Steve Jobs: iPad Rivals Are Dead on Arrival

A very passionate Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) CEO commented on Microsoft's (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) launch of Windows Phone 7 as well as the "smokescreen" that Google's (Nasdaq: GOOG  ) Android open platform will prevail over Apple's closed platform: Jobs predicts a mess for users and developers. He also believes that the upcoming Android tablets will fail because of their price and software issues.

With the tailwind of a $20 billion quarter and the knowledge that Apple could have sold even more iPhones and iPads, had they been available, Steve Jobs shot numerous broadsides at Microsoft as well as Google and their efforts to compete with Apple in the smartphone and tablet markets.

Microsoft would have a hard time to create a third software platform for smartphones next to Google and Apple, as "Android and iPhone are winning the battle," Steve Jobs said. "It will be very challenging for them." In response to Google's statement that 200,000 Android devices are selling every day, Jobs noted that 275,000 iPhones shipped per day over the past 30 days on average, with peak days of more than 300,000 units. Jobs considers Google as Apple's biggest competitor, not Nokia anymore, but said that it is not clear who is outshipping whom at this time.

He criticized Google for pitching an open platform model of Android versus the Apple closed platform model. According to Jobs, this is nothing else but a Google "smokescreen," and the real issue is a comparison between a fragmented versus an integrated model. He predicts that as more Android devices emerge, more Android versions come to market, more phone manufacturers create more proprietary interfaces, and more app markets go online, developers and users will see a big "mess." In some cases, software developers will have to put out more than 100 different versions of their software to support more than 200 different phones.

No 7" iPad
Jobs' pitch was even more aggressive on the iPad. So far, Apple has shipped more than 7.5 million iPads, and iPads outshipped Macs in the most recent quarter. The executive indicated that there will be no 7" iPads, as the company does not believe the screen size makes sense and is enough to "make a great tablet" as such a screen represents only 45% of the screen size of a 10″ tablet.

According to Jobs, the upcoming "handful of credible tablets" will be "dead on arrival" as they will not be able to match the iPad's price. Also, in Apple's opinion, a 7" device will be too large to compete with smartphones and too small to provide enough screen space for a tablet. Jobs described 7" tablets as "tweeners" that cannot succeed. He also referred to Android as a problem for those tablets as Google told manufacturers not to use the latest version of Android, but device manufacturers do it anyway. This "sounds like a lot of fun ahead," Jobs said.

Responding to the questions from analysts about the success rate of the iPad, Jobs said that iPads will affect the sales of notebooks, and that this is not a question of if, but when. "We have a tiger by the tail here," Jobs said. "It will be really big."

"iPad is a product that is hard to match. It is a product we have been training for for the last decade. We priced it very aggressively. We are out to win this one," Jobs said.

More from ConceivablyTech:

Google, Microsoft, and Nokia are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers selection. Apple is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick. Motley Fool Options has recommended a diagonal call position on Microsoft. The Fool owns shares of Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days

True to its name, The Motley Fool is made up of a motley assortment of writers and analysts, each with a unique perspective; sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but we all believe in the power of learning from each other through our Foolish community. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (8) | Recommend This Article (5)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 10:30 AM, EmpiricL wrote:

    Jobs did say "dead on arrival" during the conference call, but at the moment of this writing, there is nothing in the text of this article that supports the headline.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, pondee619 wrote:

    "Google's ... Android open platform will prevail over Apple's closed platform" Isn't this similar to Apple's computers? Didn't they safeguard/restrict their operating system, making it harder for independent developers to create programs for Apples and MSFT was more open, allowing the software developers to make PC friendly programs? Isn't this why Apple computers as a distance second to the PC?

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Brent2223 wrote:

    From a consumer perspective, I think Apple's 'closed' approach is the way to go. A lifelong PC user, I find Apple products refreshing because everything works without needing a Computer Science degree. No compatibility issues, no driver errors, it's the epitome of plug and play. I think we'll look back at the PC age, where users needed some technologic skills to keep there systems updated and working, as the dark age of computers.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 2:14 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    Brent2223:

    "From a consumer perspective, I think Apple's 'closed' approach is the way to go"

    What is the ratio of PC's sold to Macs(Apple)? From a "consumer perspective" hasn't the market place answered?

    I think that Apple's closed approached led them to be the poor second sister in the computer world; the qualities of their machines, and programs, not withstanding; and fear that this may extend to their current endeavors. Did Apple learn from it's mistake in computing or are they repeating them?

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 2:19 PM, DefunctAcct wrote:

    @pondee619,

    The word "Open" vs "Close" were at first grossly misunderstood by the somewhat ignorant media types and then firmly abused by Adobe's Flash-fight with Apple.

    Developers can develop all sorts of software for Apple devices; everything from telescope controls to imaging to image processing to machine controls to office productivity to high speed scientific computation to business. Apple is as "open" as anyone when it comes to wanting more software to run on its products.

    People are loosely and incorrectly using "Open" to compare Android to Windows. Windows is not an "Open" system by any standard because it is solely owned by Microsoft. No one outside Microsoft, except with contractual permission from Microsoft, can ever modify Windows.

    Adobe's Flash product is not "Open" by any standard because it is solely owned by Adobe and no one outside Adobe can touch it. All we can do is use Flash. Flash runs in all browsers that properly support Flash, so for people who do not understand, they think that is "Open".

    When we talk "Open", we are talking "Open Source". Source refers to the computer code that runs on our machines. Open refers to the fact that any of us can sign up to work on Android if we so wish. Even then, there are core pieces of Android that are proprietary to Google. The "Open" in this case simply refers to Google willingly give away Android to other manufacturers so they can use Android to run their devices.

    For HTC, it adds its own UI called Sense onto Android before shipping its device. Doing that makes HTC handsets uniquely HTC because the same software will not run on Motorola Droids without express license from HTC to Motorola. So in practice and in reality, Android is not "Open" in ways that laymen understand it. True, there are many devices using Android but that is the underlying operating system. The User Interface differentiator and the flow are often customized by individual manufacturers. So this lets each device maker ship different devices that may behave differently in order to attract customers. That is why we have at least 20+ devices on sale now and increasing rapidly.

    Apple computer is a software and hardware company. Apple computer is NOT a software company. If I make only software, then I want my software to run on as many devices as possible so I can make money off these sales. If I make only hardware then I want to sell as much hardware as possible. If I make both, then I want to sell both. Now consider this, why would Apple want to license its operating system to another hardware maker so that hardware maker can compete against Apple's hardware?

    If you are a top end chef running a restaurant, will you openly license and sell your recipes to all other chefs so they can open their restaurants to compete against yours? Especially when the license fee is significantly lower that your menu items?

    This is the part most ignorant pundits and the general public do not understand. They erroneously equate Apple to Microsoft, not understanding that Microsoft sells only software while Apple must protect its hardware business.

    Apple is always happy to have independent developers build software for them. I am working on just such product lines now.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 2:26 PM, DefunctAcct wrote:

    @pondee,

    At first I thought you did not understand. In your reply to Brent, it seems you actually have formed your position without even understanding the situation.

    If you claim that Apple is "closed", why does the Mac run Windows? I have Windows 7 running nicely on my iMac. I even had Vista running half-speed on the same machine. XP runs smoothly on the same box.

    Apple will not and should not license OS/X and iOS to other device makers. OS/X and iOS help Apple differentiate itself from other device makers.

    Motorola and HTC do not make their own operating systems. They rely on GOogle. So Android 2.2 is not ready for tablets and Google did tell its users to not build tablets with that version. Now Motorola and HTC must wait. So you believe that is the best business strategy? TO be beholden to a software maker who can control, dictate and influence when and how you ship your device to market?

    Nokia, RIMM and Apple do not have such problems. They control their own software and they can dictate when, how and what to make and ship. They do not rely on others to make a key component of their product offering.

    I think you need to read up and get a deeper understanding first and think through the differences. Do not be so easily misled by other blind-men.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 2:33 PM, DefunctAcct wrote:

    From a consumer point of views, the significant growth in Mac share and the rapid adoption of iOS devices speak for themselves.

    Consumers do not care about OS. Consumers care about usability and value. What can I do with this thing I am supposed to buy? Does it meet all my needs from the practical to the vain? How much does it cost?

    Linux is an Open Source OS, do you see ma and pa and grandma and grandpa consumer buying it in truckloads so they can go home to write up their own UI and File System for their own use?

    In fact, how many people today continue to buy cheap PC parts to build their PC from ground up? Most people want good value for what they pay.

    At least for now, Apple's strategy is working well. While PC market as a whole remain relatively stagnant, the Mac continues to grow in shipment. Look into that and tell us how consumers are not voting with their cash.

  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2010, at 4:02 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    Thanks:

    So, why has the Mac, which so many people feel is the better system, fallen so far behind PCs? I thought it was because Apple protected its software and made it difficult for other programs to be run on it. Whereas, the windows system allowed many programs to be used. This, I have been told, is not correct. I repeat my initial question.

    silivalley: "While PC market as a whole remain relatively stagnant, the Mac continues to grow in shipment" You did not get your link to this. Please provide. ""I think you need to read up and get a deeper understanding first and think through the differences". I'd love to, how about a leg up?

    I'll admit, that my "information" is gained from common means. I still, however, do not understand how Apple, the superior system, fell so far behind Windows, the one with all the problems. My belief was that Windows made it easier for other programs to be thereon (an open system), the opposite of Apple's Mac (a closed system). To such an extent that Apple had to make their machines run Windows. I extended this to fear the Apple was making the same mistake quoting Jobs.

    How will Apples' closed platform win out over android's open platform?

    Why, how, did Apple fall so far behind in computing?

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1336532, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/23/2014 1:09:40 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement