The odds are against the Ipad

...the iPad is so revolutionary most of the technorati don't even get it!

The killer app, isn't any specific app, it's not what it does, it's how it does everything!

This ain't journalism any more, this is pure entertainment. Keep up the good show Nick.

People don't attack facts in a Nick Farrell article on Apple because there rarely are any. There certainly don't seem to be any in this one.

The last Apple article of his that I commented on, he was wrong on about three different points. Not opinion points either.

He claimed:
That Apple got Arrandale processors early when they in fact don't yet use them in their Macbook and Macbook Pro.

That both Mac Pros are overpriced. He'd be right about the single socket but dead wrong about the dual socket.

That the new Mac Pro would use the Core i7 980X processor. Both Mac Pros have always used Xeon processors. The reasons for this in the 2S versions are obvious to anyone that knows anything and it's for ECC/RDIMM support in the 1S version. The 1S version will likely use the Xeon W3680.

It's pretty clear he doesn't do basic research and I hate to see that at The Inq. Charlie may have had a hard-on for nVidia like Nick does for Apple, but at least Charlie new his tech.

I agree with you. The Ipad looks like it has the deck stacked against it. I find it amusing that if anyone says anything negative about your article they make it personal somehow.

Simpletons. How about disputing the facts instead of attacking the person?

The Ipad is launching when goods of this nature are just not in demand. Couple that with no killer app. means you have serious roadblock.

It's just a matter of time before apple gets angry/frustrated consumers from launching the Ipad before its ready.

First off, to get a feel of what reading an e-book on the iPad would be like, try reading 100-200 pages of .pdf text on your present backlit LCD computer monitor. After your eyes start to bleed and itch, you may have a different viewpoint on Mr. Jobs recommendation to his "beloved consumers" that they read e-books on the iPad's backlit LCD. All he wants is your money (and industry-wide media/platform control, unthinking devotion, etc.).

Producing a device like the iPad shows how Apple pictures its users -- like passive media (and gadget) consumers who just want to touch icons and then stare slack-jawed at whatever their Apple-approved iTunes purchase does to stimulate the vague region between their ears (the same region that can be programmed to reactively enter money into the iTunes store).

I think that real people (like you, not the caricature of humanity envisioned by Apple) considering a tablet would be better off purchasing a cheaper, more capable version based on open source (like Android or MeeGo), which treats users with a significant degree of respect as free thinking beings.

The media have a real hate for the iPad. What the hell is the problem? It's as if they started a war against it.
I have seen article after article from all over the Internet trying to convince me that it's a ridiculous product and here are 10 products that are better.
Or, anyone that pre-orders an iPad is crazy.
Or, 10 reasons why the netbook is better than an iPad.
Or, 10 reasons why the downfall of Apple starts with the iPad.
Or, 10 predictions for 2010 where the iPad is NOT classified as a touchscreen laptop so even if it is a success, it's a failure. (Just got this one today)
And finally, why Apple's iPad will be a failure, but Microsoft's blatant ripoff will be a success. Okay the last one I made-up, but it's only a matter of time.

There are more of these, I just can't think of them all. I get tech mag e-mails everyday trying to tell me how to feel about this or that product.

I, like everyone else, decide for myself. I really wanted to get an ebook reader a few months ago, but nothing was either perfect or available. Here were have a simple product that I can read pdf's and I get all these other features which I didn't even consider before. Plus, it has a color screen. It's a letter sized slate which helps me get away from my pc for simple things. I'm all for competition, but I fail to see any. If anything, I see it expanding the market for this niche product. Hell, even MS those Redrum copycats are now designing a product because of the iPad. If it's so terrible then why does it have the biggest buzz leading-up to it's release?
If anything, the media are just plain annoying everyone with all the coverage. Who needs advertising when the media just did it for them and saved Apple millions.

lol touch screen novelty lol as expressed before touch screen is nothing new just the way apple did it (it had the touch flow which wasnt widely known in other PDAs)but reguardless the iphone was a phone more people are likely to buy a new phone for 200 than a new computer starting at 500 im actually going to wait for the 3rd generation bcs the ipad has the coding for camera but not the hardware so apple will make money off the 1st gen then will slap 100-200 dollars extra when the produce the camera ipad then there will be an update for video (why does this seem so fimiliar??) lol ipad = ipod touch

Even the "pre" sales have been selling better than many other products.

A product that doesn't even exist yet... is hotter than hell.

So you use that info to decide it isn't a success??? It already is!

I dont think iPad will be big hit like iPhone. It is not that revolutionary after all. But the parodies iPad available do make me laugh hard. This hitler ipad parody is particularly hilarious.
http://mylaughingblog.com/2010/03/hitler-ipad-parody/

Is the betting of 1 million sales for the first "day" or "first week"?

Apple will easily sell 1 million that first week... demand has been off the charts. But yes, 1 million sales on the first "day"? it will be close...

Interesting way to get sales projections. But boy did it annoy the Apple Fanbois. Sad how people who feel that Apple can do no wrong forget that historically Apple has had more failures than successes. Get over it Fanbois, no one bats 1,000 -- and historically Apple is only at about 200. Still makes money, but far from the "innovation leader" Fanbois want to make it out to be.

iPad has a significant uphill battle that the iPhone never had to face. The iPhone was introduced as a very polished smart-phone with an OS that was very streamlined to the higher end of a market that was already established (cell-phones/smart-phones). It address a specific problem that had not been addressed by other phones in a market that was already very mature and flourishing. iPad has no such mature and flourishing market in place, and will pretty much have to build the market on it's own. While some users will no doubt find a use for it (ebook reader/netbook/media entertainment device), there is not a clear-cut market segment that has not been addressed and is clamoring for this device (i.e. a solution in search of a problem). It may hold promise for a limited amount of success, but the current design/hardware in the current overall economic market (in recession), it's chances for long-term growth and success are doubtful.

"UK BOOKIES ARE SAYING that Apple's Ipad will not be as successful as the Iphone."

Apples iPhone takes 14% of the smartphone market. Are the bookies saying the iPad will take a lower percentage of the tablet PC market?

I think I may take that bet if so.

The Apple iPad might turn out to have a killer application (application in the sense of 'a purpose').

My iPhone is the best, most capable (by far), Internet Radio I've seen (and I've seen a few). But its form factor is better for portable headphone use.

Now the iPad, with the same wide selection of amazing Internet Radio apps, might be the ideal WiFi-based Internet radio for home stereo purposes ever. I'm very tempted myself.

I was pretty much expecting to come here today and find Ferret dancing on Jerome York's grave. It certainly wouldn't be the first time an Inquirer hack had sunk to such a level

Better tell that to O2 and HTC, who were shipping touch screen XDA models from 2002. I'm pretty sure that people can come up with other examples pre iPhone.

The thing that made the iPhone sell was the software that hooked everything together, not the hardware. Touch screen Windows Mobile wasn't anything like as easy to use and responsive as the iPhone, which was why it didn't have the same kind of sales volume.

How about Nick puts his money where his mouth is? Bet the farm that Apple won't sell a million of them in 2010! Just think how much he could make at 8 to 1 if he's right.

"it is unlikely that Jobs' Mob will sell a million of the overpriced keyboardless netbooks within 74 days"

This is the worst kind of journalism - it reeks of the author's bias. Beware articles that use normative language as statement of fact.

Another crap Apple 'article' from Nick Farrell.

Since when is an online gambling site a good source for sales projections? The iPad more hyped than the iPhone? Really? What kind of dope are you smoking and where did you get it?

I don't think anyone, even Apple, expect the iPad to be as popular as the iPhone. Not every product that Apple makes has to sell as well as the iPhone to be considered successful.

I haven't checked into the margins on the iPhone lately, but I have on the iPad. They're pretty good for the $500 model and keep getting better as they add more flash memory.

They're going to shift a good number of produts that cost little to develop (it's just an upsized iPhone for the most part) and has good margins. That's pretty good business sense, but you're rabid Apple-hate obviously overpowers any faculty you have for rational thought. You're no different than the asshats who will no doubt stand in line for this product.