HP’s Slate tablet: The early reviews
Hewlett-Packard, at long last, has released the tablet computer first glimpsed at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas last January, and it is a decidedly different take than what we’ve seen so far in the tablet space. Basically a business netbook sans a keyboard. That’s a far cry from Apple’s iPad — and maybe that’s the point.
The initial reviews of the HP Slate 500 are starting to trickle in and they are something of a mixed bag. There is plenty to debate, to be sure. The device sports Windows 7, Wi-Fi but no 3G, and has no app store link-up. But it features a digital stylus pen, has a relatively fast processor and plenty of room for storage. And then there is the little matter of that hefty $799 price tag, which has surprised more than a few people, given that the iPad starts at $499.
HP is not even pretending to be targeting the same buyers as the iPad. And a more interesting HP vs Apple showdown is likely to come next year, when HP releases the webOS tablet that everyone is curious to get a peek at.
With that in mind, a sampling of some early critiques on the Slate 500:
PCWorld: “Put alongside other tablets, the HP Slate could disappoint you, again.”
The Inquirer: “As a tablet device to rival the iPad or the Galaxy S, the price, weight and operating system of the Slate 500 make alternative devices seem far more attractive. However viewing the HP Slate 500 as a touch sensitive netbook makes it look slightly more palatable.”
CrunchGear: The Slate 500 is a very nice tablet. In fact I’d say the Samsung Galaxy Tab and the 500 are close cousins in terms of style and usability. The iPad may be the gold standard, but someone needs to think of the legacy applications! That’s what the 500 is here for. This thing runs Windows 7. It runs it just well enough to make it a compelling device for point-of service and other niche markets. It doesn’t run it well enough to, say, convince me to get rid of my laptop.”
They’ll always be the Magazine Publishers of America to me
The Magazine Publishers of America said on Friday that it is renaming itself the MPA — The Association of Magazine Media. The notable difference is the omission of the word publishers. Why?
“MPA is underscoring the fact that magazine media content engages consumers globally across multiple platforms, including websites, tablets, smartphones, books, live events and more.”
“More” presumably means “printed magazines,” but nobody in media is all that hot on associating themselves with words like “publish” and “print” because to young people (or young “consumers” in the parlance that people use when their sole desire is to make money from you) and investors those words smell like death.
When magazine publishers like Conde Nast and newspaper publishers like Advance Publications (like Conde Nast, owned by the Newhouses) have been forced to cut hundreds if not thousands of jobs and stop publishing some of their products, it doesn’t do much good in the public relations department to accentuate the part of your business that is fading, even if it still produces 80 to 90 percent of your revenue. Fortunately, Time Inc CEO and incoming MPA Chairman Jack Griffin manages to refer in passing to “print” one time in the press release quote.
My question: Why do this so soon after magazine publishers devoted $90 million in advertising space to the MPA just this year for its “Magazines, the Power of Print” campaign? I’m lined up to talk to someone at the MPA to ask that question and will update when I hear it. The ad campaign, in the unlikely case that you missed it, tries to convince advertisers that print still is worth spending money on. It’s interesting at the very least to segue into a whole new message so soon afterward.
Also, read my friend Jack Shafer’s blistering review of the campaign at Slate, not to mention his darts tossed at a similar campaign by the Newspaper Association of America. If the words, “newspaper industry’s no-confidence vote in itself” don’t rouse the schadenfreude in your cold, cold heart, nothing will.
Perhaps this PR strategy makes sense, even if the business they engage in day after day will be just the same after the new association name debuts on Oct. 4 at the American Magazine Conference. Stick to your PR strategy long enough, we have seen over the years, and people can accept all sorts of things.
What a disgrace for homeowners around the country to find out that their lenders are foreclosing on their homes with bogus documentation.
Always request a public legal audit of everything done and contact your local Attorney General.
What Apple’s “iTablet” could mean for Asia
Jonathan Adams serves as a GlobalPost correspondent, where this article first appeared.
TAIPEI, Taiwan — Here comes, maybe, Apple’s “iTablet.” Or “iSlate.” Or “iWhatever.”
Apple’s so-called “Jesus Tablet” has been described as the ultimate gadget: A netbook, e-book reader, movie player and games platform all in one. It’s going to revolutionize publishing, and education. No mention yet on solving Middle East peace, but surely it’s only a matter of time.
Now, Apple fans are in a frenzy over a press event Wednesday at which the tablet may finally — maybe — be revealed to all. And yes, all the jokes about Moses bringing the tablet down from the mountain have already been made.
GlobalPost doesn’t have any solid information to add since our last dispatch on this topic, nearly a year ago. But here in Asia, where many of Apple’s mos popular products are manufactured, there’s been plenty of unconfirmed hearsay.
Apple doesn’t comment on its suppliers, as a rule. Calls to reported suppliers for the wonder gadget got the usual litany of “no comments” and a few chuckles that we even asked.
Just combine that with the Matias folding keyboard and you’ll have a decent netbook.
Moses could carry one in each arm.
Audience and the media: a shaky marriage
How can mainstream news organizations retain (or regain) their audience’s trust in skeptical world where almost anyone with an Internet connection can be a publisher? That’s the topic a panel of industry experts will address tonight at the Thomson Reuters heaquarters in Times Square. We’ll be live blogging the event here from 7pm ET.
The panel comprises: Andrew Alexander, ombudsman, The Washington Post; Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor, The Associated Press; Lisa Shepard, ombudsman, National Public Radio; and Dean Wright, global editor of ethics, innovation & news standards, Reuters. Jack Shafer, editor-at-large for Slate, is the moderator.
If you’d like to put a question to the panel, leave it in the comments box below and we’ll ask a selection on your behalf.
A media source called “Editor & Publisher” points out that all the American media fell for a politically correct lie and propagated it to the country. They reported “Second Cop — Not Kimberly Munley — Brought Down Fort Hood Killer.” It just sounded so much better to credit a woman instead of a black man for the deed. There was no checking internet sources for accuracy.
Yahoo: Here’s why we rejected Microsoft offer
Yahoo’s surprise three-year forecast announcement on Tuesday lays out why the Internet giant has refused to budge from its belief that Microsoft’s bid severely undervalues the company.
The Sunnyvale, Calif. company believes it can nearly double its operating cash flow to $3.7 billion and boost revenue, excluding payments to affiliates, to $8.8 billion. Built into the forecast is an expectation of $1.9 billion of additional revenue over three years in display video advertising revenue, outpacing market growth rates, Yahoo said.
It also reaffirmed previously issued first quarter and full year 2008 forecasts.
Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock: “We are pleased to share with the market more details about our business and our expectations for Yahoo!’s financial performance, which provided context for our board’s unanimous rejection of Microsoft’s unsolicited proposal. Yahoo! represents a truly unique strategic platform within our industry. The board of directors and management will continue to work closely together to ensure that any strategic path we pursue capitalizes on that uniqueness and value in a way that maximizes the benefit to our stockholders.”
Your move Microsoft.
(Reuters)
Keep an eye on:
