Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, November 13, 2011

CNN: Tablet computers are a game-changer in professional sports

With 11 million iPads recently sold, according to Apple’s financial report, app developers are scrambling to get the attention of young professional athletes who are accustomed to Apple products.

One of those developers, Bloomberg Sports, decided to give iPads to professional baseball players so they could review its newly developed app, “Pitch Review,” created exclusively for professional baseball players.

“We didn’t have to,” said Bill Squadron with Bloomberg Sports. “Because every player had an iPad.”

The front office management of 19 out of 30 baseball clubs have adopted apps like Pitch Review, which features statistics, averages and video clips that can be customized.

The National Hockey League is also utilizing mobile technology, allowing its live games to be broadcast through paid subscriptions to NHL GameCenter Live on mobile devices including tablets.

But not everyone in professional sports has immediately embraced the technology.

“Our dinosaurs have been our coaches,” said Dominik. “(They) are older and used to the more traditional way of doing things.”

Brad Pitt: Adapt or Die.

Tripon Posted: November 13, 2011 at 06:16 PM | 97 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business, fantasy baseball, media, rumors, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. LionoftheSenate Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:37 AM (#3992726)
The NFL will probably reject this approach since it is simply not how things have been done. Too different.
   2. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:43 AM (#3992727)
Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- In the halls of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers practice facility, players can be seen carrying iPads everywhere they go.

They're not goofing off or taking a break, it's part of their weekly football practice.

The Bucs are one of two NFL teams, along with the Baltimore Ravens, that have purchased iPads for their players and coaches to use instead of the standard playbook. Baseball and hockey leagues have also taken notice of the advantages of mobile technology.

Bucs players no longer need to haul paper-filled binders and stacks of DVDs from practice to home in order to continually prepare for game day.

While there are still NFL restrictions on how computer tablets can be used, these devices are slowly starting to change the way professional teams operate, offering high-quality video and Internet connectivity almost anywhere.

Just before this season, the Bucs moved the team's playbook , a huge three-ring binder, into a custom app on the tablet. It plays NFL films used to study upcoming opponents, says general manager Mark Dominik.

"It was a smashing success for our players. They loved it," he said.


Get off your high horse.
   3. Monty Posted: November 14, 2011 at 12:46 AM (#3992729)
I think it's funny that this article showed up on the same day as Shaughnessy's revelation that Terry Francona had a computer on his desk. A computer!
   4. Meramec Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:01 AM (#3992809)
I still don't get tablets. They are laptops with reduced functionality, except for the very few programs where a touch screen interface is useful. I imagine that market is growing, but I still don't see how these apps are revolutionary as if they couldn't have the exact same thing on a normal laptop.

I mean, can you not play game film or store a playbook on a Thinkpad?

Also, if ipads are revolutionary, then how about social media? We get Twitter accounts from Freese about the new Cardinals manager just minutes after the hire is announced. Will the baseball historians of 2075 have access to these missives? There is a whole world there that has never before been able to be recorded.
   5. Honkie Kong Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:09 AM (#3992813)
Am surprised this is so slow to catch up in American sports. Cricketers have been using a modified version of tablets to review their game, and the opposition for a while.

I still don't get tablets. They are laptops with reduced functionality
Thats the key. Mobility. Its a cross between a smart phone and a full blown laptop. And more and more apps are touch screen based, giving a more intuitive feel to working.
   6. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:42 AM (#3992826)
Tablets are convenient and relatively dummy-proof. They don't take a long time to power up, they're small, they're light, you can use them standing up or lying down. They make it very easy and relatively cheap to acquire, install (and remove) software. I don't have one, but I bought one for my parents and they love it.
   7. Greg Pope Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:52 AM (#3992827)
Thats the key. Mobility. Its a cross between a smart phone and a full blown laptop.

I have a laptop and I won't get rid of it any time soon because of work. I also have an iPad. The only thing that the iPad really has going for it over the laptop is that it's always on. If I want to browse the web over the WiFi at McDonald's, I can start on the tablet in 2 seconds. The laptop takes minutes to boot up.

Manufacturers spent a ton of time creating tablets that were Windows laptops made into a smaller, touch screen form factor. But the processor, power, etc. requirements are just too great, so none of them really worked. Taking the iPod Touch interface and blowing it up was a genius idea.

However, I can put my phone on my belt in a clip or in my pocket. My wife can put her phone in her purse. If you're going to have a tablet, for mobility, you still have to carry it around. Which means a backpack or something. I'm not sure how this is going to be resolved.

EDIT: Post 6 wasn't there when I started. It makes good points about ease of use and ease of installing software. And also about the cost of the software.
   8. smileyy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:15 AM (#3992842)
I don't trust a manager with anything more on his desk than a jar of liniment and twists of tobacco.
   9. smileyy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:23 AM (#3992843)
I'm not sure why any non-student consumer would buy a laptop. They'll live a long time in business, though, and people given laptops by their job.

I'm eager to see how much I can do with my Kindle Fire in a couple days.
   10. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:55 AM (#3992853)
However, I can put my phone on my belt in a clip or in my pocket. My wife can put her phone in her purse. If you're going to have a tablet, for mobility, you still have to carry it around. Which means a backpack or something. I'm not sure how this is going to be resolved.

There are already companies making jackets and other clothing with pockets that are appropriately sized for an iPad, apparently (I saw a business opportunity after reading your post, but someone else got there first apparently).
   11. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:23 AM (#3992859)
I'm not sure why any non-student consumer would buy a laptop.

Seriously? I've never owned a desktop computer dating back to the early '90s. I suppose if you never travel a desktop is fine, but the portability makes up for just about any other shortcoming.
   12. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:07 AM (#3992864)
I think he means laptop vs. Tablet.
   13. Balkroth Posted: November 14, 2011 at 09:51 AM (#3992873)
I'm not sure why any non-student consumer would buy a laptop

Because you can do a heck of a lot more on a laptop than you can a tablet, like play real games for example.
   14. Meramec Posted: November 14, 2011 at 01:50 PM (#3992900)
Because you can do a heck of a lot more on a laptop than you can a tablet, like play real games for example.

Or, you know, type on a keyboard and ####.

I'll admit I'm behind the curve on this, but I type an awful lot on my laptop and tablets just cannot compete. I can see how others may use their machines differently and I am sure someday there will be a critical mass of awesome apps for me to enjoy on a tablet.

One of the oddest sights at the Cardinals World Series parade was Mark McGwire taking video with his iPad, so there's that.
   15. terry312 Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:34 PM (#3992972)
When I first heard about the iPad, I couldn't think of why anybody would want one. Then I noticed that I love f-ing around on the computer in bed, and nothing else did the trick: a laptop is too bulky (and you can't be lying down) and a smartphone is (often) too small. So I got the iPad, and I love it. It works exactly as I'd hoped. It also works well for travel.

It's true that it's not that great for writing long pieces or running CPU-intensive software, but if all you're looking for is web and email, which I am a lot of the time, it works fabulously. Well, except for Flash.
   16. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:39 PM (#3992978)
Because you can do a heck of a lot more on a laptop than you can a tablet, like play real games for example.

If you want to play real games, you should be doing it on a desktop, not a laptop.
   17. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 03:49 PM (#3992985)
I'll admit I'm behind the curve on this, but I type an awful lot on my laptop and tablets just cannot compete. I can see how others may use their machines differently and I am sure someday there will be a critical mass of awesome apps for me to enjoy on a tablet.

Apple does make a $69 Bluetooth keyboard which you can use with your iPad/iPhone. For me, the screen size is a bigger issue - I can't imagine writing code or building a financial model on a tablet screen.
   18. The Good Face Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:03 PM (#3992994)
I'll admit I'm behind the curve on this, but I type an awful lot on my laptop and tablets just cannot compete. I can see how others may use their machines differently and I am sure someday there will be a critical mass of awesome apps for me to enjoy on a tablet.


Tablets are really ideal content consumption devices, while laptops/desktops are better for content creation. The portability, ease of use and non-existent loading times make tablets awesome for reading, listening to music, casual web browsing, playing simple games, etc. If you're programming, writing documents, doing serious emailing, working on spreadsheets or presentations, etc. you'll still want a proper computer.
   19. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:03 PM (#3992995)
If you want to play real games, you should be doing it on a desktop, not a laptop.

Piffle. Plenty of laptops are perfectly cromulent game machines, and a few are outstanding.

My gaming Asus laptop plays games very well indeed.
   20. The Good Face Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:19 PM (#3993001)
If you want to play real games, you should be doing it on a desktop, not a laptop.

Piffle. Plenty of laptops are perfectly cromulent game machines, and a few are outstanding.

My gaming Asus laptop plays games very well indeed.


I'm pretty old school and like having a powerful desktop for gaming, but my fiancee is currently using a laptop from Digital Storm that is an absolute gaming monster, so the gap is clearly narrowing.
   21. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:37 PM (#3993019)
The biggest difference is that you can keep updating the graphics card in a desktop. The GTX 460m in my laptop was a beast when I first bought it; less so, now.

But the convenience factor makes it worth it. I couldn't stash the desktop PC in my family room and play it while we watch TV. :)
   22. Boileryard Posted: November 14, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#3993037)
I have an Android-based tablet with a Bluetooth keyboard. Even though I'm quite happy with it, there's no way it could fully replace my laptop. The touch screen is convenient for a number of things, but it's also very imprecise at times and not all web pages are designed for it. For example, the drop-down menus on Baseball Reference's player pages (on the non-mobile site) are completely useless to me. Even simple things like copying and pasting text are a headache on a tablet. There have been a number of occasions where I've wished my tablet had a stylus or mouse so that I could do these things.

Android currently lacks a built-in spell check, which is probably my biggest gripe at the moment. If I do any actual writing on my tablet, I always send it over to my laptop for proofreading and formatting. I'm writing this post on my tablet, so please forgive any typos and spelling errors.

I'm sure that in time tablets will have the capabilities to largely, if not fully, replace laptops and desktops, but we're probably still a few years away from that happening.
   23. Greg Pope Posted: November 14, 2011 at 05:22 PM (#3993075)
I'm sure that in time tablets will have the capabilities to largely, if not fully, replace laptops and desktops, but we're probably still a few years away from that happening.

I think it will be interesting to see what Windows 8 ends up doing. Apple didn't take OS X and pare it down to get a tablet. They took iOS and bulked it up. I don't know if it will be easier in the long run to go "up" or "down" for this kind of thing.
   24. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:16 PM (#3993128)
Because you can do a heck of a lot more on a laptop than you can a tablet, like play real games for example.

If you want to play real games, you should be doing it on a desktop, not a laptop.


I agree with this --

I have a relatively new laptop -- it's a work laptop, of course so it's not like it has a premium graphics setup (separate card, not integrated though) -- but I can't play any of the newer Paradox titles on it, for example, and while the new Paradox engine is a bit of a resource hog and they've added 3d shading to their maps, Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron are hardly graphic monsters.


I'm sure that in time tablets will have the capabilities to largely, if not fully, replace laptops and desktops, but we're probably still a few years away from that happening.


I'm not sure I ever see this happening -- at least, not without some of 'neural interface'.
   25. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:23 PM (#3993136)
MLB should give the umps their own tablets, because this would be an really easy way to introduce replay to the umps without them leaving the field.
   26. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:24 PM (#3993137)
The NFL will probably reject this approach since it is simply not how things have been done. Too different.

I'm not sure if this was a serious comment, but in reality the NFL is constantly changing and innovating, and teams are constantly looking to copy everyone else's good ideas.

I only wish MLB was as willing to embrace change as the NFL is. We still have to tolerate seeing important baseball games ruined because of horrendously blown calls by umpires because MLB can't or won't adopt what should be a simple replay system.

EDIT: Props for comment #25.
   27. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:34 PM (#3993153)
Anyone actually use the Kindle Fire yet? I'm debating whether to get that or an Ipad for the gf for Christmas.
   28. Greg Pope Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#3993156)
There are already companies making jackets and other clothing with pockets that are appropriately sized for an iPad, apparently (I saw a business opportunity after reading your post, but someone else got there first apparently).

To get back to this, I'm skeptical that this will be a practical solution. My Kindle fits in a pocket in my winter coat and my windbreaker. But in warm weather I have no place to put it. So even if I had a coat with a pocket the size of an iPad, it doesn't really solve my problem. And I live in Chicago, I have to imagine it's more of a problem in more temperate areas.

As for clothing, well, I'm certainly not buying a whole new wardrobe to get iPad pockets. So if I want my laptop, I carry my laptop bag. If I want my iPhone, it's always on my belt. If I want my iPad, I currently still have to carry it around separately. Man-purse anyone? Maybe styles/fashion will change to make a man-purse acceptable to carry. It wouldn't surprise me.

I don't see this problem of screen size vs. mobility being solved until they make some sort of foldable screen. Then I can fold my iPad up into 1/4 its size and stick it in my pocket or on a belt clip.
   29. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:36 PM (#3993161)
One other interesting tablet tidbit --

I work for a 'professional publisher' -- software, research, and publishing in the legal, tax, and health care spaces -- and Apple is really shooting itself in the foot with their business practices in much the same way they pretty much let IBM and later, Windows, have all the business market.

We've pushed heavily into the Smartphone and tablet environments -- mainly with companion apps designed to tie in with our larger, laptop/desktop software and platforms (i.e., we have a newsy court case reporting app that allows users to read the news on the train, jot a few notes, then share it with colleagues or with themselves for later research)...

The idea in the B2B world isn't that a tablet or smartphone is ever going to replace an attorney writing a brief, an accountant filing taxes, or a doctor doing medical research -- but that it becomes an extension to a larger system... read, scan, jot notes, etc remotely with a mobile device and save the laptop or desktop for the actual hardcore work.
Apple is basically repeating what they did in the 80s, when they pretty much decided to stick in the consumer space while letting IBM and later Microsoft have the entire professional space.

Their iTunes cut is outrageous (they take a bigger slice than our field sales reps make in commission) and they also are completely unfriendly to work with -- their legal agreements for apps are such that they can basically reject any app without reason (or even letting you know why they rejected it... we've had divisions get essentially 'blind' rejections for some apps) and they also reserve the right to pretty much yank apps at their whim.

We're forced to develop for Apple at the moment because our customer base is still heavily iPad/iPhone based -- but that will change in the coming years, mark my words.

The minute we can legitimately cease supporting Apple-based builds -- we will... They introduce far, far too much uncertainty and are far, far too big a pain for anyone but the $5 app designer.
   30. Greg Pope Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:37 PM (#3993162)
Anyone actually use the Kindle Fire yet? I'm debating whether to get that or an Ipad for the gf for Christmas.

Looks very cool, but I'm a little confused about the OS. It's Android but you have to buy apps through the Amazon store?
   31. smileyy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:37 PM (#3993163)
[27] I can tell you tomorrow. But I won't be able to compare it to the iPad, just to my smartphone.
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:43 PM (#3993171)
this is random but ... one thing that always bugged me about computer size: for years, you could buy a desktop (with a monitor that went back a foot and a half and weighed a ton and a CPU the size of a case of beer) or a laptop (whose proportions were obviously much much smaller), but why wasn't there something in between? It's as if car dealerships only offered a 2-door hatchback or a behemoth SUV. Or at a fast-food place if you could only get either a tiny slider or a triple-cheeseburger.
   33. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3993175)

Looks very cool, but I'm a little confused about the OS. It's Android but you have to buy apps through the Amazon store?


Its based on an old version of Android (I think its 2.1, but it might be older than that), and then offshooted so Amazon could claim its their own build. So its technically Amazon's own OS. Main reason Amazon did it so they can control the entire process of production to selling you stuff. Google makes tons off of all the ads and the 'potential' of you using your smartphone. Amazon wants a piece of that.
   34. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3993184)
One thing that always bugged me about computer size: for years, you could buy a desktop (with a monitor goes back a foot and a half and weighs a ton and a CPU the size of a case of beer) or a laptop (whose proportions were much much smaller), but why wasn't there something in between? It's as if car dealerships only offered a 2-door hatchback and a behemoth SUV. Or at a fast-food place if you could only get either a tiny slider or a triple-cheeseburger.


Because what would be the point? Either you want something portable or you don't.

From a hardware perspective, everything in a laptop and the casing itself is designed around the idea that things are going to get jostled -- so the compact size to some extent works for it... Crap open a laptop and you'll see a ton of components nestled right up against each by design to keep them stable as you lug it around.

In a desktop, you've got a lot more components that are pretty much dependent on the idea that the casing isn't going to be moved around (as well as the idea that can and should be able to easily swap innards in and out).

Go in between and suddenly you have the worst of both worlds -- you have to find a way to keep a lot of freestanding components stable but without the idea of limited space actually working to your advantage for stability purposes.
   35. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:56 PM (#3993191)
I have a laptop and I won't get rid of it any time soon because of work. I also have an iPad. The only thing that the iPad really has going for it over the laptop is that it's always on.
You forgot battery life.
   36. smileyy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#3993197)
[32] I feel like its been a while (years -- forever in the computing/phone world :) ) since this has been true. With all-in-one desktops popularized by the iMac, to giant "desktop replacement" laptops, to ultraportables...
   37. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:00 PM (#3993205)
Its based on an old version of Android (I think its 2.1, but it might be older than that), and then offshooted so Amazon could claim its their own build. So its technically Amazon's own OS. Main reason Amazon did it so they can control the entire process of production to selling you stuff. Google makes tons off of all the ads and the 'potential' of you using your smartphone. Amazon wants a piece of that.

Actually it's Gingerbread (2.3x), and it's really just locked down. Yes, you have to use the Amazon marketplace instead of the Android market, and there are some other issues as well (see Engadget's Review for some details.

Overall I'm not sold. It sounds like it's a tad underpowered. I'm not sure I'll like reading on a backlit screen (I love my current Kindle). I'm not convinced that the size is right for a tablet. I'm pretty sure if I get a tablet I'll want something in the 10" range. Also, why is everyone but Apple going 16x9? Seems to me a 4x3 form factor is better for side-by-side page reading, etc.
   38. smileyy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#3993209)
Yes, you have to use the Amazon marketplace instead of the Android market


Yeah, this is kind of like picking which of the 5 dominant superpowers you want to pay fealty too. (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft)
   39. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#3993210)
this is random but ... one thing that always bugged me about computer size: for years, you could buy a desktop (with a monitor that went back a foot and a half and weighed a ton and a CPU the size of a case of beer) or a laptop (whose proportions were obviously much much smaller), but why wasn't there something in between? It's as if car dealerships only offered a 2-door hatchback or a behemoth SUV. Or at a fast-food place if you could only get either a tiny slider or a triple-cheeseburger.

I don't get this comment.

You can get little desktops. You can get big desktops. You can get big laptops. You can get little laptops.

What, exactly, are you looking for?

EDIT: Cokes all around.
   40. valuearbitrageur Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:03 PM (#3993211)
We're forced to develop for Apple at the moment because our customer base is still heavily iPad/iPhone based -- but that will change in the coming years, mark my words.


Yep, I'm sure that Apple is quivering in the boots that cover it's 90%+ market share...
   41. Nasty Nate Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:07 PM (#3993219)
Because what would be the point? Either you want something portable or you don't.


The point is to save space. Just because you don't need it to be portable doesn't mean you want it to take up half of the room. It's hard to believe that while they had the technology to make a laptop screen, the next level down for a monitor was something 30 times bigger.

[32] I feel like its been a while (years -- forever in the computing/phone world :) ) since this has been true


Yeah it's not true anymore - but I feel like it was the situation for a good amount of time.
   42. Nasty Nate Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#3993222)
You can get little desktops. You can get big desktops. You can get big laptops. You can get little laptops.

What, exactly, are you looking for?


Sure, you can now, but it wasn't like that in the past.
   43. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#3993223)
The point is to save space. Just because you don't need it to be portable doesn't mean you want it to take up half of the room. It's hard to believe that while they had the technology to make a laptop screen, the next level down for a monitor was something 30 times bigger.

Please be specific, because I'm still not picturing what you want.

I've seen very small PCs (or even all-in-ones like the iMac). Is this not what you're describing?
   44. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:10 PM (#3993225)
Because you can do a heck of a lot more on a laptop than you can a tablet, like play real games for example.


That's what consoles are for.

this is random but ... one thing that always bugged me about computer size: for years, you could buy a desktop (with a monitor that went back a foot and a half and weighed a ton and a CPU the size of a case of beer) or a laptop (whose proportions were obviously much much smaller), but why wasn't there something in between?


I've had my Mac Mini for around 6 years now -- does that count?
   45. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:11 PM (#3993228)
Also, why is everyone but Apple going 16x9? Seems to me a 4x3 form factor is better for side-by-side page reading, etc.


Its due to the TV format, all new programs are broadcast in 16X9, and 4X3 just seems unnatural or antiquated.
   46. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:12 PM (#3993229)
Sure, you can now, but it wasn't like that in the past.

Don't think that's true.

In 1989-91 I worked for a chain of computer stores, and we had small PCs and big towers. We had little laptops and big ones that didn't even have batteries (e.g. the Toshiba 5200 with "gas plasma" display).

Really the only thing that changed was the availability of flat-panel screens.
   47. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:13 PM (#3993232)
Its due to the TV format, all new programs are broadcast in 16X9, and 4X3 just seems unnatural or antiquated.

I get that, but unless the tablet is meant to mainly be a video display device, this seems a bit silly.
   48. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:13 PM (#3993233)
I work for a 'professional publisher' -- software, research, and publishing in the legal, tax, and health care spaces -- and Apple is really shooting itself in the foot with their business practices in much the same way they pretty much let IBM and later, Windows, have all the business market.
This is neither an accurate summary of what happened to Apple in the 1980s nor of what Apple is doing now. Apple didn't "let" anybody have the business market; IBM already had the business market years before Apple was founded. Apple never had a large market share in the 1980s. Apple made a lot of bad business decisions along the way, but their biggest problem was that their products were overpriced. Apple's products are not currently overpriced. (Indeed, its competitors have in general been unable to match Apple's prices for tablets.) While it is obviously silly to think Apple will stay dominant forever (although they did in the MP3 player market, with the only product able to cut into their market share being their own iPhone), there isn't any tablet market out there; there's an iPad market. And even if developers aren't thrilled with all of Apple's policies, consumers are.
   49. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:19 PM (#3993238)
Yep, I'm sure that Apple is quivering in the boots that cover it's 90%+ market share...


Actually, I believe Android just passed iOS in terms of overall market share...

But regardless - they probably could have and did say the same thing in the 80s and 90s regarding the desktop computer. They survived and created the next wave of personal electronics, sure --- but that doesn't change the fact that once enterprise software and computing became a reality, Apple got virtually none of that business... perhaps beyond a few boutique media areas.

No hospital built their building and coding system on an Apple base, no accounting firm made any Apple-based accounting and filing software the industry standard, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that whatever Apple's word processing software is -- it was nowhere near as omnipresent as PC-based titles like Word and WordPerfect.

I'm not saying Apple will go out of business if they don't serve professional and enterprise software needs -- I'm just saying that once again, they're basically telling a very large and very lucrative market to piss off.... and that market will eventually find someone less tyrannical (just as they did in the 80s and 90s) to work with and the day will come when enterprise systems will make Apple hardware extraordinarily rare in the office.
   50. Greg Pope Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:19 PM (#3993239)
You forgot battery life.

Yes, I did. That's an important point.

I guess it goes back to a discussion we had here a little while ago. The tablet is good-to-very-good at a lot of things. It's not the best at very much. If I want the best reader, I'll get a Kindle. If I want the best games, I'll get a desktop. Heck, if I want the best portable device to watch movies, my 16" laptop is still better than the iPad. Plus it plays DVD's. However, if you want a device that's good at a lot of things, the tablet (iPad or Android) is an excellent choice.
   51. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:30 PM (#3993258)
This is neither an accurate summary of what happened to Apple in the 1980s nor of what Apple is doing now. Apple didn't "let" anybody have the business market; IBM already had the business market years before Apple was founded. Apple never had a large market share in the 1980s. Apple made a lot of bad business decisions along the way, but their biggest problem was that their products were overpriced. Apple's products are not currently overpriced. (Indeed, its competitors have in general been unable to match Apple's prices for tablets.) While it is obviously silly to think Apple will stay dominant forever (although they did in the MP3 player market, with the only product able to cut into their market share being their own iPhone), there isn't any tablet market out there; there's an iPad market. And even if developers aren't thrilled with all of Apple's policies, consumers are.


Sure it is --

You're forgetting that the idea of every desk in every office having a computer on it was in its infancy in the early 80s.

Price certainly matters -- but at the end of the day, Apple made a couple of choices -- 1)unlike the pc world, they kept tight control over their hardware... and no business was going to pay retail prices for 1000 computers, 2)they locked down their framework to such an extent that it became really profitable for OS's like Windows to develop things like NT, where training and certifications could be handed out like candy -- which meant hiring an IT staff, from developers to architects to sys admins pretty much forced you go PC, and 3)Apple decided that they were going to stick with the individual user/home user market... Unless you're a small shop building simple websites or whatnot -- Apple for the longest time lagged behind everyone else delivering say... "big data" CMS's and authoring tools, et al.

The Windows end-user experience was essentially a Mac OS knock-off.... But in your first office job with a computer -- were you running Mac or some version of Windows?

Eventually, other manufacturers will (and already have) replicated the touchpad experience just like they did with the OS GUI on a standard machine.

Mark my words - in 5 years - Apple might very maintain a profitable and healthy segment of the "Where's the closest Indian Food" app or Angry Birds gamer market; but eventually, they'll lose the enterprise market because no large company wants to bank any appreciable part of their revenue stream on something that can simply be yanked away largely outside of their control.
   52. valuearbitrageur Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:36 PM (#3993270)
As Nieporent pointed out, your analogy is very flawed. Apple never had a market share lead in any market after the IBM PC came out, and never with the Macintosh.

Right now they have a massive lead in applications for tablets and smartphones, which is the exact opposite of the situation with the Macintosh in the 1980s, where Windows had the massive lead in applications. And that was one of the two or three prime reasons the Macintosh never developed a large market share (the other was hardware cost/options). So Apple is actually doing one of the most important things far better now than they did in the eighties.

But I don't totally disagree with you, the iTunes tax is ridiculous, though iTunes based distribution has some awesome advantages. I just disagree with your conclusion that Apple is going to lose their market dominance because of their lack of support of professional/enterprise markets. I'm pretty sure if it actually becomes a big enough problem they'll fix the stupid iTunes tax and other issues (app sales really aren't much of a profit center to Apple), and they'll have plenty of time to do so.

Actually, I believe Android just passed iOS in terms of overall market share...


LOL. Both Google and Apple have tremendous business models in this space, and Google has the model built for wider adoption, giving away a free OS to handset developers and making money off ads. Google should always have more units, for now and ever, or they will have failed.

Apple has the model for building the best products, which is why they almost certainly make more profits off smartphones than all other smartphone developers combined.

And despite Googles greater market share, the most and best apps are on the Apple platform for some key reasons. First is, volume isn't everything, cheap consumers buying cheap phones aren't going to spend as much per phone on apps as those who pay up. While there are some super nice and expensive android phones there are also a lot of cheap ones as well. Second is that Apples "closed system" is a huge boon to the developer, it's an extremely easy distribution model with virtually no piracy. Lastly, Apple's IOS is far less fragmented that Android, Google does it's partners the favor of allowing them substantial leeway in modifying the OS and interface, and that fragmentation sometimes makes it harder to develop on.

Right now it seems clear that the question isn't whether Google or Apple will dominate, it's will anyone else (Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia) have even a sliver of the smartphone/tablet market in a few years.
   53. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:43 PM (#3993280)
I guess it goes back to a discussion we had here a little while ago. The tablet is good-to-very-good at a lot of things. It's not the best at very much. If I want the best reader, I'll get a Kindle. If I want the best games, I'll get a desktop. Heck, if I want the best portable device to watch movies, my 16" laptop is still better than the iPad. Plus it plays DVD's. However, if you want a device that's good at a lot of things, the tablet (iPad or Android) is an excellent choice.

That's a good explanation. We have an ipad, and it's a completely different experience from a laptop for all of the reasons mentioned above: touch screen, always on, easier to hold and read in bed or in a chair, etc. It's the perfect home computing device IMO. You can quickly look up something on the web, check email, play scrabble and other basic games, watch movies, check the weather, and use it to display recipes while cooking. The other big advantage over a laptop is that it's very kid friendly. I have an 8 year old son and a 5 year old daughter, and they both learned to use it in a few minutes. My daughter loves playing some of the counting and word games, and my son uses it for gaming and surfing the web.
   54. valuearbitrageur Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:50 PM (#3993291)
I've always viewed a tablet as the best solution for consuming content given it's form factor, usability and battery life, but you still need a laptop/desktop if you are going to produce lots of content, whether it be text, financial models, data entry, etc.

Some stats on market share.

Android vs. IOS

Total smartphone ownership. Comscore says that as of August, 43.7 percent of U.S. smartphone subscribers had an Android device; 27.7 percent had an iPhone. These figures don't include tablets (a category which the iPad utterly dominates) and smartphone-like media devices (a category in which the iPod Touch has almost no competition whatsoever).

Tablet sales. Research firm Strategy Analytics reported last month that the iPad had 66.6 percent of the tablet market and Android tablets had grown to 26.9 percent. But as Kevin C. Tofel of GigaOM noted, that mixes iPads that Apple has sold with Android tablets that have shipped from the manufacturer but may or may not have been bought by a consumer. If any of those Androids are sitting on store shelves, they shouldn't be compared against iPads that people have paid for and taken home.

Web usage. In August, according to Comscore, iOS devices accounted for 58.5 percent of all U.S. non-computer browser page views. Android accounted for 31.9 percent of views.

Available apps. There are more than 500,000 iOS apps, including 140,000 designed for the iPad. There are more than 250,000 Android apps, and while I haven't seen any recent data on how many are customized for Android 4.0 3.0 Honeycomb, the tablet version, I've never seen a number that was anything but tiny.

App downloads. Research firm ABI says that in the second quarter, Android overtook iOS in mobile app downloads and now has 44 percent share worldwide vs. 31 percent for iOS. On the other hand, it says that iOS beats Android in terms of downloads per user by 2-to-1. And it states that Android's installed base beats iOS's by 2.4-to-1. (How does Android besting iOS by 2.4-to-1 jibe with Apple claiming to have told 250 million iOS products and Google saying it's activated only 190 million Android ones? Beats me! Maybe ABI isn't counting iPads and/or iPod Touches.)

Profits. Canaccord Genuity says that Apple is currently scooping up 52 percent of all smartphone profits, leaving 48 percent for everyone else. Determining Google's profits from Android smartphones would be particularly gnarly, since it gives away Android. (It does, however, get to display ads on Android devices.)
   55. Dan Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:51 PM (#3993292)
I get that, but unless the tablet is meant to mainly be a video display device, this seems a bit silly.


This. 16:9 is great for video, but a tablet isn't a television; it's also going to be used for a lot of web browsing and reading. And a 16:9 display is really narrow in portrait mode, and doesn't really let you have a better browsing experience than you have on a phone. Compare that to a 4:3 ~10" screen, where you can use full sized webpages without zooming and panning, and you have a much better design for a multi-function device.


Anyone actually use the Kindle Fire yet? I'm debating whether to get that or an Ipad for the gf for Christmas.


The reviews I've read haven't been too keen on the Fire. Wired was especially negative. As I alluded to above, they basically said the 16:9 7" screen isn't very useful for web browsing or reading magazines, etc., and the web browser itself is not very smooth or fluid. If your GF i mainly looking for a device to watch video, then the Fire would be good, but if she wants to use it as a primary web browsing device while in the living room and bedroom and stuff, I'd go with the iPad.
   56. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 07:56 PM (#3993304)
And despite Googles greater market share,
...in smartphones. But compare all iOS devices, which includes iPod touches and tablets, to all Android devices.
the most and best apps are on the Apple platform for some key reasons. First is, volume isn't everything, cheap consumers buying cheap phones aren't going to spend as much per phone on apps as those who pay up. While there are some super nice and expensive android phones there are also a lot of cheap ones as well. Second is that Apples "closed system" is a huge boon to the developer, it's an extremely easy distribution model with virtually no piracy. Lastly, Apple's IOS is far less fragmented that Android, Google does it's partners the favor of allowing them substantial leeway in modifying the OS and interface, and that fragmentation sometimes makes it harder to develop on.
It's not just modifying; it's also updating. Many carriers ship phones with old Android versions and never update them; Google has no control over that. It's not just bad for developers; it's bad for enterprise sales, as well.

I just disagree with your conclusion that Apple is going to lose their market dominance because of their lack of support of professional/enterprise markets.
I disagree with the premise itself. The fact that Apple imposes some burdens on developers is not at all the same as saying that they don't support professional/enterprise users. (And unlike in the 1980s, users now have some say in what they get; they're not content to be handed a desktop machine by IT.) I know a lot of attorneys who use iPads; I've never heard one say, "You know, if only Apple took a smaller cut of the software purchases I made."
   57. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#3993311)
And despite Googles greater market share, the most and best apps are on the Apple platform for some key reasons. First is, volume isn't everything, cheap consumers buying cheap phones aren't going to spend as much per phone on apps as those who pay up. While there are some super nice and expensive android phones there are also a lot of cheap ones as well. Second is that Apples "closed system" is a huge boon to the developer, it's an extremely easy distribution model with virtually no piracy. Lastly, Apple's IOS is far less fragmented that Android, Google does it's partners the favor of allowing them substantial leeway in modifying the OS and interface, and that fragmentation sometimes makes it harder to develop on.


I get what you're saying -- but enterprise and b2b isn't a cheap consumer market...

In a space like that - you want customizable. NT doesn't rule enterprise because it's a wonderful framework -- give me a Linux/UNIX based back-end any day of the week for that -- but because it's so easy to tweak and change and build upon (both because it's inherently designed so that you can do whatever you want with it, but also because NT certs are a dime a dozen so you're never going to be stuck when it comes to staffing).

Again - I'm not saying Apple is in danger of going out of business... I'm just saying that they have a golden opportunity right now. Even though the consumer market is split -- I'd bet that most doctors, lawyers, etc are running iPads or iPhones (our market is certainly heavily tilted towards iOS -- plus rapidly shrinking RIM... poor, poor RIM). Why? Because they have the bucks to get the newest toys, so most of them were buying iPads and such as soon as they came out.

With some relatively minor changes in their model -- I mean, we're really just talking about recognizing that someone selling say, a $10K hospital coding system shouldn't be dealing with the same parameters as someone building a quickie $1 game to play on the bus -- they could leverage their current dominance to the point that when companies start handing out tablets like they currently hand out laptops, it's an iPad they hand out, not whatever someone else comes along with.
   58. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: November 14, 2011 at 08:08 PM (#3993327)
FWIW, my company just had a board meeting and the members of the board all had an Ipad in front of them to read documents during the meetings. I was also in a restaurant the other day and the manager was using the Ipad to keep track of tables and receipts. On the other hand, the other day some dope was starting at his Ipad while wandering a crowded street in Manhattan and bumped into me. Phone zombies are bad enough, but if we're going to have tablet zombies, too, I may have to start killing some #############.
   59. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 14, 2011 at 08:32 PM (#3993357)
I know a lot of attorneys who use iPads; I've never heard one say, "You know, if only Apple took a smaller cut of the software purchases I made."


Believe me - we're well aware of this... like I said, it's why we build for the iPad when it would be tons easier to just build for the Blackberry/Android.

But we're still in the relatively early first generation of tablets -- by the second, third, etc generation -- will those things still be available? Already - in fairly small and largely unnoticed ways, some features are being excluded from iOS iterations of builds because Apple rejects them out of hand (mainly - these are cross-platform interactions and certain automated sharing; rather than text message or e-mail shares - Apple won't let you go outside 'your app' for certain functions the way Android does).

Eventually -- law firms, just like everyone else, will face a choice... Sure - you search Lexis via Safari, but I'm willing to bet that there are occasional site glitches and things that probably matter more to say law librarians than individual attorneys - but eventually these things reach a critical mass and once enough firms keep hearing that "It's not that we don't want to let you use that nifty new copy/paste drag-and-drop excerpt from that case you looked up and drop it into your brief on the iPad, it's that the iOS doesn't let us that controller under the sheets the same way that Android (or whatever) does. I'm afraid if you like that feature, you'll have to use your Microsoft KnockoffPad or AndroidDoWhateverYouWantPad."
   60. Karl from NY Posted: November 14, 2011 at 09:15 PM (#3993424)
It's hard to believe that while they had the technology to make a laptop screen, the next level down for a monitor was something 30 times bigger.

Do you understand the fundamental difference there, LCD versus CRT technology? It's not the difference between a hatchback and SUV, it's the difference between a hatchback and bicycle. Completely different things going on which require a completely different form factor.

The failing was cost-effectiveness, not the technology itself. Laptops had LCD screens since forever, at least 1994 or so. But nobody wanted to pay $800 for a desktop LCD when desktop CRTs were $200, so nobody manufactured desktop LCDs.
   61. valuearbitrageur Posted: November 14, 2011 at 09:39 PM (#3993443)
The reviews I've read haven't been too keen on the Fire. Wired was especially negative. As I alluded to above, they basically said the 16:9 7" screen isn't very useful for web browsing or reading magazines, etc., and the web browser itself is not very smooth or fluid. If your GF i mainly looking for a device to watch video, then the Fire would be good, but if she wants to use it as a primary web browsing device while in the living room and bedroom and stuff, I'd go with the iPad.


Amazon made some pretty big compromises in order to keep costs down. No camera, microphone, GPS/Location sensing or bluetooth. It has only Wifi, no 3g/4g, limited storage, small screen that isn't super bright.

But what they are selling is pretty compelling at that price point, fairly slick device for buying/consuming book/video/web content direct from Amazon. It will be interesting to see if they open up the market even more with it.
   62. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 14, 2011 at 09:40 PM (#3993444)
I'm an Extra Innings guy now, but how is the iPad for viewing ballgames? Other devices?
   63. Dan Posted: November 14, 2011 at 09:59 PM (#3993467)
The iPad is great for MLB.tv.
   64. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 10:39 PM (#3993517)
Do you understand the fundamental difference there, LCD versus CRT technology? It's not the difference between a hatchback and SUV, it's the difference between a hatchback and bicycle. Completely different things going on which require a completely different form factor.

The failing was cost-effectiveness, not the technology itself. Laptops had LCD screens since forever, at least 1994 or so. But nobody wanted to pay $800 for a desktop LCD when desktop CRTs were $200, so nobody manufactured desktop LCDs.


Basically, this, although:

Laptops had LCD screens in the 80's. Of course, they were originally black-and-white (and later grayscale), low resolution, and not great on the eyes. There were also "portables" (basically big-ish laptops with no batteries) that used this bright orange "gas plasma" display.

Later, (1990? 1991? Can't remember exactly...) Toshiba came out with the first color active matrix display -- again, on one of their bigger machines that was AC-only. It wasn't all that high res, but it was essentially the same color LCD technology we have today.
   65. Nasty Nate Posted: November 14, 2011 at 11:01 PM (#3993531)
Do you understand the fundamental difference there, LCD versus CRT technology?


No, I didn't understand this fundamental difference, which led to my confusion in the first place. Thanks (also thanks because the other posts were making me wonder if I had imagined the gap). Was there ever any momentum for some third technology which would have been somewhat in the middle in terms of both size and price?
   66. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 11:20 PM (#3993551)
No, I didn't understand this fundamental difference, which led to my confusion in the first place. Thanks (also thanks because the other posts were making me wonder if I had imagined the gap). Was there ever any momentum for some third technology which would have been somewhat in the middle in terms of both size and price?

No, because there really isn't a "there." Really the choices were either very crappy LCD flat panels, or decent fat CRTs. It was only when the TFT active matrix color LCD was developed that anyone began thinking of replacing CRTs with them.

But an "in-between" would not make logical sense.

EDIT: Also, it wasn't clear to me that you were primarily referring to the display.

(For the record, the minute our first demo of that beautiful Toshiba screen came in, I said, "Someday they're going to make those bigger, and we're going to hang TVs on our walls.")
   67. Tripon Posted: November 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM (#3993556)
You'll still find CRT lovers, which I find utterly weird.
   68. smileyy Posted: November 14, 2011 at 11:41 PM (#3993569)
[67] Just draw two faint horizontal lines across their LCD, and they'll be happy again. (These were the hallmarks of Sony's Trinitron, the first great color CRT)

Are these the same types that prefer analog sound?

Edit: LCD->CRT
   69. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 14, 2011 at 11:55 PM (#3993579)
One thing CRTs are still good for is that when I sleep in too late, staring into a CRT for several hours makes me tired enough to fall asleep at an earlier time than I would otherwise.

But it hardly seems worth keeping them around for.
   70. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 14, 2011 at 11:57 PM (#3993582)
Overall I'm not sold. It sounds like it's a tad underpowered. I'm not sure I'll like reading on a backlit screen (I love my current Kindle).

Try using the black background with white text. I don't have an iPad, but it works great on the Kindle app for my iPhone and uses less battery power on top of that.
   71. Karl from NY Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:37 AM (#3993643)
Was there ever any momentum for some third technology which would have been somewhat in the middle in terms of both size and price?

No, as #66 said. You can't make an LCD cheaper by making it thicker and heavier. You can't make a CRT thinner and lighter at any price, the size and weight is physically required to have a magnetron powerful and fast enough to control the electron beam. There's no compromise. It's like the difference between a bicycle and a car again; you can't make a more capable bicycle by adding a combustion engine and a cabin.

CRTs are still good for some applications, with advantages in response time and resolution flexibility. This comes up in older games, both on consoles and PCs. An NES game looks bad and plays laggy on most modern LCD displays, both by way of an actual console on a TV or an emulator on a PC.
   72. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:00 PM (#3993793)
He. This reminds me of the 21" CRT my dad scored from his work, when they were clearing things out. Must have been made sometime in the early 90's, that thing was literally a behemoth. I knew several grown men, who could not carry that thing on their own (I could just barely manage).
Awesome for games though. 21", suck it bitches!
   73. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:20 PM (#3993798)
Not sure if people will still see this, but there's a very positive review for the Kindle Fire here.
   74. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:25 PM (#3993802)
The death of the spec. Takeaway quote:

On paper, the Nook Tablet is the Android-based reading tablet to buy. It has twice the RAM of the Kindle Fire, twice the built-in storage space, a better battery, and it’s lighter to boot. Yes, it’s $50 more expensive, but come on, the RAM difference alone is worth well more than that. Clearly, this is the better value for your money.

And yet, the Nook Tablet will not outsell the Kindle Fire. That’s the thing: “on paper” doesn’t matter anymore. What matters is that the Kindle Fire comes with Amazon’s content ecosystem attached to it. Perhaps more importantly, it will be peddled like no other on the all-important Amazon.com homepage. The specs are secondary in this race at best. The reality is that they will be an afterthought. Or again, the Nook would win.


-- MWE
   75. Nasty Nate Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:27 PM (#3993804)
It's like the difference between a bicycle and a car again; you can't make a more capable bicycle by adding a combustion engine and a cabin.


But you can make a motorcycle....
   76. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:46 PM (#3993813)
Backing up #56, see http://tinyurl.com/43xanrs.

Obviously there's still time for Android to mature as a product, but until it does, I suspect that end users will continue to experience lower customer satisfaction than on iOS/WP7. Arguably, no information, but a predictable schedule (Apple) is preferable to published, unreliable data (Android) on upgrades.
   77. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 01:52 PM (#3993817)
That’s the thing: “on paper” doesn’t matter anymore.


I agree with this. I said this before but I know a woman who bought an iPad and only uses it to read books. When I asked why she didn't but a Kindle, she said that the Kindle was dorky and the iPad was cool.
   78. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:13 PM (#3993859)
But you can make a motorcycle....

That's where the analogy falls apart. There's no equivalent in display technologies.
   79. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:28 PM (#3993875)
CNN: Tablet computers are a game-changer in professional sports


Question that's only partly rhetorical:

How are tablets "game-changers"? I can see that they'll eliminate paper playbooks and make off the field life a little quicker and more efficient for all concerned, but how is it going to "change" the game on the field? When (and how) are we going to be able to tell the difference between a game from the tablet era from a game from the pre-tablet era? I can also see a certain amount of temporary advantage for the now-19 teams that use them in their front offices, but where's the advantage when the other 11 teams catch on?
   80. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:41 PM (#3993886)
Andy:

Well, the article is based on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, so it's talking about it being a game changer for football. I can see that having the playbook on an app would be much better for studying. You can have the plays be searchable, and maybe even animated. Probably not game-changing, though.

However, if they ever allow a tablet on the sidelines, I can see a huge benefit. During the Monday night game they showed the coaches flipping through a binder of game photographs to see what the other team was doing. Someone had to print those out and put them in the binder, and do it fast enough to be useful. The tablet would make that instantaneous. And again there, the possibility for viewing aerial video would be great.

Anyway, that's football. Probably not for baseball. But your last question could be said about anything. The first teams to use weight training gain an advantage until everyone's doing it. The first ones to use sabermetrics gain an advantage until everyone's doing it. Split fingered fastball, modern catcher's helmet, etc. I'm not sure what your point is.
   81. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:50 PM (#3993896)
Yeah, I wasn't talking about baseball per se. And I can see where it might make for a fuller experience for the spectator. I guess my only point is to complain about the inflationary overuse of the term "game changer", which IMO should be reserved for things like the outlawing of the spitball, the rise of the lively ball, integration, the evolution of international scouting, etc. I have the same reaction whenever I see a book with a title like "19__: The Year We Lost Our Innocence and America Changed Forever". It's just lazy language that after awhile loses all meaning.
   82. Nasty Nate Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:53 PM (#3993901)
That's where the analogy falls apart. There's no equivalent in display technologies.


And that's what always confused me (because I didn't understand the technology difference).
   83. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#3993903)
OK, I'll agree with that.
   84. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 15, 2011 at 03:56 PM (#3993905)
Actually, if I'm a coach with a tablet -- all my players are now wearing chips and there are sensors on the practice field... Seems like you could almost skip watching film -- whip up an app to just generate a report on who blew assignments and who didn't.
   85. BFFB Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:30 PM (#3993940)
And that's what always confused me (because I didn't understand the technology difference)


Display Technologies:-

CRT = Cathode Ray Tube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_Ray_Tube
TFT = Thin Film Transistor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_transistor
Plasma = Fluorescent Tubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_television

Ultimately a display technology depends on pixels where each pixel is a mixture of Red Green & Blue (RGB). CRT's use electron beams (X-Rays) and a fluorescent screen, TFT's use liquid crystals to polarize light and plasma use hundreds of very tiny fluorescent tubes. Display technology is entirely limited by how you get a pixel to show a mixture of red, green and blue.

You'll still find CRT lovers, which I find utterly weird.


Better picture quality, greater clarity, no motion blur etc. CRT's still do have a lot of advantages but their one big disadvanatage (they are huge and weigh a ton) means they have fallen away in popularity.

I don't see this problem of screen size vs. mobility being solved until they make some sort of foldable screen. Then I can fold my iPad up into 1/4 its size and stick it in my pocket or on a belt clip.


FOLED, but we are a good few years away mass market consumer goods using that technology.
   86. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:30 PM (#3993941)
Actually, if I'm a coach with a tablet -- all my players are now wearing chips and there are sensors on the practice field... Seems like you could almost skip watching film -- whip up an app to just generate a report on who blew assignments and who didn't.

And this is part of the perception issue that puzzles me so much. If you're going to do all of that, with chips and sensors, you really want something more powerful than a tablet. You want a laptop if you're there on the sidelines and a desktop if it's for poring over data after the fact.
   87. BFFB Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:46 PM (#3993958)
Actually, if I'm a coach with a tablet -- all my players are now wearing chips and there are sensors on the practice field... Seems like you could almost skip watching film -- whip up an app to just generate a report on who blew assignments and who didn't.


Lots of teams already do this in Soccer - except they use computers more powerful than a tablet.
   88. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 15, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#3993961)
That’s the thing: “on paper” doesn’t matter anymore.

I agree with this. I said this before but I know a woman who bought an iPad and only uses it to read books. When I asked why she didn't but a Kindle, she said that the Kindle was dorky and the iPad was cool.
I agree with the premise (that comparing based on specs is becoming less significant), but disagree with your application of it. It's not that "coolness" or "marketing" is supplanting the spec; it's that the user experience is.
   89. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 05:05 PM (#3993970)
I agree with the premise (that comparing based on specs is becoming less significant), but disagree with your application of it. It's not that "coolness" or "marketing" is supplanting the spec; it's that the user experience is.

True to some extent, but the user experience is often about perception. The quote I was responding to was talking about Amazon and their content, but also about the fact that the marketing on Amazon's home page (and likely many sub-pages) was going to be pushing people. So it is coolness and marketing, to some extent. I don't know how to break it down further.
   90. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 15, 2011 at 08:58 PM (#3994274)
True to some extent, but the user experience is often about perception.

To an extent, but I have to give Apple props: they get "user experience" and "user interface" in a way nobody else seems to. Anyone remember what smartphones were like pre-iPhone? Windows Mobile 4/5? Blackberry? Christ on a cracker, those were awful.

Before the iPad we had countless attempts at tablet computers, netbooks, etc. -- all awful.

Try looking at the interfaces on MP3 players that came before the iPod. Seriously, whoever designed those user interfaces should be shot.

I'm not a huge consumer of Apple products (though I do want an iPad), but I strongly recommend them to my non-techie friends.
   91. Greg Pope Posted: November 15, 2011 at 09:18 PM (#3994289)
I agree. They are great at it. As a techie I do wish that they would let me change some things like other smartphones do, but I'm sure that for the majority of the people, it's super easy to deal with.
   92. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: November 15, 2011 at 09:23 PM (#3994293)

To an extent, but I have to give Apple props: they get "user experience" and "user interface" in a way nobody else seems to. Anyone remember what smartphones were like pre-iPhone? Windows Mobile 4/5? Blackberry? Christ on a cracker, those were awful.

Before the iPad we had countless attempts at tablet computers, netbooks, etc. -- all awful.

Try looking at the interfaces on MP3 players that came before the iPod. Seriously, whoever designed those user interfaces should be shot.

I'm not a huge consumer of Apple products (though I do want an iPad), but I strongly recommend them to my non-techie friends.


This really is the beauty of Apple -- from a consumer perspective, I agree 100%.

Their processes aren't any more nimble or muscular, and frankly -- just based on my iPhone and some basic iPad experience -- I think the whole "less buggy" thing is a myth... but yup - they do a damn fine UI. Even a keyboard warrior like me was able to quickly and easily pick up the way they revolutionized a touchscreen interface and grow to love it for the things I use my iphone for.

The problem with specializing in UI innovation, though -- eventually, the others catch up and once you run out of functions to design a UI around (even if only temporarily, until the next 'thing' goes digital), then you're fighting on things like speed, muscle, and flexibility. I'm not saying Apple's behind the curve on that -- but I don't think anyone would claim they're setting, either.
   93. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: November 15, 2011 at 09:41 PM (#3994302)
The problem with specializing in UI innovation, though -- eventually, the others catch up and once you run out of functions to design a UI around (even if only temporarily, until the next 'thing' goes digital), then you're fighting on things like speed, muscle, and flexibility. I'm not saying Apple's behind the curve on that -- but I don't think anyone would claim they're setting, either.

Except they somehow manage to keep iterating in the meantime. Since we keep upgrading our computers, phones, etc. they have a constant stream of devices to upgrade.

Of course that's not the same as innovating new platforms, but I'll assume Apple can keep doing that until such time as they show they cannot.
   94. smileyy Posted: November 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM (#3994337)
If you're going to do all of that, with chips and sensors, you really want something more powerful than a tablet. You want a laptop if you're there on the sidelines and a desktop if it's for poring over data after the fact.


Nah. All the data gets streamed "to the cloud", processed, and then the summary / video sent to the tablet for review.
   95. smileyy Posted: November 17, 2011 at 04:09 AM (#3995420)
I'm posting this from my kindle fire. The screen is gorgeous. Its definitely oriented as an Amazon content delivery device first and a general purpose tablet second. But it makes a nice book reader and video over Amazon,netflix and Hulu has all been great.

I can understand the comments about speed as it lags occasionally. Somehow Internet on my phone feels smoother though, and I'm not really enjoying typing this.
   96. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 17, 2011 at 05:36 PM (#3995721)
This thread is sort of dead, but given that we were talking about Apple in the enterprise, this story from yesterday's New York Times happens to be relevant.
   97. Greg Pope Posted: November 17, 2011 at 05:51 PM (#3995736)
Nah. All the data gets streamed "to the cloud", processed, and then the summary / video sent to the tablet for review.

Eventually, yes, but we're really not close to that yet. Wireless connectivity is pretty much everywhere for things like texting and such where you need short bursts of information. But for enterprise-level applications where you need 99% or more up time, it will be a while.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(27 - 2:35am, Nov 21)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogThe View is Always Better When You're the Lead Dog
(9 - 1:55am, Nov 21)
Last: bbmck

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(64 - 1:29am, Nov 21)
Last: jobu

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2672 - 12:59am, Nov 21)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(317 - 12:44am, Nov 21)
Last: kubiwan

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1238 - 11:48pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(526 - 11:17pm, Nov 20)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogDeadline to set 40-man rosters tonight (11-20)
(4 - 10:47pm, Nov 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(12 - 10:43pm, Nov 20)
Last: Mike Webber

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2018 Discussion
(9 - 9:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: Master of the Horse

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(94 - 8:07pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogAmazon bids for Disney’s 22 regional sports networks, including YES Network, sources say
(39 - 8:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogThe Sky Is Falling, Baseball Is Dying, and the Roof May Leak
(22 - 7:29pm, Nov 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(8 - 7:17pm, Nov 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(196 - 6:44pm, Nov 20)
Last: bachslunch

Page rendered in 0.7371 seconds
46 querie(s) executed