bitpad.com

Apple's iPAD is a lost naming opportunity. Apple should have expanded on its iTouch product branding.

Apple Inc., a company that normally takes great care in keeping its product names highly descriptive and simple, stumbled last week at the launch of the its iPAD web tablet device last week.  It seems a lot of people, especially women just did not take kindly to the iPAD name.

The Apple iPAD, is basically an iTouch (WiFi-only models) or an iPhone (WiFi/3G models) with a larger 9.7" screen and using the same iPhone operating system and capable of leveraging the iPhone App Store.  Of course, some existing iPhone features have been stripped out (the camera for instance) and Apple does not see too many users wanting to hold up the bulky device to the ear and talk into it, replacing their mobile phone.  Other key features users were hoping to see are still sadly missing: Multitasking support in the OS, Flash player support, and dual-cameras for video chatting.

As an owner now on his third iTouch, I just cannot understand why Apple picked to build a new product category under the name "iPAD" when it could have easily extended its popular "iTouch" product branding to the new tablet devices.  Customers and the press would have easily understood the capabilities and the method of operation with a simple name like:

•    iTouch 10", or
•    iTouch XL, or
•    iTouch Pro, or
•    iTouch Tablet

Of course, Apple is the same company that made popular the iPOD brand to represent its portable music/media device.  Not exactly the Sony "Walkman" brand simplicity out of the gate, but Apple made iPOD work for them!  The only thing that matters is success, and Apple is way out in front of everyone when it comes to portable digital music players, touchscreen mobile phones and now larger touchscreen mobile tablets.

On a side note, an overseas contact of mine estimated that the iPAD build cost for a company ordering parts in the millions per year, would be around US$171 for the 3G 16GB unit and about US$17 less for the simpler WiFi-only model (not including the microSIM card or packaging).  I'm sure iSuppli will publish their own tear-down cost estimates in the coming weeks.  Add in R&D amortization costs, packaging, shipping, Q/A and Sales costs, and Apple still has plenty of room to make its 40%+ margins plus throw in some AT&T commissions and margins on App Store and media content sales and you can see why Mr. Jobs wants to build this into a key fork in Apple's income stream.

Personally, given that I have continuously upgraded my iTouch annually from 8GB, to 16GB and now 32GB, I am trying to quash any inner thoughts to purchase an Apple iPAD in its current first generation.  I'm sure that by Fall 2010 or at least in Winter 2011, Apple will have at least upgraded the iPAD product line to include at least one camera, multitasking support and upped the base memory to 32GB.  Hopefully, Apple also will give the users what they want and stop playing their corporate games and support Adobe's Flash Player.

Is the Microsoft vs. LINUX war stalled?

Are large IT departments shifting their support back to Microsoft?

Last night I received a call from a friend, a CFO at a large multinational.  Seems that his ears are burning from the debates between the CIO shop favoring consolidation on a few Microsoft platforms and the CTO shop recommendations to continue to build out their Linux investments.

To acquaint yourself quickly with the MSFT vs. LINUX battle just click on Microsoft vs. Linux War search.

As you will see, there is plenty of material for both sides to fight with.  Lots of Linux positives, including the support of many rapidly developing countries (China, India, Brazil, etc.) and their governments showing strong support.  You also have articles like that at the NewScientest.com talking about some surprising positive results backing Microsoft in its article on which OS is safer?

After the huge Linux push over the last 5 years, why is Microsoft gaining back some ground amongst IT departments?

1. Linux isn't perfect! As more and more Linux installations occur, the "Linux-I'm a Bigger Geek! complex" hasn't been able to silence the news of its weaknesses, complexity/fragmentation between all the variants, and their vulnerabilities.  Frankly, I'm tired of wanna be uber-Geeks kicking Microsoft products blindly has some sort of badge of honor, as if Linux is perfect.  For most of us, the Microsoft products work pretty much as advertised and have the same weaknesses that the entire software industry is known for.
2. Is Linux really cheaper? The Linux license costs are definitely cheaper, but support costs are growing.  In general an expert in Linux can probably get 25-40% more than the hordes of MCSE holders out there.  Not just that, but a company has to be aware of its Linux-personnel leaving, getting a replacement at the same cost, quickly, and with hands-on experience in the same flavor of Linux isn't as simple as finding an MCSE holder or Microsoft Exchange professional.  If a corporation really has a problem they can always call on Microsoft's consulting group. Maybe the positive reception Linux has had from developing nations is that the cost of skilled labor in these countries is relatively cheap so developing and maintaining an abundance of expertise internally is viable.
3. Microsoft will do just about anything to remain a viable alternative on any large IT project or bid. I have had the pleasure of working alongside Microsoft personnel in Canada, the USA and Australia. Let me tell you, these people always work hard, are brighter than most, and you can call on them day and night.  They will also appear to do anything to keep from losing a sale! I am not sure if some of the AE's and Product Managers I have met are awarded for revenues and margins, or market share.   I have also worked with HP, Compaq and SUN on Linux projects, but when push comes to shove on a side by side comparison if you tell the Microsoft team what numbers they need to hit, they will meet them.  I have seen Microsoft take 80% off what they said was their best bulk license pricing, plus they'll throw in hands-on support like crazy to keep everyone happy (including feeding their business through a reseller).  As a business manager, you've got to like a professional partner that always wants to win and is on your side!
4. The old Cover Your Ass story! In the IT departments that I have had to manage, I have been lucky that this really never appeared to be a major issue; but I got to think in a more sink-or-swim environment that IT departments are OK managing the politics of Microsoft vulnerabilities.  No one is immune to them.  Yet on the Linux front, it was the IT groups who pushed and pushed for migrations strategies to move to Linux and open standards platforms.  So when the CEO hears of the billing system shutting down, a call center offline, or has email missing (or worse spamming his or her address book), who are they going to call on? And how much wiggle room is the IT department going to get to justify the failure?

As a technology-aware business person, I couldn't help but think that their own words are coming  back to haunt the LINUX soldiers.  They continue to show more success than just about anyone expected, but the story is getting old and buyers are getting smarter to look at the whole picture.  What are your thoughts on this battle?

UPDATE:  Via Slashdot and ZDnet I just saw a couple of relevant postings on this very topic:

 Study Shows that Microsoft vs. Linux Costs are Neck and Neck, in the Yankee Group study "88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux." Interestingly, the study goes on to say that Microsoft's security rating by respondants doubled to 7.6 (out of 10) in a year, while Linux remained flat at 8.3.

Yankee Group Slams Linux Extremists. I doubt if a company spends its budget supporting extremist thinking, but there has been a definite bias; as I mentioned in point #1 above.