<p>I have trouble dealing with posts that include lines like this “passive tablets destined to the more gullible leisure market.” I don’t believe in denigrating the marketplace. If people buy the thing, they buy the thing. That’s the market speaking. </p>
<p>When the iPad came out, flash was the de facto internet video standard. It is no longer that. In fact, it is no longer even supported by Adobe for that but instead is being treated as a means of writing/developing which is then translated into web standard video/animation. The iPad drove that. When it came out, the ads for competing tablets were “the whole web” and pundits made a big deal out of the lack of flash as a competitive disadvantage. The iPad not only outsold all other tablets, driving most of them out of the game, but it is about 95% of all tablet web traffic. Google doesn’t support flash either. The Surface RT supports only MS approved whitelist flash sites. </p>
<p>I remember a piece in a major news source that listed sites you couldn’t see on an iPad. All of them no longer use flash or serve up what’s appropriate. I mention that last bit because sometimes a site may serve flash because it’s supported even though flash is not as good as other options. </p>
<p>In other words, people are free to find value in legacy websites that require flash and to buy a table to access those. But the market has said quite clearly that flash is meaningless.</p>
<p>BTW, if you think intentional cannibalization is a mistake, look at Apple history. That’s what they do. They brought out the iPod mini knowing it would cannibalize iPod sales. It did. It ate them and became by far the most popular iPod. They want to eat their own products because they know others will do that for them. MS should have listened to that years ago but they have often chained themselves to legacy. Apple has cannibalized sales with their phones as well. The top selling phone at major carriers is often the older iPhone. Apple could stop selling those to drive sales to the new phone but they prefer to eat their own products.</p>
<p>I would expect, in this vein, that Apple will release a new mini next spring, early summer. The current mini will then drop in price. They will cannibalize future mini sales with that price drop. </p>
<p>While people are free to predict Apple’s demise, etc., remember they are production constrained not demand constrained. They sell what they make and are constrained by the investment necessary and production steps necessary to make more. Other manufacturers are constrained in general by demand. The mini is priced as it is in part because setting the lower price would not increase sales; they sell every one they make.</p>
<p>I respect MS, Google, Amazon. I fear Google most because they, unlike MS, are not bound by legacy and respond very quickly with very little regard to the intellectual property of others. Apple could count on MS taking forever to respond and then doing it half-way because they would be more interested in maintaining some legacy product than in breaking new ground. Google, by contrast, can take Siri and improve on it. Odds are they literally took stuff but they aren’t constrained by that or by legacy politics. I suspect the software executive changes at Apple may reflect this threat more than arguments over whether iCal should have stitches like a notebook. </p>
<p>And again, I’m glad that MS is doing the Surface. But I’m disheartened by the idiotic comments made recently. They say they were always first but were distracted by security issues. Bull. That says they’re still lying to themselves. And then Ballmer, who has not done well, comes out and says that Apple is a low volume company in phones. This when MS has next to zero market share. Again, lying to yourself is not good. I think they could use a management change.</p>
<p>BTW, I haven’t used pressure sensitive pens yet either.</p>
