> Samsung showed off a new but not yet functioning 10.1 inch Galaxy Tab with a case just .33 inches or 8.6 mm thick (iPad 2 is .34 inches thick, a difference of a quarter of a millimeter) and reportedly weighing 1.31 pounds or 595 grams (iPad 2 is 1.33 lbs or 600 grams), after [describing](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/04/apples_ipad_2_prompts_samsung_to_improve_inadequate_parts_of_galaxy_tab_10_1.html) its [original](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/14/7_8b_in_parts_will_make_apple_largest_customer_of_rival_samsung.html) 2011 tablet products at Februarys’ Mobile World Congress as “inadequate” compared to iPad 2. Everything about this announcement sounds like a hasty reaction to Apple’s iPad 2 announcement. I’ll ask again: What part of that announcement was unexpected? Why did Samsung think that the “old” Galaxy Tab 10.1″ version was going to be okay? And why didn’t someone get fired for the obvious lack of vision?

Further, what are you saying to your customers when you ditch all of our products in their infancy in favor of hastily-slapped together “not yet functioning” empty cases? Does anyone give a thought to brand loyalty anymore?

Here’s a tip: Stop announcing products. Take your time, scrap everything you currently have, and spend the next three YEARS developing a product that is going to be ahead of where Apple will be then, not where they are now. That’s the only way to win this game.

Stop reacting. Start innovating.

> Motorola will reportedly reduce orders for its Xoom tablet starting in the second quarter of 2011, and no orders are apparently scheduled past June, suggesting a Xoom successor and newer competitor to Apple’s iPad 2 is already in the works. And so yet another tablet described by many pundits as “the first real competitor to the iPad” has flopped.

More and more evidence is stacking up to suggest that the iPad will be a LOT more like the iPod than the iPhone for Apple. In other words, a permanent 75-80% market share for Apple with few credible alternatives. Without the carriers, Android is going to have a hard time gaining any credibility in this space.

> Gold suggested that RIM’s BlackBerry PlayBook tablet could be a good fit for companies concerned about Apple’s level of support. Yeah. A non-existant, non-shipping product that you have no idea whether or not you’ll be able to support, because you’ve never actually seen one, is a GREAT alternative to the iPad for IT departments everywhere.

Good to see parts of the IT world are still scared out of its mind of anything Apple. Too bad CEOs are going to force them to buy iPads, anyway.

Your days of telling people what they can and can’t buy are over, Admins. We buy the computers we want. It’s your job to support those computers, whatever they may be.

> now people are going to say: ‘What happened?’ Steve Jobs is personally responsible for killing the music business. I remember back when MTV took off, people like David Coverdale from Whitesnake complaining that the popularity of music videos had killed the entire music industry. In reality, what it did was kill bands like Whitesnake, because we finally got a chance to see what those older guys looked like.

Was it unfortunate that looking good became more important than being talented musically? You bet. I think of all the bands like the Doobie Brothers or Boston who never would have been signed in the 80s because they weren’t good-looking enough to present well in a video. There was probably a lot of good music missed from bands popping up since that never had a chance.

But is that MTV’s fault? Or is it our fault for letting that happen? Maybe if we taught music in school we wouldn’t get caught up in the visuals so much while listening to the utter crap that passes for music nowadays.

What Jon Bon Jovi is complaining about is not being able to sell 11 crappy songs along with his one hit. That’s what iTunes is all about. The track, not the album. It forces musicians to give it their all on every single song, instead of packaging that one good song along with an hour’s worth of stinkers.

I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. And that sea change from album to individual track had already happened long before iTunes came around. All Jobs did for the industry was give it a way to collect at least the $.99 for that one track. Prior to that, everyone was just stealing it, Jon.

The album’s fate, and the fate of your local Tower Records, was written in stone the second the first CD was printed, with digital tracks that could easily be separated from each other and transported across the Internet.

And as far as “taking your allowance money and making a decision based on the jacket, not knowing what the record sounded like.” Am I the only one who thinks it’s good that you no longer have to do that? Are you so afraid of what people will think when they hear your crappy lyrics, Jon?

> The company behind the Angry Birds mobile phone game sensation has said it wants to list on the stock market. > > Rovio said in the statement: “The plan is to seek an initial public offering (IPO) in New York, but the specific timing and details are still open.” > > The Finnish firm has recently raised $42m to fund expansion from backers that include the founder of Skype and Accel, an early investor in Facebook. Talk about milking your fifteen minutes for all it’s worth.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Angry Birds as much as anyone else, and I think they are completely deserving of all their success. But I’m waiting for their NEXT great game. I couldn’t care less about Angry Birds: the Movie. Angry Birds: the Lunchbox. Angry Birds: the Cartoon series. Angry Birds: the Birthday Cake.

I still think they wouldn’t need to raise money via an IPO and via lame marketing tie-ins if they had just charged $2 or $3 for their iPhone app instead of $.99. As a game creator, I give them full props. As astute business people, not so much.

You want to be the next Nintendo, Rovio, you’re going to have to come up with more than one hit. Otherwise, the next Angry Birds-level success will come from another startup.