Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th May 2010 23:09 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Ah, NVIDIA's CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang. This guy is usually to the point, and doesn't sugar-coat his words, so interviews with him are generally good stuff to read. This time around, he had Intel and Apple down his sights. The iPad's A4 processor doesn't measure up to his company's Tegra 2, and Intel's Z6 Moorestown is not competitive in any way. At least, that's what he claims.
Thread beginning with comment 426400
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

Oh, come on. There was nothing revolutionary to the iPod.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Oh, come on. There was nothing revolutionary to the iPod.


The question of how revolutionary the iPad is is an interesting one because it touches on how Apple does stuff and why they succeed so often and so much better than the competition most of the time.

What seems to happen at Apple is that every so often what might be termed a "step change" products is planned, something that will move Apple in to a whole new area of product or market segment. One can think of MacOSX itself as an Apple step change event, and I think you can think of the iPod and iPhone as step change products.

Once Apple have started to plan such a step change device they then hone the design down ruthlessly, everything not central to the new products central function is stripped away and all effort goes into making sure that version one of the new product clearly addresses its central function in a way that immediately leads to an improved and streamlined user experience. Version 1 must be a polished product above all even if that means leaving things out

Its worth noting how different this is to the way most companies work which is they have an idea of a product and then they often try to cram as many functions into the product as possible. They think that a longer spec list makes a better product. They looked at iPod V1, for example, and saw an MP3 player without an FM radio and thought because their MP3 had an FM radio, because its specs list was longer, their MP3 player was a better product. But what Apple did with iPod Version 1 was strip the MP3 player down to its basics (playing music) and then make those basics a fantastic and pleasurable user experience.

Once Version 1 is out then Apple carefully craft annual upgrades that steadily add new functions, each one carefully designed and added in a way that does not undermine the end user experience. And so iPod Version 1 evolves into the latest iPod Nano.

So to return to the question as to whether the iPad is revolutionary, is it a step change device? I think the answer is yes and no but mostly yes it is.

iPad clearly builds on the back of iPhone so that not only are there now millions of people familiar with the revolutionary touch interface introduced with the iPhone (people who can pick up an iPad and immediately know how to work it) but there is also a huge developer community ready to fill the new iPad with tremendous and inexpensive apps. But by the sheer impact of its size it opens up a whole new user experience and takes the iPad into areas that the iPhone hardly went. For example it is possible to read a newspaper or book on an iPhone but doing it on an iPad is so much better and nearer to the enhanced experience of using a real newspaper or book.

Nobody would do this with their iPhone for example:

http://vimeo.com/11886557

Now that Apple have got Version 1 of the iPad out the door (and it already seems to be a spectacular success) they will release Version 2 next year with enhancements, Version 3 the year after. By the time of iPad Version 3 their competitors will probably just be bringing our devices that match iPad version 1 and Apple will own the market

Reply Parent Score: 4

tony Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed. The tech industry has long been dominated by a blind push towards features. Apple is fanatical about experience, and are happy to throw non-core features under the bus, something which most tech companies were afraid to do.

Experience versus features.

Reply Parent Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

My mum was able to get her iPod going, and get iTunes songs on it... in a few minutes, without me helping her or hand holding.

That is revolutionary IMHO. It is not "geek porn" tech revolutionary. But most people don't care what the heck is going on under that shiny LCD screen as long as it does what they bought the device for: taking their media with them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

My mum was able to get her iPod going, and get iTunes songs on it... in a few minutes, without me helping her or hand holding.

Well, I know some people who learned how to use their mp3 players in about the same time, without even requiring the previous iTunes usage knowledge that your mother obviously had.

1/Plug pen drive in.
2/Move music to pen drive through drag and drop, just like you move any other file to a pen drive (even if you don't know how to use a pen drive, which is highly unlikely, annoying popups from windows help you in the task).
3/Unplug pen drive.
4/Use standard VCR-like controls, just like on the cassette player of the stereo.

Now come on ! A multimedia player easier than iPod ! Is it revolutionary ? Not at all. Multimedia pen drives have been out for ages now. It's just the right tool for the right...

Then, there's the notion of knowing about the right tool, yeah. That's where marketing, one of Apple's strong points, comes on the scene. But on the fair competition area, well... is the iPod really still revolutionary ? I don't think so. It used to be, in ye olde Archos Jukebox Recorder days. Now it lies behind, due to stupid corporate practices...

Edited 2010-05-25 21:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1