Why the Tablet Market is Really the iPad Market 657
Hugh Pickens writes writes "James Kendrick writes that after Apple introduced the iPad, companies shifted gears to go after this undiscovered new tablet market but in spite of the number of players in tablets, no company has discovered the magic bullet to knock the iPad off the top of the tablet heap. 'What's happening to the 7-inch tablet market is what happened to the PC market several times. Big name desktop PC OEMs, realizing that consumers didn't care about megahertz and megabytes — yes, that long ago — turned to a price war in order to keep sales buoyant,' writes Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. 'Price becomes the differentiating factor, and this in turns competition into a race to the bottom.' Historically, when a race to the bottom is dictated by the market, it's more a sign of a lack of a market in general. If enough buyers aren't willing to pay enough for a product to make producers a profit, the market is just not sufficient. Price is a metric that most people know and understand because it's nowhere as ethereal or complicated as CPU power or screen resolution. Given a $199 tablet next to another for $299, the $100 difference in the price tag will catch the eye before anything else. But if price is such an important metric, why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers. 'So the problem with the Kindle Fire — and the Nexus 7 — is the same problem that's plagued the PC industry. Deep and extreme price cuts give the makers no wriggle room to innovate,' writes Kingsley-Hughes. 'By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed the tablet market by creating unrealistic price expectations.'"
People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nexus 7 is certainly not a "race to the bottom". It has an excellent spec, including a better CPU than the iPad and similar graphics capability. Okay, it doesn't have everything that the iPad has, but it costs a fraction as much and for most people does the same thing (display web pages, email, Facebook, photos etc).
As for innovation Android itself is innovative, and even on very low end tablets all the features work. Much of the software that makes tablets useful doesn't even run on the tablet anyway, it runs on a server somewhere over the net.
The tablet market is about to explode with the Nexus 7 and Surface. These are devices that people want - cheap but powerful devices for some casual web browsing, ebook reading and Angry Birds. Apple fanbois are getting nervous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Funny)
"If that supermodel gives me a handjob, I'd gladly pay $100."
This is what you sound like.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Funny)
shame about the battery li
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really think the issue with the Android tablets is what they do. It's that (to the average user) they just don't seem as nice. They displays aren't as sharp, for one thing. I don't think screen resolution is "etherial" as the summary says. I think people look at an ipad on display in a store next to another tablet, and the ipad looks nicer.
Becuase ipad has set the standard and the others seem just a touch less "nice", you end up with this idea consumers get in their heads that iPad is the standard, and the others are knock-offs or generics. It's not ipads versus the other tablets, it's ipads versus tablets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If consumers get this, what makes is it so difficult for geeks to grok it?
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
If consumers get this, what makes is it so difficult for geeks to grok it?
There's a German word for this: Fachidiot [literally profession idiot]. The idea is that sometimes professionals are thinking to specific - they loose the ability to think outside the box.
The whole iPad vs Galaxy Tab mess could be based on this: The argument is mostly about extremly tight details without context. Sure, a side-by-side image is similar, but your typical consumer sees also the bigger picture; like typical orientation of the device, look-and-feel of applications, price tag and description in the shop, ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Nexus 7 is just as nice as the iPod (including screen DPI). Other Android tablets, not so much.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I really don't like advocation for apple inc but:
Is the nexus7 a shell of glass and aluminium? No. That is one of the problems I have had with
Android tablets. They are too plasticky, usually after a few weeks use they look far worse than
they begun with and from day one you get a hint of a device made to accounts, not to specs.
The apple device is perceived as a better device because in every perceptional level it is a
better device; not because it was there first.
Technical note (Score:5, Informative)
The perception that polymers are somehow inferior dates from the days of polystyrene, which was a very low spec polymer. Now look at advanced racing bicycles, or the control surfaces on F1 cars, or the wings of the Dreamliner. They are made of plastic, rather than aluminum. It certainly isn't to save money. Those carbon fibre/kevlar/polymer resin composites are 100% synthetic plastics.
Re:Technical note (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, synthetic composites can produce better structural properties than their pure metal counterparts. Still that doesn't mean that companies are actually using the better components. Also of note here is that better tensile/compressive strength doesn't help you if you actually want a deforming device so all the aforementioned composites are invalid as far as the deformability claims go since they would deform worse than Aluminium.
Also of note is that the point in doing material research for some projects is to create a better product while for most projects it just is to make components cheaper.
I had done some research on the quality of the plastics going into laptop cases in early 2004 and found that among all the made to price devices only the Sony Vaio line had some quality concerns in their compound design reciepes and if you look at laptops from that era the only thing you will see is a faded mess. Seriously the only plastic device I have seen fade nicely is the Nokia N9 and on that one the test is still going.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4)
I know that wasn't technically a Godwin, but the fact that you were able to work in something so close, in a tablet discussion, is impressive. Well played, sir.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly why I picked up a HP Slate 500 for $350 when I got the chance. Few people understand what a killer app OneNote is.
I eagerly await the Surface Pro. It will be THE game changer in the corporate world, if not a significant segment of the consumer one. I can't help but laugh my ass off at every person with a functioning laptop or tablet, who is so woefully ignorant as to buy an ultrabook, Macbook Air, or iPad 3 since the Surface Pro was announced.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
Us Linux folks have been waiting 10 years for this. The day that Microsoft started eating the OEM's lunch. At some point they will have to compete against Microsoft. Since Microsoft gets Windows for "free" the only way to match the price point on the hardware will be to load an OS that costs them less than Windows.
With the Windows 8 App store it looks like Valve has figured out they had better have an exit strategy for leaving the Windows PC Market. Hopefully the OEMs like Dell, HP and Lenovo will figure this out soon as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft is beating on the OEMs to get them to build more expensive systems. Dell, Toshiba.. are not anxious to included the hundreds of dollars of extra and expensive parts required to create versatile tablets in every system sold. So I don't think that's going to create opportunity for Linux.
Where I do think there is opportunity is the low end. Microsoft, assuming they are going to execute their Windows 8 strategy is going to be putting tremendous pressure on the bottom 1/2-2/3rds of the Windows consu
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Insightful)
No, "us" Linux folks were waiting 10 years for a real alternative to Windows and IE and the like. We got that, it's called Apple and Firefox and Chrome. Hey look, OS X is UNIX... even better!
Now we have some real competition to Microsoft. That's all I wanted, someone to light a fire under Microsoft to do the right thing in terms of better security and better stability and open standards (well, they aren't perfect there, but better). Microsoft still controls the PC market, but Apple is gaining while keeping fairly solid control in the tablet market. But Google is gaining there, and Microsoft will be a major player very soon. Google controls the phone world, but barely with Apple close behind. We are living in the age that could go down in history as the glory days of personal computing devices.
Nobody can ignore the others, they all have to bring something to the table or be left behind. And that is how consumers win.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Microsoft will have to add the Windows tax to their products or they would fall foul of competition laws. Keep in mind though that large OEMs only something like £15 for a copy of Windows, nothing like the £65 smaller OEMs or the £150 consumers pay.
Remember netbooks? Some people did try shipping Linux, but the small price advantage was not enough in the end. Maybe it was compatibility, maybe it was familiarity, maybe it was lame custom Linux distros.
Re: (Score:3)
OneNote on iPad is nothing like OneNote on Windows. I have no idea why Windows released a version this bad. It wasn't for fast money since they give it away on iPad. But anyway, no this is not the same thing at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Onenote? What about Onenote?
OneNote is quite possibly the only Microsoft app to date that runs on both iOS and Android.
Actually, no, scratch that. The other one is Lync client.
Re: (Score:3)
OneNote for Android (and iPhone) appears to be missing the main feature that made it so great on Tablet PC, which was pen input and handwriting recognition.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Informative)
Well, admittedly, no iOS and few Android devices actually have digitizers, which is what you need for this to be workable with capacitive touch. It worked great on Tablet PCs because those almost exclusively used resistive touchscreens, sucky for fingers but great with a stylus. For Android, the only device with a digitizer I can think off the bat is Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet.
OneNote on Win8 will definitely support pen input, though, so that might be interesting. And IIRC not only Surface has a digitizer, but so do a bunch of third-party tablets as well, like Asus ones.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Informative)
For Android, the only device with a digitizer I can think off the bat is Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet.
As well as the Samsung Galaxy Note, Asus Padphone, HTC Flyer and the millions of inexpensive tablets/phones supplied with capacitative foam-tipped styluses.
Re: (Score:3)
As well as the Samsung Galaxy Note, Asus Padphone, HTC Flyer and the millions of inexpensive tablets/phones supplied with capacitative foam-tipped styluses.
There is a huge difference between a plain capacitive stylus, and a true digitizer - the former is much less precise, and practically useless for handwriting at length.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. The biggest reason that the Nexus 7 is able to undercut the iPad in price is because it's a smaller screen and because Google isn't making a profit on hardware, not because of significantly less features. It's still as every bit capable and more internally, but the smaller screen on a device being sold at near cost is what makes it $200.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The biggest reason that the Nexus 7 is able to undercut the iPad in price is because it's a smaller screen and because Google isn't making a profit on hardware, not because of significantly less features. It's still as every bit capable and more internally, but the smaller screen on a device being sold at near cost is what makes it $200.
According to financial reports Apple has close to 50% margin on the iPad. That is a lot of dollars to shave off a device price tag, or use to offer superior specs, if you have a different business model or can live with more normal margins.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I highly doubt Google's so interested in their profit margin on the devices themselves. They give away Android for free, more or less. They're more interested in getting money off of the content and ads, where any lack of profit is going to be made back up (especially their major baby of the ads that is the heart of their money).
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The biggest reason that the Nexus 7 is able to undercut the iPad in price is because it's a smaller screen and because Google isn't making a profit on hardware, not because of significantly less features. It's still as every bit capable and more internally, but the smaller screen on a device being sold at near cost is what makes it $200.
According to financial reports Apple has close to 50% margin on the iPad. That is a lot of dollars to shave off a device price tag, or use to offer superior specs, if you have a different business model or can live with more normal margins.
If Apple is making 50% margin on the iPad, then why has no one else been able to come close to the specs for even 25% less money?
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
Transformer Infinity. Absolutely superior to the latest ipad in almost every way for a similar price. The ipad has an extra inch of screen on one side due to having a different aspect ratio, and a little more battery but no more endurance. That's its only advantage
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
Go look at iFixit's teardown. The nexus has about 1/3 of the battery and runs about as long as an iPad3. The display on the iPad drove up the cost and sucks battery because they pushed it out before the tech was really ready.
And I'd bet profit is being banked on the Nexus at launch. Tablets are insanely overpriced. You can go to Walmart today and pick up a netbook for about $220 with a 10.1 inch display, hard drive, Windows 7 license, all the extra fans and crap to run Intel Inside and a more complicated laptop housing. We were told an SoC built around ARM was simplier, cheaper and needed less power. So why do they cost so much more?
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, we've been loading Novo 7 Tornados [aliexpress.com] with manuals, training PDFs, OHS links, etc and handing them out to trainees and customers.
At $75 each, they're cheaper than printed manuals and far more likely to be carried and used. The have 1GHz processors, 1GB RAM, 8GB storage, and Android 4.03...
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one killer application I have yet to see gain traction, but I think it's inevitable. Personally, the only considerable use I'd give to a tablet myself would be for quick and easy access to reference material. The ease of accessing information from digital documentation is on par or superior to print in almost every respect. The only downside of note is the ability to flip-browse through a large bound printed volume to find a place cue, and the benefits of digital searching alone far outweigh that drawback on balance.
I see cheap(er) tablets beginning to gain a prevalence in applications where quick access to otherwise cumbersome reference documentation would be a serious boon. They could have an absolutely staggering effect on productivity if equipped and deployed sanely.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do [tablets] cost so much more?
Because Apple enjoys making a 40% margin [forbes.com] on tablets, and Apple's customers don't mind paying it. Then Android competitors have (I think) set their prices using iPad prices as a guide.
The iPad is still selling for about three reasons: Apple has been milking their first-mover advantage, Apple has done a great job on the user experience, and the iPad hardware is excellent quality. This has been enough, especially given the problems in the Android tablets until about this year or so.
But now, with Jellybean, Android is a great tablet experience. Some folks will say it still doesn't match the iPad, but it's way better than before. Now, quality tablets are here, at attractive price points.
I love my Nexus 7 tablet. It's everything I want in a tablet. (Well, I guess I'd like HDMI and a card reader, but I really haven't needed them.) Do I wish I had spent twice as much for an iPad 2? No, I really don't.
I can see the day coming when more Android tablets are sold than Apple tablets, in a replay of what happened in the smartphone market.
steveha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Nexus 7 looks cool, but what I really wanted was the canceled Microsoft Courier [gizmodo.com]. A dual screen paperback book form-factor with hand-writing recognition. Something I could easily hold in one hand and take notes with, or browse the web with, or compose emails with. If Microsoft had made the Courier, it would own the enterprise tablet market, and possibly the college kid market.
Problems with Microsoft Courier (Score:3)
Two problems I could imagine having with the Courier (if it existed) or similar style tablet...
1) Weight. I have a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and it weighs 565g / 1.25 lb (quite a bit lighter than the iPad) which is weighty enough that it can become a little uncomfortable holding it unsupported in the same position for too long, especially one handed and in landscape orientation. The Courier would have had two screens and to power them, maybe a bigger battery too. I'd guess that thing would be closer to 900g / 2 lb wh
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Interesting)
I can type faster than I write on a keyboard, even a good cell-phone keyboard. However, I can't type faster than I write on a touch-screen keyboard.
I don't know that handwriting recognition is the answer as it wasn't very good in the PDA days. I tried out a lightscribe pen and was very impressed with how well it handled printed text, so it may very well be an option.
Handwriting or not, a good stylus is essential to the tablet "experience". Jobs was unimaginably wrong on that one. Here's hoping that future tablets take a cue from the Galaxy Note. I'd bet that good stylus product from Microsoft or RIM could easily take-out a second-rate tablet like iPad.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Handwriting or not, a good stylus is essential to the tablet "experience". Jobs was unimaginably wrong on that one. Here's hoping that future tablets take a cue from the Galaxy Note. I'd bet that good stylus product from Microsoft or RIM could easily take-out a second-rate tablet like iPad.
I wish I could be as "unimaginably wrong" as Jobs was on that one. I imagine that I could retire on the profits from a day or two of iPad sales.
10+ years of tablets and PDAs with this "essential" stylus, and it never, ever took off with consumers. It wasn't just cost, business people rarely used them to get "real work" done, and swivel tablets were used in laptop mode more often than not.
Of course, a stylus is better suited to things where pixel-precision is needed, and maybe the next generation of non-iPad tablets will give styluses another go, now that users have experienced the limitations of touchscreen-only devices. But to claim Jobs was "unimaginably wrong" and that a stylus is "essential" to the tablet experience flies in the face of reality.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Handwriting or not, a good stylus is essential to the tablet "experience". Jobs was unimaginably wrong on that one. Here's hoping that future tablets take a cue from the Galaxy Note. I'd bet that good stylus product from Microsoft or RIM could easily take-out a second-rate tablet like iPad.
And here we have all of Slashdot's delusions about want-the-fuck-is-going-on wrapped up in a neat little paragraph. As the previous reply pointed out, reality says the exact opposite thing you do. What the hell do you think is going on in the world? (Good god, I bet you're gong to say "marketing"...)
I say this as someone that wants a (pressure sensitive) stylus for an iPad!
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on one's posture and concentration. You can type pretty fast on the on-screen keyboard, but even so, making notes while listening to someone is certainly more convenient with handwriting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple fanbois are getting nervous? Hardly.
The iPad is the best tablet for ME. I was into Apple products well before they were popular, because they were better suited to ME. As long as Apple survives as a company and supports my iPad, I'm happy. If Apple is #15 - who cares? I'll still use their products until something better comes along.
Better to me is definately not specs like CPU, memory, gigahertz, etc..... It's the SOFTWARE, OS and ECOSYSTEM that makes Apple products so much better. Other competitors a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no big 'conspiracy' why Apple products are winning...
Apple products are winning?
...shoving 'specs' out is not how you win the Tablet game....
Oh, you're referring to tablets, good, because there are more Android phones out there than there are iPhones; Samsung, alone, sells twice as many Android phones as Apple does iPhones.
...Apple knows what most people want, Android does not.
Apple knows what Apple fans want; by and far, in the iOS vs. Android war you seem to think is being fought, people want Android, by sales numbers. Further, Android doesn't know what anyone wants, but Google's apparently got a decent idea, as do Morotola, HP, Acer, Archos, Sony, HTC, LG, Amazon, Bar
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Funny)
Both casual observation and hard data disagree with your assertion.
Samsung makes lots of phones (I have not read that they make double the number of Apple, but I have read recently that they surpassed them. It's hard to imagine that they doubled Apple's production numbers the same quarter they surpassed them), but they make a lot of *different* phones.
All of the Android manufacturers do. How many Android phones do you think are one step up from a dumb flip phone, but run Android as an OS?
All the major carriers offer these phones.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of the "true" smart phones at the lower end aren't used as smart phones much, either.
Through observation in the wild, I see iPhones everywhere, every day. Android phones? They're there, but they are hardly ubiquitous like the iPhone.
Now the data: Look anywhere that is likely to have a wide representative share of users. Let's take Wikimedia, for instance: the iPhone accounts for 7% of traffic. Android is 4.73% (and tablets are probably included in this number, unlike iOS, which has the iPad segregated).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_OS_share_pie_chart.png [wikipedia.org]
I think the Android market share is either inflated, or they're counting people who bought an Android phone, have no data plan, have never fired up a browser, never opened the app store, and never did anything but make calls with it.
It counts if all you're interested is how many devices are in the wild, but honestly, what can you do with this statistic that is useful?
If I want to develop and deploy an app, I want to know the actual audience that can potentially be reached by it. I have some visibility of that, but not much. It's further complicated by wide fragmentation on the Android platform.
According to the math they did here, Google is doing about 1 Billion downloads a month. Apple is doing about 1.25 Billion. That's a notable, but not insurmountable gap. But, yeah. Right now Apple is winning by any objective, realistic, meaningful measurement.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/07/google-play-about-to-pass-15-billion-downloads-pssht-it-did-that-weeks-ago/ [techcrunch.com]
Disclaimer: I don't own any iOS products, and I really want Google to get their act together, because I really dislike the whole walled garden approach Apple and Microsoft are taking.
Android isn't something people *want* now. It's something people settle for because they don't want to pay the Apple premium. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Windows wasn't something people clamored for, either. It was just a standard.
My problem is that I don't want to see a standard that has a walled garden model win.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
...shoving 'specs' out is not how you win the Tablet game....
Oh, you're referring to tablets, good, because there are more Android phones out there than there are iPhones; Samsung, alone, sells twice as many Android phones as Apple does iPhones.
That's kind of what this thread is all about... tablets. Don't skin him alive over staying on topic.
...Apple knows what most people want, Android does not.
Apple knows what Apple fans want; by and far, in the iOS vs. Android war you seem to think is being fought, people want Android, by sales numbers. Further, Android doesn't know what anyone wants, but Google's apparently got a decent idea, as do Morotola, HP, Acer, Archos, Sony, HTC, LG, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Samsung. By and far, these companies outsell Apple and it's not because Apple knows better than they do what their customers want.
So everybody who buys Apple products is an evil Apple fanboy? A poor unfortunate and unenlightened heretic who has not seen fit to convert too the true religion which is Google Androidsimn? After all it couldn't possibly be that some random consumer who's never thought about Apple or Microsoft as heretical religious organisations would go out and buy their products simply because they like them and not because they have been 'evangelized'. You really need to learn to relax. People buy what they like, end of story. Sometimes they buy Apple devices sometimes they buy Android devices and sometimes (Ghasp!) they even buy Microsoft devices because that's the product they like.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
Apple sold 26 million iPhones and 17 million iPads. They sold 8.6 million iPods. Supposedly, the iPod touch is the most popular, so we'll give it 50%, or 4.3 million for a grand total of 47.3 million iOS devices sold. Samsung sold 50 million smartphones, but only about 2.4 million tablets to bump them up to 52.4 million Android devices.
Noobs...
There were 194.913 million handsets shipped in the China market during the first half of 2012, according to statistics published by the China Academy of Telecommunication Research (CATR) under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).
Of the shipment volume, 94.855 million or 48.67% were smartphones in 822 models of which 801 models or 97.44% were based on Android. China-based vendors accounted for 75.16% of the half-year shipment volume, and international vendors 24.84%
http://lazure2.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/boosting-the-mediatek-mt6575-success-story-with-the-mt6577-announcement/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been saying the same thing for a while now. Apples UI hasn't aged gracefully. Any claims they could have made about simplicity and ease-of-use in the past are long gone. Just take a look at their ridiculous suite of gestures, and the absurd number of functions crammed in to the home button. Compare that to the gesture suite on a tablet like the PlayBook and it's immediately obvious how poor the iOS UI really is.
Android, WebOS, BBOS, ... just about everyone, really ... caught up to iOS a long time a
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats not the point of the article. Its because Google and Amazon are subsidizing the cost of their tablets so much that the consumers are expecting other manufactures to do so. Apple can get away with it because of their market presence and the idea that they are a quality product.
Your right, the Nexus 7 will explode the tablet market but who OTHER than google/Amazon can subsidize the price point to 200 bucks? This is why Dell and other manufacture companies jumped ship. The OEM's sell hardware for a profit, they cannot compete with companies that don't care about the hardware cost when they make up for it on content distribution.
Hell, this is why Microsoft is giving the finger to all the OEM's when it comes to their tablet. They will either have to subsidize the tablet to make it a "cheaper" alternative OR spend the time (years) to keep it on the market and compete with Apple directly on features and not on price.
If you want a real example of this, look at the US Cell Phone market. People EXPECT free phones with a contract or pay just a little more for a higher quality phone. However, if you look at Japan or Europe, those same phones are bought at full price for cheaper service.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thats not the point of the article. Its because Google and Amazon are subsidizing the cost of their tablets so much that the consumers are expecting other manufactures to do so.
Google aren't subsidizing anything at these prices. According to Forbes, "The $199 Nexus 7 8 GB variant costs exactly $151.75 to build while the $249 Nexus 7 16 GB variant costs $159.25. This implies gross margins of nearly 25% to 35% for the device, which are closer to what Apple makes on each iPad." Apple's gross margin on the "new iPad" is around 20%.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
Others have estimated that the iPad costs around $375 to make, and sells for $729. That's a wee bit more than 20%.
So either Apple is committing massive fraud by not reporting more than half their profits, the manufacturing cost estimates are bull, or there are a few things you have to do to design, build and market a tablet other than build it.
If the extra costs are around 30% per device then Google IS going to have to subsidize the Nexus 7. If the extra costs are actually fixed in dollars, in whole or in part, then Google is going to have to subsidize the Nexus 7 even more.
It seems very likely that Google is subsidizing the Nexus 7 since it's similar to the Fire, at the same price point, and the Fire is almost certainly subsidized.
Re: (Score:3)
For Google, the operating system is not free.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
But if price is such an important metric, why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers.
This is just stating the obvious - the iPad has had more sales, because it has been available for longer. If the Nexus 7 had been released in April two years ago (like the iPad), and the iPad were released last month, then the Nexus 7 would have sold more units.
By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed the tablet market by creating unrealistic price expectations.
This is not true. Did Nokia irrevocably harm the phone market by constantly driving down the price of a phone until it hit a low of $19? [theinquirer.net] Did Asus irrevocably harm the laptop market by releasing the first cheap netbook? Did Dell harm the PC market by pursuing lower and lower prices? Sure, you could argue that, or you could argue that cheaper technology expands the market - by making it accessible to people on a lower income. Cell phones are cheaper now than ever before, but the market has expanded so that 5.2 billion people now have cell phones, and the total market is still growing (two years ago revenue from phone sales passed $1 trillion [consultantvalueadded.com] and revenue from associated mobile services like calls etc. is also about $1 trillion).
Re: (Score:3)
From the article:
By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed the tablet market by creating unrealistic price expectations.
This is not true. Did Nokia irrevocably harm the phone market by constantly driving down the price of a phone until it hit a low of $19? [theinquirer.net] Did Asus irrevocably harm the laptop market by releasing the first cheap netbook? Did Dell harm the PC market by pursuing lower and lower prices?
Agreed. It's stupid of the article's author to make a comparison between tablet and PC price wars, because in practical terms, all PCs were indistinguishable to the purchaser. They all just ran Windows, and they only had to be good enough to run Windows. The minority who actually cared about performance paid more for their kit and the rest just bought the cheapest PC they could find.
In other words, the PC industry went to shit because Windows ran like shit anyway (for the majority), so why waste money?
iOS,
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Funny)
Apple fanbois are getting nervous.
As a long-time fan of Apple's work and devices, I can attest to being quite nervous about the Nexus 7. I mean, after the beating Apple's taken from the Galaxy Tab, the Xoom, the XYBOARD, the Nook, the Playbook, and the Kindle, I don't think they could withstand a gentle breeze, much less the Nexus 7 juggernaut currently bearing down on them.
Don't even talk about the terror that is the smartphone front; that keeps me up at nights with the chills.
How much beleaguering can one company take?
:D
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Funny)
This is truly the year of the Android tablet.
Re: (Score:3)
2. Apple phone products sell less than Android phone products.
More accurately.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
WaveSynth for Android 1.0.1
HTC (4.0.3) -> 186ms
Google Nexus 7 (4.1.1 Jellybean) -> 213ms
Galaxy S2 (4.0.3) -> 256ms
WaveSynth 2.1
iPhone 4 (5.1.1) -> 49ms
link [facebook.com]
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Informative)
The writer of Jasuto Pro also complained about the latency in Android and that there was nothing to be done about it (happened at the OS level).
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple fanbois are getting nervous.
I don't see why. Every time Apple gets a kick in the butt their devices get new features. I seriously doubt we'd have the Notification Center right now if it weren't for Android. Even an Apple fan would have to see that.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
Besides, what's there to be nervous about? Nobody takes my Apple gear away if an Android device has a good quarter. Most Apple users and fans couldn't possibly care less about other devices. That's why they have Apple hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is there are two types of "Apple fans"
One group is fans of Apple products. They would like, if at all possible, to get Apple products with even better features are even lower prices. They want Apple to be healthy so it can keep cranking out great products, but when they look at Apple's profit margin and pile of cash, they wish some of that money had stayed in their own pockets. When Samsung makes a product that puts pressure on Apple, or Google adds a feature to Android, they see that as a forc
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
The tablet market is about to explode with the Nexus 7 and Surface. These are devices that people want - cheap but powerful devices for some casual web browsing, ebook reading and Angry Birds.
No-one knows how much exactly Surface will cost, but all signs point at it being at least not any cheaper than the "equivalent" (i.e. same storage size) iPad. And the main attraction that it offers is certainly not casual web browsing & ebook reading, but rather the ability to run full-fledged Windows apps when you need to, especially Office - which is why it comes with that keyboard cover in the first place. So it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you referring to my remark about "the ability to run full-fledged Windows apps when you need to, especially Office"? Both Surface and Surface Pro will run Office, which is what most people actually care about. And, frankly, I still don't see what's going to be the selling point of ARM Surface, especially if its price tag really will match iPad.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
The ipad can't even search within a webpage. I presume Nexus 7 and others can?
Say what? Even my first-gen still-on-iOS 4.3 iPad can search within a webpage, in Safari. Since 2010, apparently [ipadinsight.com].
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
The ipad can't even search within a webpage.
Wrong. It can, but the way Apple implemented it is obnoxious.
Re: (Score:3)
In what ways is Android innovative?
By bringing important stuff first:
Wifi hotspot, multitasking, notification bar, free and high quality turn by turn GPS navigation to name a few that I use almost daily.
Oh, and in the smartphone world, being able to install side-load an application can almost be seen as "innovative". Shame.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Because customizing takes time away from product and usability testing.
There are some features in UI's which shouldn't be messed about with. It is also why android ports of iOS apps generally are easier to use and behave better than android only apps.
Yes android has better features than iOS. Linux has better features than windows 7. Guess which ones sell more?
Having a feature means nothing if using it is to complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Says who? That good 'ol authoritarian mindset poking through again.
Guess which one is a monopoly with a legacy that its creator is having a hard time breaking with?
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analysis is needlessly insulting and, frankly, wrong as near as I can tell.
I make video games for a living. I've worked on triple-A Xbox (original and 360) titles as a programmer. I've got a decent math background, more than a passing interest in physics, climate science, etc., etc. I don't really feel it's necessary to divulge all my credentials, but I'm trying to make the point that I'm not just some random idiot. I was a pro Unix sysadmin in University to help pay for school. I ran my own Slackware and FreeBSD mail servers.
I'm typing this on an iPad. It's not because it's so simple it saves me from myself, it's because it's so simple it saves me any extra hassle. It's a good environment. I get things done on my iPad. I use it more than I was expecting to, to the point where I don't feel it terribly necessary to sit at my desktop machine more than a couple times a week.
Having my own servers opened my eyes to the tyranny of choice. I think Linux and BSD are great, but I spent just as much time obsessively fiddling with things as anything. Different window managers, new browsers, random command line tools...none of which objectively added to my productivity.
And that's what studies find, too. You can offer users choices that make them feel subjectively better and more productive while having the opposite effect. Users don't always know what they want or need. Sometimes you have to give them just one thing that works really well and leave it at that. I could design a door a thousand different ways, and 950 of them would be terrible. (Don't believe me? Read "The Design of Everyday Things". You'll never look at a door the same again.) Why would I give people the choice of a zillion bad doors? I should just give them one or two really good ones.
iPads are popular because they fulfil their function very well. Don't sit and bash on both Apple and Apple users for a well designed product and the desire to use a well designed product. I won't cast aspersions on Android tablets; I'm sure many of them are also quite good. But all you're doing here is calling names and vaguely dressing up some Apple hate.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Interesting)
How can Android look like a cheap copy of the iOS experience when Android is infinitely more customizable and feature-filled than iProducts?
Oh, I don't know... Little things like the friggin' Android Market not working on 2.x era devices with large displays (1024 vertical) without rotating the device to landscape and back again, because until the screen filled up with options (which would never happen in portrait mode), you couldn't flip to the next 'page' of results... Little fit-and-finish things like that let you know Google didn't pump nearly as much time and effort into QA as Apple did.
The iOS experience is unflaggingly smooth and responsive, and the apps, as a general rule, look better (higher level of "fit and finish"). For instance, compare GoodReader with ezPDF or anything else in the Android ecosystem...
Let's not beat around the bush here. iOS offers a very watered-down featureset so non-tech saavy people don't have trouble with it. That's fine for people like you, but I wouldn't ever call Android a copy of iOS in any way when Android simply does more than iOS does.
Filesystems. I hate the way iOS blocks applications from accessing each other's files (it's up to each app developer to 'announce' (via the API) what files it can accept, and equally up to the other apps to support the 'Open in...' functionality), but, I get it. Android, I hate the way files are scattered everywhere, with no rhyme or reason (I know there are (now?) guidelines, but they're not enforced, and often when apps *cough*dropbox*cough* try to be(come) 'good citizens,' it breaks functionality others relied on). I have some apps that refuse to see the non-standard SD card mount point on the rooted PRS-T1 (/extsd instead of /sdcard, which Sony inexplicably uses to refer to a portion of the built-in flash), or to see any files not on an SD card even if the device has gigabytes of built-in storage...
Six of one, half-dozen of the other. iOS is like a gated community, Android is more like Bartertown. Both can be a PITA to deal with, for different reasons. But since I'm using a tablet to actually Get Things Done, I'd rather have the smooth, predictable, curated experience of an iOS device than the essentially lawless "hope this is gonna work!" chaos of the current Android ecosystem.
But just because the Android stack is more 'open' doesn't mean it's more 'innovative,' so my original question stands. In what way(s) can Android be described as 'innovative'?
Exactly right. (Score:4, Interesting)
People say that you can't get "real work" done on an iPad but I'm an academic and use it as a primary tool for my research and writing. Here's what I use most:
Sente for iPad [apple.com] (academic reference, citation, and PDF database and annotating manager, syncs to the cloud and desktop database)
DevonThink to Go [devontechnologies.com] (the anything database, syncs to desktop database)
Textastic [textasticapp.com] (Syntax-aware cloud-capable text editor similar in many ways to SublimeText)
Notability [apple.com] (Notepad/note archiving application)
There are a bunch of other apps that also get put through their paces from time to time—Pages, Numbers, Things, etc.
Thanks to Talkatone, my iPad is also my primary phone and text messenger.
I tried a Samsung Android tablet for a couple of weeks as I was getting ready to upgrade from a 16GB original iPad to a 64GB iPad 2. I hit up my friends and colleagues for input on replacement apps and academic productivity apps in general.
I couldn't get a single one of the apps above satisfactorily replaced in the Android ecosystem. So I returned the Samsung and got the iPad 2. It's not that Android itself sucks (though it is less smooth and polished) but that the apps really suck when it comes to getting real work done.
I routinely put in many-hours-long sessions of real daytime work on the iPad, basically whenever I don't need to do anything with SPSS or large datasets or final write-ups, because the iPad interface is so much more transparent and the iPad is so much more mobile than my laptop. But what I've seen so far doesn't suggest to me that Android could be used for the same serious work in the way that I use the iPad, and it's not about the intrinsic capability of the device (the hardware is nearly as good) but more about the general half-assedness of the Android ecosystem in general.
I want to work on my work, not work on getting my tablet to do what I want.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not beat around the bush here. iOS offers a very watered-down featureset so non-tech saavy people don't have trouble with it
That's actually not true. iOS offers a watered-down featureset because Steve jobs wanted iOS devices to be secondary not primary devices. As he said from the day he got back to Apple, "Good design is not about saying 'yes' to everything, it's about saying 'no' to most things and only doing the best".
With the iPod the goal was to make a fantastic MP3 player, that's it. No radio, no disk storage.... Other features were added slowly and carefully once the music player aspects were in place.
With the iPhone the goal was to get the core aspects of the interface:
-- high speed web rendering engine
-- capacitive touchscreen
-- animation based visual cues
perfect. Apps were only added later and reluctantly.
With Android the goal was to create a version of Linux with a good mobile interface. The goals have always been totally different. They look far more similar than they should because Apple's design was so inspiring. But its not about Apple people being stupid. Its about Apple viewing iOS devices more like the WebOS interface on my printer than a full featured mini-computer.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple tablets are made with the same shoddy parts. Every statistical analysis of the iPod and iPhone has shown equal failure rates due to defect as the rest of the consumer electronics market, excluding HDD based iPods which were significantly higher than other consumer portables. The iPad hasn't been out long enough for the number gathers to have anything significant yet as far as internal parts failures. Several consumer advocacy groups have shown significantly though that poor design decisions until the iPhone 4 and iPad 3 have contributed to a high screen damage rate among iDevices not seen in other portables.
The Nexus 7, Kindle Fire, and Nook Color are durable as well. All three take a standing fall vastly better than any model iPad with respect to damage and repairs costs.
$500 + apps + vendor lock in / ecosystem + 3/4G (for many) is a perfectly good price for the upper 25% consumer incomes in the US. I already addressed this.
For the other 50% of the consumer market with a disposable income sufficient to invest in small electronics, it becomes a more significant issue for a device which is for entertainment. For them, $200-300 for a device they will need to replace every 12-24 months (similar cycle required for all iDevices) is significantly more reasonable and leaves room for a better array of apps and services with which to take advantage of the device. Consider the number of people who bought the Kindle Fire for $200 and promptly spent $50-200 on e-books within the first 6 months of ownership. For the bottom 25%, it's not a viable option for those with the wisdom to manage their finances.
Re:People want cheaper tablets (Score:5, Informative)
Depending on price, I'd grab an x86 Surface in a second. The ARM version... I'm not sure yet. I really dislike Win8 on desktops, but I think it might be far superior to iOS and Android on tablets. I think (subjective) aesthetics are much nicer than Android or iOS, I like the fact that it (in theory) can interoperate with my desktop, and share apps. I like the fact that it is a full OS, and not a toy OS like Android or iOS.
Obviously this all depends on factors, how is the ecosystem, how is the support, how much does it cost, how Microsofty is Microsoft going to be with it. How popular also plays a role, since it ensures further development, and more apps.
Right now I'm happy with my Transformer, and wouldn't trade it for an iPad, or pretty much anything else. I like the Nexus 7, it looks solid, but its too damn small for my needs. Perhaps I might get one for my girlfriend, though she loves her netbook (easier to do homework on), so probably not. If they made a "full size" one for a bit more, I'd probably grab it when I feel the limitations on my current tablet (hasn't happened yet).
I'm not an MS fan boy, but I'm not frightened to admit that they do somethings right. I can see myself sticking Win8 on my HTPC (not my desktop, ever), and I can see their tablet being brilliant. Hell, I'm one of the few people who really wanted a Zune to replace my aging iPod Classic, but the fact that I had to use WMP, and the that I could find an iPod with much larger capacity cheaper stopped me. Hell, I even liked the brown one, I'm sick of glossy white and silver, or glossy black and silver gadgets, with rounded corners, obviously. That was one thing that made my love my Transformer... Its brown, and looks nothing like an iPad/iPhone/iPod/iWhatever. Apple is fashion that really should die, their devices just don't look very good (to me). The only product design of theirs that I like is the MacMini, the rest are kind of blah and dated looking.
It find it sad that most manufacturers of Android devices have to follow the Apple-look-a-like mold. Do something different, differentiate yourself, make your own goddamn design!
Re: (Score:3)
The Surface looks like maybe 400% of an iPad's usefulness for a decent price.
Just wait until Microsoft actually ships the product. They'll fix those problems right up.
Re: (Score:3)
1. The shop sold it to me very cheap, as it was ex demo and had a tiny, tiny scratch on the side.
2. I already had a Galaxy S2, so ecosystem wise, it made more sense (apps, Google things, etc).
3. As much as I liked the iPad3, it felt so primitive, with static icons and no widgets etc.
My primary purpose of the purchase was to take notes in meetings and show clients information, without needing a laptop. The
Being first isn't the only reason (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually GOOD. Before the iPad was announced, people were speculating that it would cost $1000, and they thought that was a great price. But then it was introduced at $500. For $500, you get a device you saw on Star Trek 20 years ago... and it is a joy to use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
at 500 bucks it's still too expensive. It's the same price as a good windows laptop.
The "problem" with the Kindle Fire (and Nexus 7)? (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm. “50% of people with a tablet have an iPad. That doesn't sound so bad until you consider that previously that number had been more like 72%. The slack was taken up by Amazon's Kindle Fire, which has jumped from zero to a 22% share of the market since it launced in fall 2011 . . . "We expect to see the iPad as the leader, but with the Surface, Kindle Fire, and Nexus as three solid competitors with significant market share..."” iPad losing tablet market share [latimes.com] (July 31, 2012).
Re:The "problem" with the Kindle Fire (and Nexus 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a repeat of what happened in the smartphone market, and, a long time ago, in the PC market.
Apple introduced a new product, captured a gigantic portion of the market they essentially created, then their marketshare slipped in response to competition from others. But despite the marketshare slip, Apple still makes most of the profits.
Microsoft taught everyone to worship marketshare because they used theirs to bully everyone into buying their other products. Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money. They'd much rather sell half or a quarter of the devices at a nice profit than three quarters of the devices at a loss.
Re: (Score:3)
> Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money
And so long as they get beat back into their historical 10% niche of customers willing to pay a super premium for a brand experience I'll be happy for em.
Because that will mean the other 90% of us can happily ignore their overpriced stuff.
But ya know what? Apple fanbois are about the only fans I know of who make how much money their object of lust is hoovering out of their wallet a selling point when preaching t
If you think the tablet market isn't innovating... (Score:3, Insightful)
go look at meritline.com, dealextreme.com, and chinavasion.com: search for 'android' without specifying tablet
Look at how many devices you get, in how many different formfactors, with how many different featuresets.
They have GPS tablets now for under 100 bucks, some even have 3d acceleration.
They have PSP style game consoles 75-150 bucks.
They have tablets with and without hdmi-out, with and without capacitive touch, with and without bluetooth 55-300+ dollars.
Point? There's plenty of innovation going on in the tablet market, it's not stopped by price, and if you look at the specs in some of the 'cheap' devices, you'll see that you're getting performance comparable to the last generation 'high end' devices with perhaps lower build quality, screen size, or accessories, but some people are willing to trade that in order to be able to play the latest wiz-bang game on it.
The tablet market is just getting started and anybody who thinks otherwise likely also thinks America is the only country that can innovate.
Bullpucky. (Score:5, Insightful)
'By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed the tablet market by creating unrealistic price expectations.'"
Uh no. By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed Apple's ability to dominate the tablet market by creating realistic price expectations. It's only getting cheaper to make tablets. There's literally dozens of different tablet designs available in this price range, see DealExtreme for numerous examples including all the way up to IPS and A10 for $207 or so.
Innovation again ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm tired of the "innovation" motto. Very little innovation is needed, and whatever is actually need barely qualifies as innovation: better screens and batteries, standard ports.. and, mainly, developpers, developpers, developpers.
Non-iPad tablets are failing because they are priced at the premium level of the iPad but are not really premium, at least not in customers' perception. As in any segment, competitors need to differentiate. Price is one criteria, as are openness, interoperability, features, quality, performance, brand..
Plus I'm not sure non-iPads are failing. Not all of them. They're not the free money some OEMs fantasized about, but I'm sure they're making some money for a few select ones.
Sorry Kendrick. Try again. (Score:3)
Kendrick is just wrong.
* There is a HUGE market for people that are not willing to pay $400 to $500 for a tablet.
* Android now has more apps in Google Play than Apple's marketplace (granted, not as many tablet optimized ones).
* Android now has a MUCH larger market penetration than iPhones.
* Android has some HUGE players behind it now.
* What held Android tablets back was the lack of OS tweaks for tablet functionality. FIXED. And quality tablet models. FIXED. And low enough priced alternatives to the iPad. FIXED.
People can continue to pretend that Apple will remain in control of the tablet market for many years to come, but those are likely the same people that thought Android could not bump Apple into a distance second place in the smart phone market.
Apple is not going to be able to dismiss Android anymore, regardless of how much they sue everyone. Lower priced Android tablets are going to create a whole new market and Apple is going to have a very hard time competing in that world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called the Apple cycle [google.com] for a reason....
I'm thinking about taking some spare cash and putting a ridiculous short option on Apple stock for the next 12-18 months. Only part that makes it high risk is the capricious nature of jurists in Apples' many lawsuits and their currently health cash reserves. Might be 24-36 months until we are looking at the desperate Apple of the 90's again, but it will happen.
Re: (Score:3)
* There is a HUGE market for people that are not willing to pay $400 to $500 for a tablet.
Strangely enough, the most valuable publicly-traded company in the world did not get to that position by focusing its business model on poor people.
Not that simple (Score:3)
It's not that simple at all. PCs, regardless of the manufacturer, all ran the same software. What you saw onscreen (besides maybe an OEM desktop picture) was EXACTLY the same. Only the hardware was different, and that was usually just a matter of case style. iPad has massive, thriving, 3rd party development going on, and it is directly coupled to the iPhone ecosystem. The two reinforce each other in a major way. So comparing the battle between PC OEMs to tablet manufacturers against iPad is not a valid comparison.
The real question the article should be asking is "could the iPad be the success it is today without the iPhone having existed first?" Instead they ask "But if price is such an important metric, why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular?" and then answer it dead wrong "Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers."
WHY did it go "mass market"? THAT is the real question. What they discuss is like asking "Why does the iPad have so many sales?" and then answering "because Apple sells a lot of them".
It's a Veblen good (Score:5, Insightful)
"why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple," It's not because "it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers" as the author states. There were tablets on the mass market long before the iPad showed up. It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
Re:It's a Veblen good (Score:5, Insightful)
Think you have it. The big clue is that almost every iPhone cover has an opening for the logo. Almost no cover for an Android phone does that. That says that displaying the logo is considered to be very important. To be seen with it might not be as important has actually having it, but it certainly seems to be A factor in the buying decision process.
Re: (Score:3)
It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
Normally the typical Slashdot poster demonstrates a lack of understand of the mass market appeal of a product by claiming that a device needs more tricks and do-dads that only a hardcore geek would want but this? Now this demonstrates an entirely different lack of understanding.
Sorry, but the mass market hasn't accepted the iPad because it's expensive. A very small number of rich users may have bought one as a toy because it makes their penis feel larger but when about 85 million people have bought one, you
Why is the iPad so popular? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
why is the iPad so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market
This is nonsense. I have used both iPads and Androids, and the iPad is far easier to learn and use. Apple did many, many things right. And they were NOT first to market a tablet. Many, many people tried to make a successful tablet before the iPad. I have a drawer full of their failures.
Oh, and before anyone calls me an Apple fanboi, let me assure you that while I have respect for their products, I hate Apple as a company. But I am forced to use their products because I am married to an Apple fangoil.
Windows/Linux/QNX Fanboi Loves his iPad (Score:3, Insightful)
Background: Not an apple fanboi. Owned no apple products other than a $1500 used Mac Lisa that VPI forced the CS class to buy back in the day because they had a version of Uniplus Sys V for it...
I've owned C64, Amigas, now a bunch of PCs that have various versions of Windows and Linux starting with Windows 3.1 and Linux 1.0 (4 floppies for a distro, I miss that).
I went to the store to look at the Transformer and some other android tablets after checking out a friend's. All the Android tablets were so-so. I'd have to sideload Netflix on most of them. The displays were ok. They had an apple section so I said "what the heck, let me check out this iPad thing".
Looked at an iPad (3rd gen, retina display). Wow. It just worked so well, the display was unbelievable. Everything was super smooth. Reading docs on it was amazing. It made the Android tabs look terrible. There was just no comparison. I went back over to the Android tabs and gave them another shot. There was just no going back anymore.
I bought a 3rd gen iPad, came back for a 2nd for the kids the next day. I tried an iPad 2 for the kids, no good, 1024x768, could not use it after using the retina display (2048x1535), so exchanged that one for a 2nd new 3rd gen iPad. Definitely worth the extra $150.
I keep an eye on the Android tablets, They're starting to come out with 1920x1080 res devices now, still no comparison.
I borrowed a mac mini to try out Xcode (you have to develop iOS aps on a mac). I had tried the android SDK, not too impressed, and the nightmare of managing all the different platforms is no fun (I have to do that at work). I actually liked OS X. Nothing like the crappy OS 9 and prior. A BSD-based desktop OS - imagine that. A Linux-like desktop that is actually good.
I've been eyeing the Macbook Pro w/retina display... 2880x1800 in a 15" package. To run Windows and Linux because I have to.
If I could extricate myself from the Windows / Linux ecosystem that I write software for I would, but I can't, too many PCs, too many ties. I have to write windows and linux software. Windows 8 holds nothing for me, current distros of linux are going in the wrong direction with their insane UIs (activities? really?). But OS X is nice. Too bad the mac desktop/laptop hardware is so expensive and limited, and I can't use a phone w/out a slider keyboard.
But for the tablet experience, I wouldn't trade the retina display iPads for any android tablets. There's just no comparison.
FFS, It's not the spec, it's the OS and API. (Score:5, Interesting)
As an actual software developer with over a decade of actual "work" experience, I can tell you that the best specs in the world don't mean shit if the platform you are running on is not optimized to run on the hardware and if the API for third party developer does not give you access to all of that power.
Optimization is extremely important on mobile platforms where battery life is a limited quantity and the end user expect to run unplugged for an extended period of time.
The reason why iOS on the tablet is so popular is that Apple developed a unique set of controls for the iPad form factor from the first release of the iPad OS and they also provided an easy way to have "universal" apps that target both phones and tablets.
The other major reasons are the power of the API and Apple's promotion of paid apps. At first, Google did not give a rat's arse about whether developers could make money on Android because Google is an advertising company at heart. They view the users as the "product" that they sell to advertisers. They really don't care about you at all unless if they see you start leaving their platform. Privacy is seen as a nuisance at Google which gets in the way of making money for them.
In a nutshell, users of Android devices and developers are seen as a means to an end rather than customers and partners.
Premium Price??? (Score:3)
nope (Score:4, Insightful)
why is the iPad so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market,
No, you idiot, that is not only not the reason, it's also wrong. There have been many, many attempts at the tablet market before, many of whom were intended and manufactured for the mass market, except that the market left them on the shelves.
The iPad is so popular because it simply works. Your little kid can pick it up and use it. And your grandma. And your uncle John who hasn't seen a computer since he was sent to prison 12 years ago.
Also, it has a cool factor.
It's not the first. It's just the first that actually works. And it still offers more than all the competitors. Not necessarily "more" in the geek categories nobody really cares about (memory, CPU power and other stuff that you can spend an hour explaining to your non-geek friends), but more in the categories that matter to normal people. And that's why they're still being bought as fast as they roll off the production lines.
Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (Score:5, Informative)
No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy
The former statement appears to contradict the latter. I'm sorry you think your shiny iThing is the be all and end all, but the reality is that Android phones come out of the box with a different (see that word? you may want to learn that word if you want to get rid of your fanboy label) feature set than Apple's offerings. Some of us *gasp* actually weighed up the feature set of both platforms not ever having owned a smartphone and have chosen willingly to go with Android.
It's only taken the iPhone 2 years to catch up partially with the features which sold me on the far better Android platform (yes I'm am now an Android fanboy) with things like a useful notification bar, multitasking, or home screen widgets, and even now what I don't miss is paying 99c for every bloody app no matter how basic.
Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy
It's only taken the iPhone 2 years to catch up partially with the features which sold me on the far better Android platform (yes I'm am now an Android fanboy) with things like a useful notification bar, multitasking, or home screen widgets, and even now what I don't miss is paying 99c for every bloody app no matter how basic.
There's a difference between features and experiences. Users care more about the overall experience a lot more than a set of features. They are even willing to go without features if they like the experience.
Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between features and experiences.
Sure. Features can be objectively defined and compared. "Experience" is utterly subjective. Seriously, what does "overall experience" mean, unless you break it down to the combination of features that you are really describing?
If a user's "experience" is enhanced by a lack of features, it is because their requirements are more narrow, or they are intimidated by options, or both.
NTTAWWT. I have an iPod Touch. I didn't even think I wanted such a device over a netbook, but a friend was upgrading and I ended up with it. I like the "experience". But I can actually tell you why. It has very few features and options, but those that are present are basically what I need for my very limited requirements when using such a device (casual web browsing, alarm clock, shallow gaming).
Re: (Score:3)
The user experience of a $329 PC is objectively pretty terrible. Trialware, anti-virus software, updater programs constantly popping up, hard to find & install software, slow-ass hard drive, relatively short battery life, dubious sleep support, and so on. The enthusiast crowd is used to these faults, but regular users struggle with this stuff all the time.
Re: (Score:3)