Hasta La Gadget!

Apple is one of the few companies in the technology industry that isn’t viewed the same by the majority of consumers. There are some that view Apple as the greatest company in the world, delivering products and services that no other company can match. To those folks, Apple, and its late co-founder Steve Jobs, are worthy of the highest praise. To other folks, however, Apple is despised.

Those people view Apple as a monolithic bad guy that looks out only for its own interests and couldn’t care less about the average consumer. What’s worse, they say, Apple does whatever it can to hurt competitors to the detriment not only of those companies and their employees, but also consumers.

That argument has always fascinated me. In fact, I’ve always been shocked by the blanket statement that seems to indicate that as soon as Apple enters a market, it kills off any and all competitors. And on the off chance it leaves some scraps for other companies to pick up, they’re forced to beg Apple for whatever is there.

“The only market Apple ever actually dominated was the music player”

But perhaps those critics give Apple too much credit. Sure, Apple is the world’s largest technology company and generates billions of dollars each quarter, but I’d be interested to see folks pluck out too many markets where it has outright killed competitors. From where I sit, the only market that Apple has ever actually dominated to the degree with which its critics say it has is the music-player space. Apple’s iPod was pretty much the product to own.

But elsewhere, I just don’t see what the critics claim is happening. Apple’s iPhone is wildly popular in the smartphone market, but Samsung is now shipping more smartphones than Apple. And together, the companies combine to score over 100 percent of the mobile market’s profits.

Before Apple joined the smartphone market, Samsung had no such luck in that space. Companies like Nokia and Research In Motion dominated the smartphone market in 2007. Today, while those companies have gone by the wayside, others, like Samsung, have taken their spot.

In the tablet space, Apple’s iPad owns about 50 percent of the market, according to IDC, but its market share is on the decline. Meanwhile, companies like Samsung and Google continue to see their shares rise. If Apple is really a competitor killer, how can that happen?

Even in the computer space where Macs are now among the most popular products customers buy, we see the overall market continue to expand. Apple’s success, in other words, has not necessarily hurt the overall state of the industry.

So, is all of the Apple hatred really overblown? Perhaps Apple isn’t the mean, brooding company that everyone thinks. Perhaps Apple is actually helping competitors. After all, Apple brings more customers into markets and in some way that helps every single company competing in that space.

Say what you will about Apple’s other corporate practices, but to say that it’s actually hurting competitors might be a bit of a longshot. In reality, Apple might just be helping them.

Does Apple Actually Help Competitors? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

I’ve been a gaming fan my entire life. From the old days of arcades on through to today’s iPhone gaming, I’ve found a way to incorporate video games into my life. Without them, I don’t think I’d feel as entertained as I am right now.

A key component in my video game love over the years has been consoles. From the Nintendo Entertainment System through the Sega Genesis and countless devices that came after, consoles have been the cornerstone of my gaming experience.

[Image credit: jammagames]

For a long time, I believed that consoles were important, necessary elements in gaming. Without them, I reasoned, the gaming business just wouldn’t be the same.

But now I feel differently. Consoles might still be delivering some of the best gaming experiences out there, but I’m just fine with the prospect of them dying off. It’s a grand new world, and I’m not so sure that consoles are as important to capitalizing on that as they were in the past.

I first came to that realization recently, after a report surfaced claiming cable companies are considering launching a digital-delivery video game distribution model that will allow us to play titles without any additional hardware. The controller would either come from the cable companies.

That story made me realize just how unnecessary consoles have become. Sure, they facilitate gaming, but over time, they’re going to become less and less important. After all, with Web speeds increasing and cloud-based delivery gaining a footing, there appears to be a growing chance of consoles losing their importance in the gaming industry.

Of course, we should couch that by saying that the chances of consoles dying anytime soon are slim. For now, we still need hardware to produce outstanding visuals, and with major companies like Microsoft and Sony dominating that space, it seems difficult to fathom the possibility of either company allowing the console market to slip away.

“The Web is our new platform”

However, I do think it’s time we start accepting the reality that eventually, consoles will die. The technology industry is slowly but surely moving towards a model in which we don’t have unnecessary hardware connected to our televisions. The Web is our new platform, and over time, we’ll expect more streaming and cloud-based delivery than we do right now.

Already we’re seeing consumers opt for services that reduce their reliance upon hardware for movies and music. And if history is to be our guide, the video game industry typically follows close behind.

The big question now, though, is when the gaming industry might finally reach a place where consoles are no longer necessary. Current Web speeds are nowhere near where they must be in order to accommodate a Web-only solution. And there is still the issue of storage and the costs associated with that.

But the time is coming. It must. Consoles are great when they launch, but keep us locked in the past after several years. With consoles pushed out of the way, developers won’t be held back by hardware requirements and could enhance the state of gameplay far more rapidly than they are right now.

It might take a decade or more, but I, for one, can’t wait to see consoles go the way of the Dodo.

Why I’m OK with the Death of Consoles is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

It’s a big storm, moving slowly. A gigantic span of ferocious swirl meets a front of chilly resistance. The effect of that collision is amplified by powerful tidal influence. Upheavals and surges swamp the landscape. Many people are displaced; countless others stay with the familiar.

Also, in the real world, some nasty weather is happening. But I’m talking about the tech industry of the last five business days, which has aligned and concentrated its forces in a crystal-clear demonstration, if one were needed, that mobile is where the bets are placed and futures will be won and lost.

Apple is at the eye of the storm, where its devoted legions expect it, but no longer as a pioneer. Defending its territory rather than breaking new ground, the post-Jobs company did something its late and fabled leader scorned, split hairs to justify it, engaged in implicit combat with four competitors, ticked off some of its best customers and was squeezed by inexorable pressure of a quickly evolving industry.

Continue reading Editorial: Apple vs. everyone

Filed under: Tablets, Apple, Google

Editorial: Apple vs. everyone originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:30:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

I um’d and ah’d and hovered over the purchase button for a day or two, but eventually I clicked: I preordered Microsoft’s Surface. Jumping onto new hardware always makes you consider exactly how you’re going to integrate it into your life, but my intentions this time around were pretty clear. I liked the cut of Microsoft’s jib: that its new version of Windows (and the flagship hardware to run it on) was made not only for sitting back and browsing through content, but for actual, proper content creation. I had visions of leaving my MacBook Pro at home and slipping a slender Surface into my bag instead. And then, with shipping just around the corner, I cancelled the order.

I’m not against impulse purchases, or extraneous hardware. As long as you can afford it, I’m not going to judge you for having a coffee table full of tablets, even though most people only really need one (and that’s if they can ever be said to “need” one at all). My cupboards are a morgue of expired tablets and other geek detritus, acquired over years of “yes, I’ll definitely need one of those” and “oh, what a bargain, I’ll jump on that”; HP’s TouchPad rubs shoulders with an old Samsung UMPC, itself snuggled close to the tiny body of a Fujitsu LifeBook convertible with its dinky little resistive touchscreen. They’re not alone in there.

“Space is at a premium in my bag”

Space, though, is increasingly at a premium in my tiny London flat, and even more limited in my bag. I’ve an iPad and a Nexus 7 that each get regular use at home, but they never come out with me; I won’t spare the weight, especially if I’m also carrying a DSLR. So, on that level, Surface appealed because it could potentially replace, not add to, what I was carrying.

Surface does have some advantages over rival tablets. The integration of keyboard and tablet – while still remaining low profile – and the obvious consideration Microsoft’s designers have given to how the two parts coexist are particularly distinctive, and as someone who does plenty of typing every day that’s an appealing factor versus typing on glass. The USB port meant I could potentially plug in a CompactFlash reader and pull photos off my Canon, too.

For me to consider truly carrying around a tablet – and for it to replace, say, my current MacBook Pro – though, I’d need to be able to actually work on it. Office is all well and good, but like many these days I live my work life in the browser. If a tablet is going to be my sole travel machine, rather than a nice-but-not-essential accessory, then it has to do the essentials my Mac can do.

I’m not just talking about writing – heck, I’ve written full editorials in Evernote on a smartphone before now – but actually formatting and publishing articles, complete with images (cropped, resized, tweaked, and watermarked if necessary), tags, and everything else. It’s those requirements that have undermined the iPad so far – little things like Flash-based image uploaders, for instance – and, while Surface looked like it stood a better chance of satisfying my needs, it’s clear from our Surface RT review that it’s not quite there.

Microsoft wants us to think differently about Surface than we do about iPad, and other slates. It’s both a tablet and a PC, we’re told; that’s great, but then it has to deliver on both of those elements. The saving grace is Surface Pro, running full Windows 8 and tweaking some of the other blips that were concerning me about the RT model: Full HD resolution (even with ClearType, I wasn’t convinced by the first version’s 1,366 x 768) and a digital pen. I’m a big believer in the value of the stylus, no matter how much Apple and others have told us it’s passé.

“I’m not the only one yet to be persuaded”

I’m apparently not the only one yet to be persuaded. We’ve been running a poll since Surface pricing was announced, and – of the near 11,000 responses when I write this – the numbers of those definitely intending to buy a Surface (either the cheapest or one with a Touch Cover) and those planning to wait for Surface Pro are equally split. Around 13-percent said they’d be waiting on the first reviews to come in before making a buying decision; I’d be very interested to hear from those people in the comments, as to whether real-world reports on Surface and Windows RT convinced them of its worth.

So, I’ll be revisiting Surface as my potential next tablet in early 2013, when the Pro model arrives. It’s undoubtedly going to be more expensive, however, and if the battery life can’t compete with my current Mac, then it may have simply moved the hurdles to elsewhere in the value proposition. Finding the right machine for your needs is always complicated, and I’ve a feeling early adopters who’ve jumped on Surface may also find themselves wondering whether Microsoft’s tablet/notebook hybrid strategy best suits their needs as well.

I cancelled my Microsoft Surface order is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Apple’s iPad Mini is right around the corner, and as expected, just about everyone is talking about the tablet. What’s more, the device isn’t even on store shelves, but a host of people are saying that they plan to buy the tablet. It’s a fascinating thing. And it speaks to Apple’s ability to attract customers.

But for all of the other people on the fence about the iPad Mini, trying to decide whether to buy the tablet isn’t so simple. Those folks want to see what kind of features the tablet will come with before they make a decision. And chief among those elements in decision-making is the price.

And price is precisely the feature I want to dig into.

For years now, Apple has been offering products that are substantially more expensive than those that its competitors sell. But the iPad Mini is different. The tablet is cheaper than the high-end iPad and other top-of-the-line products. Price is now more of a consideration for Apple. Before, it knew it could offer its tablet at whatever price it’s wanted and moved on. Now, though, it has to find the proper balance.

So, what might that proper balance be? Furthermore, at what price does the iPad Mini become an absolute must-have?

It’s tough to say. But value comes down to price and features. And if the rumors are true, Apple’s tablet will come with a host of features that customers will like, including a 7.85-inch display and solid design. So, from a features perspective, it’ll be hard for customers to put the device down.

But will $400 strike the right value balance to make customers want to buy the top-of-the-line iPad Mini without thinking twice? Some might say yes, since the device is still notably cheaper than its bigger counterpart. However, it’s worth noting that $400 is far more expensive than the Nexus 7, which starts at $199.

So, perhaps the best iPad Mini version would be better at $350. If Apple delivers on the rumors, the company’s product will be much better than those from other vendors. And at just $100 over the Nexus 7’s best model, it seems like prime real estate for Apple.

“There is no chance that Apple will offer its best iPad mini for less than $350”

Chances are, there is no chance that Apple will offer its best iPad Mini for less than $350. As history has shown, Apple likes to price its products higher and make the point that it believes customers will need to pay a premium for the right to have its products.

The question is, will $350 for the top iPad Mini be the right price point for consumers to want to jump at buying the device?

Remember: the iPad Mini is a complement to what’s out there now. If the rumors are true, the iPad Mini will not be able to compete with the better tablets on store shelves. So, Apple will have to deliver something awfully special to make its iPad Mini a worthwhile choice for everyone – current iPad owners and new entrants to the tablet space.

As for me? I’m not sure at what price the iPad Mini would be a must-buy. But I can say for sure there’s one for everyone. And that’s probably why the iPad Mini will come in so many different configurations.

Once again, Apple might just find a way to make the iPad Mini a must-have for everyone.

SlashGear is liveblogging the whole Apple event today – join us at 10AM PT (1PM ET) at live.slashgear.com for all the news!

At What Price Is the iPad Mini A Must-Have? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.