to be said to the so called competitors…
“Your Time Is Up!”
-C2
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Fortunately, Apple will always need to compete with itself. This is true in a lot of ways in the tech industry.
For me, there *are* only Macs, iPhones, iPads, etc… I will buy from Apple whatever I can afford and I’m on a pretty decent upgrade cycle with them.
This June/July, I’ll probably buy my 4th iPhone. I’ll do this because the price of the 4th iPhone and the features it has makes it worth upgrading to. This has been the case with each iPhone, every year. It has nothing at all to do with Palm, Blackberry, Nokia, etc…
The author doesn’t make sense in that he says (maybe about) 2 million people have already purchased the iPad, and so therefore we need competition. But…there is no competition today for the iPad, and still it sold due to people wanting to buy it at that price. If it was too expensive, people wouldn’t be buying it.
I wonder if he would be similarly concerned if it was Microsoft, rather than Apple, that had produced the iPad?
This type of hyperbole and FUD is just something with which Apple and fans of Apple products will have to deal. Any dominant product (worthy or that dominance, or not) draws this kind of knee-jerk opposition. Apple is a big player, now, and it seems to be human nature to worship the dominant ones while simultaneously attempting to tear them down and elevate a new hero.
It is going to be VERY interesting to see what Apple will do once they have the kind of monopoly power Microsoft used to have. Apple loves its margins. I wouldn’t be surprised if prices of Apple hardware don’t drop as fast as the cost of the parts in them.
The closest they have been to a monopoly is with iPod marketshare, but iPods don’t lock anyone into anything. The iPhone and iPad are different. They are beautiful, magical and very well constructed hand cuffs that I have been as happy to put on as anyone.
What will a dominant Apple be like? We don’t know yet, but we are going to find out.
The ipad isn’t stuck with only AT&T;, so competition will likely sell little. Video-conferencing on competitors might be a draw, I’m holding off on the ipad until that feature comes. But I bet that draw won’t amount to much, and everyone knows that waiting for next year’s ipad with 4g and the radio-friendly ceramic-back will bring the reward of outstanding video-conferencing quality.
The comparison with Microsoft Office doesn’t work… because Office is software, while the iPad is hardware (d’uh).
In order to stay in business with making and selling software, like Microsoft, the end user needs to want to get the update, which in turn means that the current version has to lack features, or not completely work right. Microsoft profits when the user is slightly unhappy.
Hardware, like the iPad, does not have this problem. It ages. It breaks. At some point it will fail. To stay in business, the user would have to want the new version of the hardware. Which means that he needs to be happy with the current version.
Apple profits from happy customers. Micosoft from suffering customers.
I want to be a happy customer.
@Vermyndax – agreed. He also does not want everyone else buying one either. My guess is because the author believes that if he can’t have one, then neither should anyone else. ESPECIALLY if that means supporting Apple.
@ “@Lurker_PC” – I didn’t get the fact that the author likes the iPad. If anything, the author appears to be upset, no bothered, by the fact that Apple is the only one selling a tablet computer that people actually want.
In any case, the author is not Apple’s biggest fan.
Regards.
I understand the sentiment of the author. The last thing I want is a world where Apple dominates every market, because eventually it will have a negative impact on innovation and price.
But I’ll take a world where Apple dominates every market than any other company.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Actually, Elgan is no Apple basher. I’ve seen a few articles in the IT journals where he shows how Mac’s total cost of ownership was cheaper than windoze boxes with MSFT server. However, I have to admit that this post is illogical. I think the days of someone in the tech industry being able to do what MSFT did are gone. I also think that pundits do not realize that Apple now is a much different company than it was in 1997 before Steve Jobs returned and that Steve Jobs is a much wiser and savvy person than in 1990 (whenever it was he was pushed out by Scully). The whole tech industry is different than in the 1990’s when MSFT was able to pull off their thinly veiled monopoly.
Got my 3G iPad this week, luv it. Oh well to those other companies….
As usual, they all fail to see what ACTUALLY makes these products better than anything their rivals could possibly dream up. The underlying software. They keep making flashy machines with similar attempts at the interface, but that’s it. It’s like trying to compete with Porsche by building what they think is a great looking car with a Yugo engine in it. How do they not see this? How can ALL of these companies pay millions of dollars to designers and IT assholes who don’t ACTUALLY SEE THIS ?!! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE ?!?!?!
Read the whole article, the real fun was reading the comment section.
The Apple haters seem to hate Apple products without ever using them. As MDN would say Stockholm Syndrome.
I love my iPad, iPhone, MacPro, MacBook Pro for one reason and one reason only…. THEY ROCK!!!
From a purely “competition generates lower pricing” point of view he is absolutely correct. If there were no Android phones we would all be paying $400 an iphone WITH a two-year contract, today. Thanks to the, albeit weak, competition to the iPhone anyone can get a 3G for a reasonable price.
just my $0.02
Competition is an oversold concept here in the US. Coöperation is much more important.
Nokia used to have a really good user interface – before they started using that awful POS Symbian. None of the competitors came even close. I think they never really understood what they had.
Apple knows exactly what Apple has, and they have nurtured the development and been very consistent about it. As they have also patented a huge number of its parts, it may not be that easy for competitors to catch up – especially if they don´t understand what they are looking at.
Apple products rock because they enable us to harness an enormous computing power to its fullest – with our finger tips.
Blowhard. He probably hates the Sun because it is so reliable.
@jax44,
Yeah, the sun needs more competition to make sure it continues to produce light.
Um, Mr Elgan, I like a little maple syrup on my hyperbole, please.