“I’ve seen cases already where iPads are being picked up in a variety of contexts, e.g., on the job in construction, in development for medical applications, in manufacturing operations for data collection and so forth,” Austin writes. “Why?”
“The iPad is transformational because it just simply works. It comes on in a couple of seconds,” Austin writes, “Reboots? You’re kidding, right? I am sure I will want to or have to reboot my iPad someday. That day hasn’t come yet.”
“My expectation is most executives will use instant on, highly reliable (flash based), long-life tablets like the iPad,” Austin writes, “And as prices get driven down in a few years, these things are going to as ubiquitous as simple calculators once were.”
Austin writes, “The iPad is a mortal threat to most user PCs in existence today. I’m sure Microsoft and Google can come up with their own iPad equivalents. And I hope they’re more competitive than Zune. That’s not intended as a cheap shot. Apple needs more competition, but that’s another story too.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: “Apple needs more competition” because… well, uhhh… well, just because. “Apple needs more competition” sounds good – until you think about it for more than half a second. After all, look what Apple did to the personal computer, the portable media player, the smartphone, and the tablet markets in the complete absence of any shred of credible competition whatsoever.
The fact is: Apple didn’t require any “competition” to create the Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. And, only after Apple showed each market, “No, do it like this, dummies” did the “competition” (aka: derivative knockoff artists greedily trying to profit from Apple’s innovations) arise.
Apple competes only against the best: Themselves.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Scott O.” for the heads up.]
Apple needs competition to keep prices down… Oh wait, they already are the cheapest (spec for spec). Hmmm. Guess they don’t need competition!
Why does that guy’s iPad take two seconds to turn on? Mine’s available instantly!
Apple has in the past need competition to drive down prices.
For instance the Lisa was completely out there price wise, luck for use there was competition. It came from with in the same company in the form of the Macintosh, but it was competition.
Competition? What is this competition you speak of?
Apple doesn’t need competition only because it’s constantly reinventing itself to compete with – surprise – itself.
Continuous forward-thinking is arduous alone without outside competitors. The fact that Apple sees its flaws and limitations, and then reinvents a technology to overcome those limitations, is reason alone why I’ve been buying Apple tech since 1985.
I’m not a moron really, I don’t know were the comment above came from, must be age.
If the guy wants to learn how to reboot his iPad he should use the MDN App regularly.
The perception that Apple needs competition is because of the known massive profit margins that only Apple is able to command. Any senior business executive who knows this will automatically blurt out the ‘need for competition’ mantra. This is based on the assumption that if HP, Dell, Acer and other PC makers can successfully sustain their hardware business on razor thin margins, then there’s no reason Apple couldn’t lower their margins. And the only thing that could force Apple to lower the margins is, presumably, credible competition.
These people still do NOT understand Apple’s business. The massive profit margins that Apple hardware commands allow them to pour all that money into R&D, attract and motivate the best possible talent, and produce hardware that everyone wants. Daimler Benz, BMW, Rolce-Royce/Bentley and similar command even more massive margins than Apple, but nobody would ever suggest they need competition, so that they would lower their margins (prices).
Apple’s solid profit margins are because their retail pricing is exactly right. I’m sure iPad will eventually become less expensive (much like iPod did, over the years), but that will NOT be by sacrificing margins; it will be just due to the economy of scale. And any possible competition will be irrelevant, when it comes to Apple’s pricing (and profit margins).
Someday Apple may get complacent. It is a risk that must be acknowledged by everyone and every company, perhaps especially those accustomed to consistent success. So I personally favor a bit of fair and honest competition. Apple does not have a lock on all good ideas, just most of them!
Competition forces companies toward rapid development of new technologies, functionality, and form. It also pushes prices lower. But, I have never seen any other company develop all those things at the highest possible quality while reducing their cost, all the while facing no real threats from other firms. Apple’s real competition is their own imaginations. No grubby pc-culture competition-by-copying needed here.
Yep. The MDN app is the only reason I’ve ever had to reboot my iPad! Come on guys fix your app!
Well, you want something that looks like competition because of the idiots going “Monopoly! Monopoly!”.
I know you view Apple is God here, but come on. All companies need competition. If your point is that Apple designs products with user interfaces and design generally miles ahead of the competition, I’d agree that’s largely true. But, there are plenty of instances where has borrowed or been inspired by other companies. Time and again Apple has borrowed things from Windows and improved their OS in the process (though Apple has borrowed far less over the years than MS has borrowed for Windows). Competition is a good thing.
Apple seems to be doing just fine with whatever competition (or lack thereof) they have right now. Who needs competition, anyway?
Oh, wait — *the consumers.* *They’re* the ones who benefit most from market competition.
Why am I always forgetting those guys?
Apple will not be truly challenged until a company comes forward with a fully integrated model addressing PC, operating system, portable devices with a compatible OS, digital media, web content delivery, etc. AND – led by someone with a complete commitment to quality and a long term vision (versus purely quarterly results driven). It is unlikely we will see another company with these elements any time soon.
The “typical” person strives toward mediocrity. It is popular to say that we strive for excellence, but it is easy to set back and observe the real world and see that in all aspects of our lives we are discouraged from going against the flow, the average, the mediocrity. We are all encouraged to be normal, not too bad, not too good. The smartest guy in school is never the most popular. Competition is a social tool we all use to gauge our success at conforming, at staying somewhere near the top of the bell curve.
Apple is an anomaly, they strive for excellence. Because of that, they don’t need competition (at the present time) to drive them and to measure themselves against
Any business, no matter how successful, needs competition to keep on its toes. Even Apple.
Here’s the scenario: Apple gets so far ahead in the smartphone and tablet markets that it backs off of the accelerator slightly, thinking it will take more time to make its improvements. Plus, improvements to the existing product line becomes more and more difficult as requested features are implemented and there becomes less and less significant changes which can be made aside from scrapping the current product and replacing it with something completely different.
That’s when the little startups find a new niche or develop the next Big Idea. They often can move faster than a larger company, because they are focused on one product and just a few people to review and make decisions. It also means they can crash and burn easier, but they can still make fast inroads against an established company’s products. Just like Apple has done many, many times over.
Competition is always good because it forces you to do your best. Android is actually good for Apple, because it keeps iOS development steamrolling along, new hardware constantly being designed, and creative juices flowing to figure out how to beat it.
But it’s also very nice to be in the lead by a long shot and still have the fire to dominate the market with great new products. As long as Apple keeps that philosophy, it will be fine. But we have already seen a time at Apple when great new products were not the focus, and it almost wrecked Apple.
“It comes on in a couple of seconds”
It’s funny how often I see this in iPad reviews. I have an iPad and yes, it “comes on” in a second or so, but so does my MacBook Pro. What kind of notebooks from hell are these people using that “instant on” is a feature?
You open the lid, and the notebook should be ready to go by the time you’re finished opening. When you’re done, you close the lid. It should be a *little* easier than the iPad (when used with a case/cover).
@Pedrag
“Daimler Benz, BMW, Rolce-Royce/Bentley and similar command even more massive margins than Apple…”
Uh, look again. Auto manufacturers do NOT have the margins that Apple has on Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads. It’s not even close.
Few hardware manufacturing companies have such margins. Microsoft? Software usually has a much higher margin.
Apple is doing far better than any automobile manufacturer.
An innovation parasite is not competition. It is just a PARASITE. Time is the great exterminator. They will just die off.
People will stop drinking from a well that keeps making them sick. Leave the parasites in the dark side in the stagnant well and come to the shiny Apple.
Apple needs competition?
Well, Sony has the Hardware covered in almost every category. Too bad they can’t code worth a damn.
Microsoft has the Software area covered. They make incredible software. Just watch any Windows 7 commercial if you don’t believe me. Just listen to any paid blogger who posts here. Trouble is, Microsoft can’t make hardware at all. I Zune my case, Kin you dig it?
If only Microsoft would buy out Sony. We’d have Microsony. The answer to every analyst’s dream of Apple’s competition.
Can you imagine the crapitition that shitastic combo could make.
Get me Ballmer on the blower.
Apple has plenty of competition. Google, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Acer… the list of competitors is endless. That these competitors are not surpassing Apple at this time is no reason to call for “more competitors”. It’s silly. In reality, the writer should be calling on Apple’s competitors to deliver the kind of innovation that Apple provides. Move the bar up. That’s when we all benefit. Not from making cheap, derivative knock-offs, as MDN points out.
The reason Apple is so successful, aside from the great hardware they make, it the iTunes store, pure and simple. Without it, well, I wouldn’t want to think what would happen without it.
… MDN gets it spot on. Not this time.
MDN said: “look what Apple did to the personal computer, the portable media player, the smartphone, and the tablet markets in the complete absence of any shred of credible competition whatsoever.”
Apple did not invent the PC without competition. “credible” or not.
Apple was way LATE with its Portable Media Player. Competition.
Apple was way LATE with its Cell Phone. Competition.
Apple <u>embarrassed</u> the competition with the iPad.
Apple has plenty of competition. The competition just has a hard time keeping up with Apple. The difference between Apple and the rest is that while others are consumed with specs, features, performance and stuff like that they jot down on their sales sheets like a laundry list, Apple focuses on the intangibles – like user experience, ease of use, reliability, clean layout and feel of their products in the users’ hands.
We’re always being told that Apple needs competition. When the iPod was new, we were being told by those same people that Apple’s competition were showing the way by adding FM tuners to MP3 players.
You can see for yourself how that particular piece of competition shaped all future iPods ( zero influence at all ).
The alternatives to iPods have always trailed Apple, not led. Alternatives to iPods have been so unsuccessful that if you ask most people in the street what brands of MP3 player are available, you only get one answer.