你只會用蘋果思想看待市場
顯卡和CPU廠並不直接生產"消費性產品",他們只生產"零件"
而且都有一個勢力不差的對手跟他抗衡...
一旦放另一家海放了,股價只有下跌,市佔也只有慢慢被吃
別人做得出來效能強的顯卡,你落後人家一截,人家只要拿閹割版就跟你比價格戰了....
想想為何MS不讓LINUX坐大....
既然硬體不必那麼講究,iphone 5幹嘛用到雙核

能做出消費者真正需要的, 比做出廠商自己認為這是消費者需要的 容易成功的多了.....

蘋果固然抓住消費者的心
但很多關鍵硬體也是這幾年
才比較能夠以合理價格普及配置
幾年前的觸控面板使用經驗不是很好
無線網路不普及、效能又不佳也不夠輕薄
然後貴得嚇人
整個感覺當時只有想耍帥新引人注意的凱子才會買

iphone普及到一天能看好幾打
我真是服了蘋果.....

ipad還沒幾台不過我真的蠻想入手ipad2就是

這些部門有沒有很神奇我不知道
我只知道只要遇到顧客的需求會影響到他現有高獲利的產品
就把客戶的需求全打槍

例:
intel強行塞貨，不單獨賣銷售量最好的產品

獲利至上，消費者需求? 這是什麼東西? 能吃嗎?

大小也是關鍵

以前平板電腦往往大於10吋,連eeepc剛出現都只有7吋

後來才有10吋左右的eeepc,但是iphone,htc,三星i9000一個比一個螢幕比大的

到了ipad推出時,已經是10吋,之後不管哪隻智慧型平板都在10吋上下

所以10吋大概就是智慧型平板的極限,太大難以攜帶跟一手掌握在

而10吋大概就是一張A4大小紙張大小

MS和Intel的問題在於他們現有的產品利潤太好了

所以在思考新產品時，會有成見，就是新產品要保證比舊產品有更高利潤，否則不值得去發展。

全都錯了,效能/電力才是關鍵
最近一兩年才能做到多媒體娛樂長時間使用
以前的都是用沒一兩個鐘頭就沒凍頭了,哪個白癡會去買來帶出去用?
即使沒蘋果也是注定這一兩年平板電腦崛起
主要關鍵還是在硬體廠商的進步

微軟以前推的時代硬體仍然太爛不敷使用
別說笑能/電力比了,就連體積也是又大又笨重
所以說時間點很重要,你有那份idea也要硬體廠商有能力配合才行

轉貼一下，這篇寫的很不錯。


The Chair ~ JOHN GRUBER 2011-03-03

Even the chair on the stage was the same.

Yesterday’s iPad 2 introduction felt like a repeat of last year’s event for the original iPad. Same place. Same pace and structure for the presentation: a brief prelude of statistics showing how well Apple is doing company-wide; a positioning statement for where the iPad fits, why it exists; the reveal of the product; the specs; a tour of the system software; and, then, some demos of a few impressive iPad applications from Apple that are available for just $4.99 in the App Store.

Delightfully, the host was the same as last year, too.

Have you ever noticed that Steve Jobs is not introduced at Apple’s events? Music plays while the audience fills the room. (Well-chosen popular rock, some new, some old, often Dylan. Now, it’s all Beatles, all the time. It’s as though Apple now treats the Beatles catalog as the company’s official soundtrack.) Eventually, a few minutes before the start of the show, there’s an announcement asking everyone to silence their phones. Then, one or two more songs, and then there simply is no next song. A few seconds later, Jobs strides out, unheralded.

One difference between this year and last is that Jobs’s presence was not expected. The ovation that greeted him yesterday was loud, almost raucous. We were, simply, happy to see him.

The biggest difference, though, was this: last year Apple didn’t yet understand the iPad. They knew it was good. They knew it had potential. But they didn’t know what it was. They had a sense that in the conceptual space between an iPhone and a MacBook there was uncharted, fertile territory. And they set for themselves a wise metric: the iPad would only succeed if it could do some of the same things a Mac can do, but do them better. If it wasn’t better in several important ways for several common tasks, it would not succeed.

What they didn’t know last year was how people would use it, for real. They know now.

Last year’s flagship app demos were the iWork suite: Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. The message was: the iPad is like a PC, just different — word processors and spreadsheets have been the standard answer to “Why would you buy this computer?” going all the way back to Visicalc in the early ’80s.

This year, Jobs stated explicitly and repeatedly that the iPad is not a PC. Jobs’s repeated categorization for the iPad: post-PC device. And the demos this year were of a slightly different tone. iWork is, well, work. Making movies and music, though? That’s play.

iMovie for iPad seems like the realization of Randy Ubillos’s vision for movie editing software. Seldom does an app as popular and useful as iMovie get a genuine “let’s just start over from scratch” redesign like iMovie did on the Mac several years ago. And the current Mac version is, without question, a major improvement over the initial redesigned version. This iPad version, though, feels like the real deal, and makes the Mac version seem like the imitator. The concept, visual layout, and intended workflow are naturally suited to touch. This is what the new iMovie is supposed to be.

And GarageBand for iPad — impressive doesn’t even begin to describe it. There are a bunch of musical instrument apps for the iPhone and iPad, and they’ve been used to great effect by many musicians. (Insert your own smirking mockery of those who insist the iPad is only for consumption and not creation here.) GarageBand for iPad is of a different scope. This is Apple taking the idea of the iPad as a musical instrument and tackling that idea with the full strength of its collective creativity. It is the most iPad-ish iPad app I’ve ever seen. Good iPad apps can make the iPad feel not like a device running an app, but like an object that is the app. GarageBand isn’t a musical app running on an iPad. It turns an iPad into a musical instrument. The interfaces for each GarageBand instrument are exquisitely skeuomorphic. Every control — every button, every switch, every slider — is custom designed. The keyboard’s use of the accelerometer to detect how hard you hit the keys seems impossibly accurate for a device that doesn’t have a pressure-sensitive display. If anything, in practice, it worked better than the on-stage demo implied. GarageBand isn’t the iPad doing something better than the Mac. This is the iPad doing something new, things that couldn’t be done on the Mac.

Jobs seemed particularly ebullient throughout, but never more so than when discussing the iPad’s competition. There’s a palpable sense among everyone from Apple I spoke to yesterday that this is the biggest and most important thing in the history of the industry. The this isn’t just the iPad. It’s the whole iOS ecosystem — iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, the App Store, the 200 million iTunes Store account holders, the Apple retail store empire where customers get to touch these things that must be touched to be understood. But the iPad best exemplifies the advantages Apple draws from these things.

Last year, Apple’s take on the iPad seemed to be that they believed they had something good. This year, they seem to know they have something enormous. Presumably, there’s an A5-based dual core iPhone 5 coming in June and a corresponding new iPod Touch and who knows what else coming in September, but Apple is already, a mere two months into it, calling 2011 “The Year of the iPad 2”. Apple sells every new product hard, but they’re not prone to that sort of hyperbole.

In his conclusion, Jobs said, “It’s in Apple’s DNA that technology is not enough.” That’s what separates Apple from everyone else, and the iPad epitomizes it. It’s better designed, has more developer support, and it’s cheaper. There are aspects of this that Apple’s competitors seemingly can’t copy — lower prices from economies of scale, amazing battery life, UI responsiveness, build quality.

But there are other things any competitor could copy, easily, but seemingly don’t even understand that they should, because such things aren’t technical. Take that chair. The on-stage demos of the iPad aren’t conducted at a table or a lectern. They’re conducted sitting in an armchair. That conveys something about the feel of the iPad before its screen is even turned on. Comfortable, emotional, simple, elegant. How it feels is the entirety of the iPad’s appeal.

It’s a shame, almost, that we squandered the term “personal computer” 30 years ago.

原因不外乎:

外型時尚輕巧
操作簡單直覺
介面流暢省電
支援軟體爆多
價格還算親民

老實說我認為ipad成功的最主要前提是app store
假如一開始沒有iphone和app store打前鋒我想ipad應該也很難起來