“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.]
