Apple sells the iPad like a computer not like a cell phone

by Yutaka Tsutano

Why operators will find it hard to sell tablets
[Via asymco]

On the eve of iPad 2.0, it’s time to think again about this curious new computer. My intuition tells me that this product category will behave very differently from the iPhone and will not be subject to the same sales ramp.

The iPad has been on the market for less than a year but it’s still a puzzle for many. It’s a product that’s often seen as an iPhone product line extension. From a hardware point of view, it certainly seems to be. It has an almost identical internal architecture and uses almost the same software. An engineer would look at it and reasonably say it’s the same thing.

However, from the way it’s used and the way it’s sold, it has very little in common with its smaller cousin. There are plenty of experts who can detail how the products are used differently, but I would highlight the portability of the iPhone makes it suitable for a completely different set of tasks than the less portable but more immersive iPad.

But what I want to dwell on here is how differently the products are sold.

I’ll build the case from evidence that Apple provides. The most important observation is that the iPad is an unlocked product. Although you can hire an operator to provide you with data services for it, the product is designed not to rely on that. As a result the product is effectively “divorced” from the operator channel. This means it does not typically benefit (or suffer) from subsidy.

[More]

All the other tablet manufacturers seem to require a telecom channel to sell them. They do not have the same penetration ability that the iPad has.

One can only be found in carrier stores. The other can be sold anywhere. One is retailed similarly to a computer. One is marketed just like a big phone.

Since the tablet, and particularly the iPad, really is a lightweight small computer, which sales strategy works with the marketing strategy?

Not only can Apple command a large portion of the market for the hardware needed, they also command the delivery channels to sell all of these. Many tablet makers are much more constrained in both their hardware and points of sale.

I have a Wifi iPad because I can get data without Wifi through my iPhone. Why pay for both? I have not yet entered a situation where I could get data on my iPhone but could not get this vital data immediately over to my iPad.

And with the ability to tether, I should have nothing to worry about.

Conspiracy theory #3 for climate denialists – researchers are in it for the money

by RDECOM

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong
[Via Ars Technica]

One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. A Google search for “global warming gravy train” pulls out over 50,000 results (six of them from our forums).

It’s tempting to respond with indignation; after all, researchers generally are doing something they love without a focus on compensation. But, more significantly, the accusation simply makes no sense on any level.

[More]

Only people with little connection to research would say that the 10s of thousands of people worldwide working on these problems are in it for financial benefits.

This article is a good start to debunking that view. But, as can be sen from the comments, facts do not really matter. Ad hominems and anecdotal data are much more important to them. And it demonstrates very little real understanding of how the research is funded or done.

This sort of thing has been true for other denialists – such as  creationists – as long as I have been alive. Facts and data seldom have any effect. All those do is confirm the strength of the conspiracy against their denialist belief.

Cargo Cult Worlds are very hard to destroy.

The very slow return of jobs

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
[Via Calculated Risk]

As a reminder, the weak payroll report for January was blamed on the snow. Usually I don’t buy the weather excuses, but it did appear weather played a role this time. When the report was released, I wrote:

The 36,000 payroll jobs added was far below expectations of 150,000 jobs, however this was probably impacted by bad weather during the survey reference period. If so, there should be a strong bounce back in the February report.

That is a key reason the consensus is so high for February. Bloomberg has the consensus at 180,000, MarketWatch has 200,000, Goldman’s forecast is 200,000, and I heard ISI is at 230,000).

It will be useful to average the two months to estimate the current pace of payroll growth – especially if weather played a role in January and there is a strong bounce back in February.

And we have to remember the numbers are grim:
• There are 7.7 million fewer payroll jobs now than before the recession started in December 2007.
• Almost 14 million Americans are unemployed.
• Of those unemployed, 6.2 million have been unemployed for six months or more.
• Another 8.4 million are working part time for economic reasons,
• About 4 million more have left the labor force since the start of the recession (we can see this in the dramatic drop in the labor force participation rate),
• of those who have left the labor force, about 1 million are available for work, but are discouraged and have given up.

[More]

At this rate, it will take 5 years just to replace the 7.7 million jobs. But that does not take into account the increasing labor market as young people enter. Here is a nice graphical comparison, from last year, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

This is how long it would take to get back to even. As you can see, last July it was going to take 4 years. Now we are talking 5 years. So, instead of 2014 it will be 2016.

But here is the same graph including the increase in the labor market:

Last year, it was going to take until 2021 to get back to the same employment levels we had in 2007! Now we are looking more to 2023.

This all assumes that the jobs recovery rates do not change. we have to hope we see a large increase in jobs sometime soon. Otherwise we are talking 15 years just to get back to what we used to have.

That is why job creation should be number one. If we do not start to really tackle this problem now, an entire generation of workers will be lost.

The deficit won’t matter because too many people will not have any jobs.

Could the app economy be changing the gaming industry?

by digitpedia

It’s unofficial: dedicated gaming devices may be losing out to phones
[Via Ars Technica]

Here’s a good weather vane for the gaming industry: ask people what they’ll be taking on the plane as they fly to the Game Developers Conference, or GDC. This year, the amount of DS’s and PSPs may be at an all-time low as people are simply playing games on their mobile phones or tablets. We no longer have to carry a dedicated gaming device to play a first-person shooter, real-time strategy game, or even a dungeon crawler, and many of us are moving on.

It’s not that games on phones or tablets are better than what you see on Sony and Nintendo’s handheld systems—it’s that for many travelers they’re good enough. People need to justify the weight and bulk when they pack things, and if they are already carrying something that can play games, why bring a second gaming-only device? Before every big conference the call goes out on Twitter, asking what iPhone games should people buy for the plane.

These games can be both casual or hardcore, they usually cost under $10, and they play on a device that you’re already packing. New DS games cost around $30, and you’re going to need to bring yet another device, and perhaps a charging cable. The 3DS isn’t helping things, with a system that offers limited battery life and games that are even more expensive.

I’ll be the first to admit that this is a trend that’s hard to track, and is largely anecdotal, but at this year’s DICE everyone was talking about smaller games that play on devices that are not primarily gaming devices. Even those who make the larger, higher-budget games for our consoles—such as the executives behind Blizzard and Bioware—are spending their time playing games on their phones, not a gaming device. One of the founders of Bioware lauded iPhone games when asked what he’s been playing. “Every week it’s like what’s new? It has become so easy to play them. Trying to play Scott Adam’s Pirate Adventure on an Apple II with a tape drive, that was hard to do. It’s very easy to play on the iPhone,” Dr. Greg Zeschuk said at DICE.

[More]

Not only are apps much cheaper for the iOS devices, they get new upgrades much more rapidly. Angry Birds has had close to 100 new puzzles added. When they come out with a new version, I’ll buy it. I can download it quickly and have days worth of fun with something I am already carrying.

And the App Store allows more apps to  be sold in 20 days than had been sold in a year before.

And it is possible to create a game that can easily be used on mobile devices, laptops and desktop devices, allowing income to be made at each stage. Again, Angry birds is the leader here, with a version for phones, a version for the iPad and a version for the Mac. With about a month’s worth of development time.

The handheld gaming devices depend on a gaming development cycle that is much longer and more expensive. As stated, often their battery life is abysmal.

I’d be vey worried if I were them. The market is changing and they need to adapt. They’ll still make a  lot of money selling their dedicated hardware, but I wonder how many games will still be developed for them and how large that market is?