Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the Tablet Market is Really the iPad Market

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the price-war-has-started dept.

Businesses 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

People want cheaper tablets (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862379)

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:People want cheaper tablets (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862449)

Onenote? What about Onenote? Get me firefox, mplayer, onenote, and an ereader on a tablet with bluetooth, wifi, decent battery, and stylus capabilities, and I'll pay real money for it. If it is sunlight readable, I'd pay double.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862585)

"If that supermodel gives me a handjob, I'd gladly pay $100."

This is what you sound like.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (3, Funny)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862769)

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 (-1, Troll)

mynamestolen (2566945) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862451)

The ipad can't even search within a webpage. I presume Nexus 7 and others can?

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862465)

Android has been able to do that for a long time, both with stock browsers and third-party (like Firefox).

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862477)

Mine can. Bring up the virtual keyboard to find it.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (4, Informative)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862527)

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 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862551)

Of course the iPad can search on a web page. As soon as you tap the search field, a Find on Page option becomes available (for some reason it's right above the virtual keyboard and not attached to the results or search field, but it's there).

Re:People want cheaper tablets (4, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862553)

The ipad can't even search within a webpage.

Wrong. It can, but the way Apple implemented it is obnoxious.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (2, Informative)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862483)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862601)

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:People want cheaper tablets (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862781)

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 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862493)

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.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1)

malchus842 (741252) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862655)

Exactly. In my house right now, 7 macs, 5 iPhones, 2 Apple TVS, 2 iPads. I would have bought a Courier in a New York minute. I was rooting for Microsoft at that point since they had it nailed. Alas, not to be.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862735)

Why do you want handwriting recognition? Can't you type faster on an on-screen keyboard?

Re:People want cheaper tablets (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862523)

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 aren't even close.... for ME. Everyone is different in what they look for and Android geeks need to understand that. There is no big 'conspiracy' why Apple products are winning - shoving 'specs' out is not how you win the Tablet game.... Apple knows what most people want, Android does not.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862525)

This is entirely correct. I do not understand why James Kendrick doesn't see the production of a high quality tablet at an affordable price is anything other than an advance.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862791)

Because people are sick of hear the same tripe about every new Android tablet, when none of them manage to catch on, while iPad sales keep going up. It's getting boring. Most recent example: Kindle Fire.

Remember the old line about how Steve Jobs could shit in a box and sell a million of them? It looks like Google's got it's own "shit in a box" thing going, selling the latest-and-greatest tablet to a small hardcore group of "fanbois". Meanwhile Apple owns the mass-market.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862531)

You have NO clue whatsoever what "race to the bottom" means. It's not about specs FFS!!!
"Race to the bottom" mean that the price drops to unsustainable lows.

Just as Google N7 proves. They don't make any profit at all. It's the prime example of "race to the bottom".
It will kill the non-ipad tablet market. Eventually. Not today, but tomorrow.

Is N7 innovative hardware wise? No it isn't. It's pretty lame actually. Why? No profits to make, race to the bottom.
Case closed.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0, Troll)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862541)

>Okay, it doesn't have everything that the iPad has,

Such as, for instance, usability.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862567)

The tablet market is about to explode with the Nexus 7 and Surface.

Surface? Really? OK, you were sounding reasonable for a bit there, but now you just sound like an anti-apple-fanboy, not using logic, but certain any competitor will take Apple out. There's no reason to believe the Surface will be any more successful than WP7.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (2, Interesting)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862573)

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.

In what ways is Android innovative? I've owned several Android devices, from rooted e-readers (PRS-T1 (2.2), Nook Simple Touch (2.1), Nook Color (Cyanogen 7.1 (2.3)) to full-on tablets (waiting for my Nexus 7; the most recent I've used was a Samsung Tab 7 running Gingerbread), in addition to my iOS devices (1st and 3rd generation iPad; 2x Apple TV (2nd gen); iPhone 4S; iPod Touch (3rd gen)). Android has always felt like a lacks-polish rushed-to-market cheap copy of the iOS experience... I still like it, for some things (in much the same way I love Linux for some things), but if I'm grabbing just one device to take with me, it's always going to be the iPad.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (2, Interesting)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862647)

How can Android look like a cheap copy of the iOS experience when Android is infinitely more customizable and feature-filled than iProducts?

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.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862833)

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:People want cheaper tablets (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862855)

There are some features in UI's which shouldn't be messed about with.

Says who? That good 'ol authoritarian mindset poking through again.

Yes android has better features than iOS. Linux has better features than windows 7. Guess which ones sell more?

Guess which one is a monopoly with a legacy that its creator is having a hard time breaking with?

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862595)

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.

Similar graphics? I guess they both display colour.. but then, the iPad is displaying a little over 3X as many pixels as the Nexus 7. Let's try not not to go too far out of our way to grade on a curve, ok?

Re:People want cheaper tablets (4, Insightful)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862603)

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:People want cheaper tablets (3, Informative)

pointybits (818856) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862679)

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 (1)

sleiper (1772326) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862835)

The Asus has to make money on that, Google has to make money on that and the retailer has to make money on that. The only reason Google are making such a big thing about buying from their Play Store is so they can claw back a little more money.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862633)

Keyword: Application Ecosystem

At this point many don't trust the Android application ecosystem. Just too much malware out there for anyone to come away with anything approaching feelings of safety there. I had an Acer Iconia A100 that I ended up returning (at a big loss) when I realized that the only thing that I used it for was playing solitaire and occasional web browsing. There is no way that I would trust my 11yo son to select or download apps to it, just too risky. The same thing is not true of the Ipad that we have - although he doesn't have the app store password, I'm more that willing to download inexpensive games for him.

As long as people (not geeks, regular people) don't trust the Android applications ecology, these devices will only be sold on the basis of price, and the race to the bottom will continue (and selling a much more capable device such as the Nexus 7 at the same price as a Kindle Fire doesn't represent any reversal of this trend).

Re:People want cheaper tablets (5, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862643)

From the article:

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:People want cheaper tablets (2)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862877)

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, Mac OS X and their tight integration with the hardware platform(s) they run on makes it easy for purchasers to justify the added expense. My 27" iMac is clearly superior in terms of how it uses the display and maximises performance, so I'm willing to pay more for it than I would a similarly configured PC. For a counterfactual, my phone is a Galaxy SII for the same reasons. It has a better display than the iPhone, and with ICS on it, it behaves extremely well. The effort that Google has invested in creating a simple workflow for common tasks on Android has been rewarded by popular demand.

The moral of the story is that there are clear distinctions between the iPad, the Nexus 7 and the Amazon Kindles. They have common virtues, yes, but they each have unique features as well (OS/UX, hardware, performance, featureset) that offer clear distinctions to users. The article's author is guilty of false analogy - or, in layman's terms, he's full of shit.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1, Flamebait)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862645)

Even the cheap Chinese knock-offs aren't really a race to the bottom, though it would be nice if they were more open to updates the way PC OSes are (update issues are really just an Android problem overall). It really comes down to compare the computing power of this tablet against a $500-700 desktop and a $400-600 laptop. The tablet has 1/10 the processing power and capabilities. The tablet further has a slower input system, though touch / multitouch allows unique interaction. Most of that delta is overcome by the portability, battery life, and custom APIs designed to maximize functional value.

All these factors signal to consumer that the devices should in fact be very inexpensive. For each corresponding major component, CPU, RAM, video, LCD, storage, and battery, a tablets parts cost is roughly 1/6-1/2 the same parts in a sub $500 laptop. Again, more signals to informed consumers that the tablet should be a significantly less expensive device.

There has been no race to the bottom in the PC market. It has entirely been a race to provide products which best balance consumer needs. The fact that for 3 out of 5 consumers, price is the highest priority, should only indicate how much consumers desire computing as a commodity market.

Bear in mind that 30 years ago, this was a balance sheet expense few if any were willing to have on their family or individual budget. You can't have wages stagnate for dozens of years at a time and expect consumers to have a pile of cash to spend on new shiny things they got by without just fine a few years ago.

Apple's success has only been in convincing an affluent class with significant disposable income that a limited use consumption toy is worth $500-900 as a status symbol. The fact is we have a large population of people who earn in the upper 25% income range who think they are average everyday middle class. You should hear the stories mortgage lawyers get from people with an income of $200k / yr wanting federal help to refinance their mortgage. There are 28 million homes in the US with incomes over $90k / yr most of whom think they are middle class (upper 25% to which I previously referred). Perhaps in the limited mercantile sense middle class, but they are not the average for the population.

The other issue the other 75% of the US population (and probably what, 90-95% of the world) see with getting into the various tablet ecosystems is the continual pressure to buy various consumption objects. People hate Pay-Per-View on cable, so why would they want it in their tablets. Some products in those ecosystems can be considered semi-durable goods such as e-books, music, and similar. Other are exceptionally limited disposable goods, such as subscriptions to media, and apps which may or may not continue to work and be updated. Unlike the perception surrounding the PC, where most things you put in the storage device are your property (perception, not EULA), the Walled Gardens destroy this retained value. Even on Craigslist, a used laptop with COA and proper licensing for Windows 7, Office 2010 and other software has greater value in the market than one with no software installed. It has been a particular point I have tried to make on several occasions regarding the resale value and lack of first doctrine rights regarding e-books and their pricing relative to physical copies. As I understand it, the EU is working on establishing first doctrine rights across the board for software and downloaded media, consistent with consumer demand for retained value and ownership.

Fierce price competition is not a sign of no market, it is the ultimate sign of informed capitalism.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862909)

Funny to see the continued fantasy of the ipad/iphone haters. The ends you will go to convince yourself that the apple device's success is unwarranted resembles religious zealotry.

1. The ipad is cheap - Adjusted for inflation, 499 is a damn reasonable price. You would not blink at paying the 30-years-ago adjusted price for a set of encyclopedias, recreational sports equipment, tools, or on some form of non-trivial hobby.

2.It's a good, proven, value proposition. There is a rich app ecosystem and long term support. The hardware is solid and durable. (A cheap tablet has none of these)

Furthermore, fierce price competition is NOT a sign of your "informed capitalism" cheap, shoddy products that don't last are a bad long term value. Only uninformed consumers buy them.

Give up on the confused, embarrassing rants and consider that maybe, just maybe, Apple is on to something here.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (5, Funny)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862659)

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 (1, Troll)

Fawkes-force5 (2561623) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862667)

I don't agree with any of the posters that think price has anything to do with this. Its the accessories market that pulls so many consumers to the apple product. How many stereo receivers or shelf systems, alarm clocks, ad infinitum come with android docks built in? Apple is winning the race because they have one and only one device with its one and only port. If Android hardware developers could agree on an interface port that appeared on every device, then the game would be on. If consumers didn't already have the apple connector in their homes on so many devices, would they consider the ipad the default device? Where is Google, Amazon and their hardware bandwagon driving the accessory market for tablets? Apparently they haven't thought of this.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862733)

If consumers didn't already have the apple connector in their homes on so many devices, would they consider the ipad the default device?

We'll find out when wireless technologies make docking obsolete.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (5, Informative)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862677)

I'm an iOS music app developer, and for music apps and action games, despite the similar hardware Android just doesn't cut it yet performance-wise. Check out the touch-to-sound latency times below that another music app developer posted last week. For many apps it doesn't matter, but for audio and many types of games, 200ms latency is too much! I haven't tested Android myself, but on iOS I get about 40ms.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862683)

Uhm, thank you for proving the point of the above. Moderators, really? 4, Insightful? Or did you just not read the article. I am not even going to bother to log in for this one...

Re:People want cheaper tablets (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862739)

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:People want cheaper tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862901)

Apple fanbois are getting nervous.

Even an Apple fan would have to see that.

Incorrect. You assume Apple fans are rational.

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862935)

Are you talking the extreme fans or are you including the satisfied customers, too?

Re:People want cheaper tablets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862763)

As for innovation Android itself is innovative

It's so innovative, it's already nearly like it's model OS.

Undoubtablyt the one who will kill the iPad (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862403)

Will be Apple. When they finally make that fatal misstep, which wrankles users no end .. it is actually possible they have already done this, but things take time to work through the market.

Re:Undoubtablyt the one who will kill the iPad (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862443)

I'd love to think you're right. However, what I think really gives Apple such an edge now is that EVERYONE makes apps for the iPad. And most of them make no apps for Android. There is a sort of network effect in play with the iPad. What amazes me as primarily an Android user is that iPad users often have to buy separate, more expensive versions of the same app for iPad even if they already have said app on their iPhone. What a ripoff.

Re:Undoubtablyt the one who will kill the iPad (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862481)

I hear this a lot about apps. I'll admit that it is a factor, but for how long. How many apps are needed for a device? Obviously, we don't need all the apps that are really just an app version of a companies website, do we? How many different apps that are the same type of game are needed?

I find it hard to believe that there are too many specific use cases where Android doesn't have an app that will work. Once all the use cases are filled in, additional apps are just other ways to do the same things.

Re:Undoubtablyt the one who will kill the iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862557)

1. Those Apps are not made by Apple. Blame the devs

2. It's not the rule, but the exception

3. iPad Apps are not the same as iPhone apps. The user interface is different (read : more elaborate and extended for the ipad version)

Re:Undoubtablyt the one who will kill the iPad (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862599)

Android apps are generally expected to deal with a range of screen sizes. I know this causes a headache for developers, but if you own multiple devices in different form factors, it's a blessing.

Re:Undoubtablyt the one who will kill the iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862611)

Agreed. The problem with Apple is they have that arrogant asshole Jean Louis Gassee running things. He thinks he can force us all to adopt NuBus slots and run AppleTalk our networks. Who is he kidding! We're quite happy with Android's IPX and EISA support, thank you very much.

Being first isn't the only reason (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862421)

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:Being first isn't the only reason (2)

thaylin (555395) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862469)

being GOOD is a subjective thing. I tried the Ipad and then the Transformer, hated the Ipad, loved the Transformer

Re:Being first isn't the only reason (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862597)

being GOOD is a subjective thing. I tried the Ipad and then the Transformer, hated the Ipad, loved the Transformer

The iPad came out after the iPhone had already been very successful. Basically millions of people already knew how to use an iPad, so there was little-to-no new training involved in working with it. If you told me you had an Android phone before using the Transformer, I'd believe you without hesitation.

This is something that really doesn't come up when talking about the "mystery" of the iPad's success. I have trouble believing it would have done near as well if it had come before the iPhone. I think once people got the iPhone the appeal of the iPad became apparent.

Re:Being first isn't the only reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862651)

Imagine, though, that Apple had introduced the iPad first... and then a few years later, they shrunk it down and you could fit it in your pocket! And you could make phone calls with it! Both devices really were ahead of their time, and everyone else has been playing catch-up.

Re:Being first isn't the only reason (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862713)

That presumes the iPad would have taken off. I'm not sure it would have. There are good Android tablets that are comparable to the iPad out there, but nobody cares.

Re:Being first isn't the only reason (2, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862473)

at 500 bucks it's still too expensive. It's the same price as a good windows laptop.

Comparisons to PCs? (2)

thaylin (555395) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862427)

Could it also be that people compare a $399 tablet, and everything it does not have with that of a $329 PC and everything it does have, capability wise?

Re:Comparisons to PCs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862569)

It could be. But netbook manufacturers were blaming their drop in sales on the iPad.

Re:Comparisons to PCs? (2)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862905)

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:Comparisons to PCs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862933)

That's part of the problem IMO. The $300+ tablets all have power on par with a $300 PC, but the platform is still relatively new and hasn't had the time to mature like PCs have. A lot of what makes the PC insanely fast isn't the hardware, it's the decades of refinement on how to best use that hardware. I don't know how many whitepapers I've read about mobile development which is little more then adapting algorithms designed to make the most out of PC architecture; though there are a few gems in the rough which discard preconceptions and take the time to learn what the hardware excels at and what it utterly fails at.

Free Market (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862441)

This free market thing is hurting the businesses and destroying jobs. If only we had a monopoly, so that companies could make bigger profits so that we could profit all from them.

So the real problem is the iPad is a tweener. (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862479)

The iPad is really the wrong size its too large to be portable, my Nexus goes with me everywhere [My fathers ageing Archos the same for him], At home I am still waiting for a device big enough to fill in for the couch device. The iPad is simply too small. Hopefully the rumored 12" Samsung will be a reality.

...The fact that Apple is poor value for Money is simply another reason not it [that and those high priced tablets from Sony...]

Re:So the real problem is the iPad is a tweener. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862565)

The iPad is really the wrong size its too large to be portable, my Nexus goes with me everywhere [My fathers ageing Archos the same for him], At home I am still waiting for a device big enough to fill in for the couch device. The iPad is simply too small. Hopefully the rumored 12" Samsung will be a reality.

...The fact that Apple is poor value for Money is simply another reason not it [that and those high priced tablets from Sony...]

Haters will hate. But why stop there, make up a few more things - doesn't run on rainbows, doesn't produce a gold brick overnight while you sleep etc...

idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862507)

It's popular because the software, both from Apple and third parties, is better. No other reason. Apparently, the authors of this article are the same kind of idiots that think it's the shape, color, and icon matrix that make an iPhone an iPhone.

Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (2, Insightful)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862511)

Witness this article, referenced elsewhere in /. earlier today:

http://www.businessinsider.com/if-the-iphone-5-really-looks-like-this-apple-may-be-screwed-2012-7 [businessinsider.com]

which states:

"Now that most phones do the same things and work pretty much the same way, the most obvious (and, arguably, important) difference between them is the screen."

This is hogwash. 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, I think Steve Jobs was a jerk, but Apple simply has done things better.

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (5, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862653)

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. (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862719)

Meh. I've had many a tablet device since my trusty Newton, and currently have both iDevices and Android & etc. I don't think my shiny iThiny is the be all end all; but it's certainly pretty good.

Since my iDevices are jailbroken, I'm not seeing much in feature differences. What I do see, is usability. Android is a pain. Android is not universal across devices; some things work, some don't. It's a repeat of MS/PC/Windows anarchy.

The point here: Apple made tablet devices work for the masses. All the rest seem to be posers.

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (4, Insightful)

schlesinm (934723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862827)

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. (1)

Zaelath (2588189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862675)

You are a fanboy. The same as this person is clearly nucking futs: http://www.allbids.com.au/Buy/?T=Apple-iPad-2-3G-Tablet&ID=514722 [allbids.com.au]

Who else but Apple fans pay 90% of retail for year old kit?

And the iPhone is adequate as a "device" and horrible as a phone. There are plenty of similarly expensive Android phones that are every bit as good a device and far better as phones. If you take this article's thesis as gospel and buy a bottom of the line touch screen phone then yeah, you get what you pay for.

Next from the fanbrigade is usually, "OMG, fragmentation!"

Yeah, there's some of that. I can only run Flash on some android devices versus Apple's none. I can only run some versions of Android on my phone where as iOS6 can go all the way back to the iPhone 3G (find the differentiation here).

I would still suggest the iPhone to people I've always suggested buy Apples; 12 O'Clock flashers.

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862731)

I'm jailbroken (if you can't ssh in... hell, I don't buy a tree that doesn't allow ssh in). Flash works fine-- pretty much.

Next!

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862715)

Most people I know agree that Android devices are far more usable. Even just the 'back' button makes them far more usable. The fact that you can put widgets on your screens to present information to you in a way that *you* want adds to it. Those I know appreciate that 'integration' with services such as FaceBook or Twitter doesn't need to be built into the OS specifically. They *all* work well. The iPhone has done a few things in a simpler, more limited way, all the while adding proprietary connectors and formats. The iPhone is far from a clear winner in usability or functionality.

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862745)

/me exits xdisplay and looks at widgets on his iDevices' screens.

I think I'm missing something here.

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862873)

... and do you still have a warranty?

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862743)

This is hogwash. 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, I think Steve Jobs was a jerk, but Apple simply has done things better.

You are definitely a fanboy. I prefer the Nexus to the iPad...but then I prefer Android, and I really like having lots more money in my pocket; Since the HTX One X and Galaxy III generation of phones, the iPhone 4S is looking last generation literally [giggle], and so is the Xpedia Play Phone in my pocket, in fact frighteningly, looking at some cheap android phones like the Huawei Ascend G300 costing a sixth of the price of an iPhone have similar functionality to both.

...as for the mockup, Apple phones are down from 37,36,26million over the last three quarters, in a growing market, with mature competitors, with compelling products. The reality distortion aura created by fanatics who post comments about "the effectiveness of the iPhone line" [whatever the hell that means], isn't cutting it. If your saying apple can stamp a logo on an old looking phone and sell it...your right, they did that with the 4S. It will be less successful if they do it again. The article is right.

Personally I thought shameless Apple fanboys talked about android being better value [race to bottom], choice [fragmentaion], and open platform [piracy], now its just marketing terms like effectiveness and efficiency!? you have all just go lazy!

Re:Er, it's that iDevices are *better*, silly. (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862793)

*stretches*

*yawns*

Geekboys like you might put up with Android's engineer-inspired interface. People who actually need something usable, well, need something that usability testing has gone into.

I disagree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862513)

Driving down prices is very good. The market becomes flooded with cheap devices. Then a point will be reached where innovation spurs and the cycle starts again. After all (or is it afterall?), isn't Apple and the others spurring innovation every so many months or years?

Eventually things become cheap and everyone can afford it. Then, or during that time, new things come out which are a bit higher tech. I don't know if this article is true. I have no sources, myself, to cite in order to support my argument. Anyone, please correct me!

The "problem" with the Kindle Fire (and Nexus 7)? (3, Informative)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862517)

[C]umulative 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 . . .

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).

If you think the tablet market isn't innovating... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862529)

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. (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862545)

'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.

Re:Bullpucky. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862857)

'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.

You are comparing a 7" tablet to a 10" tablet ? Apple makes like a 40% profit on iPhone - and none of the phone carriers have been able to provide cheaper smartphones. Ditto with Apple's 7" tablet. It will be $200 or $249... done. Kindle, Nexus and whatever other tablets.. will go bite the dust.

Innovation again ? (3, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862613)

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.

Tablets are still young (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862631)

The tablet market is still young, and no one knows for sure yet what customers want. Assuming that the market is totally driven by stats (Mhz, resolution, price, etc) is extremely short-sighted.

The key difference between tablet's development and PC's is form factor. Once PC cases/towers became large enough to hold anything people wanted (mid 90's), the winners were those that offered the most customization, and that brought around widely accepted standards (ATX, PCI, USB, etc.). Eventually consumers were able to pick and choose all the components separately, and entire markets started up around each type of component (ie. nVidia does not compete against Broadcom, etc.)

The tablet market will never get to that point, because form factor is so important, and there is no way, yet, to tear away the app store and OS choice from the hardware. With iOS, every part of the purchase is tied to Apple. The company that chooses which hardware devices are used is the same company that builds the app store, and that provides updates to your OS, and you have no choices to change OS. Android is gives a little more for customization options, but you still are buying into one complete system or another when you make your initial hardware purchase.

Things will change dramatically. Apple is the best company for doing all in one products, but as the market matures, the piecewise model (whatever that will be) will come close to catching the all-in-one model. Until it matures, it's silly to try to compare the products to each other by simply looking it prices and specs.

Re:Tablets are still young (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862761)

Yep. Android is still new, but I have seen many people browsing nooks at B&N and the Amazon Kindle is becoming popular too.

Windows 8 will revolutionize the tablet market too. Yes, I know people want to burn me with pitchforks, but for tiny tablets it is an ok platform. It only sucks for desktops.

My guess would be corporate Windows hardcore users will start buying them for executives and consumers familiar with the Microsoft brand will too if they can't afford an Apple IPAD. People do not know what a droid is if you ask them? They do know what Windows is and what an IPAD is for sure.

I expect Android tablets will become more popular in time and the same with the fire which I admit is really cool and the best e-reader cost, screen quality, and gui. Great simplistic device optimized for that task.

Who needs to innovate? (0)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862687)

Apple have done all the innovating for us. Glass screen, rounded corners. What else do you want?

The OS will continue to experience major innovations regardless of what the hardware is done and this is driven by Google anyway so they can't have "hurt" the market in that sense. But what is left to innovate on the hardware side? The form factor has largely been set. That only leaves a question of feature set and how many buttons the thing has.

About the biggest innovation in the last few iTab lineups has been the protective cover. Everything else has been incremental hardware advances.

Have we Forgotten Marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862689)

You can't turn on regular TV nowadays without seeing a commercial for an iPad. When was the last time you saw a commercial for the Amazon Fire, Nexus 7, or other tablet manufacturer. And yes, the Amazon Fire does have commercials, but the number of ads are slim.

Couple that with the displays you see at retail locations. I believe the iPad is sold in Target, Best Buy, Wal*Mart, Staples, AT&T, Verizon, etc, and tons of other places. How many of these have equal representations for the other tablets? And I don't just mean having them in stock -- I'm talking shelf space, dedicated end caps, gorgeous marketing graphics, direct mail promotions, etc.

Then let's talk about how the employees of these stores will direct you to an iPad no matter what you ask for. It's the device they were trained on, the one they know the most about, and maybe even the one they make the most commission (I have no idea about that, just speculation). Any other tablet device is just "one for geeks" and they'll steer you away from it.

And finally, while the iPad was basically the first to market (in a reborn sort of way), let's not also forget the giant base of loyal iPhone and iPod customers that it immediately enjoyed.

But, just as iOS is losing market share in the mobile phone market, the iPad is and will continue to lose market share in the tablet market. Unless Apple contnues to pour money into marketing, this market will even out.

Sorry Kendrick. Try again. (2)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862753)

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:Sorry Kendrick. Try again. (2, Insightful)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862913)

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.

Apples vs. oranges (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862777)

As an owner of both an iPad and a Nexus 7, I'd say they fill somewhat different niches. There is no question that 7" is a better form factor for reading -- which is why we see Kindles only at that form factor. 10" is better for watching video, and some games. I also own a Macbook Air, and increasingly I find I'd rather take that with me than an iPad -- it isn't much larger and can do a lot more.

The software differences are really pretty modest. Apple does some things better (discoverability of the UI, development tools), Google does some things better (integration with web services, speech recognition, home screen customizability). Both the iPad and N7 are great products, bottom line. That's a good thing.

Not that simple (2)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862785)

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".

Filemaker Go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862787)

Everyone talks about "killer apps", but one of the reasons for the iPad's adoption by businesses is Filemaker Go. Powerful, user-friendly relational database software that an average business can get up and running for a fraction of the cost of the big boys? No Android/Windows mobile app comes close. It's not all about playing games.

The iPad wasn't successful because it was first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862813)

It's successful because people believe it's "safe computing". The whole "Apple isn't subjected to viruses" idea and "It just works" have really done their brainwashing jobs well.

It's a Veblen good (4, Insightful)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862817)

"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.

Why is the iPad so popular? (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862819)

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.

Unbelievable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862861)

With 85 million sold and the droidfanbois still yappin'
To put it in the words of Sandor Clegane:

fuck the android, fuck google, fuck samsung and fuck the king. I want no water, gimme an iPad.

Delay tactics 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862883)

Apple shills put down all the products that Apple cannot compete with...until- surprise- Apple releases small screen tablet of their own.

No rational reason (1)

ANonyMouser (2641869) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862885)

There was a great dilbert comic on this not long ago http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-06-26/?CmtOrder=Rating&CmtDir=DESC [dilbert.com] . Me, I'm so sick of apple AND android fanboy new items. The ipad is nice to use... until you actually want to use it like a computer, most people don't and that makes me sad.

Just fix this one Android bit. (1)

Zawahiri (963352) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862893)

The only thing I want is for Android to not lag. That is all.

So I am in a worse position? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40862897)

This article is the most stupid thing I read recently. So I am in a worse position because I'm not forced to buy an overpriced tablet? Right.

Somehow the market is never working (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862903)

If I've only got Comcast, DSL, satellite and cellular, the market isn't working because Comcast has a "monopoly", where "monopoly" is Greek for "I don't like that company". Because the market isn't working unless the fiber fairy has given the hobo on the park bench 10 Gbps, and he's regular.

And if there are a dozen manufacturers producing tablets, some of which are premium and some of which are cheap, the market still isn't working because there's a "race to the bottom." God forbid poor people could be allowed to purchase consumer electronics!

You not getting what you want is not a market failure. Is it really so hard to grasp the concept of scarcity?

Definitely not "a lack of market" (1)

cynop (2023642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40862907)

Just to be sure i understand: "...the PC market (...) turned to a price war in order to keep sales buoyant.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." So i guess the PC, televisions, cars and cellphones whose prices have become a fraction of what they were at their infancy are all examples of a lack of a market? Weird, i always thought enlarging your pool of customers would point to a growing market. A maturing market if you prefer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?