While I do understand the desire to test out different sizes/weights/features etc. to see if Apple was close but not quite spot on with their first shot out of the gate (who knows? an 8" $1000 tablet could wipe the floor with everybody), it overlooks the simple fact that in the mind of consumers the iPad represents what a tablet looks and feels like.
If you are going to make a tablet then, you must fit the consumer's expectations, not try and carve a niche somewhere else.
Make a tablet, the exact shape and size and weight of an iPad, make it $50-100 cheaper all around, toss in a regular 'ol USB slot and an SD card and you'll probably have a hit. none of the present, weirdly shaped and overly priced Android tablets have any appeal to me whatsoever.
Better to credibly compete in the market, then when you own some part of it, fiddle around with the form factor and see what else sells.
If it were that simple, somebody would have already done it.
I think this article is pretty spot on—Apple has made it almost impossible to compete at the prices they've set at the level of quality the iPad represents. Maybe you can get to the iPad pricing, but you'll have to cut corners and it just won't feel like that solid slab of aluminum.
I totally agree, nobody can lock down all of the supply of a given part in some absolutely necessary, but short supplied, channel better than Apple. It's really one of their most amazing business strategies.
Spot on. The touchPad has the potential to come closest to this (no SD card but I think it's got a micro USB slot). If this was priced at, say, $349, or even better, $299 - wifi only - there'd be a small stampede. Make it developer friendly - easy to install custom apps on - this would be a massive hit. Sadly, this will likely never happen.
I frankly just don't understand the weird form factor bit (or the right form factor and no marketplace, or some other bizarre combination of factors that are just "not quite right")
At various times the iPod was about as 'cheaper than the competition' as the iPad is now.
The iPod touch has been cheap relative to comparable products. The Nintendo 3D hand held is launching at $350 here.
I don't know if the 3D handheld is a good comparison. It's expensive because it has 3D for goodness sake.
Not trying to flame here, but Apple has a track record of shipping solid, complete devices, at a great price point, with a known track record of updates. They also have some seriously polished apps - software differentiation is becoming more and more apparent.
The competition, not so much. You have Android devices that may or may not get firmware updates, and "to be released" devices from HP and RIM.
I'd love to see some serious competition, but until the rest of the market can drive prices down on hardware at the wholesale level, it's going to be rough for everyone who isn't Apple.
Scenario 1 - Upstart company A which is new to the market comes up with a new great hardware/software combo tablet or mobile PDA which kicks some serious ass. Few people may trust that they'll be 'able to make a go of it' because they're so small. Self-fulfilling prophecy, and that company may indeed have a hard go of it. They're unknown - why should anyone trust them.
Scenario B - the Androids and MS and other 'established' players. They've had a couple years to establish track records, and they stink. Unknown upgrade paths from various vendors - mobile phone companies selling 1.6 Android devices in mid 2010 with no plan to even attempt upgrades, but locking people in to 2 year contracts, for example. MS' Zune being dropped after a couple years, and the "PlaysForSure" debacle a couple years before that. Why trust any of these vendors with your data/apps/music/money when Apple has a much stronger track record of being around and offering decent backwards compatibility (compared to the competition)?
I honestly think people would really be willing to pay even more than Apple prices for devices if there was any hope of the company staying the course with their decisions and not dropping products lines 18 months in the future. People were lining up in droves to pay $699 for the original iPhone - no carrier subsidy - because of the track record Apple has at delivering a good experience. Honestly, really, I don't see anyone else in the CE/mobile space with that sort of loyalty any more. I also do remember people camping out at stores to get Windows 95 - MS did have that sort of cred at one point, but they've lost it and it'll take a lot of work to get it back.
All Android tablets that have been announced (including the Xoom) ship with stock Android. So they'll get their updates on time.
The title of this article causes me anguish. It should read "IPad's Rivals Can't Beat it on Cost." Businesses compete on value and on cost. Value is the benefit to the customer (value proposition) and cost is the fixed and variable expenses to the firm for producing that value (cost structure). Value and cost are strategic, and price is a tactical choice that follows from your value-cost position and the competition. If a business offers more value at a given price, relative to a competitor, it will gain market share. If a business has a lower cost at a given price, relative to a competitor, it will have higher margins.
Confusing price and cost has caused the downfall of established companies. For instance, in 2003, Delta launched its Song subsidiary to compete with Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue. Delta conceptualized Song as a "low-price airline," while Southwest and Jet Blue are low-cost airlines. What happens when you compete with low-prices, but are burdened by the high-cost structure of a legacy airline, such as Delta? Song was disbanded in 2006, after considerable losses.
Actually, Qantas in Australia did pretty with Jetstar. They avoided cannibalization of existing customers by running from non-mainstream airports, being a lot stricter with check-in times (trading time for money), having cheaper flight staff, and doing most of their businesses online.
This is only partially correct. Apple's retail stores are expensive to run, and that cost is Apple's.
Apple stores are among the most profitable retail venues in the world.
Give it another six months or so and I'm sure you'll see some decidedly cheaper dual core 3.0 tablets from the 2nd tier oems like huwai as mentioned, archos, viewsonic, etc. Now, they want to compete on price. Whether tablets are commodity items or status symbols remains to be seen though. So far it seems mostly like the latter.
Looks like all the dots are connecting perfects for Jobs and Apple more and more.
By the end of this year there will be tons of android tablets and tons of apps. As with the phones, the hardware will be all over the place in terms of price and quality, but just as with the phones the onslaught of announcements and features and price points will be too much and they will slowly but surely become more and more compelling.
It's been said that 2011 will be the year of the tablet. Apple is once again the king of the hill with a huge headstart. But the droids are coming. As Anonymous says, expect them.
Facetime; developer ecosystem; having complementary products like computers, ipod, Mobile.Me means that every customer Apple captures has a higher lifetime value than a Xoom customer to Motorola.
