As you might know, we have been working on TOK.tv for a while now.
Our goal is to let you TALK to your friends while watching TV, making sure you will never watch TV alone, while enhancing the overall experience.
I am convinced that the Second Screen market is the next big thing (Mashable put it as the #1 trend for 2013, so I am not alone).
I have never seen a market that is nascent, where the desire by end users is incredible (80% of people use a mobile device while watching TV today), and the business model is obvious.
The convergence of TV brand advertising with Internet transactional advertising is the Holy Grail of advertising. 85% of ad spending is still on TV ($200B/year...). Companies spend a million dollars for a SuperBowl ad, having no clue who watches it and what kind of people like it. Moreover, they have no way to give you an action to follow-up on the ad (i.e. "click"). If Google built a zillion dollars company with the remaining 15% of the ad market, I am sure there is a big company to be built here, one that allows you to "click" on a TV ad because an icon pops up on your iPad, while you watch a commercial.
We think TOK.tv is going to be that company. Simply because we nailed the user experience. We tested voice as the medium to share emotions while watching TV, and we discovered it changes everything.
Last October, we ran a test during the baseball postseason. TOK Baseball allowed users to watch a game on TV, with the scoreboard in their hands, talking to their friends. Because watching TV is a passive experience, voice is just perfect. People used our app for 57 minutes during each game (on average). Talking to their friends, while leaving the iPad on the side of the couch and kicking back. It makes sense, but we proved it.
If you force your users to type, they will pick up their device, type for two minutes, then stop and go back to watch the game. Not when you can talk. Actually, you will pick up your iPad during commercials (Ka-Ching! ;-) and you will be able to browse an ad while talking (see, voice is passive... You can even talk to your friends about the ad itself...)
In January, we ran a second test, during the football postseason. We saw 50% of baseball users move to TOK Football and we added a Facebook integration, which made the friendship numbers balloon (from one to eight on average). Yes, the additional content is important, but the key is the social interaction.
Then in February, we ran our last test, during Oscar night. Despite no advertising whatsoever, we had four times the users we had during the SuperBowl. And 68% of them were ladies. It proved to us that the model works beyond sports (and that it is true that ladies like to talk ;-) It was also the first test of the TOK.tv platform, the way we will scale, allowing others to provide the content.
Finally, we are done with tests. We are now ready for take-off.
Today, we launched TOK Baseball 2.0. It is not a beta anymore, it is the real deal. We added content so that the app is useful before and after the game, not just during the game. And a lot of cool stats.
You can check it out on the App Store.
What else? We announced that we have completed our Angel round. $400K from a phenomenal group of individuals, covering the mobile, TV and advertising space. I am honored to have them on board and I look forward to make them very happy (since they are already rich ;-)
We have a pipeline full of incredibly cool features (and an iPhone version), plus a series of spectacular apps (yes, we'll do soccer and basketball, I promise).
Stay tuned, the sky is the limit.
Monday, April 01, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Google has killed Android (the brand)
There are days where a trend you noticed becomes absolutely visible. Today is one of those days.
I have seen the Android brand disappear over time. First, it was the Nexus, then Samsung came with the Galaxy brand, who made Android less relevant. Now, Android is just invisible.
I thought Google was losing a war against its partners, but I finally concluded that it cannot be just a coincidence. It is not just a trend. It is a deliberate effort. By Google.
At Mobile World Congress last year, Android was everywhere. The Android space was the biggest of all. It was all about Android and a bit about the hardware manufacturers.
This year (BTW, if you are going to Barcelona and you want to meet, just let me know), Android will be absent at MWC 2013. No space, no booth. Gone.
If you read about the new HTC One, you'll have a hard time finding Android anywhere. HTC is trying to promote its brand, Android is way in the background. Gone.
Of course, Android is dominant. So much that saying you sell an "Android phone" makes you a cheap commodity play. Nobody wants that, they all want to be cool and different. Leave Android to the Chinese knock-offs.
However, it is not just the device manufacturers. It is Google killing the brand. They moved away from it when Android Market became Google Play, and they are distancing themselves even more now.
They want Google to be the brand, not Android.
Risky business? I am not sure. Who cares about Android? Developers. Only developers.
Even if you water down the brand, developers will know it ;-) It does not make a difference. You are not going to lose developers because you are de-emphasizing the brand.
However, having two brands confuses consumers. Google is planning to open flagship stores. They bought a hardware manufacturer. They are changing, and they want Google front and central.
Who knows the word iOS? Nobody (oh, you do, but you are a geek).
People out there know Apple. They know iPhone and iPad. iOS is for geeks. It is hidden inside. For those who can tell the difference between a V12 and a V6 engine (see, maybe you are not a geek after all).
Android is now so dominant, it can be killed. Because it is just what's inside. What matters, it is the outside.
Gone is Android. Killed by its own father.
Believe me, you want to buy a Google.
I have seen the Android brand disappear over time. First, it was the Nexus, then Samsung came with the Galaxy brand, who made Android less relevant. Now, Android is just invisible.
I thought Google was losing a war against its partners, but I finally concluded that it cannot be just a coincidence. It is not just a trend. It is a deliberate effort. By Google.
At Mobile World Congress last year, Android was everywhere. The Android space was the biggest of all. It was all about Android and a bit about the hardware manufacturers.
This year (BTW, if you are going to Barcelona and you want to meet, just let me know), Android will be absent at MWC 2013. No space, no booth. Gone.
If you read about the new HTC One, you'll have a hard time finding Android anywhere. HTC is trying to promote its brand, Android is way in the background. Gone.
Of course, Android is dominant. So much that saying you sell an "Android phone" makes you a cheap commodity play. Nobody wants that, they all want to be cool and different. Leave Android to the Chinese knock-offs.
However, it is not just the device manufacturers. It is Google killing the brand. They moved away from it when Android Market became Google Play, and they are distancing themselves even more now.
They want Google to be the brand, not Android.
Risky business? I am not sure. Who cares about Android? Developers. Only developers.
Even if you water down the brand, developers will know it ;-) It does not make a difference. You are not going to lose developers because you are de-emphasizing the brand.
However, having two brands confuses consumers. Google is planning to open flagship stores. They bought a hardware manufacturer. They are changing, and they want Google front and central.
Who knows the word iOS? Nobody (oh, you do, but you are a geek).
People out there know Apple. They know iPhone and iPad. iOS is for geeks. It is hidden inside. For those who can tell the difference between a V12 and a V6 engine (see, maybe you are not a geek after all).
Android is now so dominant, it can be killed. Because it is just what's inside. What matters, it is the outside.
Gone is Android. Killed by its own father.
Believe me, you want to buy a Google.
Monday, February 04, 2013
About drinking (and defense) during the Super Bowl
During the Super Bowl yesterday, we had an explosion of downloads and users for TOK Football.
The systems responded very well, and I was pleased with the way we set up the app infrastructure. The app worked flawlessly, with peaks during the lights-out moment, and the only thing that actually suffered was the web site, which is funny (and a lesson learned for the future)...
I do not really remember the result of the game (ehm), so I decided to do a check of some stats to figure it out.
What I found is the chart below.
What the chart shows is how many times the users clicked on a particular noise in the app.
The focus is on two noises: burp (you might imagine what the sound is) and defense (which is the D# chant).
I plotted them over time, from the Wild Card to the Super Bowl.
What I found out is that DEFENSE was less and less a concern. Apparently, during the Wild Card, offense does not count much, while in the Super Bowl it is all that matters (and the MVP is usually a quarterback).
What is interesting is that BURP grew over time. That tells me people do not drink much during the Wild Card, but they go nuts as games progress. I am not sure if it is due to celebrations or to forget the result of the game.
For me, it was definitely the latter...
Monday, January 14, 2013
TOK.tv on NBC
The day before the big 49ers game, NBC news had a segment on second screen.
We were a bit surprised they decided to dedicate it entirely to TOK.tv (but we did not complain).
What I found very encouraging is that they described the app better than I would (I am taking notes for my next presentation ;-) even using the TOK/talk joke effectively.
Something must be working in our marketing story. Good sign. Let's keep plowing ahead.
If we made the Giants win the World Series with TOK Baseball, we can definitely make the Niners win the SuperBowl with TOK Football. And I have some more ideas for apps on sports I care about ;-)
We were a bit surprised they decided to dedicate it entirely to TOK.tv (but we did not complain).
What I found very encouraging is that they described the app better than I would (I am taking notes for my next presentation ;-) even using the TOK/talk joke effectively.
Something must be working in our marketing story. Good sign. Let's keep plowing ahead.
If we made the Giants win the World Series with TOK Baseball, we can definitely make the Niners win the SuperBowl with TOK Football. And I have some more ideas for apps on sports I care about ;-)
Friday, January 04, 2013
57 minutes and why the second screen is a big deal
Today is a great day for TOK.tv. TOK Football can be downloaded from the App Store, worldwide. It is our second second screen app, after TOK Baseball. It allows you to talk to your friends while you watch the NFL postseason. We are very excited about it.
Why?
Because one number hit us about our experience with TOK Baseball: people have used the app, on average, for 57 minutes per game.
57 minutes, with our app open, in front of a TV. On average (a lot of folks had it open for three hours...).
It is a huge number. Consider that the average time spent on a mobile app is 71 seconds...
If you stop and think about it, it makes sense. A second screen app is technically a mobile app, but it is used in a static environment. On your couch. In front of your TV. It is not really a mobile app, even if it is enjoyed on a mobile device.
That changes everything.
When you are on your couch, you are relaxed, in a passive state. An advertiser can hit you with a commercial for 30 seconds, and you are going to watch it. Yes, I know, people want to change channel during commercials, but they rarely do. In particular, during a sport event (what if I come back late and I miss the touchdown?).
With a second screen on your lap, when someone or something gets your attention, you transform from passive to active. You jump on your device and act. Anybody with an iPad knows what I am talking about. During a game, a news event, a movie, anything. They say something you are interested to know more about, and you are on your iPad searching.
The same is going to happen with advertising. You see something interesting on TV, the app in front of you will pulse so you can act on it.
Act means also transact. Synchronized ads between TV and the second screen represent the future of advertising. It is a multi-billion dollar market.
If you think about the ad model of the Internet, it is all based on transactions. Done with a mouse, in a working state of mind. When you are relaxed and on the couch, you are in a better mood to spend. Advertiser will catch you off guard. It is even better than traditional online advertising. Then, you add a TV on top.
The second screen merges the ad model of TV (brand advertising) with the ad model of the Internet (transactional advertising). It is such a powerful tool, that it is scary...
You have it bundled in the perfect state of mind (on your couch) with the most intuitive device on the planet (a tablet, with a touch screen).
A second screen app is a mobile app with hormones.
Ok, not every second screen app will lock you in for 57 minutes (we have our special sauce, linked to the social nature of our voice-enabled platform), but for those who achieve what we have, it is going to be huge. We offer a full meal, not just a bite. It is fun, and social, and you have no reason to leave.
Second screen is already a top trend for 2013 (#1 for Mashable, and many others) and it is growing faster than anything I have seen in my career. If history tells me something, it is that new trends grow faster than the ones which came before. I expect an unprecedented growth.
For now, enjoy a talk with your friends during the NFL postseason. You know, you watch the SuperBowl for the commercials. Now you can talk with your friends about it, without waiting for the day after. One day, you'll be able to act on it ;-)
57 minutes. Second screen is a new paradigm, with the most powerful business model attached to it. That is why it is a big deal.
Why?
Because one number hit us about our experience with TOK Baseball: people have used the app, on average, for 57 minutes per game.
57 minutes, with our app open, in front of a TV. On average (a lot of folks had it open for three hours...).
It is a huge number. Consider that the average time spent on a mobile app is 71 seconds...
If you stop and think about it, it makes sense. A second screen app is technically a mobile app, but it is used in a static environment. On your couch. In front of your TV. It is not really a mobile app, even if it is enjoyed on a mobile device.
That changes everything.
When you are on your couch, you are relaxed, in a passive state. An advertiser can hit you with a commercial for 30 seconds, and you are going to watch it. Yes, I know, people want to change channel during commercials, but they rarely do. In particular, during a sport event (what if I come back late and I miss the touchdown?).
With a second screen on your lap, when someone or something gets your attention, you transform from passive to active. You jump on your device and act. Anybody with an iPad knows what I am talking about. During a game, a news event, a movie, anything. They say something you are interested to know more about, and you are on your iPad searching.
The same is going to happen with advertising. You see something interesting on TV, the app in front of you will pulse so you can act on it.
Act means also transact. Synchronized ads between TV and the second screen represent the future of advertising. It is a multi-billion dollar market.
If you think about the ad model of the Internet, it is all based on transactions. Done with a mouse, in a working state of mind. When you are relaxed and on the couch, you are in a better mood to spend. Advertiser will catch you off guard. It is even better than traditional online advertising. Then, you add a TV on top.
The second screen merges the ad model of TV (brand advertising) with the ad model of the Internet (transactional advertising). It is such a powerful tool, that it is scary...
You have it bundled in the perfect state of mind (on your couch) with the most intuitive device on the planet (a tablet, with a touch screen).
A second screen app is a mobile app with hormones.
Ok, not every second screen app will lock you in for 57 minutes (we have our special sauce, linked to the social nature of our voice-enabled platform), but for those who achieve what we have, it is going to be huge. We offer a full meal, not just a bite. It is fun, and social, and you have no reason to leave.
Second screen is already a top trend for 2013 (#1 for Mashable, and many others) and it is growing faster than anything I have seen in my career. If history tells me something, it is that new trends grow faster than the ones which came before. I expect an unprecedented growth.
For now, enjoy a talk with your friends during the NFL postseason. You know, you watch the SuperBowl for the commercials. Now you can talk with your friends about it, without waiting for the day after. One day, you'll be able to act on it ;-)
57 minutes. Second screen is a new paradigm, with the most powerful business model attached to it. That is why it is a big deal.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
It is confirmed: Microsoft sucks less
I spent the last two days in Redmond, invited by Microsoft (hey, they seems to be interested in Social TV, that is a good sign...).
As you probably know, I have never been a fan of Microsoft. In the early days of Funambol, they were the enemy. It was us and them. Open Source against the Evil Monopoly...
It was easy.
I even remember a Microsoft conference I was invited to attend in San Francisco, just the day after they announced that Linux was infringing on 325 of their patents. I showed up with a box full of t-shirts with a huge "325 more reasons to love open source". It was a big success :-) and I am told a lot of the Microsoft open source guys still have one of my t-shirts...
Microsoft was evil, the monopoly, invincible. They were about to do on mobile what they did on every other market. We needed to stop them.
I am not sure if I actually did anything, but they did not make it in mobile. Open Source won. They now look like the underdog. Which is amazing...
Now, I always love the underdog. With Apple looking more evil than ever, Facebook being a close second and Google a question mark, Microsoft has started to look a lot better.
Before leaving for Redmond, I bumped into the following video.
I know, it is hard to believe it is a Microsoft video. But it is. They really say "IE sucks less". That's their marketing slogan.
I believe it is brilliant. I am now considering installing IE 10 on my desktop PC. I swear.
Then I came here and they showed me a bunch of new stuff. They talked about Windows 8, Typescript (which is a very cool open source project), their plans around device management (wow) and a lot more. I played with the Surface with its weird keyboards, which surprisingly work pretty well.
All of a sudden, I realized that Microsoft is a company which is innovating. For real.
Think about Kinect. I am not sure there has been anything comparable lately, when it comes to innovations touching the consumers (Google and the cars that drive themselves are probably better, but the technology is just a prototype, and I am always scared when I pass one of them on the highway...).
Think about Windows 8. You really need balls to merge the desktop and tablet paradigm. I am not convinced it is going to work, but they are not afraid to try. For a giant, it is a huge gamble. It is amazing just to see them making this move.
Of course, they have plenty of issues, all over the place. For example, Windows Phone is completely separate from Windows 8, although they look similar. If you are a developer in the second screen space, you think mobile+tablet, as in the Apple world. At Microsoft, they live in two different domains, and this spells trouble for developers (and end users). The two platforms will not be in sync, with updates which will come at different times... They did the ballsy move to merge desktop and tablet, but they should bring phone in as well, pushing politics aside.
There are more examples like this. However, they are minor.
If I look at the big picture, one thing is clear to me after two days in Redmond: it is actually true that Microsoft sucks less. And this is news, or as they say: Progress. Unexpected and amazing at the same time.
As you probably know, I have never been a fan of Microsoft. In the early days of Funambol, they were the enemy. It was us and them. Open Source against the Evil Monopoly...
It was easy.
I even remember a Microsoft conference I was invited to attend in San Francisco, just the day after they announced that Linux was infringing on 325 of their patents. I showed up with a box full of t-shirts with a huge "325 more reasons to love open source". It was a big success :-) and I am told a lot of the Microsoft open source guys still have one of my t-shirts...
Microsoft was evil, the monopoly, invincible. They were about to do on mobile what they did on every other market. We needed to stop them.
I am not sure if I actually did anything, but they did not make it in mobile. Open Source won. They now look like the underdog. Which is amazing...
Now, I always love the underdog. With Apple looking more evil than ever, Facebook being a close second and Google a question mark, Microsoft has started to look a lot better.
Before leaving for Redmond, I bumped into the following video.
I know, it is hard to believe it is a Microsoft video. But it is. They really say "IE sucks less". That's their marketing slogan.
I believe it is brilliant. I am now considering installing IE 10 on my desktop PC. I swear.
Then I came here and they showed me a bunch of new stuff. They talked about Windows 8, Typescript (which is a very cool open source project), their plans around device management (wow) and a lot more. I played with the Surface with its weird keyboards, which surprisingly work pretty well.
All of a sudden, I realized that Microsoft is a company which is innovating. For real.
Think about Kinect. I am not sure there has been anything comparable lately, when it comes to innovations touching the consumers (Google and the cars that drive themselves are probably better, but the technology is just a prototype, and I am always scared when I pass one of them on the highway...).
Think about Windows 8. You really need balls to merge the desktop and tablet paradigm. I am not convinced it is going to work, but they are not afraid to try. For a giant, it is a huge gamble. It is amazing just to see them making this move.
Of course, they have plenty of issues, all over the place. For example, Windows Phone is completely separate from Windows 8, although they look similar. If you are a developer in the second screen space, you think mobile+tablet, as in the Apple world. At Microsoft, they live in two different domains, and this spells trouble for developers (and end users). The two platforms will not be in sync, with updates which will come at different times... They did the ballsy move to merge desktop and tablet, but they should bring phone in as well, pushing politics aside.
There are more examples like this. However, they are minor.
If I look at the big picture, one thing is clear to me after two days in Redmond: it is actually true that Microsoft sucks less. And this is news, or as they say: Progress. Unexpected and amazing at the same time.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Why Steve Jobs was wrong on the iPad Mini
I have always been a big admirer of Steve Jobs and his work. For an open source guy, the love I have for Apple is hard to justify (they are the most closed company in the world). I just like their stuff and I have felt Steve Jobs was rarely wrong (in particular, when he said that the cloud was the future of device synchronization ;-)
On the iPad Mini, however, I believe Steve Jobs got it wrong.
Of the smaller tablets, he famously said "This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps" and "The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad."
I have used an iPad Mini for 24 hours now.
The apps look exactly the same as they are on my large iPad. There is very minimal tradeoff here. The size of the Mini is perfectly sufficient to create great tablet apps. WRONG #1
I agree it is way too big to compete with my smartphone or camera (people who go around taking pictures with iPads are nuts), but it is definitely a huge competitor to the iPad3. Huge.
Look, the tradeoff is minimal. Mostly, it is the keyboard. However, if you keep it vertical, you can type with your thumbs, BlackBerry-style (formerly Gangnam-style, but now just depressing). I have not found a better way to type than with my thumbs. Even when I use all my fingers on the iPad3, I make mistakes. With my thumbs, I might be slower (might) but I am definitely more accurate. I will always be slower than typing on my laptop, but that is a given. I will never write long emails with a tablet. Period.
If the tradeoff is the keyboard and the Mini makes it even better in vertical, then what else is left?
Size and weight are a huge advantage of the Mini, for people who carry both a laptop and an iPad (again, those who go around with just a tablet are also nuts, the tradeoff between laptop and tablet is still gigantic).
Yeah yeah, I hear you: "it does not have a retina display! My eyes will pop out!!". No, they won't. Sorry, you have spent too much time in Silicon Valley. The retina display is something that only the 0.1% of the population (designers, artists) can really appreciate. The rest of us, we just pretend because it makes us look cool. You can live without a retina display, believe me. And if you wait nine months, you'll have your iPad Mini with the retina display, I guarantee it.
There you have it. I can't find a good reason to say that the Mini can't compete with the iPad3. The Mini is no tweener. It kicks his bigger brother. WRONG #2.
I believe the Mini will quickly outsell the iPad, as the iPod Mini did with the large iPod (remember?).
And where will your Mini live? Let me bet: in your living room, on your couch. The iPad Mini is THE device for Social TV. It is the perfect companion to your TV. It already looks like a big remote control, but 1,000 times smarter. It is the perfect trigger for the amazing growth of second screen apps, an unstoppable wave in 2013.
Now, if only Apple had the guts to price it below $300 ;-) They did not, and I clearly understand why: they know it will cannibalize the iPad3 and they did not want to do the same with the iPod Touch (which is still selling like crazy). Had they gone below $300, who would have bought an iPod Touch for its kids this Christmas? Nobody. However, now you are going to pony up $329 and buy them the Mini instead. Not bad. With time, the price will go down, because the premium Apple can demand will no longer be more than 50% like it is today (the Nexus 7 is $199). There will be a $249 iPad Mini one day, and more than one per household (hey, I wrote it a long time ago... There is a reason why the iPad has never been multi-user: they want one per person, not one per family).
Well, you can't be always right... I remember Steve Jobs saying that he would never open the iPhone to developers, because they would ruin the device. And than say the App Store is the best thing that they ever invented ;-) I am sure today he would say that the iPad Mini is more than 7". It is 7.9".
That 0.9 makes all the difference between a tweener and the best device ever conceived. Right?
On the iPad Mini, however, I believe Steve Jobs got it wrong.
Of the smaller tablets, he famously said "This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps" and "The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad."
I have used an iPad Mini for 24 hours now.
The apps look exactly the same as they are on my large iPad. There is very minimal tradeoff here. The size of the Mini is perfectly sufficient to create great tablet apps. WRONG #1
I agree it is way too big to compete with my smartphone or camera (people who go around taking pictures with iPads are nuts), but it is definitely a huge competitor to the iPad3. Huge.
Look, the tradeoff is minimal. Mostly, it is the keyboard. However, if you keep it vertical, you can type with your thumbs, BlackBerry-style (formerly Gangnam-style, but now just depressing). I have not found a better way to type than with my thumbs. Even when I use all my fingers on the iPad3, I make mistakes. With my thumbs, I might be slower (might) but I am definitely more accurate. I will always be slower than typing on my laptop, but that is a given. I will never write long emails with a tablet. Period.
If the tradeoff is the keyboard and the Mini makes it even better in vertical, then what else is left?
Size and weight are a huge advantage of the Mini, for people who carry both a laptop and an iPad (again, those who go around with just a tablet are also nuts, the tradeoff between laptop and tablet is still gigantic).
Yeah yeah, I hear you: "it does not have a retina display! My eyes will pop out!!". No, they won't. Sorry, you have spent too much time in Silicon Valley. The retina display is something that only the 0.1% of the population (designers, artists) can really appreciate. The rest of us, we just pretend because it makes us look cool. You can live without a retina display, believe me. And if you wait nine months, you'll have your iPad Mini with the retina display, I guarantee it.
There you have it. I can't find a good reason to say that the Mini can't compete with the iPad3. The Mini is no tweener. It kicks his bigger brother. WRONG #2.
I believe the Mini will quickly outsell the iPad, as the iPod Mini did with the large iPod (remember?).
And where will your Mini live? Let me bet: in your living room, on your couch. The iPad Mini is THE device for Social TV. It is the perfect companion to your TV. It already looks like a big remote control, but 1,000 times smarter. It is the perfect trigger for the amazing growth of second screen apps, an unstoppable wave in 2013.
Now, if only Apple had the guts to price it below $300 ;-) They did not, and I clearly understand why: they know it will cannibalize the iPad3 and they did not want to do the same with the iPod Touch (which is still selling like crazy). Had they gone below $300, who would have bought an iPod Touch for its kids this Christmas? Nobody. However, now you are going to pony up $329 and buy them the Mini instead. Not bad. With time, the price will go down, because the premium Apple can demand will no longer be more than 50% like it is today (the Nexus 7 is $199). There will be a $249 iPad Mini one day, and more than one per household (hey, I wrote it a long time ago... There is a reason why the iPad has never been multi-user: they want one per person, not one per family).
Well, you can't be always right... I remember Steve Jobs saying that he would never open the iPhone to developers, because they would ruin the device. And than say the App Store is the best thing that they ever invented ;-) I am sure today he would say that the iPad Mini is more than 7". It is 7.9".
That 0.9 makes all the difference between a tweener and the best device ever conceived. Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)