The Next Web secretly replaced the Retina Display iPad with iPad 2…

Customers were actually having trouble telling the difference between the two screens.

via Watch as Apple customers try to tell the difference between the new iPad & iPad 2 – The Next Web.

I bought the new iPad primarily for the display. I have WiFi only, so LTE meant nothing to me. I knew from the iPhone how useful the Retina Display is over time, especially for reading. There’s a reason I’d frequently still choose to read on that device than my iPad 2. My 50+ year old eyes need all the sharpness they can get.

I believe anybody would get used to the RD over time (which makes it hard to go back), but I also believe the change is something most wouldn’t notice at first glance. Unless you already know, or can appreciate, the ultimate difference a RD makes, or you need LTE, or the extra RAM is important because, say, you want lots of Safari tabs open, save $100 and get an iPad 2 for now. Better yet, save $150 and get a refurbished iPad 2 with the same warranty as a new model. That’s a phenomenal deal.

The money you save can go straight into the fund for the next iPad.

Best Jony Ive Quote Today

Committees just don’t work, and it’s not about price, schedule or a bizarre marketing goal to appear different – they are corporate goals with scant regard for people who use the product.

I couldn’t get the essence of this quote into a tweet.

It perfectly explains why Apple’s competitors are struggling to keep up. “Bizarre marketing goals” are why we have Pico projectors, or 41MP cameras, or styluses, or whatever crammed into new devices. It’s something different for the sake of something different, but it’s no way to build something better.

Doesn’t China Have Some Part In This?

But Foxconn doesn’t exist solely to produce electronics for Apple. All of the largest Android OEM’s also contract Foxconn to produce their devices in factories in China, Brazil, Mexico, Poland and the Czech Republic.

HTC, Samsung, LG, Motorola, ASUS, Acer, Lenovo and others contract Foxconn to manufacture products for them in the same complex where iPhones are made. Their devices are made by the same over worked, under paid, under age workers, yet none are mentioned in the Business Insider article. None. Not one. Not even Samsung, the sometimes largest smartphone vendor in the world. Just Apple.

The quoted article (and headline) is in response to Henry Blodget’s piece at Business Insider.

Apple vs. PC Shipments: “PC” Decline Worse Than Reported

Based on data from Gartner and IDC, AllThingsD reported that it was a very bad year for PC shipments, except at Apple

I have a problem with that. 

It isn’t that it’s not true, but rather that PC growth vs. Apple is even worse than reported. To see why, let’s look at the chart from Gartner for US “PC” shipments, where the conclusion is that Apple growth increased 20.7% while PC growth declined 5.9%. 

Screen_shot_2012-01-14_at_11

It makes sense until you realize Apple’s (i.e., Mac) data is included in the same total to which it’s being compared. In other words, Apple’s stellar year is propping up the “PC” (i.e., non-Mac) numbers, making “PC” shipments look better than they really were.

If you truly want to know how Apple did in the US on its own against “PCs”, you must subtract it from the latter’s numbers. Here’s what you get: 

  • Total 4Q11: 15,854,964
  • Total 4Q10: 17,342,605
  • 4Q11-4Q10 Growth: -8.5

The originally reported dismal “PC” growth of -5.9% becomes an even more dismal -8.5% without Apple’s numbers propping it up. That -2.6% delta is not insignificant, it’s over 40% worse than what was reported.

IDC’s numbers are also available. As usual, they do not agree completely with Gartner, yet the trend is the same.

Any way you look at it, Apple is exceeding the “PC” growth rate, and if you pull their numbers from “PC” shipments to get a true Mac vs. PC comparson, the latter’s state is revealed to be even worse than it appears at first glance.

Translating Samsung’s attempt to discredit iPhone 4S

Following is a translation of Samsung’s distributed talking points about the iPhone 4S compared to their Galaxy series of phones. 

the AT&T version of the Samsung Galaxy S II has 42% more screen area and Sprint / T-Mobile versions of Galaxy S II have 58% more screen area than the iPhone 4S.

Ignore that screen sizes are all over the place, and rest assured the Galaxy is huge. Hope you have big pockets. And hands.

The Galaxy S II HSPA+ network speeds are at least 50% faster with AT&T 21 MBPS and three times faster with T-Mobile’s 42 MBPS than the iPhone 4S’s 14 MBPS HSPA network.

Our theoretical you-will-never-see-them speeds are faster than their theoretical you-will-never-see-them speeds. 

Galaxy S II continues to have the thinnest smartphone design 

We’re huge, but a millimeter thinner. 

Open Ecosystem – Consumers can use the Galaxy S II to buy music from Amazon, Rhapsody, or a variety of other music services, as well as multiple cloud music services supported such as Amazon, Google Music and multiple video chat clients available for use including Google Chat and Skype. The Samsung Galaxy S II is not limited to a single manufacturer’s storefront or app store.

The iPhone uses the #1 music store in the world, Galaxy doesn’t. 

In short, until we add a cheap Siri knockoff and a few other features for which we’ll kipe Apple’s icon designs, just ignore the iPhone 4S.

Before the Macintosh.

Xerox-star-8010-09

via Digibarn

And even before the Lisa, in 1981 there was the Xerox Star. The link above has a number of high-quality scans of the system. 

The Lisa, introduced in 1983 and featuring a young Kevin Costner in one of the ads, would sell for $10,000, yet that was peanuts compared to the Star: 

The Xerox Star was not originally meant to be a stand-alone computer, but to be part of an integrated Xerox “personal office system” that also connected to other workstations and network services via Ethernet. Although a single unit sold for $16,000, a typical office would have to purchase at least 2 or 3 machines along with a file server and a name server/print server. 

Interesting that in the above shot the printer didn’t get the bullet points you see on the screen. 

Seeing these two predecessors just three years before the Mac’s launch makes you appreciate the littlest Apple all that much more. At $2,500 it was truly remarkable.