Just last thursday, Apple announced their latest iteration of the cash-cow : iPad 3.
And if you did not know what it looks like, here it is:
Yup, it is exactly the same as iPad 2. Well, it was a bit surprising that Apple did not renew the design but oh well, the iPad 2 design was already minimalistic and it was harder to make it simpler. Also, it was harder to make it thinner given that the electronics within it are already crammed from surface-to-surface.
Never mind about the debate about on whether it was even a real update or not. My focus in this post is to bring to attention to the actual event on March 7th itself.
Basically, the launch according to me was a catastrophe.
Firstly, Tim Cook compared the apps running on the iPad to Android Tablets. Well, Apple has so far never resorted to such tactics (or at least while Steve was around). Why would they want to compare themselves with Android? They know that their OS is light years ahead of Android's in terms of user experience so by comparing it, they essentially admit that they are threatened by Android. In other words, they debased their own product.
Secondly, they went too technical in their presentation:
Stop and watch at around 27:30. They showed the formula a = 2 tan_inverse(h/2d). OH MY GAWD!
This is a sham. 90% of the people watching this probably understand the formula but who really cares? Also, they gave a window for competitors to compete with since the technicalities of how they define retina display can be quite grey. For example, Samsung can debate that their table is also retina display if you assume the average distance from eye to screen to 40 inches instead of 30 inches. You see, the value 30,40 is quite debatable when consumers look at it even if there is research that shows 30 to be the average. Fact is, consumers likely don't know about that research or the way they came up with 30. You see what I mean?
Thirdly, their promotional video (not the TV ad one):
At around 1:50, they go into quite a bit of technicality about the engineering challenge they had with retina display. Seriously guys, no one on earth understand why you need to elevate the pixels to prevent the signals to the screen from mixing up. NOT A SINGLE PERSON GETS THAT.
Well, if apple really wanted to release a video about the technical breakthrough a made (understandable as the executive staff might want to boost their engineers morale), they could just make another video explaining the technology. That would be completely fine. Why did they have to mix up both the advertising and technicalities in the same video? This way, the technicalities get so little air time and no one really understood the impact of their engineering.
It is sad to know that Steve has gone. Along with him goes the eye for perfection in every detail. Steve understood his audience well and knew how to address their "un-asked" questions.
This is a sham. 90% of the people watching this probably understand the formula but who really cares? Also, they gave a window for competitors to compete with since the technicalities of how they define retina display can be quite grey. For example, Samsung can debate that their table is also retina display if you assume the average distance from eye to screen to 40 inches instead of 30 inches. You see, the value 30,40 is quite debatable when consumers look at it even if there is research that shows 30 to be the average. Fact is, consumers likely don't know about that research or the way they came up with 30. You see what I mean?
Thirdly, their promotional video (not the TV ad one):
At around 1:50, they go into quite a bit of technicality about the engineering challenge they had with retina display. Seriously guys, no one on earth understand why you need to elevate the pixels to prevent the signals to the screen from mixing up. NOT A SINGLE PERSON GETS THAT.
Well, if apple really wanted to release a video about the technical breakthrough a made (understandable as the executive staff might want to boost their engineers morale), they could just make another video explaining the technology. That would be completely fine. Why did they have to mix up both the advertising and technicalities in the same video? This way, the technicalities get so little air time and no one really understood the impact of their engineering.
It is sad to know that Steve has gone. Along with him goes the eye for perfection in every detail. Steve understood his audience well and knew how to address their "un-asked" questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment