If Gruber is right, what Apple did with the Smart Covers is really remarkable. First, they'll get an extremely high attach rate, probably north of 75% or 80%, much of which is probably pure profit. Second, it may be enough of a feature to convince some iPad 1 owners to buy an iPad 2 (and a Smart Cover). What an absolutely shrewd design that is likely to lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and profit for Apple.
Let's face it, if you buy a new tablet 11 months after your last one just because you like the new optional case better, you're just searching for ways to spend money.
Assuming we're talking about the base prices for both versions, I believe you could significantly subsidize the iPad 2 by selling your iPad. Sure, there's still extra money involved, but probably less than a quarter of the base price. It's less frivolous, and probably will be more common, than you make it sound.
Hard for me to believe that people will want to buy a used, out of warranty iPad with half the ram and half the cores of the new model for ~$100 less. In fact, the apple certified refurb with a new battery, shell and 1 year warranty is already $429.
Apple hardware tends to retain its market value better than most consumer electronics. I've always offset the cost of new Macs by selling the previous one; typically I can still get at least half of the price back on a 3-year-old machine. A low-end iPad 1 seems to be settling to a market price of around $350.
More anecdotal data: a friend of mine would surely buy my iPad 1 off me for ~$200 or so. Considering I don't want 3G and 16 GB works fine for me, that leaves it at $300.
Uh, actually, I hadn't seriously contemplated this until now. Hmm. Come to think of it, the major hurdle is probably getting this scheme past my SO. :)
I bought an iPad 1 for $499. It would be hard to sell for more than the $350 that Apple is selling refurbs for, and I can buy a new one for $499. So that means $150 to use it for 11 months which seems rather excessive.
OTOH, I could have sold it last month for at least $400, which would be a much better deal but would mean I would have no iPad for one month.
OTOOH, if I keep the iPad 1 another year, it will probably still be sellable for $250, and that is $250 for 2 years of use which is not bad.
Pretty wild that apple came up with a case that truly would be the tipping point for some (maybe even myself) iPad 1 owners to make the switch. Try pitching that in your next product concept or product marketing meeting.
My 9 year old son, who is the main ipad user, watched the video of the smart cover and was like :-O then he said "we should get the brown one." to which I was like "we're buying an ipad2?" Anyway, brown looks amazing http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/03/ipadre... and I am trying to justify buying an ipad2 for "development" purposes. Got any app ideas?
For all the shoppers who doesn't know what RAM or CPU is, the Smart Covers is probably the most important feature when deciding what tablet to buy: A feature that the competition cannot match at all and which is overlooked by all of the "feature list" comparisons.
As the new cover is only protecting the screen, wouldn't that lead to the back of the device to acquire the scratches usually associated with apple devices?
This might lower the resale value of the device which could be another reason for the design that Apple has chosen here.
Doesn't anyone like patina anymore? A scratched up aluminium back looks good as time goes on. Same with your leather briefcase as it wears in, or your cars seats.
The iPad V1's back was very resilient to scratching. Not sure if the same is true of the V2. Ultimately any mobile device is going to get some dings. That's just how it goes.
Apple said they built the smart cover and the iPad 2 at the same time, so there is hardware in the iPad 2 that is required for the cover to work. Primarily, the magnets needed to have the cover attach.
This is exactly what happens when you control the ins and out from start to finish. You can come up with the craziest of the ideas and innovation and pull it off without a lot of resistance since some manufacture cannot make it for you!
InCase already did that, prior to the iPad2 announcement (just so you don't believe InCase stole Apple's idea). Rather it looks like Apple took InCases's idea and improved on it. Although in some ways, the InCase version seems better (using the strap to hold the iPad would be useful for a lot of work scenarios).
I wonder if there are actually magnets inside the iPad, or just bits of metal the case magnets stick too?
It there _are_ magnets, I can see it getting annoying when the iPad starts collecting magnet-attracted crap.
This is a problem with magnetic tank bags on motorcycles, they pick up presumably iron/steel grit on the magnets, then you clip the magnets+grit onto your nicely glossy painted fuel tank, and scratch the crap out of it...
Why can't you use adhesive magnetic strips/tape on the outside of the iPad 1? Sure, it may be slightly unsightly, but it should be completely workable. Heck, the strip doesn't even have to be magnetic, it can be paramagnetic or such and just channel field between magnets on the cover hinge.
The downvotes you've gotten aren't fair but it's worth pointing out:
It's this kind of thinking (on the part of their competition) that lets Apple keep their head start for way, way longer than necessary.
The short answer: Because what you're proposing would be terrible.
Apple's money magnet is creating a sense of delight and surprise. You'd be mimicking the result, a snap on cover, without grasping the intent, which is to make you feel like a kid seeing magic. People don't want a cover. They want to be delighted by a cover.
At least, they do now, since Apple has shown them it is possible to feel this way.
Yay! Throw the iPad 1 in the trash for the iPad 2! Because the cover is blinged out with a magnet! On. the. inside! MAGNETS ARE MAGIC! Watch the magician make your money disappear into his pocket! Waste! Waste! Waste! This country is doomed.
It just won't be the same. You can't make the iPad1 switch on / off automatically and there's no magnetic spots on the side where a cover can magically attach like on the iPad2.
cheap plastic and it looks like opening a tin can. i bet the whole thing dissolves after a year of usage. why didnt they build the ipad more in the way like the microsoft courier? this would be something that i would buy right away. it reminds me a little bit about the first ibook, this was looking like a girls' make-up case. sometimes apple's design is borderline.
For me, I think what makes the smart covers ugly is seeing the sections of the cover divided up by the folding joints, not to mention the combination of colors and materials, except maybe the black leather, don't seem to lend itself well to the iPad's fantastic, slab look. I do still think the smart covers are insanely clever and useful though, and definitely worth the cost.
Enough to make me wish my wife's birthday wasn't in January, so that I wouldn't have bought her the original iPad before this was available.
I guess I'm in the minority, but I still have a hard time taking an iPad and getting the function I want out of a tablet. At this time and for me, it is still more or less an extra toy that I can overlook.
However, I understand how well it fits the bill for casual consumption, and considering how Apple is effectively building a robust platform for content delivery. It seems that an iPad in every house would pay dividends for years to come.
My iPad is totally a toy; it is almost entirely unused unless I have a long flight to take, or I want to watch a movie in bed - in which case I'll probably still use a laptop owing to the PITA getting content on the iPad over the air is, and its limited repertoire of format support.
StreamToMe and AirVideo both convert and stream basically anything. (As far as I know, StreamToMe uses ffmpeg internally to make the conversion on the fly.)
I don't even bother with syncing video content anymore.
Unless I am watching a movie with the kids, I now prefer my iPad 1 to my TV for watching video at home. Curling up with an episode of "The Prisoner" or even "The Empire Strikes Back feels like curling up with a book, and I can watch anything on my network serve without all that synchronization nonsense.
Synchronizing movies is SneakerNet by another name. It may make sense for an airplane flight or a long subway ride, but why on Earth would anyone ever want to do it at home?
that casual consumption argument is getting old. no, the ipad is not useful for techie tasks like writing code.
but.
it rocks as a business device. if you sit in meetings a lot, needing to walk from room to room, it is awesome. take notes, do e-mail, run presentations. access web based enterprise software like salesforce.com.
field force personnel? they love it. no more charging, no more boot time, it just works and doesn't weigh them down. big pharma as an example is moving heavily onto the ipad. companies like veeva or cegedim offer dedicated ipad apps by now.
I think the world is moving towards micropayments. Not 10 cents an article, that's too low to overcome psychological barriers at the moment, but a few dollars for an app or a tune, or maybe a short subscription.
Hardware sales will still be important (a $1100 computer with 30% margins every 3 years brings in $100 a year), but it won't be long before the content is making more than the hardware.
I think at the moment the amount you have to pay for music through iTunes or Amazon's MP3 download service isn't attractive enough to the average users. In the long term as publishers warm to the idea of selling their music digitally these prices will drop—in the short term though, services like Pandora and Spotify will be far more popular.
I have long found the rave about smart covers a bit ridiculous considering what a very minor addition they are, but this description is just funny to me:
"Just get the hinge vaguely in the vicinity of the left edge of the iPad and it acts like a robot that knows how to (and wants to) connect itself."
Has the guy that wrote this never seen a magnet before or what?
If you're someone seriously considering upgrading a device you paid upwards of $500 for less than a year ago ... because of a new CASE... sit down, get a large mirror and take a good long hard look at yourself.
I think you're trying to make a joke about how the iPad 2 isn't any better than the first but it doesn't make sense. Any village idiot could tell you the iPad 2 is better than the original. There's not a single feature that got worse.
So then the operative part is was it radical or significant? Well, Gruber's whole point is that Apple launches radical products and then slowly improves them. He even concedes that it's probably not worth upgrading for many people:
Most of the 15 million original iPads sold to date do not need to be replaced by iPad 2s. That’s not a problem for Apple, nor a failure for the iPad 2. A $500-800 device should have a useful life that is longer than a year.
So what exactly are you trying to say?
I think this kind of analysis of Apple's process is far more interesting than the resultant products.
You got me wrong. I wasn't trying to make joke out of it. I was just admiring his writing style.
On a side note, I have never used an iPad and probably never will.
I see; I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt then. It's so hard to get tone with online comments.
FWIW, I think the idea of it not being a departure is significant. He's saying that they are sticking to the core themes that motivated the iPad. Sure, it's getting improved, but he's saying they got the kernel right.
Look at the Apple TV by comparison. There was a significant departure from the approach of the first version to the current version. You can very easily make the argument that the main theme/motivation of the Apple TV still hasn't quite gelled. The fact that Apple doesn't put their full weight behind pushing it means they probably know they haven't gotten it nailed down quite yet. … and getting it nailed down is a business problem more than a technical one.
I'm on the every other device plan. Technology doesn't change enough every year to justify the upgrade. Every other Apple upgrade is good, and it works out that I'm staggering the iPhone and iPad. This year the 3GS gets traded in for the 5. Next year the iPad 3.
I took that sentence as meaning that the iPad 2 as a whole isn't a redesign, and that the user-visible changes were only to things that needed changing: speed, weight, thickness and cases, and not much else.
The first thing when I thought when seeing the Smart Covers was "this looks familiar." And then I remembered an article I read a few days prior on Apple's tablet computer history (http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-com...) If you look starting at the 'Second Figaro Competition 1990' you will see various prototypes that have a very similar looking cover. I always find it interesting when you can see decades old influences for products.
With new superior models coming every year, time for Apple to do some innovation in the business-model (well, in addition to the app-ecosystem they created) and move to a subscription-based model :)
One pays few grands (say $2k) every year to upgrade i/pod/phone/pad to the latest version.
(well, they have recycling program with 90% depreciation!!)
You may remember that Microsoft wanted to move to an annual subscription model for Windows. I distinctly remember Balmer rubbing his hands together and cackling with glee about how they were going to make much more money that way (as he pushed another couple of nosy kids into the oven of his gingerbread house).
As it turned out, this made an enormous amount of people unhappy. I think they abandoned it.
Apple does have an annual subscription service, MobileMe (or whatever they are calling it this week). As far as I can tell it has had a very low rate of adoption, despite coming free (for a limited time) with new Macs. Heck, I have a hard enough time convincing random (Mac using) strangers to buy a damn external drive and turn on Time Machine. Don't underestimate user inertia.
Best Buy is kind of doing this with their "buy back" program. If Apple continues becoming more and more predictable in terms of product release dates and pricing, I could almost see a startup doing this on their own. You buy Apple upgrade insurance, and they guarantee that you can trade in your current product for a new one as soon as the new product is released.
The only problem is that there's way to much risk to do this unless you are Apple or have a direct relationship with Apple. Then again, maybe the float would cover the risk.
I don't think that would work, because it would be too expensive. People would balk. However what might kill, would be a subscription discount program a la Amazon Prime. Pay $99 a year for 10% off all purchases + other bonuses.
I'd call it
"Apple Fan Appreciation Program." Maybe they could introduce it via MobileMe.
Hold on. Gruber says that videos from the iTunes Store require less CPU to decode. It strikes me that that must be patently untrue. If anything, the DRM should require the decoder to work harder.
Can someone explain by what metric this might be true, and why?
It's possible that the iPad GPU doesn't support all the operations Handbrake encodes and has to have the CPU decode them (resulting in higher CPU and increased power usage), whereas the media in the iTunes Store might have been encoded with only the operations supported by the GPU. This is just a theory, however it's certainly plausible.
Encoding video is a complex process and the professionals who prepare movies for the iTunes store have better algorithms and will tweak options for better, smoother playback.
I'm not sure about the DRM, but algorithmically it's probably a lot simpler than h.264 video.
The DRM doesn't make the decode harder. The files used less CPU/GPU power because they weren't as well compressed.
They probably weren't as well compressed because they're intended to work on the older iDevices too which couldn't handle something tuned specifically for the iPad or, even more so, the iPad2.
Sometimes Apple will release a new version of a product and disappointment will follow. People will always point out some improvements, as there always will be, but sometimes there are just less changes than what people were expecting.
I think it's safe to say that the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 (the last big two releases for Apple) have been significant upgrades. Gruber agrees and so do many other analysts. Instead of feeling disappointed, I felt pleasantly surprised after the announcement - a feeling that I'm sure many other people shared.
Apple's money generating machine is on a roll for sure. There's absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't have included most of those features in the initial iPad. I agree that the smart cover is completely genius (especially as a marketing scheme - and why doesn't anyone talk about protecting the rest of the iPad now? Somehow the screen is all of a sudden the only important thing?)
None of the new stuff is new technology. They're amazing at selling something that's good enough for a lot of uses and leaving a lot of space for improvement in the very near future. If they would've included cameras and the accelerometer in version 1, and perhaps made it a bit thinner, version 2 would've been significantly less interesting.
> None of the new stuff is new technology. They're amazing at selling something that's good enough for a lot of uses and leaving a lot of space for improvement in the very near future. If they would've included cameras and the accelerometer in version 1, and perhaps made it a bit thinner, version 2 would've been significantly less interesting.
Really?
I assume that you look back on every product's new version and say, "none of this is new tech, they could have shipped it in the last version!"
In almost every case, subsequent versions are driven directly by previous versions; nothing revolutionary happens. Was the dual core A5 ready for the first iPad? Was unibody aluminum manufacturing ready for the form factor and volume of iPad? Were the cameras sourced cheaply enough for the first iPad? What about 512MB RAM? Could all of this have been done in time for the first iPad? You have none of those answers, and I bet that most of them are "no."
Then you have something like the Smart Covers. Those are derived directly from watching what happened with the first iPad. No great cases came out, and people wanted to protect the screen. You ask, "Somehow the screen is all of a sudden the only important thing?" Well, yes, for many people. Myself included. I refuse to use any case, because most prevent easy docking, add bulk and are a pain. But every time I travel with my iPad, I am careful to stick it in a bag such that the screen is protected.
There's absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't have included most of those features in the initial iPad.
You know, that 's exactly what everyone says about software, which is why it's nearly always late and buggy. The temptation to add "just one more thing" absolutely kills products.
Please believe me when I tell you, Apple's magic is leaving stuff out. Not because they can make more money later, but because they are smart enough to ship a great product that works properly NOW rather than trying for a perfect product that is late and buggy later.
Not true. The reason ipad one hit the $499 price point (estimates were 800-1000 at the time) was because it left out extra expenses in order to preserve profit margin. One year goes by, things get cheaper, Steve throws a few bones, rinse and repeat next year.
on't forget that apart from the four people who used a Microsoft tablet, this is a new product category and most people are nervous around new technology. Less is more on that front, as they make users comfortable with the concepts in use.
The discussion of whether you should upgrade from iPad 1 to 2 just seems absurd to me. It's the epitome of a first world problem. I like my gadgets just as much as the next guy, but buying things you already have simply because they're slightly faster and slightly thinner is ridiculous.
What's more ridiculous is that they changed everything that doesn't matter. Nobody complained about the thickness, the speed or the covers. What we really wanted is an optimized-for-tablet OS experience. You know not having to quit our app, find settings, go to general to finally activate Bluetooth, or having to struggle without tabs on the web browser. The worst part is people wont even see that, they're all brainwash to Big Brother apple.
"The cameras are severely lacking, the screen -- while extremely high quality -- is touting last year's spec, and its operating system still has significant annoyances, like the aggravating pop-up notifications"
-iPad 2 Review (Engadget)
At it's price point, the iPad 2 is almost impossible to beat. I'm not even sure why other tablet makers try, at least in this size range.
Apple doesn't, as of yet, make a smaller tablet, and that's where the competitors should focus. Like a B&N Android Nook 7" tablet for $199, wifi only - and this is probably totally feasible on their part.
But if you are trying to compete with 10" devices against the iPad, forget it.
> Every once in a while, Apple releases something brand-new. […] These original releases tend to be minimal technically, but radical conceptually. Then, generally on an annual schedule, Apple improves them iteratively and steadily over time.
Meaning, any new Apple product is designed be obsolete within a year. That doesn't feel right.
Still. If a friend of yours buy the new IPad, yours will feel obsolete, compelling you to update far sooner than necessary. You may resist the temptation, but many won't. And you can't patch hardware (especially not Apple's).
This is a Planned Obsolescence™ scheme. Not as bad as time-limited light bulbs, but still.
The analogy isn't perfect, but you could say this about any product that gets iteratively improved annually, like cars. Just because there is a new model that is intentionally better than last year's model doesn't mean it is a planned obsolescence scheme. Particularly in the technology world, almost all companies are hoping to have an improved product every year... it doesn't mean they are willfully manipulating you.
Your reasoning is sound. But a host of evidence strongly suggest they do manipulate you.
There's doing better this year (lessons learned etc), and doing less than optimal now so you can do better next year. If I recall correctly, Apple did that once with the IPhone: the case had room for a camera that wasn't there in this year's model.
On a different note, there is better and there is different. The design of cars, for instance, changes much faster than the underlying mechanics (engine, safety…) improve. As far as I can tell, Apple isn't too guilty of this. Their design though exquisitely shiny, is relatively stable.
There's also the timing of product: most goods now are designed not to last (designers actually learn at school how important this is for their future customers). The most famous example is light bulbs. They only last 1500 to 2000 hours because the biggest vendors at the time colluded to limit their lifetimes. They got sued, but since, despite numerous patents for long-lasting light bulbs, you don't find any for sale. Apple used this strategy once with irreplaceable IPods' batteries. They eventually backed off because a consumer union sued them.
Going back to the IPad, if Apple really cared about making the best product possible, they would have made the processor replaceable, and the memory extend-able, so that when they inevitably improve, customer can replace them at lower cost (both in money and in resources).
Now, I'm not willing to blame Evil Corp™ right away: they just maximize profit. So, I'd rather ask what in our society generates such profit maximizers.
I was mostly with you until the part about the 'best [iPad] possible'. Making every part in a device like the iPad replaceable would not make a very nice product at all. Ever used an off-the-shelf Dell? You can upgrade it forever, but it's rickety junk.
Besides, even if they do purposefully hold off on stuff that would make it better only to manipulate us and profit (which I doubt[a]), it still doesn't make your first-gen iPad useless. It works great still!
[a]: To take the example of the camera, they probably weren't able to make it a good experience. The software was still buggy, or they were waiting for more readily available parts (supply chain is a big deal!), etc.
In short, they aren't bricking original iPad's, so there's no reason to get upset about a new one. You can simply hold onto yours. If you can't because of peer-pressure or you require the newest status symbol, that's not Apple's problem -- Indeed they would be stupid not to capitalize on that.
> Making every part in a device like the iPad replaceable would not make a very nice product at all.
Why not? What is wrong with sockets? Or plugs? Or screws? How would they make the IPad significantly thicker, heavier, more fragile, less powerful, or clunkier? It would at worst make it 10% more expensive. But that would waste so much less resources when it's time to upgrade, or when one piece is broken. Oh wait, it wouldn't be as profitable, so let's pretend it just sucks and forget about it.
[a]: Good example, actually. They could either have put the camera anyway, knowing the software could be patched later, or just wait until it's ready, or make it possible to add the camera later (maybe requiring an approved specialist to solder it on). They just preferred the more lucrative path. Like nearly everyone else in this planet. I can hardly blame them personally for that, because:
> Indeed they would be stupid not to capitalize on that.
From a selfish point of view, I agree: companies would be silly not to do everything in their power to maximize profit. Even taking advantage of human weaknesses, or waste resources, or dumping trash in the wild, or <insert lots of horrible things here>.
I just say that something is wrong with such a system.
I want Gruber to, just once, say something bad about Apple without immediately giving 10 reasons why the poor move was actually brilliant. He's a good writer, but I mean, come on.
To me it seems like apple is implementing not only a tax on all apps that run on the device, which has been there from the start and is ok. As a customer I like the fact that the apps are centralized and under quality and security control.
But the new move seems to be a tax on ALL MEDIA played on or loaded on the device. I don't want apple to control the data I load on my device, and this is what they're doing.
That is only one controversial App Store issue in which Gruber has sided with Apple. Even then he did have some criticism of it: "I concur that worst aspect of these new subscription policies is that something that used to be allowed now is not. It has a bait-and-switch feel to it."
Assuming you actually are John Gruber, welcome to the discussion. I was wondering if you would ever sign up for an account and respond to comments here.
Hardly a new account, though it is his first comment.
I don't think it's him, though; I imagine the real Gruber would have tried to take http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gruber (which is still available), so as to match his Twitter username.
I think right now Apple (and Google) can polarize individuals. I can love each one minute and hate each the next -- they're both capable of delighting and infuriating in equal measure, even within a single product. (Love Chrome, hate the anti-h264 move. Love iOS, hate the App Store approval process and the kludgy mess of certificates.)
What's wrong with anti-h.264? Firefox was never going to support it, nor was Opera, so as a web developer you would have had to implement something else anyway, likely flash. Now you implement WebM instead of h.264, and you still have to implement flash because 20% of the people out there are still using ie6 and 7/8 aren't a whole lot better on this front.
Basically, you're replacing a closed codec with an open one. MS and Apple will put WebM in IE and Safari if there's sufficient adoption, as it doesn't cost them anything to do so.
You may not care about open codecs that aren't laden with patents, but I can't see how this makes things worse. All of the kvetching about this move extending Flash's lifetime is pointless given the fact it wasn't going anywhere anyway.
More importantly: polarization tends to fuel good discussion. The Gruber pieces that tend to get picked up here involve big Apple stories: new hardware, OS X, and developer policies. And on those, everyone has an opinion.
