28 janvier 2010 |
So it’s the iPad, thenWell, that was… something. I just about went through all phases of grief during that one-hour keynote, starting when Steve Jobs announced that name and when, a minute later, the first official screenshot of the iPad’s home screen appeared on the web. Omigod, it’s just a giant iPod touch. Or is it? The thing is, Steve Jobs pulled the wool over our eyes from the start, when he said again that netbooks are crap, and it only became evident at the very end, when he announced the list price: the iPad is Apple’s netbook. That’s what it is and nothing else. And it’s offered at an okay price for a product you’d define as “Apple’s netbook” — the upper limit of what could be an okay price, but that in itself was to be expected. It’s not at all what I hoped for, but it’s not just a giant iPod, either — and it’s also noticeably cheaper than I expected. The special version of iWork (I so didn’t see that coming) and the starting price point are what define it as a netbook; as such, it’s not something anyone absolutely needs, but it’s something many people will want, and I’m thinking that a large enough number of those people will buy it. (Of course, unlike netbook makers, Apple will actually make a profit on those sales.) And if you take the optional 3G plan, that makes it that much more of a bargain. Unlocked device (heh, fool Steve Jobs once…), no contract, very competitive prices? Here’s hoping Apple manages to negotiate equivalent offers in the rest of the world — but if they managed to get AT&T on board, how hard can it be? (It’s kind of a bargain for a carrier to support both iPhone and iPad anyway, as there’s bound to be customer overlap and customers will end up paying twice for the same unlimited data.) Now, the ball is in Microsoft’s camp, to release the Courier or not. But I’m very afraid Redmond doesn’t have the guts. (Just as afraid as hopeful, really. I need to sell apps on the iPad, so I need to buy an iPad, so that makes the cheap part of me not so eager for Microsoft to offer a decent competitor.)
A few additional thoughts, as usual:
|
|
|
|
|
2000 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2001 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2002 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2003 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2004 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2005 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2006 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2007 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2008 • 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 |