ThoughtPiece: Apple & BlackBerry – Great minds think alike

78 Comments

Mossberg concludes that “I think the end-to-end model can prevail this time, both for Apple and other companies. Consumers want choice and low prices. But they also crave the kind of simplicity and integration that the end-to-end model delivers best.”

Apple’s success should be intriguing to all of us BlackBerry fans, for RIM has clearly followed the end-to-end model in the development of its BlackBerry line. This approach has allowed RIM to give us the most elegant and functional solution in its market.

I’ve gotten to the point that I laugh when the next Windows Mobile “BlackBerry killer” device is released and people wonder if it might be better than a BlackBerry. The latest such attempt appears to the Samsung BlackJack, which even tries to rip off the BlackBerry name. However, the device model dictates that these Windows Mobile devices simply are not going to work as well as a BlackBerry.

I agree with Robb Dunewood of RIMarkable, that the most serious competition to the BlackBerry in the consumer market may just come from a company with great experience using the end-to-end device model…namely, Apple, when it releases its long anticipated iPhone.

In today’s market, the Apple and BlackBerry way of creating technology products is the winner.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    Oh, and by the way, I know that if there is one thing Americans and bloggers love, it is a story about rich winners who take it all. I can also tell that you really like the imagined duality of the Apple vs. Microsoft story, with (apparently from you comments) Apple standing for everything intellectual, democrat, luxury, liberal and creative, while I suppose that means by process of elimination Microsoft is everything working-class, republican, cheap, conservative and boring. That certainly fits the moronic mentality of the modern blue state/red state boiling down of American civilization that is just as simplistic, childish, and inaccurate as your idol worship of Apple.

    The problem is, the world really isn’t as stupid as all that, and the story isn’t about the suits who made the money. The real story of innovation in the computer industry isn’t either Microsoft or Apple, it is the guys who didn’t make it because they were too far ahead of their time, only to later be ripped off by companies like Apple or Microsoft. Altair, Commodore, Atari, TI, DEC, AT&T, Xerox, Digital Research, Br0derbund, Aldus, Compaq, Macromedia, Claris, SGI, Avid, Sun, Autodesk, Intergraph, Cray, 3DFX, Creative, these are the companies that really made a difference in the direction of the development of computers. They weren’t the winners, and they aren’t the ones everybody wants to root for. They don’t fit neatly into your childish us vs. them mentality, but they are the ones who really pushed the envelope, and only after they had tested the limits did the companies like Apple and MS figure out how to sell it, usually while screwing the original creator in the process. That is why most of them aren’t around anymore.

    You can quibble all you want about what you think Microsoft stole from Apple, and how popular you think Apple is, that doesn’t change that Apple computers are still running on a copy of an OS AT&T made in the ’70s! You can make ridiculous claims like the entire computer industry owing the color white to Apple, or how a plastic box with rounded corners will go down in the history books as a high point of industrial design, but that doesn’t make your factually inaccurate claims about the history of the computer industry any more “intellectual” or for that matter true. The truth of the industry is that Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and all your heroes and villains of your Apple mythology might be important from the point of view of the business models and sales techniques they employed, but (especially in the early days), really were just along for the ride trying to figure out who could best profit off of other people’s work.

    I can tell you really want to try to turn this into some ignorant Windoze-using working class slob cooking up conservative republican conspiracy theories about the educated liberal Apple-using intellectual elite, but I’m afraid you are really going to have a hard time making it that simple for yourself, seeing as how I live in Hollywood, am part of the very elitist media I am talking about, and in the past configured, programed for, used, supported, and sold Apple computers, and am probably both more educated, and (obviously) better informed than you.

    You see, I am not the one constantly trying to use the opinion of the common man as my proof, that is your shtick. I am an elitist, and as such am quite proud to stand by my opinion and the facts, without having to validate it through the lens of what is popularly believed. I’ve used just about every type of personal computer ever made, and been making purchasing decisions on high-end graphics systems since around 1984. I really don’t need anyone to sum up who was important in what way, especially if they can’t even be bothered to get the most basic facts right.

    So please, if you have some issue with the factual content of my argument, share it. If, on the other hand, your argument is just, as it seems to be “well, no one I know agrees with you, so you must be wrong” then please go back and hit the books, rather than just inventing vague rationalizations as to my motivation. My motivation is immaterial in the face of your factual inaccuracies. The facts are the facts, no matter how you or I feel about them. It isn’t my fault you chose bad arguments, and were unable to back them up in the face of the actual history. I didn’t put those words in your mouth, and I didn’t force those particular examples on you. Had you gone on about the value of using SCSI in a personal computer, I would have been right with you. Had you talked about advantages of Firewire over USB, no argument. had you talked about some of the great music software that for so long was only available on the Apple, I could not argue with that either. Had you crooned about Apple’s better driver model and early use of what is now referred to as a Hardware Abstraction Layer, I would have given you that. You chose bad examples, that were just not true. Don’t try to say it is some conspiracy theory on my part that you don’t even know how to properly champion your favorite system.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    Oh, and by the way, I know that if there is one thing Americans and bloggers love, it is a story about rich winners who take it all. I can also tell that you really like the imagined duality of the Apple vs. Microsoft story, with (apparently from you comments) Apple standing for everything intellectual, democrat, luxury, liberal and creative, while I suppose that means by process of elimination Microsoft is everything working-class, republican, cheap, conservative and boring. That certainly fits the moronic mentality of the modern blue state/red state boiling down of American civilization that is just as simplistic, childish, and inaccurate as your idol worship of Apple.

    The problem is, the world really isn’t as stupid as all that, and the story isn’t about the suits who made the money. The real story of innovation in the computer industry isn’t either Microsoft or Apple, it is the guys who didn’t make it because they were too far ahead of their time, only to later be ripped off by companies like Apple or Microsoft. Altair, Commodore, Atari, TI, DEC, AT&T, Xerox, Digital Research, Br0derbund, Aldus, Compaq, Macromedia, Claris, SGI, Avid, Sun, Autodesk, Intergraph, Cray, 3DFX, Creative, these are the companies that really made a difference in the direction of the development of computers. They weren’t the winners, and they aren’t the ones everybody wants to root for. They don’t fit neatly into your childish us vs. them mentality, but they are the ones who really pushed the envelope, and only after they had tested the limits did the companies like Apple and MS figure out how to sell it, usually while screwing the original creator in the process. That is why most of them aren’t around anymore.

    You can quibble all you want about what you think Microsoft stole from Apple, and how popular you think Apple is, that doesn’t change that Apple computers are still running on a copy of an OS AT&T made in the ’70s! You can make ridiculous claims like the entire computer industry owing the color white to Apple, or how a plastic box with rounded corners will go down in the history books as a high point of industrial design, but that doesn’t make your factually inaccurate claims about the history of the computer industry any more “intellectual” or for that matter true. The truth of the industry is that Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and all your heroes and villains of your Apple mythology might be important from the point of view of the business models and sales techniques they employed, but (especially in the early days), really were just along for the ride trying to figure out who could best profit off of other people’s work.

    I can tell you really want to try to turn this into some ignorant Windoze-using working class slob cooking up conservative republican conspiracy theories about the educated liberal Apple-using intellectual elite, but I’m afraid you are really going to have a hard time making it that simple for yourself, seeing as how I live in Hollywood, am part of the very elitist media I am talking about, and in the past configured, programed for, used, supported, and sold Apple computers, and am probably both more educated, and (obviously) better informed than you.

    You see, I am not the one constantly trying to use the opinion of the common man as my proof, that is your shtick. I am an elitist, and as such am quite proud to stand by my opinion and the facts, without having to validate it through the lens of what is popularly believed. I’ve used just about every type of personal computer ever made, and been making purchasing decisions on high-end graphics systems since around 1984. I really don’t need anyone to sum up who was important in what way, especially if they can’t even be bothered to get the most basic facts right.

    So please, if you have some issue with the factual content of my argument, share it. If, on the other hand, your argument is just, as it seems to be “well, no one I know agrees with you, so you must be wrong” then please go back and hit the books, rather than just inventing vague rationalizations as to my motivation. My motivation is immaterial in the face of your factual inaccuracies. The facts are the facts, no matter how you or I feel about them. It isn’t my fault you chose bad arguments, and were unable to back them up in the face of the actual history. I didn’t put those words in your mouth, and I didn’t force those particular examples on you. Had you gone on about the value of using SCSI in a personal computer, I would have been right with you. Had you talked about advantages of Firewire over USB, no argument. had you talked about some of the great music software that for so long was only available on the Apple, I could not argue with that either. Had you crooned about Apple’s better driver model and early use of what is now referred to as a Hardware Abstraction Layer, I would have given you that. You chose bad examples, that were just not true. Don’t try to say it is some conspiracy theory on my part that you don’t even know how to properly champion your favorite system.

  • Thought

    Lloyd: thanks, as usual, for your comments.

    I’m actually amazed that you turn this debate into a metaphor for a political, red state vs blue state, Democrat vs Republican, populist vs elitist, struggle. That only reinforces my impression that there are deeper overtones to your argument than simply a disagreement on the impact of Apple.

    I will agree with you on one point, though, and that there are a lot of unsung heroes of innovation out there. I also agree that the most successful companies are often the ones who take the ideas of others and do a better job of selling, marketing, mass producing, etc. But unfortunately, that is the nature of the market, and I suppose one could argue that selling, marketing, mass production, etc in such a way that it goes big in the market is also a talent worthy of reward.

    But I don’t want to start a whole new debate with you on the fairness of the capitalistic system or life in general.

    I still maintain, and obviously even you give other examples of, that Apple has been an innovative and creative force in the digital era. I still believe that often an Apple product makes a great example to illustrate a point, owing to the fact that so many readers (esp. on a tech blog) know of the product and its reputation.

    Again, it is you who make hyperbolic claims against Apple. To accept the thesis of my original article only means that you accept Apple as a viable force in the market and a company of merit. Period. I never claim that Apple is the only innovator, that all those companies you mention have no merit, etc. I never attempted to summarize the entire history of the PC era in one article…merely to use a very well known and iconic product, which happened to be made by Apple, to illustrate a point.

    I would have chosen the iPod regardless of whether it had been made by Apple, simply because it is a very well known symbol of personal, portable electronics that is simply and easy to use.

    That obviously irritated you greatly, and now we start to see some hints of why, as you mix in your analogies regarding politics and ideology. You read way more into a simply article than was ever intended. I’m sorry that you cannot simply accept the argument on face value, and instead turn your replies into a polemic on the supposed bias of the press and academia, on the supposed bias of the equity markets, and now on the fairness of market in general in meting out rewards.

    Those are all interesting topics, but that wasn’t the point of my original article. You, and I am guilty of allowing myself to be dragged into it, have extrapolated layers of meaning that are dubious at best.

    So at the end of the day we will each believe what we want to, and enjoy the freedoms of our society that allow this kind of disagreement.

    Thanks, again, Lloyd.

  • Thought

    Lloyd: thanks, as usual, for your comments.

    I’m actually amazed that you turn this debate into a metaphor for a political, red state vs blue state, Democrat vs Republican, populist vs elitist, struggle. That only reinforces my impression that there are deeper overtones to your argument than simply a disagreement on the impact of Apple.

    I will agree with you on one point, though, and that there are a lot of unsung heroes of innovation out there. I also agree that the most successful companies are often the ones who take the ideas of others and do a better job of selling, marketing, mass producing, etc. But unfortunately, that is the nature of the market, and I suppose one could argue that selling, marketing, mass production, etc in such a way that it goes big in the market is also a talent worthy of reward.

    But I don’t want to start a whole new debate with you on the fairness of the capitalistic system or life in general.

    I still maintain, and obviously even you give other examples of, that Apple has been an innovative and creative force in the digital era. I still believe that often an Apple product makes a great example to illustrate a point, owing to the fact that so many readers (esp. on a tech blog) know of the product and its reputation.

    Again, it is you who make hyperbolic claims against Apple. To accept the thesis of my original article only means that you accept Apple as a viable force in the market and a company of merit. Period. I never claim that Apple is the only innovator, that all those companies you mention have no merit, etc. I never attempted to summarize the entire history of the PC era in one article…merely to use a very well known and iconic product, which happened to be made by Apple, to illustrate a point.

    I would have chosen the iPod regardless of whether it had been made by Apple, simply because it is a very well known symbol of personal, portable electronics that is simply and easy to use.

    That obviously irritated you greatly, and now we start to see some hints of why, as you mix in your analogies regarding politics and ideology. You read way more into a simply article than was ever intended. I’m sorry that you cannot simply accept the argument on face value, and instead turn your replies into a polemic on the supposed bias of the press and academia, on the supposed bias of the equity markets, and now on the fairness of market in general in meting out rewards.

    Those are all interesting topics, but that wasn’t the point of my original article. You, and I am guilty of allowing myself to be dragged into it, have extrapolated layers of meaning that are dubious at best.

    So at the end of the day we will each believe what we want to, and enjoy the freedoms of our society that allow this kind of disagreement.

    Thanks, again, Lloyd.

  • http://www.rimarkable.com Robb (RIMarkable)

    These comments are classic. I was going to chime in a few days ago, however, as you guys know, my style is to toss out opinion often based on little or no facts and and I didn’t want to upset the flow and /or sound like a complete idiot.

    I will just say this.

    My iPod rocks and I wouldn’t trade my PC for a Mac if Steve Jobs delivered to the house himself.

    I must admit, however, that the Apple 23″ media display is sweet.

  • http://www.rimarkable.com/ Robb (RIMarkable)

    These comments are classic. I was going to chime in a few days ago, however, as you guys know, my style is to toss out opinion often based on little or no facts and and I didn’t want to upset the flow and /or sound like a complete idiot.

    I will just say this.

    My iPod rocks and I wouldn’t trade my PC for a Mac if Steve Jobs delivered to the house himself.

    I must admit, however, that the Apple 23″ media display is sweet.

  • http://www.rimarkable.com/ Robb (RIMarkable)

    These comments are classic. I was going to chime in a few days ago, however, as you guys know, my style is to toss out opinion often based on little or no facts and and I didn’t want to upset the flow and /or sound like a complete idiot.

    I will just say this.

    My iPod rocks and I wouldn’t trade my PC for a Mac if Steve Jobs delivered to the house himself.

    I must admit, however, that the Apple 23″ media display is sweet.

  • http://www.rimarkable.com/ Robb (RIMarkable)

    By the way, this is the first time ever that I have tracked comments via RSS.

    Good stuff Thought and Lloyd.

  • http://www.rimarkable.com Robb (RIMarkable)

    By the way, this is the first time ever that I have tracked comments via RSS.

    Good stuff Thought and Lloyd.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    Umm… excuse me Thought, but I was perfectly happy to just discuss the relative importance of the iPod, iPhone and accurate reporting of the under-reported facts of the market. You are the one who started listing Apple’s contributions to the world of computers, brought up the luxury vs. economy analogy, threw Al Gore and environmentalism in there for good measure, and started claiming that my comments were part of some vast conspiracy to malign the intellectual elite. I was just responding to those comments.

    Don’t try to make some winking allusion to my attitudes on politics and ideology when you are the one who brought those topics into the discussion.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    Umm… excuse me Thought, but I was perfectly happy to just discuss the relative importance of the iPod, iPhone and accurate reporting of the under-reported facts of the market. You are the one who started listing Apple’s contributions to the world of computers, brought up the luxury vs. economy analogy, threw Al Gore and environmentalism in there for good measure, and started claiming that my comments were part of some vast conspiracy to malign the intellectual elite. I was just responding to those comments.

    Don’t try to make some winking allusion to my attitudes on politics and ideology when you are the one who brought those topics into the discussion.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    Umm… excuse me Thought, but I was perfectly happy to just discuss the relative importance of the iPod, iPhone and accurate reporting of the under-reported facts of the market. You are the one who started listing Apple’s contributions to the world of computers, brought up the luxury vs. economy analogy, threw Al Gore and environmentalism in there for good measure, and started claiming that my comments were part of some vast conspiracy to malign the intellectual elite. I was just responding to those comments.

    Don’t try to make some winking allusion to my attitudes on politics and ideology when you are the one who brought those topics into the discussion.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    Umm… excuse me Thought, but I was perfectly happy to just discuss the relative importance of the iPod, iPhone and accurate reporting of the under-reported facts of the market. You are the one who started listing Apple’s contributions to the world of computers, brought up the luxury vs. economy analogy, threw Al Gore and environmentalism in there for good measure, and started claiming that my comments were part of some vast conspiracy to malign the intellectual elite. I was just responding to those comments.

    Don’t try to make some winking allusion to my attitudes on politics and ideology when you are the one who brought those topics into the discussion.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    You know, I think in all of this, the original context of my comment has been completely lost.

    The simple point is that it isn’t RIM who is trying to get into Apple’s market. It is Apple, who is trying to get into RIM’s market. As such it would seem, at best, you have your thesis backwards. Shouldn’t the question really be, what should Apple be trying to copy from RIM, not the other way around?

    I mean, all the bravado about Apple aside, no one is going to deny that RIM has completely changed the mobile phone market. It just seems to me an amazingly bizarre thesis to start talking about how one of the technology leaders in the mobile phone market needs to take some lessons from a competitor who hasn’t even really dipped their toe in the market yet, and who you are only assuming will have any modicum of success. I mean, Danger (founded entirely by ex-Apple people) didn’t really shake things up much at RIM, and the ROKR (which Apple collaborated on) didn’t really shake things up much at RIM, so I see no real evidence that Apple is the company RIM really needs to watch.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    You know, I think in all of this, the original context of my comment has been completely lost.

    The simple point is that it isn’t RIM who is trying to get into Apple’s market. It is Apple, who is trying to get into RIM’s market. As such it would seem, at best, you have your thesis backwards. Shouldn’t the question really be, what should Apple be trying to copy from RIM, not the other way around?

    I mean, all the bravado about Apple aside, no one is going to deny that RIM has completely changed the mobile phone market. It just seems to me an amazingly bizarre thesis to start talking about how one of the technology leaders in the mobile phone market needs to take some lessons from a competitor who hasn’t even really dipped their toe in the market yet, and who you are only assuming will have any modicum of success. I mean, Danger (founded entirely by ex-Apple people) didn’t really shake things up much at RIM, and the ROKR (which Apple collaborated on) didn’t really shake things up much at RIM, so I see no real evidence that Apple is the company RIM really needs to watch.

  • Thought

    Lloyd: agreed that I think the original points we both wanted to make got lost in all of the other debating.

    However, I believe you misinterpret my original article. I never once state that RIM should copy Apple. I only note a similarity in the way both companies design products in that both companies design their own hardware and software. This makes for a more seamless integration, making for greater ease of use for the customer.

    That’s really the only point I wanted to make. In fact, I wouldn’t make much sense advocating that RIM follow Apple and the end to end model, since I note that RIM is already following that model, and has since its inception. RIM cannot copy Apple in this regard, since it developed the same model independently.

    As for mentioning the iPhone, my only point, again, was not to suggest that RIM should copy that…how can they copy something not yet released? However, like Robb Dunewood, I believe that the iPhone will be a serious competitor in the consumer market, albeit the higher priced end of that market. That means it will compete against the BB consumer models like the Pearl, as well as Motorola, Sony-Erriccson, etc. I want to also add the disclaimer that in no way do I think that any new Apple cell phone will compete with RIM in the enterprise market.

    Lloyd, I must say I’ve grown to luv ya man…and if I’m in the Hollywood area, I’ll have to look you up and buy you a Starbucks coffee and we can discuss all sorts of wonderful tech topics. I’ll bring my iPod of course :)

  • Thought

    Lloyd: agreed that I think the original points we both wanted to make got lost in all of the other debating.

    However, I believe you misinterpret my original article. I never once state that RIM should copy Apple. I only note a similarity in the way both companies design products in that both companies design their own hardware and software. This makes for a more seamless integration, making for greater ease of use for the customer.

    That’s really the only point I wanted to make. In fact, I wouldn’t make much sense advocating that RIM follow Apple and the end to end model, since I note that RIM is already following that model, and has since its inception. RIM cannot copy Apple in this regard, since it developed the same model independently.

    As for mentioning the iPhone, my only point, again, was not to suggest that RIM should copy that…how can they copy something not yet released? However, like Robb Dunewood, I believe that the iPhone will be a serious competitor in the consumer market, albeit the higher priced end of that market. That means it will compete against the BB consumer models like the Pearl, as well as Motorola, Sony-Erriccson, etc. I want to also add the disclaimer that in no way do I think that any new Apple cell phone will compete with RIM in the enterprise market.

    Lloyd, I must say I’ve grown to luv ya man…and if I’m in the Hollywood area, I’ll have to look you up and buy you a Starbucks coffee and we can discuss all sorts of wonderful tech topics. I’ll bring my iPod of course :)

  • Thought

    Lloyd: agreed that I think the original points we both wanted to make got lost in all of the other debating.

    However, I believe you misinterpret my original article. I never once state that RIM should copy Apple. I only note a similarity in the way both companies design products in that both companies design their own hardware and software. This makes for a more seamless integration, making for greater ease of use for the customer.

    That’s really the only point I wanted to make. In fact, I wouldn’t make much sense advocating that RIM follow Apple and the end to end model, since I note that RIM is already following that model, and has since its inception. RIM cannot copy Apple in this regard, since it developed the same model independently.

    As for mentioning the iPhone, my only point, again, was not to suggest that RIM should copy that…how can they copy something not yet released? However, like Robb Dunewood, I believe that the iPhone will be a serious competitor in the consumer market, albeit the higher priced end of that market. That means it will compete against the BB consumer models like the Pearl, as well as Motorola, Sony-Erriccson, etc. I want to also add the disclaimer that in no way do I think that any new Apple cell phone will compete with RIM in the enterprise market.

    Lloyd, I must say I’ve grown to luv ya man…and if I’m in the Hollywood area, I’ll have to look you up and buy you a Starbucks coffee and we can discuss all sorts of wonderful tech topics. I’ll bring my iPod of course :)

  • Thought

    Robb: I must say that I am profoundly disappointed in you: I mean if Steve Jobs delivered to your house himself…:)

  • Thought

    Robb: I must say that I am profoundly disappointed in you: I mean if Steve Jobs delivered to your house himself…:)

  • Thought

    Robb: I must say that I am profoundly disappointed in you: I mean if Steve Jobs delivered to your house himself…:)

  • L. M. Lloyd

    I know this topic is dead and buried, but I just had to point out this somewhat relevant story:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36515

    It is about a NASDAQ stock that nearly doubled in one day because of one erroneous press release! Now, we have already gone round after round on this subject, but I still maintain that examples like this are clear proof of what I’m talking about. Investors rely heavily on media coverage to decide how they are going to invest. If for some reason (like say the fact that 90% of the writers all use the same brand of computer) media coverage of one particular company is consistently skewed, then it is going to cause the stock to be consistently overvalued.

    What I find incredibly ironic, is that then it becomes an Ouroboros, where the positive stories cause a rise in the value of the stock, then the writers use the rise in the stock as justification for more positive stories, which in turn gives rise to more stock increases, and thus it goes devouring itself infinitely.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    I know this topic is dead and buried, but I just had to point out this somewhat relevant story:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36515

    It is about a NASDAQ stock that nearly doubled in one day because of one erroneous press release! Now, we have already gone round after round on this subject, but I still maintain that examples like this are clear proof of what I’m talking about. Investors rely heavily on media coverage to decide how they are going to invest. If for some reason (like say the fact that 90% of the writers all use the same brand of computer) media coverage of one particular company is consistently skewed, then it is going to cause the stock to be consistently overvalued.

    What I find incredibly ironic, is that then it becomes an Ouroboros, where the positive stories cause a rise in the value of the stock, then the writers use the rise in the stock as justification for more positive stories, which in turn gives rise to more stock increases, and thus it goes devouring itself infinitely.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    You were right Thought, their iPod Q1 sales did exceed their Q1 sales lats year by a good amount.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    You were right Thought, their iPod Q1 sales did exceed their Q1 sales lats year by a good amount.

  • L. M. Lloyd

    You were right Thought, their iPod Q1 sales did exceed their Q1 sales lats year by a good amount.

  • http://newgadgetworld.com/ Sachiko Evanosky

    Alot of bloggers not very happy with this new iPad.There was just 2 much hype about it and alot people got disapointed.Quite frankly, I can actually see great deal of the cool potential of the gizmo. Third-party applications for doing tunes, games, papers and magazine and FFS books, all sorts of neat stuff, but they failed to sell it properly (aside from the books). It feels rather unfinished

  • http://newgadgetworld.com Sachiko Evanosky

    Alot of bloggers not very happy with this new iPad.There was just 2 much hype about it and alot people got disapointed.Quite frankly, I can actually see great deal of the cool potential of the gizmo. Third-party applications for doing tunes, games, papers and magazine and FFS books, all sorts of neat stuff, but they failed to sell it properly (aside from the books). It feels rather unfinished