Motorola's XOOM Tablet To Cost $799; Wi-Fi Requires 3G Activation?

WrongSizeGlass writes "The price of Motorola's XOOM Tablet has been leaked in a Best Buy ad. The $799 Android 3-enabled tablet will be available starting Feb 24th. Though the price may seem a bit high, the most surprising detail is that activating the Xoom's Wi-Fi will require signing up for at least one month of Verizon's 3G service. Let's hope the fine print in the Best Buy ad turns out to be a typo."

Comments

The price might seem a bit high

[Protonk]

The $799 Android 3-enabled tablet will be available starting Feb 24th.

Wat

That is not a bit high, given that an already shipping competitor is priced at 629.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[caywen]

Psychologically, that price is way high. There's a reason Apple wanted to target a $499 price point with the iPad. I think once they start getting into the mid-range laptop price range, it becomes a different kind of purchasing decision. At least, that's the reaction I've had as well as a few others I know. We were pretty excited about the Xoom, but once it comes time to lay down $800+, it stops being an impulse buy.

I hope this does not start an upward trend in price for tablets. Large-ish android phones will easily cannibalize its big brothers if the price differential is that great.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Protonk]

Right. 799 is a low end of the estimates people had for the iPad last year. Now that flash memory and display technologies have had about 12 months to mature from the introduction of the ipad, prices for competitors should at least be lower than Apple's price point for the low end 3G ipad. I don't think it is completely fair to judge the XOOM against the wifi ipad since I think all of the XOOMs will have 3g, but 150 dollars more than Apple is nuts.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[peragrin]

That's right apple always overcharges for a premium and over price their gadgets anyways.

However Since the xoom is $150 more than the similar ipad maybe people should stop assuming that apple overcharges for hardware. To Date not one tablet competitor has been able to meet apple's price point by a significant margin. The galaxy Tab is close but then again it has a 3" smaller screen.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[LurkerXXX]

Let's see, for that price I can get a 17" laptop with a triple core CPU, 4GB RAM, 640GB hard drive, lightscribe DL DVDRW. Oh, and I can watch a movie without having to hold it, read an ebook without having to hold it, and use full fledged applications on it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157424&cm_re=17%22_laptop-_-34-157-424-_-Product

Why folks would buy a tablet they have to hold with way less functionality, for more money, I just don't get.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you don't care about 3G? Where is the $499 option for this tablet?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Protonk]

Let's see, for that price I can get a 17" laptop with a triple core CPU, 4GB RAM, 640GB hard drive, lightscribe DL DVDRW. Oh, and I can watch a movie without having to hold it, read an ebook without having to hold it, and use full fledged applications on it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157424&cm_re=17%22_laptop-_-34-157-424-_-Product

Why folks would buy a tablet they have to hold with way less functionality, for more money, I just don't get.

I think if your operating philosophy requires that you conclude tens of millions of people making a specific purchase decision must be idiots you should re-evaluate that philosophy because it obviously provides little to no predictive power.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Enderandrew]

I had really hoped the price would be closer to $500, but if we're comparing apples to Apples, then the iPad isn't $500.

This is a 3G + Wifi 32GB model. So the comparable iPad is $730. The Xoom is $70 more, has 4 times the RAM, two HD cameras, a SD slot, and a dual-core processor.

And I keep hearing stories how the average iPad purchase was over $800 with accessories. So the price is high, but not ridiculously high.

That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Enderandrew]

I'm not familiar with your math.

32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[93 Escort Wagon]

Let's see, for that price I can get a 17" laptop with a triple core CPU, 4GB RAM, 640GB hard drive, lightscribe DL DVDRW. Oh, and I can watch a movie without having to hold it, read an ebook without having to hold it, and use full fledged applications on it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157424&cm_re=17%22_laptop-_-34-157-424-_-Product

Why folks would buy a tablet they have to hold with way less functionality, for more money, I just don't get.

Remind us - how much does that laptop weigh again? And how thick is it? You pay a significant premium for portability - in terms of higher cost, lower performance, or both.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[LurkerXXX]

Where exactly did I call them idiots?

Also, the folks who have bought tens of millions of tablets generally paid less than 799 for them.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[amiga3D]

It's starting to look like Apple has set the bar too high for it's competitors in the pad market. Everything is starting to look like cheap junk or else it has problems with costing about what the iPad does or even more. For once it seems that Apples price point may actually not be massively outrageous as usual. Also all the guys with droid phones at work are starting to notice that the guys who have iphones have systems that work smoother. A couple have even stated they plan to get an iphone as soon as they can now that it's available on verizon. The ipads I've seen are the same way. Everything just flows. There's more to making a system work than throwing hardware together and hacking some software together.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[LurkerXXX]

Yes it does way more and is thicker, but as far as portability goes, you can't exactly fit either in your pocket. Either one is going to be something you are going to be lugging around in your hands or in a backpack. One is just going to make the backpack weigh a bit more, with a whole lot more functionality coming along with it.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[MBCook]

But how many iPad customers are buying the top end model?

You can spend that much on an iPad, but I'd expect the average sale price is supposed to be below the price of the 3G model, which would put it under $630. It was in one of their recent SEC filings, I think.

It's much easier to say "I want a $500 iPad", and "but I should probably get a 3G just incase.... and my music collection is already 12GB so..." than to start with "I want an $800 thing" when you can quickly go to "I can buy a real laptop or desktop for that".

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[erroneus]

I don't get it either. And while LurkerXXX did not call them idiots, I am not afraid to. I am not convinced that this is just another fad gadget. I simply have no use for one of these devices. Don't get me wrong -- I want one! I just can't think of anything I would want to do with one. I have an android phone and I enjoy it greatly. a tablet? maybe not so much... too big. I have a Nokia N810 and that sweet little gadget cured me of my gadget fever... expensive and useless.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[chill]

Because reading an e-book while sitting on a train, riding to work, is a neck-breaking BITCH with a laptop but not an unpleasant experience with a tablet.

And with the included stand, I can watch a movie without having to hold the iPad.

Walking down the hall to a colleague's office, or to see my wife in a different room and show them something on the screen is much easier with a tablet than a bulky laptop.

Because not everything is a nail and you have more than a hammer?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Enderandrew]

62% of iPad customers apparently. At least, 62% of the next run will be 3G models. I haven't seen sales breakdowns anywhere.

http://www.cultofmac.com/analyst-62-of-first-run-ipad-2s-will-be-3g-and-16-verizon/80752

And according to this survey, the $830 iPad is the most popular model.

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2274007/context-ipad-3g-sales-uk

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

The $70 difference is not the problem. The problem is that Apple has already stated that the average purchase price of an iPad is $631.

Clearly people are much, much less interested in the high end models so why have Motorola started there? And don't get me started on the stupid decision to make people purchase 1 months online access to enable the WiFi.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[aristotle-dude]

I'm not familiar with your math.

32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.

The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.

That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Wyatt Earp]

No moving parts, they weigh 1.5-1.6 pounds, they don't get terribly hot.

I can work on an iPad and just toss it on the couch without worrying about hard disk platters, the screen hinges or something coming apart inside. Functionally it's like working with a book or a notebook not a computer.

HP from your link - 8.19 lbs
iPad 32GB 3G - 1.6 lbs

HP - 16.35" x 10.80" x 1.25" - 1.46"
iPad - 9.56" x 7.47" x 0.5"

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[rsilvergun]

See here for a complete explanation.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[LurkerXXX]

Sure, but that was just an example of the max you can get for that money. A small cheap laptop or netbook with an SSD drive is still going to be just about as tossable, way more functional, and much cheaper.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[HermMunster]

Much of the technology used in netbooks, laptops, and tablets have been designed to use less power (thus less heat). Then there are components that are integrated, such as the GPU and CPU in one (fewer components mean less heat, less weight, less design costs). Most tablets only supply a limited interface (less weight, less cost, less heat). It's not like they will provide 6 SATA, 10 USB, printer, and serial interfaces along with PS2 and firewire. They don't typically provide the VGA/DVI interfaces either. A fixed amount of flash RAM with no removable storage makes for a cheaper to build (but more expensive to maintain) unit.

As a consequence it is much easier and cheaper to design a tablet. That also makes it lighter. There's no real excuse for saying that weight is the factor here, at least not alone. Certainly it is. As tablet's gain market-share and notebooks begin to look a little too bulky they'll too be slimmed down to weight significantly less.

The cost is far too high for any computing device.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Lord Ender]

That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.

Yeah, and BMW needs to offer an $18,000 Rolls Royce minivan if it wants to compete...

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply have no use for one of these devices.

Don't get me wrong -- I want one!

I just can't think of anything I would want to do with one.

?? WHAT ??

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[dAzED1]

and does your $800 laptop have a touch-screen?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Wyatt Earp]

Really? I have an HP Mini 210-2070NR here at my desk that came in the same day as an iPad Wifi 32GB No optical drive, no way to get the apps we need installed on it so awaiting some USB optical drives.

The iPads are deployable in about 10-15 minutes with all the apps we send out, the HP Mini 210s weigh more (5.6 pounds) and are thicker (1.6") and have the lovely center of gravity issue of tipping over backwards whenever the the screen is open.

But they cost the same amount and have more hard disk storage and a faster hard disk, but about half the battery life.

iPads were out the door in 15 minutes, the HPs are going to take 90-120 minutes once we get optical drives.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Daetrin]

Okay, if that's true that answers the question of why the other companies aren't able to match Apple on the price, they are, they're just not matching Apple at all the different price points. That does raise the question though, why don't they have cheaper models that match the cheaper versions of the iPad?

And furthermore, given that Apple is know for charging premium prices, why is it that no one can manage to beat their price while still providing decent hardware?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What sort of asshole-designed/marketed software are you running into that will only install from an optical drive?

I do a fair bit of x86 wintel deployment, and 99% of our installs are just "msiexec /i \\someserver\someprograminstaller.msi /passive" or, for legacy stuff, "\\someserver\someprograminstaller.exe /answerfile=foo.ini"...

For a few recalcitrant cases, we use the above method to install virtual CD software, and then load CD images of the package in question...

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[petermgreen]

The ipad and similar tablets are big enough to comfortably read web pages, watch video, read ebooks etc on while being small light and robust and of a suitable form factor to hold in one hand and operate in the other. Laptops are fine if you can sit down at a table to use them but that isn't always practical.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Motorola is not considered a premium brand. Just because you have an expensive product doesn't mean that people perceive you to be a high-end brand. If Hyundai offered a $100,000 car, it would have to justify the price tag a lot more than a similar BMW car (since people are willing to pay for the perceived brand value of a BMW)

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[LurkerXXX]

So you can install apps on your ipads over the network, but not to notebook computers? That's... odd. We do it here all the time.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[CharlyFoxtrot]

People forget that before the iPad came out a lot of analysts predicted a retail price of $800 up to $1000 USD. It's priced pretty aggressively.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[theillien]

I'm wondering if Apple's prices started lower (relatively speaking) because they gambled on the fact that there is a lot of hype surrounding everything they do as well as the dedicated, cult-like following that tend to buy whatever they come out with regardless of cost or function. Perhaps they factored in the scale of their shipments from the beginning enabling them to come in lower than they could have.

I doubt it, but I'm just speculating.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

That's right apple always overcharges for a premium and over price their gadgets anyways.

Right, because right now:

1. You can buy a tablet much cheaper than the iPad with the same specs.

2. You can buy a phone much cheaper than the iPhone with the same specs (resolution/battery life/graphics performance).

3. And there are dozens of MP3 players with the equivalent hardware of the Touch that are much cheaper.....

Oh wait, nevermind.....

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

A laptop? ROFL. I can buy a desktop with WAY more functionality than that for less money.

Why folks would buy a laptop they have to hold with way less functionality, for more money, I just don't get.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

I'm not familiar with your math.

32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.

The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.

That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?

No, it doesn't add to the price at all if you buy both under the same circumstances. Looks like the US is getting screwed with the XOOM the same way they did with the iphone...likely international customers will be fine.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.

Only if they want to compete in the wifi-only market, which - unless you're a complete idiot - it's obvious they don't. And in any case *if* the Xoom happened to be better than an ipad they don't have to price it at ipad prices at all to be competitive.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[darjen]

I don't think it's nuts. It's only $70 more than the 32gb 3g ipad. And it's got faster hardware and dual cameras. Pretty comparable imho.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing is an overpriced, underpowered toy. I can get a laptop with way more functionality for less money. Why would anyone buy this? I guess sheeple just have to have the latest shiny thing..

Oh wait it's Android.

This is the greatest device ever that will solve all my problems and I am going to buy one right away regardless of the cost.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Missing.Matter]

No one was really predicting a phone with a 10" screen. 256MB RAM, 1GHz single core processor, no cameras, 1024x768 display, no ports. When people were guessing 800-1000 they were really envisioning something more along the lines of a OSX Tablet, rather than an iOS tablet.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[obarthelemy]

More likely, they factored in
- huge quantity discounts on all parts, especially screens
- good revenues from ancillary sales from their various "stores". Android thingies cannot really do that (fewer stores, sparser stores, revenues are mainly Google's and others', not manufacturers')
- need for a low-end, cheap version to advertize, betting their customers would go for the high-end versions, whose margins are way higher ($15 extra materials costs, $300 extra price)

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Khyber]

"I think if your operating philosophy requires that you conclude tens of millions of people making a specific purchase decision must be idiots you should re-evaluate that philosophy because it obviously provides little to no predictive power."

I'll speak from experience here (especially dealing with the Chinese) most people are not very bright to begin with when it comes to purchasing things. Most will go ahead and buy if they're told that it will work for the customer's particular purpose. (I've had several LED equipment manufacturers from China come to me claiming this and that - nope, I know better. 92% power input/monochrome light output in a red diode? Seriously? No, only a completely ignorant person would fall for that.

But guess what? My job is much harder because multiple people have been easily fooled by marketing and big numbers, and they got burned.

To put it simply: Sadly, it appears that a majority of customers ARE idiots, or at the VERY least ill-informed of the sort of product that they wish to purchase.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Wyatt Earp]

Special Education applications that require a CD and the CD to be in the drive. Not allowed to use disk image cloning tools cause of copyright rules and a bunch of crap.

An iPad gets its apps, which were far cheaper per license, from the iTunes store.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Wyatt Earp]

Special Education stuff and we can't use virtual CD software or images in this case.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Mandrel]

I suppose this is the (evil) genius of lock-in: subsidise the hardware with app-store profits. Defer consumers seeing higher prices until they buy apps, or rely on the cut-throat app-store market forcing developers to absorb the discount.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Missing.Matter]

Also, while Apple does heavily advertise, they don't have to pay for a super bowl add to reach millions of customers. When the iPad was announced it was on every local news channel in america (at 6:00, 12:00, and 11:00), national news, local radio, every freaking blog on the Internet, newspapers, late night talk shows, forums, etc. If you consume some sort of media, you heard about the iPad. How many local news outlets are reporting on the XOOM?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[obarthelemy]

you're picking and choosing your comparison points. you can
- buy tablets much cheaper than the iPad, with stronger specs in some aspects (SD flash, cameras, ports, bluetooth stack...)
- buy phones much cheaper than the iPhone with a bigger screen, more battery AND exchangeable batteries, more CPU/GPU performance indeed, more ports (HDMI..), better cameras, a keyboard, a more solid build...
- there are MP3 players with better functionnality (iTunes-less upload, removable flash, actual buttons that you can feel and click...) and better sound quality that are much cheaper

Apple is not about the hardware. It's about style, easy-of-use, and ecosystem (which is both a blessing -variety- and a curse -lock-in- )

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[obarthelemy]

Hey, you can also get a couple of desktops with those specs !

See you on the plane !

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[theillien]

Part of what I was getting at.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

"buy tablets much cheaper than the iPad, with stronger specs in some aspects (SD flash, cameras, ports, bluetooth stack...)"

Name one.

"buy phones much cheaper than the iPhone with a bigger screen, more battery AND exchangeable batteries, more CPU/GPU performance indeed, more ports (HDMI..), better cameras, a keyboard, a more solid build..."

Name one.

" there are MP3 players with better functionnality (iTunes-less upload, removable flash, actual buttons that you can feel and click...) and better sound quality that are much cheaper"

Really? I can buy an MP3 player with 32GB of storage, 960x480 display, Wireless-N. equivalent graphic performance, quality 3rd party apps for less than the iPod Touch?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[HermMunster]

I read the specs and didn't see it had a GPS. I'm not likely to buy one without GPS, and certainly will not buy any tablet with a price that high. $299 to $399 should be the extreme high end price for these.

In the case of any Android tablet it isn't like they had to develop their own OS for it--they got it for all but free + whatever customization costs they had.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Shikaku]

Kind of like getting an overpowered computer. You probably don't have a real use for it, but it's nice to have.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Cylix]

The laptop produces more heat, has more weight and gets less battery life.

When the issue gets down to it's core fundamental philosophy it is really different beasts for different tasks. I don't really prefer to do any heavy usage on a tablet, but I do rather enjoying flipping through a few websites or news outlets while listening to some music. It's not exactly a heavy work load by any means.

Stating you feel the cost for current tablets is over priced for their functionality is something I would certainly not disagree with.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[vanyel]

I realize I'm in the minority, but:

* 10" is too big, I'm looking for a 7" screen. a tablet is a compromise between the portability of a cell phone and the screen real estate and bulk of a laptop. 10" shifts too much to the latter, 7" is a nice middle ground.
* I've already got a cell phone, I don't need and won't pay for another one
* If you're going to charge laptop prices and make it laptop sized, I'm going to get a laptop. with a real keyboard.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[macs4all]

No one was really predicting a phone with a 10" screen. 256MB RAM, 1GHz single core processor, no cameras, 1024x768 display, no ports. When people were guessing 800-1000 they were really envisioning something more along the lines of a OSX Tablet, rather than an iOS tablet.

Prove it.

IIRC, both the price and the "giant iPhone" vs. "Apple Axiotron" systems were being hotly debated, even minutes before the iPad's unveiling. However, the price was NEVER rumored to be as low as it actually was.

Quit lying.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[RogerWilco]

Apple is doing what it has always been doing.

The reason that Apple is fairing better in the phone, mp3 player and tablet market, is because those are closer to the appliance philosophy that Apple has always had then what we call the traditional PC market.

I might sound as a bit of a fanboy and maybe I have become one, but I only own a Mac since three years, although I occasionally used them for nearly 15. Apple never was a technical innovator, but in design and concept they have been way ahead of everyone else, at least in those years that Steve Jobs has been in control. This made them great in creating something new from existing technology. From the first Apple Computer, the Mac, MacOs, the Powerbook, iMac, iPod, OSX, iTunes, iPhone AppStore and iPad. Sure there have also been failures, Newton, Xserver, AppleTV?

As an engineer I know that the hardest thing is to get your user interface right. Apple is a master at that. Steve Jobs isn't a technical guy, he's a designer and a marketeer. But most of all a user.

Except for those years where an aggressive MS combined with the board kicking Steve out because he was to young to be considered CEO of the company he founded, Apple has only gone up and up under his leadership. I'm amazed to see giants as Nokia, Sony, MS, Google struggle to come up with an answer to products like the iPod, iPhone and iPad. I think it's because they have become so used to selling to OEMs and Corporations, that they struggle change focus. I think that Google is the only one that can also play that game.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[gig]

Those aren't better features, those are niche features.

Tablets are wireless devices, your ports and SD cards are not wanted by most, and are a $29 add-on to iPad for those that do. Phones with keyboards niche. And iPhone works with hundreds of accessory keyboards in every form factor. Music players with manual music management. Ugh.

Apple makes very few devices, shares parts among them, reuses the OS X core, and ships in such massive quantities, they are the cheap manufacturer. In PC's they only have high end models, but in every other case they are the cheapest. Even in software iMovie costs $15 for Mac and $5 for iPhone, Keynote is $20 for Mac and $10 for iPad. Logic Pro is cheaper than competitors.

Apple are not going to get undercut on iPad. They will likely have a new model at current price points and sell the current model at reduced price points. Within a month or two we may see 2 iPads for the price of one XOOM.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[obarthelemy]

Yep, 'coz you can"t install anything over the net on a Windows PC.

Oh wait ...

Are all Apple users that incompetent ?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[macs4all]

I suppose this is the (evil) genius of lock-in: subsidise the hardware with app-store profits. Defer consumers seeing higher prices until they buy apps, or rely on the cut-throat app-store market forcing developers to absorb the discount.

Throw another layer of tinfoil on that hat; some of the mind-control rays are obviously still leaking through.

So, pray tell, what "app-store profits" does Apple make on the numerous FREE titles on the App Store?

Get a grip. Apple ain't Gillete (Schick?), and the App Store ain't sellin' razor blades.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[RogerWilco]

4) Try finding a laptop with the same specs as a Macbook for less. you might, but not by a large margin and it will depend on if you value weight and size and build quality into it.

I know that when I did the comparison for my Macbook Pro 3 years ago, a Dell with the same specs was 20 euros more expensive. Sure you could buy a Dell for half the price, but you would get half the laptop.

Apple stuff is expensive, but not overpriced.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[gig]

That is the 2010 iPad you are comparing to, which was introduced January 27, 2010. The 2011 iPad likely also has a 2011 ARM chip and FaceTime camera and will be out any moment now. Where is Motorola going to get native C apps? How long until they have 75,000 full-size apps, including a PC-class office suite for $30?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[macs4all]

I'm wondering if Apple's prices started lower (relatively speaking) because they gambled on the fact that there is a lot of hype surrounding everything they do as well as the dedicated, cult-like following that tend to buy whatever they come out with regardless of cost or function. Perhaps they factored in the scale of their shipments from the beginning enabling them to come in lower than they could have.

I doubt it, but I'm just speculating.

Hasn't seemed to have been "factored in" to any other Apple product.

More like insane buying power on display panels, memory, and other components and packaging, plus a significant savings (disregarding the R&D costs, which I'll bet Apple didn't factor into the iPad's cost) on the per-piece CPU/GPU SoC.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Wyatt Earp]

Let me repeat for the third time in the thread.

The applications have to run with the CD in and we can not use disk imaging software to clone the disks.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anachragnome]

"That's right apple always overcharges for a premium and over price their gadgets anyways."

But do they include a bait-and-switch?

All I see here is concern for the register price for these tablets, not the fact that one month of Verizon service is also a 2 year service contract. Does anyone really expect VERIZON, of all companies, to go through the rigmarole of signing people up just for one months fees? Last I did business with them, they signed me up for another year of contact when I simply asked for a paper bill (for which they also charged me $1.99).

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why folks would buy a tablet they have to hold with way less functionality, for more money, I just don't get.

You know that whole bit of 'not holding it' you consider to be a big selling point? Try multiplying that by -1....

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[gig]

Average iPad sales price is US$625, less than the average iPhone price of $640.

The dual core processor, extra RAM, and cameras are coming in the 2011 iPad. XOOM has to have more advantages than that. It has no native apps, just Java applets, and none are full-size. It has no Netflix. Who is going to pay $71 more for a generic clone of an iPad with about 10% of the functionality?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

There's an extra shade of gray, there: You can hold a tablet with one hand. You've seen Star Trek, right? You don't see how a device in that form factor could be handy? Do you consider a clipboard and a Trapper Keeper to be the same?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[RogerWilco]

When you really look at what Apple offers, you will find that they are not charging premium prices. When you select a system with the same specs at Dell, you'll get the same price. It's just that Apple doesn't sell the crappy versions that everyone else offers.

Nobody sets the bar as high as Apple sets it for itself. They choose not to sell to the markets that can only afford the el cheapo knockoff.

Steve Jobs is at the core of this philosophy, he's been doing business like that since the company started in the 70s. You could say he has expensive tastes, if he was building cars it would be Rolls-Roys or maybe Mercedes, BMW or Audi. He isn't interested in building the Skoda or Daihatsu of the computer world.

The way they were beaten in the 80s was by flooding the markets with cheap, but inferior clones. Google has read a couple of chapters from MS' playbook and is now trying it with Android. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the long term in the laptop, mp3 player and smartphone/tablet market. Currently Apple leads and eveyone is playing catch up. But especially MS known to come to the game late and still win in the end. Google is another big unknown and existing players like Nokia and Sony aren't done yet either.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[gig]

Apple is known for charging premium prices in the PC market, where they only make high-end PC's and have 90% of the high-end market, which means everyone else only makes cheap, low-end PC's.

In iPods, iPhones, and iPads, Apple is the price leader as well as design and technology and manufacturing leader. That is why they are so unstoppable there. You can get an iPod for $59, you can get an iPhone for $49, you can get an iPad for $499. All 3 of those devices are better than competing products at higher price points, and they all have Genius Bar support and free training at Apple Store. The iPod has iTunes and iTunes Music Store; the iPhone a full video iPod in it plus it has 300,000 native C apps, almost half of which are free; the iPad has a 10 inch screen, PC class OS, PC class native C apps, and 10-12 hour battery life. These devices are CHEAP. You can use an iPad all day every day to do thousands of things, it pays for itself very quickly.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Apple makes a direct profit on every piece of hardware they sell, including iPads. App Store (and music store) profits are minuscule compared to their hardware profits. There is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Mandrel]

So, pray tell, what "app-store profits" does Apple make on the numerous FREE titles on the App Store?

A 40% cut of iAd revenue. Plus perhaps some profit on the SDKs.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Their prices were as low as they were because their prices are higher than the cost to make them. It's very simple economics.

[they have a] cult-like following that tend to buy whatever they come out with regardless of cost or function

You're a fucking idiot if you think this is true. People don't buy iPods, iPhones or iPads in spite of high prices and limited functionality. They buy them because they are fantastic products at a price they are willing to pay for. Just because these products offend your geek-centric view of the world does not make those that think otherwise cult-like. If anything, you're the minority opinion, if you're going to start bandying about a term like "cult".

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Apple is not about the hardware.

Apple is about hardware more than any other company on the planet. The thing you are missing is they are about the hardware that normal humans like, not the silly niche market populated by geeks.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[iamhassi]

64gb iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G is $800. Double memory, same price.

If you don't need all that you can buy a 16gb iPad for $488

Good luck Xoom, at $800 you're going to need a lot more than a Superbowl commercial to beat the iPad.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

Really?

Yes.

I can buy an MP3 player with 32GB of storage, 960x480 display, Wireless-N. equivalent graphic performance, quality 3rd party apps for less than the iPod Touch?

No, and i didn't see him suggest such a thing.

But i certainly think apples devices are pretty cheap these days, but that's subjective i suppose.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[theillien]

Speaking of someone being offended. These products don't offend my "geek-centric view of the world". I recognize their value, quality and impact on technology. However, if you don't think Apple could put out a polished turd and still make millions, you haven't been paying attention.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[froggymana]

You realize that there is the Archos 101 internet tablet that is $299, right? Granted that is for the 8GB model, but you get the ability to use microSD cards with it, something you can't do on the iPad.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

Good luck Xoom, at $800 you're going to need a lot more than a Superbowl commercial to beat the iPad.

Why would they need to beat the ipad? Look at the desktop/laptop market in which apple has a minority share but is doing just fine.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

there are MP3 players with better functionnality (iTunes-less upload, removable flash, actual buttons that you can feel and click...) and better sound quality that are much cheaper

Really? I can buy an MP3 player with 32GB of storage, 960x480 display, Wireless-N. equivalent graphic performance, quality 3rd party apps for less than the iPod Touch?

That's not what he said at all. He said that there are MP3 players with "better" functionality which are less expensive than an iPod Touch.

He's absolutely correct. You can buy MP3 players for MUCH less than an iPod Touch which have the features he listed.

Learn to read!

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

Apple is known for charging premium prices in the PC market, where they only make high-end PC's and have 90% of the high-end market, which means everyone else only makes cheap, low-end PC's.

Highend by what metric?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[golemite]

"The iPad has an average selling price of $600."

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/01/18/notes_of_interest_from_apples_q1_2011_conference_call.html

Motorola has completely missed the mark.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[goombah99]

Last I did business with [Verizon], they signed me up for another year of contact when I simply asked for a paper bill (for which they also charged me $1.99).

I had the same thing happen. I dropped them forst opportunity I got. My cell phone bill went down too. Not only does verizon charge more they have higher fees larded on top. And their customer service sucks compared to t-mobile.

I regret that with the Iphone coming out I will be having to switch back to them. Grrrrrr. But I want an iphone. Android going in the trash.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. You do realize you are seriously and edge case though. Right?

Both in having that limitation, and actually going along with it.

The vast majority of folks with laptops/netbooks aren't going to have that issue

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

That's not what he said at all. He said that there are MP3 players with "better" functionality which are less expensive than an iPod Touch.

"Better" functionality:

1. without wireless
2. without apps
3. with a lower resolution
4. And worse graphics?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

Don't get me wrong -- I want one! I just can't think of anything I would want to do with one.

That's my problem too. The only tablet that I think I could get any use out of would be RIM's PlayBook -- but only because it would work as a companion to my phone -- the larger display would make it easier to read and edit documents and spreadsheets on the go.

I doubt that the asking price will match what I'm willing to pay, given use I expect to get out of it.

I suspect that that tablet market will dry up once the novelty wears off.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Speaking of someone being offended. These products don't offend my "geek-centric view of the world". I recognize their value, quality and impact on technology. However, if you don't think Apple could put out a polished turd and still make millions, you haven't been paying attention.

Your post completely proved my point. What you would call a "polished turd" (that's what I mean by "offending your geek-centric view of the world") is nothing of the sort. It's just that your standards are so geek-centric.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[theillien]

What you're doing is misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not calling their current product line polished turds. I'm postulating that if they actually released a real, polished turd that it would probably still sell well based on the existing following and the hype that would surround it. Geekiness has nothing to do with it. It's about the cult of personality that surrounds Apple and drives their sales.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

Special Education stuff

That happens to be in the app store?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[SuperKendall]

Beng able to use MicroSD cards to bring storage up to a place where the iPad is already is not really a benefit. Most people don't want to assemble personal electronics one piece at a time like a Johnny Cash song gone wrong. In the end you have a tablet with the same or slightly more storage, it cost almost as much, and doesn't work nearly as well when actually running applications (have you tried the touch screens on the cheaper tablets?).

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

If it ever starts shipping, I'd love to get my hands on a NotionInk Adam tablet. It should be about $300 cheaper, with similar specs and a Pixel Qi display for a true tablet ebook reader replacement.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

But you are basing that on what exists now. If you don't think anything they sell is a polished turd, then on what grounds do you base your assessment?

Perhaps you have a different explanation, and I'm ready to hear it, but as it stands, unless you think something they sell now (or at least sold recently) is sufficiently turd-like, I don't see how you can back up your opinion.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[iccaros]

try doing that on a plane. I fly every week, my 15" laptop is sometimes too big to open. Ipad just right. Rooted Nook Color also just right.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[theillien]

I'm postulating that if they actually released a real, polished turd that it would probably still sell well based on the existing following and the hype that would surround it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[guruevi]

Last years iPad is $730, they're about to come out with another one. Besides, people don't care about RAM or whether or not it has 2 camera's and an SD slot. From what I've heard in reviews, the Android system is sluggish compared to the iPad even though it's on better hardware and Android has already built up a bad name because of the sluggishness and the closed, "only 100 applications for $10 each" stores each provider wants to attach to it. Besides nobody wants the crap Motorola churns out and the geeks will avoid it because of it's "eFuse".

The problem with Android is it's historically beta quality software in a cutthroat market over the past few years. They should've never brought it out as a fully functional system but rather as a technology preview.

The problem with most of the phone manufacturers is that they've killed their own good names with a heap of crap phones to make a quick buck over the last 2 decades (Motorola, low-end Nokia, Samsung). Not a single phone from those manufacturers has made a device that lasted on average more than 2 years and didn't have some really bad software/UI decisions made into production. Why would anyone with a drawer full of their old phones be inclined to buy anything else when for a similar price others will give them a proven product?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

and does your $800 laptop have a touch-screen?

Why would you want a touch-screen on a laptop? (or on anything else, for that matter)

A touch screen would just encourage people to poke the display with their nasty cheeto-stained fingers. No thanks.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[bonch]

Because you dared to praise Apple on Slashdot, you have been rewarded with "Troll" moderation by the Android Army.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[bonch]

However, if you don't think Apple could put out a polished turd and still make millions, you haven't been paying attention

G4 Cube? iPod HiFi? Apple TV 1.0?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! that made reading this thread worth it!

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

They do make 14" laptops. And 12" laptops. And 10" netbooks, etc...

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

It's a MP3 player -- who cares about graphics and apps?

See, most people by an MP3 player to -- get this -- play music!

The features the parent listed are actually relevant to the primary function:

• iTunes-less upload (much easier to get music on to the player)
• removable flash (easy to swap out/expand storage)
• actual buttons that you can feel and click (No need to look at the screen to pause/play/skip/adjust the volume, etc.)
• better sound quality (subjective, but still relevant criteria)

Better, in the sense the parent is talking about (and made quite clear), means better at performing it's primary function. For that, there are many far less expensive and *better* options than the iPod touch. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[deniable]

Steve could put out a polished turd. I'm not sure about Steve-less Apple.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[statusbar]

xserve

failed in the marketplace

now cancelled....

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[deniable]

What resolution do you recommend for MP3?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[deniable]

But you can install it on an iPad?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno... Does the clipboard have a Dawson's Creek cover?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[halowolf]

I have an iPad so I can offer some enlightenment, at least from my perspective. I like having it as it's basically an always on computer that I can just pick up and use especially when I am traveling. I have a notebook as my main computer and I don't want to lug that around all the time when a much more portable solution exists. I also very much like the concept of eBooks and I choose an iPad as my reader because it allows me to do a whole lot more than just read books. I also rarely re-read books so it's nice not to have them lying around the house, and well eBooks are cheaper. It's priceless as a source of entertainment when flying (as I am so easily bored) thanks to it's movie playing capabilities, especially movie rentals.

I had an iPod Touch that I used in a similar way before that but the iPad offered more to me so I purchased one. I for one hope tablet PC's will stay around as I would hate to lose the convenience of them.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[halowolf]

One funny side effect of having an iPad is that I automatically think every tablet like device I come across has a touch screen before my braid clicks into gear as to why my poking doesn't make things go.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[GNious]

Non-Apple tablets should not be able to compete for the simply reasons that Apple have a good revenue from "Apps" that can go towards their costs of design and manufacuring (not saying they do that, but they can), and stores are selling the iPads at a very low, forced margin (at least as being reported by stores in Europe).

So Motorola might be finding it hard to hit the price-point of an iPad, simply because the iPad has ways to get cheaper.

Meanwhile, Motorola is compete ALSO with other Android tablets, where features matters, so they cannot "underspec" theirs, the way the iPad is missing various features (see other posts here and elsewhere about same).

Finally, I just checked pricing here. iPads at the Apple store runs from €499 to €799. Expecting the usual BS about euros being equal to dollars, I'd think that top-end XOOMs and iPads are priced identically.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

Because reading an e-book while sitting on a train, riding to work, is a neck-breaking BITCH with a laptop but not an unpleasant experience with a tablet.

But hell on the eyes -- A dedicated e-ink e-book reader is a cheaper and better solution for that use case.

And with the included stand, I can watch a movie without having to hold the iPad.

On a stand, it's just a notebook without a keyboard -- If it's a "neck-breaking bitch" for reading an ebook wouldn't it be equally horrid to watch a video? Or are you no longer on the train in that scenario?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[ChunderDownunder]

i'm not sure why this is marked as flamebait, the word evil perhaps?
It's sensible for Apple to sell at or below cost, since other manufacturers don't have the established content market.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

Sorry, my bullshit detector can't handle much more of this.

Name this mysterious "Special Education" application that requires the CD to run on a windows machine, but that apparently is also available via the app store for the iPad.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[SirCowMan]

The iPad has a flush back surface, it slips in the palm... and though light, it is a bit heavy to hold by the edge for typing. Also, it is also slightly too wide for comfortable double-thumb typing when griped from both sides. These points were immediately apparent the first time I picked one up in a store. In general observation, I have yet to see someone one-hand these things "in the wild", it is always propped up on resting on something. At which point, it could be a laptop/netbook, really. I will certainly give you robust, it stands up to my toddler - but I suspect the size factor was driven by the size of readily available screens, it certainly was not ergonomics for the vast majority of the population.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[IICV]

Also: That laptop is an HP Pavillion. I've owned two of those, because for some reason whenever I went out to buy a laptop they were the only ones with a decent mobile graphics card.

The reason why I've owned two of them is because they fall apart if you have the temerity to (God forbid) use them on your lap. The build quality on those things is so terrible that consistently using them on any sort of unstable surface leads to things just falling apart.

Compare that to, say, an iPad or a MacBook - you can actually use those suckers on your lap, or while walking around, without them falling apart in a year.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[beelsebob]

Re your price point observation...

Everything is starting to look like cheap junk or else...

This is true of pretty much everything else apple sells, it either costs the same, or it looks like cheep junk in comparison. It just happens many people care less when it's their desktop computer that it looks like cheep junk.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Mandrel]

Apple makes a direct profit on every piece of hardware they sell, including iPads. App Store (and music store) profits are minuscule compared to their hardware profits. There is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining.

Why do you say there's no lock in? Apple is the exclusive agent for native apps (including publications), in-app book sales, and analytics-capable in-app advertising. Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media. Sure Apple's revenue cut is 30% rather than 100% (less for music), but their margins on software and media can be comparable to their hardware margins because their cost of sales is so much less.Then there's the on-going revenue from ad views.

So I see Apple deriving a greater and greater share of their profits from their "platform".

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[DrXym]

Well yes they have. The Archos 101 costs about 3/5 the price of an iPad and demonstrates if you produce a tablet that ditches some of the superfluous stuff you can still produce a usable 10" tablet with wifi, capacitive screen etc. Let's face it, at the end of the day tablets are largely going to be used for browsing, email, notes, videos, music.

The biggest issue with the Archos is it's not compatible with the CDD so it doesn't ship with the Marketplace app. I expect from 2.3 onwards Archos could release devices which are compatible because the CDD is looser now than it was so things like GPS, compass, etc. are no longer mandatory requirements.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, while Apple does heavily advertise, they don't have to pay for a super bowl add to reach millions of customers. When the iPad was announced it was on every local news channel in america (at 6:00, 12:00, and 11:00), national news, local radio, every freaking blog on the Internet, newspapers, late night talk shows, forums, etc. If you consume some sort of media, you heard about the iPad. How many local news outlets are reporting on the XOOM?

What is a Xoom?

Is it something like an iPad?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

It's a MP3 player -- who cares about graphics and apps?

See, most people by an MP3 player to -- get this -- play music!

Well, "most people" who aren't buying iPods (less than 30%) are buying the cheap units from WalMart, etc. They aren't buying them for the great sound quality.

iTunes-less upload (much easier to get music on to the player

With 70%+ market share after a decade, I think most people would disagree,,,,

actual buttons that you can feel and click (No need to look at the screen to pause/play/skip/adjust the volume, etc.)

All iPods have hardware volume buttons and headphones with controls are less than $15,

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Sockatume]

I'm sure there'll be a wifi model that undercuts the iPad, but not before they send the powerful message that Android tablets are the more expensive option. By bowing to the data network's demands Motorola have really fucked the marketing.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[dzfoo]

Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.

That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?

There is no lock-in because nobody is forced to purchase apps or media from iTunes. The iPad is perfectly capable right out of the box with its built-in Web browser and other apps. Oh, you mean it doesn't have Adobe Flash support? Boo-hoo! It appears that hasn't stopped its sales, so perhaps people do not really care that much about it. They can access YouTube already through a built-in app.

Regarding music and other media, owners can install their own from other sources than the iTunes Store.

Sure Apple's revenue cut is 30% rather than 100% (less for music), but their margins on software and media can be comparable to their hardware margins because their cost of sales is so much less.

That 30% is not margin; it is the cost of running an e-commerce enterprise, complete with electronic payment and content delivery systems, none of which the developer has to bother with.

Then there's the on-going revenue from ad views.

No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.

        -dZ.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[dzfoo]

So, laptops built from a single slab of aluminium, back-lighted keyboard, and glossy screens are starting to look like cheap junk when compared to the plastic cased-fare offered by most manufacturers?

Have you actually handled an iPad? How about a Nook or a Kindle? The first feels like a solid product, with a metal enclosing and virtually no seams; while the other two feel like plastic cheap-ware. The same happens with some of the competitors' tablets.

            -dZ.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Chapter80]

To Date not one tablet competitor has been able to meet apple's price point by a significant margin

I mentioned last November that I would get a notepad when the 10-inch Android models hit the $175 price point.

With that specification, I had one waiting for me under the Christmas Tree, 2010.

I laughed as I walked by the iPad displays in Best Buy over the next few days, with prices of $499, $599, $649. iPad, baaah.
I could have had 3 Android pads for the price of the CHEAPEST iPad.

You guys just need to find wives who can shop!
(maybe I should have ended that sentence at 7 words.)

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[dzfoo]

And this is the typical "geek-centric" response. "Apple," they say, "could release a polished turd and it will sell millions." Point out that they do not sell polished turds, and that there is value in all their products and that the masses are purchasing them because they have their own reasons, and they concede; point out that the "geek-centric" view may be different than the general consumer and they even agree.

And then they respond with "sure, maybe they haven't yet... but they could."

Right. Apple has a history of selling polished turds that the "cult-like" following buys blindly. Except, no, wait... you agree that they haven't, that you and the other geeks do not buy their products in spite of the value perceived by consumers in general, due to your own personal choice. But of course, they could sell a polished turd and the masses would jump to it.

Where's the supporting--or even suggesting--evidence to that argument?

          -dZ.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[teh kurisu]

a more solid build

How are you defining 'solid'? By the construction itself and the materials used, or its ability to withstand misuse?

If it's the former, I don't think you can get more solid than the glass and metal construction of the iPhone 4. Just about every other phone feels flimsy and flexible by comparison.

On the other hand, that construction means that it's not built to withstand shocks. The lack of solidity in the plastic of other phones gives them an added degree of shock absorbance that means that they're more likely to survive a fall than an iPhone 4.

Personally I would go with the first definition, and say that the iPhone 4 is the most solidly built phone out there. But that's not necessarily a good thing.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh ok. Special ed software is ghastly stuff. I'd say incrementally better than psychological testing/scoring software; but that whole segment makes me shudder...

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[beelsebob]

I think you have your wires crossed and are violently agreeing with me. The point I was making was that apple's products aren't expensive – they're just not cheep crap. You seem to be backing up that assertion.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Mandrel]

Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.

That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?

Music and games and movies and TV shows and podcasts and tools and books and periodical issues and periodical subscriptions. The most expensive app is $1000. Content is king. I often see DVDs sold with a free DVD player.

There is no lock-in because nobody is forced to purchase apps or media from iTunes. The iPad is perfectly capable right out of the box with its built-in Web browser and other apps.

Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.

And when users prefer native apps, Apple is more likely to get a cut of media sales because Apple requires that apps that link to web-based purchases must also allow in-app purchases through iTunes.

That 30% is not margin; it is the cost of running an e-commerce enterprise, complete with electronic payment and content delivery systems, none of which the developer has to bother with.

Yes the 30% is revenue not margin. I'm arguing that although Apple's hardware revenue share is higher (probably in the 80-90% range), the low fixed and marginal costs to run their online software and media store compared to designing, making, and selling devices would make the margin gap a lot narrower than this revenue gap.

No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.

Only iAds give advertisers high quality analytics data, meaning that iAds are likely to pay better, meaning that developers are likely to prefer them to ads from other networks.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[obarthelemy]

mainly, phones get dropped and scratched. the iPhone is bad at being dropped, and so-so at being scratched.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[vlm]

Special Education stuff

That happens to be in the app store?

Yes, you'd be surprised whats out there. The ipad has become the "device of choice" for apps like those sound/word board thingies and speech synths. Not just special ed but old folks whom had strokes, etc.

Basically its "the same" performance as previous specialized hardware except its about 1/10 the cost, COTS, and the superior apple user experience removes most of the headaches. Also the seemingly infinite variety of 3rd party hardware means its pretty easy to figure out how to attach an ipad (in a case) to a wheelchair.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Stuarticus]

Did you really just try and imply that MOTOROLA are making a product that is the equivalent of a Rolls or BMW? They have a long way to go with this product before anyone can even begin to claim that...

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

1) It is simply false
2) Despite your comments otherwise, you are implying that they are selling a polished turd now.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

that argument is valid in the same way that Apple fans say that Apple computers cost the same as PC's which have similar specifications...

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

you're picking and choosing your comparison points.

Damn straight he is. He's not picking points based on some geek's wet dream, but on what people actually look for in products. Apple has a good grasp of that. They hit a few technical points no one has (Retina display) and sell those up so that no one out there can be better in all ways, and have an overall package that isn't easily met. So not easily met that no one has met it yet. So yes, he should be picking his comparison points, just as the market place does, and not inline with what a technically-oriented group like Slashdot readers would pick.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

And iPad 2 is already getting hype. So by the time people have spent millions on copying the iPad, Apple will have moved on. To what, I don't know. But based on recent successes, it will be something people will want.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

It's a laptop that actually goes in your lap. It's what the laptop idea was sold as years ago that people never actually realized. My sister has had 3 laptops in her family for years (one hers, one her husbands, one my old laptop I have to her kids). The iPad she bought got more time used off a desk in the first month than all three laptops combined over the previous year. It is almost as powerful as a laptop and is light enough, thin enough, and with enough battery that you aren't always watching the meter such that it actually is mobile. It's what laptops were always supposed to be.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

High end compared to the high end of mainstream resellers. Yes, it isn't a $15k custom computer (a geek's version of high-end), but it's aimed for the top 15% (not the top 1%, not the bottom 50%). That's the generic version of high end, much like the examples given of Mercedes, BMW or Audi, rather than Daihatsu. Not the McLaren F1 or other multi-million dollar supercars, but the ones that are purchased on a regular basis at a price point well above average.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

This was pretty easy to grasp.... not figurative, but literal.

The figurative would be something as: like how "good salesman" could sell sugary candy to a diabetic, toothpaste to someone without teeth, etc...

They are saying literally. Someone or something takes a crap. Remember, literally the someone or something eats, digests, and takes a crap. Apple collects it up from the ground or whereever. They polish it, people would buy it.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[DuckDodgers]

Apple doesn't need every iPad buyer to purchase a lot of apps, just as long as many of the buyers purchase apps they get good profits. The most important piece is grabbing marketshare early. The longer Google and Microsoft and anyone else waits to get a competent iPad competitor to market, the more customer brand recognition and vendor development focus Apple will get. Apple is displaying excellent business sense here and I'm astonished that nobody else is trying as hard to get into the game early.

I really hope top notch, competitively priced alternatives to the iPad come out soon. I don't have anything against Apple or the iPad, I just think competition will drive prices down, encourage more investment in innovation, and ultimately help everyone.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[BarryJacobsen]

Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.

Accelerometer in MobileSafari - http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/safari-ios-accelerometer-websockets-html5
GPS in MobileSafari - http://blog.bemoko.com/2009/06/17/iphone-30-geolocation-javascript-api/
Multi Touch Gestures in MobileSafari - http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2008/07/10/touching-and-gesturing-on-the-iphone/
Sound in MobileSafari - http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/

Please do some research before saying what can and can't be done.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[jon3k]

I think it's because steve jobs isn't a technical wiz like some of them, he's a lot closer to the average consumer (closer! not a luddite, just closer than say, bill gates). he wants devices that are beautiful and easy to use. i really think that has got to be the driving philosophy. turns out his model is exceptionally popular, and for good reason. it brought technology to people who would have never embraced it under the wintel model like they have with iDevices.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[overlordofmu]

In Iowa, T-Mobile is called I-Wireless. Their customer service is scary good.

I cannot quite express this. Their customer service (phone) is so good it scares me. Something doesn't seem quite right and it unnerves me.

No sales pressure at all was expressed. The people on the phone were knowledgable, eager to talk and did not seem in a rush to get to their next call. It was as if their job was to assist and inform me and not to meet arbitrary sales, call count and call time statistics.

It was as if I had walked through the looking glass into a world that, heaven forbid, a world that MADE SENSE!

It was bizarre and unexpected, but I kinda liked it.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[chill]

I have a Nook, and know of their benefits. However, it is a single function device and really can't do much more than read documents. Not that that is a bad thing, it just adds yet another gadget to my load to tote.

The iPad -- only the 2nd Apple device I've ever owned after the Newton Messagepad -- has the ability to replace my laptop for limited times. It can't replace my main computer, but that sits at my desk. Whenever I want to be mobile, the iPad is good enough for what I'm doing and can, in a pinch, handle most anything I need the laptop for. A dedicated eReader cannot.

As far as the iPad with the stand and movies, it gives you the option. I don't watch video on the train because text lends itself better to the setting. Video needs constant attention because it is a *flow*. Look up and you miss something. Look up from reading text and you can look down right back where you left off without having to stop and back things up.

I can use the iPad for video without the stand, if I want. It is much easier for lying in bed, since I don't have a dedicated TV in the bedroom. Also, it is easier for my wife to look up recipes and then take it to the kitchen and just lay it on the counter like with a normal, paper book. A laptop, with the keyboard and extra weight, is just too much of a pain for that. And getting that viewing angle just right on a laptop, especially when you're shuffling around the kitchen, is a pain.

Each has their benefits, but the original comment I replied to with "why buy a tablet when I can get a full-fledged laptop for the same price" is just plain ignorant of the differences and use cases.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[jon3k]

Tablet - Archos 101

Phone - Fascinate? Incredible? Evo? Epic? Droid X?

I think the iPod Touch is in a space all by itself, I really dont think apple has a competitor there. Amazing device, great price. Not that I think the Archos tablet is as good as an iPad, although I would argue that I prefer several Android phones over the iPhone.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Neil Boekend]

It's an argument for the "apple fanboys": Apple has produced so many good products they have build such a trust with their consumers they could polish a turd (which is quite a feat in and of itself, see mythbusters 113) and sell it.
Disclaimer: I do not have any apple products, I dislike the price.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[4phun]

i'm not sure why this is marked as flamebait, the word evil perhaps?
It's sensible for Apple to sell at or below cost, since other manufacturers don't have the established content market.

If Apple sold at or below cost we would have a $250 10" iPad 3G.
Apple doesn't sell anything at or below cost. They do not have too and as a result they make money hand over fist.

I bet your retirement fund has Apple stock in it now. Apple is the darling of Wall Street investment firms.

For most of us we have a direct vested interest in Apple continuing to dominate their markets by making the most money possible without buying market share by doing something foolish like giving away the farm just to say they sold more than some other manufacturer.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[4phun]

To Date not one tablet competitor has been able to meet apple's price point by a significant margin

I mentioned last November that I would get a notepad when the 10-inch Android models hit the $175 price point.

With that specification, I had one waiting for me under the Christmas Tree, 2010.

I laughed as I walked by the iPad displays in Best Buy over the next few days, with prices of $499, $599, $649. iPad, baaah.
I could have had 3 Android pads for the price of the CHEAPEST iPad.

You guys just need to find wives who can shop!
(maybe I should have ended that sentence at 7 words.)

If my wife wasted $175 on an Android tablet thinking it would be like an iPad, she would find she was now an ex wife.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not just $800, there is a two year Verizon contract for another outlay of $480 ($20 month minimum up to $80 a month) plus $35 activation fee just to use its Wi-Fi. That is a hefty $1315 plus taxes compared to the basic $500 iPad with WiFi.

There are almost no WiFi only Android tablets currently shipping to anyone.
Do a Google search and there may be one or two weird off brands and one of those requires a hack to avoid the cellular tie in.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Dog-Cow]

Apple doesn't subsidize hardware prices through any means. If no other hardware manufacturer can get the costs down, they just aren't competitive enough.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[alcmaeon]

Don't be absurd. This price is not high. It's LOW. Too low, in fact. Google fanboys will flock to this product. They will beg to spend their money on it. They will bow down and lick the boots of Google, do a goat.se, and beg to have Google suck their cash and souls straight out their their gaping anuses. They want their product to win, win, win. Who cares if it is an inferior, over-priced, me-too kludge. But, hey, it'll run Flash, right?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

It's starting to look like Apple has set the bar too high for it's competitors in the pad market. Everything is starting to look like cheap junk or else it has problems with costing about what the iPad does or even more.

Welcome to 2001? Still waiting for those iPod killers.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

People forget that before the iPad came out a lot of analysts predicted a retail price of $800 up to $1000 USD. It's priced pretty aggressively.

People forget that in the Slashdot discussions after the iPad came out, people called it an expensive niche product.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[sglewis100]

I suppose this is the (evil) genius of lock-in: subsidise the hardware with app-store profits. Defer consumers seeing higher prices until they buy apps, or rely on the cut-throat app-store market forcing developers to absorb the discount.

Apple doesn't release iPad gross margins specifically, but they have hinted that while the iPad is profitable, it's got lower margins than other product lines. Considering the margins they report, and the percentage of their overall sales the iPad now represents, I'm pretty sure they aren't selling it at a loss.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

I'm a designer and work with engineers. There are no engineers on the planet that understand user interface design (ok, hyperbole, but still). Proof is in the kitchen at work (purchased by an engineer obviously). There are no less than three dials and buttons to engage just to toast some bread with the toaster oven. If designed by users, there would probably be one dial, but it was designed by engineers, so it has about five.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[sglewis100]

It's a MP3 player -- who cares about graphics and apps? See, most people by an MP3 player to -- get this -- play music! The features the parent listed are actually relevant to the primary function:

• iTunes-less upload (much easier to get music on to the player)
• removable flash (easy to swap out/expand storage)
• actual buttons that you can feel and click (No need to look at the screen to pause/play/skip/adjust the volume, etc.)
• better sound quality (subjective, but still relevant criteria)

Better, in the sense the parent is talking about (and made quite clear), means better at performing it's primary function. For that, there are many far less expensive and *better* options than the iPod touch. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

Psssst: That's NOT why most people buy "MP3" players. If it was true, there'd be a market for MP3 players, and there would be cheap devices cleaning up the market. People don't buy MP3 players. And those that do, are largely buying things like the iPod Nano. People seem to want portable devices with WiFi, Apps, Games, Music, Videos, etc. That's why iPod Touch sells so well.

I realize there's a small minority of people buying MP3 players with less non-music playing features, but better audio hardware. I wonder what percentage of them are using 128kbps MP3 from the pirate sites with cheap crappy headphones, but happy that they have better discrete audio circuitry then people with slightly inferior iPods with their expensive headphones and 256kbps iTunes purchased music. But I digress...

iPod Touch outsells iPod Classic even though it stores less and costs more. Has to be a reason for that, right? What MP3 player do you use?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

Tablet - Archos 101

All the reviews say it gets hot (up to 90 degrees), poor battery life, not very responsive, no official access to the Android market, no Bluetooth (for keyboards),

Phone - Fascinate? Incredible? Evo? Epic? Droid X?

They have less battery life than the iPhone:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3791/the-sprint-htc-evo-4g-review/12

And lower resolutions.

And the Incredible is more of a contemporary of the 3GS in terms of hardware.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

It just happens many people care less when it's their desktop computer that it looks like cheep junk.

The thing I don't understand about this mentaility is that it doesn't cost any more to make something not ugly, so why not make it, you know, not ugly?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

you're picking and choosing your comparison points. you can
- buy tablets much cheaper than the iPad, with stronger specs in some aspects (SD flash, cameras, ports, bluetooth stack...)

If you think SD flash and USB ports make a product better than an iPad, I bet you think a Chevy Cruze is better than BMW M3 because the Cruze has On Star and more cup holders (and gets better gas mileage as well).

- there are MP3 players with better functionnality (iTunes-less upload, removable flash, actual buttons that you can feel and click...) and better sound quality that are much cheaper

Equally laughable. You do realize its pretty easy to add music to an iDevice without iTunes? This is a geek site. How can you not know this?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

Learn to read? Really? How about leran to read critically? Yes, he said you can buy players for less with the features he listed, but he also stated those features make it "better". The things he listed don't make a cheap iPod knock off better by adding a bunch of half-assed feature sets to the device. It makes it easier for the marketers to add feature lists to the packaging.

Physical buttons and removable memory make an mp3 player better just like a digital clock and a food scale make a toaster better. I suppose the lack of FM tuner is a deal-breaker as well? And no external 8-track adapter either. Pffff..

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

*sighhh*

You can put songs on iDevices without iTunes. Type "ipod without itunes" in google for starters.

And here I thought this was a geek site.

Removable flash becomes an issue when your cheap mp3 palyer doesn't have enough onboard memory or your device doesn't not sync elegantly.

As for buttons, you can do everything you mention with the headphone switch, the physical volume buttons, shake-to-shuffle, and/or voice control. Just because you haven't weened yourself off of the Sony Walkman's requirement to hold the play AND the record button down simultaneously to record doesn't mean the iDevice needs physical buttons (even though it has a physical volume control and play pause switch on the headphones).

Better sound quality is not really subjective. What is subjective is some random guy on the Internet saying his MP3 players has better sound quality than an iPod without citing any references.

So in the end, "better" only means better for that one guy who thinks those features are more important. As stated by another post, he and his ilk are definitely in the minority.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

5) Try finding an all-in-one computer with the same specs as an iMac for less (doable), but that isn't a fugly afterthought mangle of plastic and glass (doesn't exist).

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

The Archos 101 costs about 3/5 the price of an iPad and demonstrates if you produce a tablet that ditches some of the superfluous stuff you can still produce a usable 10" tablet with wifi, capacitive screen etc.

Oh God, finally some obscure nerd product to replace the Nomads and N95s of yesteryear's fame of being better than the Apple version. It's about time!

But, in all seriousness, that looks like a nice product.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

Because maybe they don't need/want a laptop?

I'm not really interested in an iPad, but my wife, who is a full time Computer Science student, would like one to replace her Macbook in her bookbag. That's just one example. I travel a lot too, so an iPad would make more sense than a laptop and bag. I refuse to work on the plane though, so there's no need ;-) I hate all those workaholics around me who can't put their spreadsheets down for the 2 hour plane flight.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

Here's my daily tautology for you:

"A whole lot more functionality" is of no use, especailly when you don't need the extra functionality.

That's why some people prefer to carry a light iPad instead of a powerful laptop when they are already carrying a portfolio that can hold their iPad for work anyways. It's also in the lines of why some people use those cheap $2 solar powered calculators to balance a checkbook instead of one of those $500 scientific graphing calculators.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Chapter80]

If my wife wasted $175 on an Android tablet thinking it would be like an iPad, she would find she was now an ex wife.

Besides what that says about your relationship and marital skills, you seem to make the assumption that my wife thought it would be like an iPad (or even that I might want an iPad!)

I got MORE than what I wanted, I love my Android pad, I use it every day, and it is exactly the device I expected and more.
Why would I want to pay $499 for something I don't want, when $175 exceeds my every requirement, including many requirements that the iPad does not even meet?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[sglewis100]

Let's see, for that price I can get a 17" laptop with a triple core CPU, 4GB RAM, 640GB hard drive, lightscribe DL DVDRW. Oh, and I can watch a movie without having to hold it, read an ebook without having to hold it, and use full fledged applications on it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157424&cm_re=17%22_laptop-_-34-157-424-_-Product

Why folks would buy a tablet they have to hold with way less functionality, for more money, I just don't get.

Yeah... because 10 hours of battery life and weighing one and a half pounds aren't "features". Also: Kindle, iPad, Nook, etc have proven that nobody wants to hold an eBook like a book. That's why they sell so poorly. Much better to have 3 hours of battery life and a warm lap. PS: My $20 iPad case lets me not hold it and watch a movie.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize I'm in the minority

i stopped reading here

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[jon3k]

That has nothing to do with the comments posted above. In the tablet, he claimed some were stronger in some aspects (storage, camera, bluetooth). I posted a device that met those criteria. I even said later that I think it's inferior to the iPad.

The phones I listed are cheaper, have bigger screens and have changeable batteries, and lots of the criteria for a phone you asked us to name.

As far as battery life on a phone, I couldn't care less. My phone goes on a charger every night and it probably lasts 3x as long as an iPhones battery And I'm really not interested in getting involved in your iPhone vs Android holy wars - I have a blackberry.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

The phones I listed are cheaper, have bigger screens and have changeable batteries, and lots of the criteria for a phone you asked us to name.

iPhone 4 - $199 16GB (80211n)
EVO -- $199
Droid X - $199
Incredible -- $99 (very poor graphics chip compared to the other three)

I didn't check the other prices.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[4phun]

If my wife wasted $175 on an Android tablet thinking it would be like an iPad, she would find she was now an ex wife.

Besides what that says about your relationship and marital skills, you seem to make the assumption that my wife thought it would be like an iPad (or even that I might want an iPad!)

I got MORE than what I wanted, I love my Android pad, I use it every day, and it is exactly the device I expected and more.
Why would I want to pay $499 for something I don't want, when $175 exceeds my every requirement, including many requirements that the iPad does not even meet?

My bad.

I forgot others do not have my high expectations in a wife or even a tablet.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Apple makes a direct profit on every piece of hardware they sell, including iPads. App Store (and music store) profits are minuscule compared to their hardware profits. There is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining.

Why do you say there's no lock in?

I didn't.

I said "there is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining". Specifically, that you were saying Apple sells the iPads at a loss because they will make up the difference after the sale. They don't.

Apple is the exclusive agent for native apps (including publications), in-app book sales, and analytics-capable in-app advertising. Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.

Yes, they *can*, but they don't.

Sure Apple's revenue cut is 30% rather than 100% (less for music), but their margins on software and media can be comparable to their hardware margins because their cost of sales is so much less.Then there's the on-going revenue from ad views.

It costs far more to run their stores than you think. It's not a significant profit center for Apple, it's a value-add for their hardware, and it pays for itself. It's basically adding a feature for free, and it's a feature no one else can match. On a side note, that's one of the features (maybe even the main feature) that makes Android so much less appealing than iOS to most people.

So I see Apple deriving a greater and greater share of their profits from their "platform".

Yes, but "greater and greater" in this case is going from "break even" to "a little better than break even". Apple makes billions in profits from each of their major hardware categories every year, they make millions from their iTunes stores.

The money they make from increased hardware sales *as a result* of the stores exceeds the money they make from the stores themselves. That's the part that people who think as you do are missing. For Apple, hardware is king, and always will be. The day it's not is the day Apple will have stumbled.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Buyers of Apple hardware can easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media.

That's a lot of songs and games for (mostly) a a buck a piece. Would you care to cite your sources?

Music and games and movies and TV shows and podcasts and tools and books and periodical issues and periodical subscriptions. The most expensive app is $1000. Content is king. I often see DVDs sold with a free DVD player.

Your "sources" are "the most expensive app" and some other company that gives away DVD players? In other words, you have no sources whatsoever. You're just making shit up.

Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.

That is false. You are making shit up.

Yes the 30% is revenue not margin. I'm arguing that although Apple's hardware revenue share is higher (probably in the 80-90% range), the low fixed and marginal costs to run their online software and media store compared to designing, making, and selling devices would make the margin gap a lot narrower than this revenue gap.

Again, you are just making shit up.

No developer is forced to use iAds. As a matter of fact, AdMob and other advertisement networks were rather well established before iAds came in. If developers chose to use iAds it is because they find it superior or more convenient than other services.

Only iAds give advertisers high quality analytics data, meaning that iAds are likely to pay better, meaning that developers are likely to prefer them to ads from other networks.

In other words, exactly what dzfoo said. They aren't forced to use it, but find it superior.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

I'm postulating that if they actually released a real, polished turd that it would probably still sell well based on the existing following and the hype that would surround it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The part where it's supposed to be true.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

"A polished turd" does not mean "just an average or slightly superior, but not amazing, product".

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[node 3]

Exactly. It's an argument without anything substantive to back it up. There's no precedence upon which to base it.

If "a polished turd" simply means "not a spectacular product", then perhaps. The original AppleTV wasn't *spectacular*, but it also wasn't a runaway success. It was not a "polished turd". Apple can't even *make* a polished turd. Perhaps the puck mouse from over a decade ago, and it's not like people went out and bought them in droves. In other words, it's a perfect counter example.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[jon3k]

The Incredible has more graphics capabilities than I require, and I don't know how it compares to the iPhone, or care really. I'm an adult, so I don't play video games on a cellphone. Also some android phones have 4G, as well as expandable storage, and lots of other features not found in the iPhone. So, yes, for the same price as an iPhone you get a physically larger display, 4G in some cases, expandable storage, etc. Correct.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Mandrel]

Thanks for the info, though you could have been nicer about it. We're here to find the truth, and no-one is the font of knowledge on everything. I hope people have found my other points helpful.

Mobile Safari would rely on HTML5 to access the microphone and the camera. Can anyone provide a summary of the extent to which this is currently implemented, and the extent to which a website would be able do what a native app can? It looks like HTML5 has some deficiencies compared to Flash and Silverlight, both for reading and playback.

Mobile Safari supports the W3C Geolocation API, and support for the DeviceOrientation API was added in the recently-released iOS 4.2 update. Standard support is good news.

There is some commonality between JavaScript touch support on Android and iOS, I hope this can be standardized.

Perhaps there's a chance for the Web to fight back against native apps.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Karlt1]

So it went from....

"The phones are cheaper" to "They aren't really cheaper but they have features I care about and I don't care about the missing features (higher resolution, better graphics, better battery life, 802.11n, etc.)".....

OK.......

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Mandrel]

I said "there is no lock-in dynamic like you are imagining". Specifically, that you were saying Apple sells the iPads at a loss because they will make up the difference after the sale. They don't.

I was suggesting something weaker than this — that a partially captive software and media market can allow Apple to have lower hardware margins than they've traditionally had. Apple also want to build market share for their platform before their competitors catch up.

Yes, [buyers of Apple hardware] *can* [easily spend more than their device's purchase price on iTunes-purchased software and media], but they don't.

I'd like to see some figures. I think it'd be getting up there for heavy music and video buyers, as well as for users of niche and expensive business apps. There's a huge potential for growth given that Apple has positioned itself as the only or the preferred vendor for media and software.

So I see Apple deriving a greater and greater share of their profits from their "platform".

Yes, but "greater and greater" in this case is going from "break even" to "a little better than break even". Apple makes billions in profits from each of their major hardware categories every year, they make millions from their iTunes stores.

The money they make from increased hardware sales *as a result* of the stores exceeds the money they make from the stores themselves. That's the part that people who think as you do are missing. For Apple, hardware is king, and always will be. The day it's not is the day Apple will have stumbled.

Apple has a new hardware-software synergy. In their last quarterly results Apple received $1.1b in revenue from iTunes, 5% of their total revenue, and growing rapidly. Do you have a link for your suggestion that this is margin-wise less rather than more profitable than their hardware?

Apple have over two-thirds of the audio and video download market, which doesn't just cater to owners of Apple devices. Yes this is a low-margin business, but revenue will grow as physical media declines.

And rapidly coming online is the higher-margin revenue from software (including the new Mac app store), books, newspapers and magazines.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

The things he listed don't make a cheap iPod knock off better by adding a bunch of half-assed feature sets to the device.

First off, MP3 players existed before the iPod -- to call other MP3 players "knock offs" is ridiculous.

Second, the features he listed are, with one exception, essential to the operation of an mp3 player. Physical buttons for operation is *better* because it means the device can be operated without looking at the display. Not needing a separate application to put music on the device makes putting music on the device easier (iTunes is NOT known for being the paragon of ease-of-use -- quite the opposite in fact). Sound quality -- that's pretty important! IIRC, lots of people complained about quality of sound the headphones that came with the iPod provided when it first came out.

Removable storage is equally nice, not a useless feature at all. If you have a 1gb iPod, that's it, you're done. if it had removable storage, you wouldn't have to upgrade the player to add more storage (and hence more music). Begin able to swap out cards allows for innumerable additional benefits which I need not begin to list here.

If you want to talk about half-assed feature set -- or useless features as you're clock-radio toaster implies -- the iPod is the perfect example of that. Touch screen display, wifi, applications -- it's an MP3 player! In what conceivable way do those features make it a better music player? They have Absolutely Nothing to do with Playing Music!

By your own criteria, the iPod has a bunch of useless half-assed features!

Better, as far as the parent is concerned, means 'easier to use' and 'more extensible'. If you think 'harder to use' and 'less extensible' is better, well, I can't help you.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

So highend in terms of price?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[jon3k]

No. It started with you asking for an example of a phone that met a long list of criteria. I listed phones that met all of them except price, which it matched with respect to the iPhone. Except in one case, where the device was cheaper, but you said that device didn't count because it had inferior graphics, which I said I didn't care about.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

With 70%+ market share after a decade, I think most people would disagree,,,,

Ummm... Being popular does not mean that it's easier to use! Also, your 70% figure is not iPod touch -- which is the one with graphics and apps, it's all of apples music player products.

It's also only 70% with respect to apple, microsoft, sandisk, and creative (possibly only in the US, the article mentioned best buy, but otherwise didn't specify) not the whole market

You're also assuming that people NOT buying apple products don't care about sound quality. You not only have no basis for that assumption, you forget the continuous complaints about apples horrid headphones (admittedly, it's slowed down in the past few years).

An informed customer who cared about sound quality wouldn't look to apple.

But go ahead and enjoy your toys. I'll go enjoy to the hundreds of extra dollars in my pocket while I listen to music in my inexpensive mp3 player with upgradeable storage, high-end sound, and more Music Related features.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Skuld-Chan]

Like what? In my work - my Android phone works just as well as the guys who have iPhones - no difference in functionality. Everything is pretty tightly integrated and seems to work seamlessly to me. Maybe ignorance is bliss...

One time I whipped my phone out to view a website and was able to view the flash movie where my friend's iphone was unable to.

Not once has anyone shown me something their iphone can do my android phone can't. I also do know at least one guy who switched from an iPhone to a Sprint Android phone - and he's an Apple fanboy.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

Yes, you'd be surprised whats out there.

Not really (it's actually an area I'm familiar with). Though I still want to know what application you're talking about that requires a CD under windows but is also available on the iPad.

I can't let this bit go, however:

the superior apple user experience

This is, undoubtedly, a myth. Neither Apple's UI or overall user experience seems to be superior to equivalent products from other vendors. It's really quite inferior in a number of their products -- I'm sure you can think of a few examples (I dare not upset the apple-cart by listing a few of my own!)

Apple has a long history of myths. You might remember hearing that "Macs are better for graphics" over the past 20 years or so -- even though there was absolutely no reason (at any point) to believe that was the case.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

Thanks for being the first person to actually list and explain how they've made use of their tablet. It's very helpful.

That said, if your use is representative of the common case, it's easy to see why others think the device is "useless" -- at least at the price it's set at.

Just a few reasons why an iPad wouldn't suit our household from the examples you give:

The Train: I don't take one with any sort of regularity. I could, perhaps, see it for the wifi on some flights, but I've only been on a few that offered it and I've never felt compelled to connect to it.

Recipes: My wife would't dream of bringing a computer (tablet or otherwise) into the kitchen for fear that it would suffer from accidental spills. She tends to writes recipes down on note cards, so that she has a record and so that she doesn't have to look them up again later. (she discards or trades the ones she doesn't care for.) I don't deny that you find it useful, I just can't see it working for us.

Movies in bed: Would get me kicked out of the bed!

The only tablet that I think I could get any use out of is RIM's Playbook -- but only because it can work as an extension of my phone (which, with the larger display, should make working with documents and spreadsheets easier). Still, I doubt that the use I'll get out of it will be worth the price.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[stewbacca]

Sounds like you are talking about an iPod Touch, which I've never used or seen, so my comments are limited to iPods.

MP3 players existed before iPods but iPods changed the market. You don't have to be an Apple fan to acknowledge the impact of the iPod on the industry (one of the greatest impacts ever, I would argue). Since 2001, there hasn't been the elusive "iPod killer". Adding physical buttons and removable SD cards didn't kill the iPod because most people don't care about those things.

Let's talk about removable memory. First, the smallest iPod is the shuffle and has 2GB. It has no screen and costs $49. It is not meant to store your entire music collection. The nanos have 8 and 16gb versions, rendering your hypothetical 1 GB example moot. However, if I were truly budget conscious, I guess it would be cool to sell an iPod device with NO memory and leave it up to me to buy an SD ram card. I guess?

And yes, sound quality is important. IAASEBN (I am a sound engineer by night) and can't tell you what kind of audio quality the iPod has compared to the competition. I can tell you it is *good enough* for the masses. That's all that matters. People who get all hung up on comparing features between products live sad little obsessive lives. Why not just buy something you like and meets your needs, without regard to all the myriad of choices out there? My time is money and it's better spent not obsessing about a bunch of meaningless engineering specs.

You know what WOULD kill an iPod would be a device that costs the same, has the same ease-of-use (or better, if they make an iTunes killer), has superior audio and is designed with a better UI. Since none of these have come to fruition, the iPod is still #1.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

What other options are there for high end?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[chill]

Thanks for being the first person to actually list and explain how they've made use of their tablet. It's very helpful.

No problem. Think of this as karma for all those youthful indiscretions of "first post" and anything to do with Ms. Portman.

When I went with the family to downtown D.C. to do some site seeing, I prefer the larger screen of the iPad for GPS, even though my phone has it as well. Navigating the city and monuments is a lot easier with GPS instead of a traditional paper map.

I understand about the kitchen. My wife kept losing the 3x5 cards and asking me to look the recipes up again. Some are from cooks.com, some are in e-mail from my and her mom. She doesn't lose the iPad, though I am a bit nervous about flour and gunk getting into the unit. That is my one major request -- a mil-spec, ruggedized version for the kitchen!

Movies in bed -- depends on the movie. :-) Actually, it helps if you let her pick the movie and you can cuddle with the screen right there. Still, I understand this one, too.

The convincer for my wife was I don't have cable-TV. I won't have an idiot box in the house while raising a little one. They need to be 5 or 6 before cable gets hooked up in my house. She, however, missed watching "The Doctors" and one soap opera. The iPad and Hulu takes care of that with an interface she picked up right away.

To each their own.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[aristotle-dude]

I'm not familiar with your math.

32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.

The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.

That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?

No, it doesn't add to the price at all if you buy both under the same circumstances. Looks like the US is getting screwed with the XOOM the same way they did with the iphone...likely international customers will be fine.

If you intend on activating a data plan and staying on that data plan then, yes the price is not inflated but what if you wanted a cellular model but did not want to activate right away? With the Xoom, you are forced to activate whereas with the iPad 3G, you can buy one and activate it later. Outside of the US at least, you can go month to month so that you can activate it for a month, cancel, then activate it again a few months later in the country you bought it or some other country.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

lots, but the most obvious one that springs to mind in this context is probably performance.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

If you intend on activating a data plan and staying on that data plan then, yes the price is not inflated but what if you wanted a cellular model but did not want to activate right away?

Well obviously that wouldn't be the same circumstances then would it?

Outside of the US at least, you can go month to month so that you can activate it for a month, cancel, then activate it again a few months later in the country you bought it or some other country.

Unlikely they will even have the same sort of activation internationally, just like with the iphone4, it probably won't be tied to any carrier for activation outside the US.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Anonymous Coward]

To apply your analogy to the above products though, it's more in the line of why some people would use a cool looking $799 solar powered calculator instead of a $500 scientific graphing calculator.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[narcc]

You know what WOULD kill an iPod would be a device that costs the same, has the same ease-of-use (or better, if they make an iTunes killer), has superior audio and is designed with a better UI. Since none of these have come to fruition, the iPod is still #1.

You're under the impression that the iPod is successful because it has the nicest UI, is the easiest to use, and has the best audio.

How wrong you are! Apple hasn't had the best or easiest to use player in years. What apple has, is the *myth* of being both the best and the easiest to use.

Just an example, when my wife was in college she and her roommate both bought mp3 players. She got a $50 RCA Lyra and her room mate bought a 3G iPod Classic.

My wife had her music collection on the player in about 10 minutes. It took her roommate three hours and a call to me to get anything on to her iPod. Now, I can't say that the Lyra was "better" -- only that it was much easier to use. (The roommate ultimately ended up returning the iPod and picking up a Lyra.)

Other players, like the Creative Zen series, are (and were) known for having well-designed UI's -- often beating apple on both features and easy of use. Of course, it's hard to get the message out when "everyone knows" that apple's products are easiest to use.

Apple myths have an amazing immunity. Early iPods were plagued with HD reliability problems yet "everyone knows" that apple builds lasting products of the highest quality. There have been several class-action lawsuits resulting from the shoddy iPod line (bad batteries, insta-scratch displays), yet "everyone knows" that you should pay extra for Apple because you're paying for quality and reliability.

Apple maintains it's market share in the portable digital music player market by virtue of the myths created around it -- Not because their products are easier to use, of higher quality, more innovative, or nicest-looking.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

Then why not assume the obvious?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

Then why not assume the obvious?

Because i haven't seen anything to support your original assertion based on that metric, so i was wondering what metric you had used.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

So then why not ask for support for the assumed metric, rather than irrelevantly questioning the assumed metric?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

So then why not ask for support for the assumed metric, rather than irrelevantly questioning the assumed metric?

Obviously because the assumption was wrong. I'm not going to flat out tell you your comment is wrong without knowing what you're basing it on, I figured i'd ask first.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

Obviously because the assumption was wrong.

So you were wrong by your own standards, and used your wrongness to assume someone else was wrong, and questioned their wrongness indirectly in a manner that, so far in a massive pile of posts, hasn't actually shown what you think and why you think it so strongly that you'd bother to comment repeatedly on it.

I take it you do not think that Apple is "high end" by any reasonable definition, right? If that is correct, can you explain why you think so?

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

So you were wrong by your own standards

No, had i come to a conclusion based on that assumption it would have been wrong, which is why i asked.

and used your wrongness to assume someone else was wrong

No, you'll note that I *asked* what your metric was, I didn't reply under the assumption that it was performance.

and questioned their wrongness indirectly in a manner that

No, i didn't question your 'wrongness' in any manner, indirect or otherwise.

so far in a massive pile of posts, hasn't actually shown what you think and why you think it so strongly that you'd bother to comment repeatedly on it.

I thought I made it quite clear, though you seem to fail to understand it. I would have assumed that 'highend' in terms of computers would generally be referred to in terms of performance, however given that your figures did not support such an assumption i asked what your metric was. Is that so hard to understand? I'm not refuting your argument, i'm not attacking your correctness or anything like that I simply asked a question, and since then i've been answering questions you've been asking me.

I take it you do not think that Apple is "high end" by any reasonable definition, right? If that is correct, can you explain why you think so?

No, that is not correct. I do think they represent the highend in terms of price (and probably a fair percentage in quality too). You'll note i haven't questioned that at all, i've just been answering your questions because you've continued to ask them.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[AK Marc]

No, had i come to a conclusion based on that assumption it would have been wrong, which is why i asked.

You decided that one of two things must be wrong, either their assumptions or yours. You implicitly asserted that your assumption was 100% correct and theirs was 100% wrong when you then asked your question.

I thought I made it quite clear, though you seem to fail to understand it. I would have assumed that 'highend' in terms of computers would generally be referred to in terms of performance, however given that your figures did not support such an assumption i asked what your metric was. Is that so hard to understand?

This is the first time you asserted that "performance" was the metric you would default to. And you still have hinted but never stated that you assert that Apple PC products are of insufficient performance to be classified in the "high end" category. This is the closest you've gotten to that. So I'm taking it to mean that you are implicitly asserting that without the balls to actually overtly assert that. If you'd just stated that in the first place, I could have dismissed you as uninformed or biased. Instead your inability to actually state your opinion, but only question others, was curious. Now it's tiring and obviously intellectually dishonest.

If you weren't a prick, you'd have just said "They may be expensive, but they don't have the performance to back it up." Since that's a factual statement, and incorrect, I could have just given you the attention you deserved - none. Price out a mainstream PC with similar performance (like a Dell or Lenovo laptop) and you'll find that there isn't much of a price difference at all for the similar spec. There is no Apple hardware price penalty. So if you think the price makes them fall in the "high end" category, as you've asserted, then you have asserted that the performance is as well. If you assert the price is high end and the performance isn't, then you are ignorant or a liar. Either way, have fun with your incorrect prejudices.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[exomondo]

You decided that one of two things must be wrong, either their assumptions or yours. You implicitly asserted that your assumption was 100% correct and theirs was 100% wrong when you then asked your question.

Lol...ok. I don't know how you derive that from:
"Highend by what metric?"
Clearly you're reading WAY too much into that and letting some personal issue get in the way of being able to comprehend it.

This is the first time you asserted that "performance" was the metric you would default to.

Wrong, i stated it much earlier. Read the comments.

And you still have hinted but never stated that you assert that Apple PC products are of insufficient performance to be classified in the "high end" category.

Wrong again, I didn't hint that at all. Of course many of them are, i agree with you, just not *all* of them, like you stated in the post i originally questioned.

So I'm taking it to mean that you are implicitly asserting that without the balls to actually overtly assert that. If you'd just stated that in the first place, I could have dismissed you as uninformed or biased.

Your failure to be able to comprehend what i've written isn't my problem. I haven't hinted anything, or implicitly asserted anything at all. All i did was ask you a question and somehow you've gotten all bent out of shape over it. I didn't infer anything at all, i just asked a question.

Instead your inability to actually state your opinion, but only question others, was curious.

How is that curious? You stated an opinion and i asked a question about it, I don't *have* to have an opinion on it.

Now it's tiring and obviously intellectually dishonest.

That's obviously a lie, you responded to that and im betting you'll respond to this.

If you weren't a prick, you'd have just said "They may be expensive, but they don't have the performance to back it up." Since that's a factual statement, and incorrect, I could have just given you the attention you deserved - none.

A prick? Asking a question offends you that much? Wow. I think you're taking this a bit too personally and coming to conclusions based on stuff that really isn't there at all. And why would i write that, it's obviously not true because that's not indicative of their entire range. Their lower-end (price) is lower-end (performance) as well.

So if you think the price makes them fall in the "high end" category, as you've asserted, then you have asserted that the performance is as well. If you assert the price is high end and the performance isn't, then you are ignorant or a liar. Either way, have fun with your incorrect prejudices.

Wow, you really ARE taking this WAY too personally and seem to be reading stuff that clearly just isn't written. I didn't come up with that assertion at all.

Re:The price might seem a bit high

[Ol Olsoc]

What's the price of the 16 bit no 3g Xoom? no HD no SD slot, and single processor model?

Bend over...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and take it.

Yeah..

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's all true this product is dead before it's even out. Idiots.

At this rate

[Anubis350]

The iPad2 is going to murder the flagship Android tablets... shame, I really want an Android tablet, But give a wifi only version in the same price range as the wifi iPad! I only need to pay for one bloody data connection, and I already have one on my phone!

Re:At this rate

[Gravatron]

I think the eeepad transformer, also a honeycomb tablet, was shooting for a $400 price range. Which is about all I'm willing to spend on one.

Re:At this rate

[Gohtar]

How do you know this? iPad2 has not even been announced.

Re:At this rate

[stoanhart]

What, you don't think Apple will make a second iPad, which will be better than the first iPad, and cost roughly the same?

Re:At this rate

[Kagetsuki]

You're basically right for what they have out in the US (that I know of). The thing is there are some really really nice Android tablets available here in Japan. The Galapagos tablet by Sharp is gorgeous and also has a smart phone version with a 3D display (no glasses required): http://www.sharp.co.jp/mediatablet/product/home/index.html . I think it's going to be released in the US, but I'm not sure. As for actual performance I've tried out both the iPad and the Galapagos and I personally found the Galapagos much more appealing.

Re:At this rate

[Anubis350]

Honestly, the *current* iPad competes well with the xoom, particularly on price, and it's not exactly a stretch to understand that Apple will release a new one, with updated specs and a similar price range, this year. I may not know the exact specs, but it's a good bet it isn't going to be a downgrade from the current model....

Re:At this rate

[dreamchaser]

Honestly, the *current* iPad competes well with the xoom, particularly on price, and it's not exactly a stretch to understand that Apple will release a new one, with updated specs and a similar price range, this year. I may not know the exact specs, but it's a good bet it isn't going to be a downgrade from the current model....

Wait...the iPad has half the cores and 1/4 of the RAM as the Xoom, and it 'competes well'? Don't get me wrong; the iPad is a nice device and I'm not going to buy a Xoom, but please, give us a break. This RDF shit is getting really old and tired.

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

The iPad2 is going to murder the flagship Android tablets... shame, I really want an Android tablet, But give a wifi only version in the same price range as the wifi iPad! I only need to pay for one bloody data connection, and I already have one on my phone!

I doubt it's going to murder them, but it will probably be wildly successful... I also suspect it's going to be the last wildly successful product out of Apple for a long time, unless Jobs comes back. The problem with Apple, even with Jobs at the helm at this point, is that people are starting to realize how limited the Apple OS's are. That's both a good and a bad thing for Apple, but it's going to stunt their growth going forward unless they do something drastic. It's good from the standpoint that the people that just want something simple that does the few things they want, the Apple products are great fits, because they do those things well... but those people that want more, and want to be able to do useful things with their gadgets and computers are becoming frustrated with the curated garden that is Apple. Many of the staunch tech related Apple fanboys I know are turning sour on Apple's products and starting to migrate back to the PC arena.

Disillusioned by the "It just works" line of BS that Apple built a reputation around, they are finding just as many problems and incompatibilities as in the PC world. I think this is a function of the fact that there are more peripherals for Apple now, so there's more things to break. When the "It just works" campaign started, there was hardly anything available that wasn't Apple produced, so yeah, things "Just worked" in most instances, but you had an extremely limited choice of what you could use. Now that Apple products have a larger ecosystem, they are running into the same problems as PCs... and thus the migration away from the Apple price premiums for basically no benefit.

On the flip side, the non-tech people are liking the Apple garden as much or more than before, because iOS is very gentle and easy for the non-tech savvy; they have no need for flexibility and the large icons and limited customizability of the whole thing is perfect for them.

So no, I doubt the iPad 2 is going to murder the Android tablets in terms of functionality, usability, price or any other technical metric. I don't see iOS having any significant changes between now and the advent of the iPad 2. The latest iterations of Android absolutely destroy iOS in terms of usability, speed, stability, flexibility and visual interface. With Honeycomb on the horizon, and support for higher resolutions and multiple cores, the distance between iOS and Android is only going to get larger, leaving iOS firmly in the "Fisher Price" area for those people who need a starter system to use on their gadgets.

There will be a flurry of activity on the iPad2 and then it will quickly be eclipsed by the flood of Android tablets (both good and bad) that are superior to the iPad2 in every single way.

Re:At this rate

[eggoeater]

You can get the Galaxy tab from verizon for $499 with no contract. That's cheaper than the iPad with way more features, and you can always sign up for a 3G data plan later if you want one. I love my Galaxy tab and have been really impressed with the screen quality and touch sensitivity. Great camera too.

Re:At this rate

[RatBastard]

You think raw specs matter in an appliance? No, they don't. As long as they do what they are supposed to do and the end user feels that the machine is responsive, the specs really don't matter. The end user doesn't care how many cores or how much RAM their tablet has. They care about the end user experience. And Apple has put a lot of work into making sure the iPad meets expectations. Android tablet makers need to realize that they are competing with Apple on the experience level, not the specs.

Re:At this rate

[exomondo]

What, you don't think Apple will make a second iPad, which will be better than the first iPad, and cost roughly the same?

He clearly wasn't debating that at all, but obviously questioning how much better and what features such a device will have that will be so much better than anything competitors are offering.

Re:At this rate

[exomondo]

Wait...the iPad has half the cores and 1/4 of the RAM as the Xoom, and it 'competes well'? Don't get me wrong; the iPad is a nice device and I'm not going to buy a Xoom, but please, give us a break. This RDF shit is getting really old and tired.

Not to mention the Xoom isn't even out yet, how can anyone say how well the two compete when the only info on Xoom is hardware specs and a couple of brief demo videos?! "oh it's apple, it must be able on par with or superior to competitors' future devices" ...seriously wtf?! Is he just trolling?

Re:At this rate

[aliquis]

You think specs don't affect how the responsive the appliance is or what it can do?

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

I just checked yesterday the 3D android phone, pretty cool! no glasses :)

Right now I am very happy with my HTC Desire.

Re:At this rate

[ColdWetDog]

You're basically right for what they have out in the US (that I know of). The thing is there are some really really nice Android tablets available here in Japan. The Galapagos tablet by Sharp is gorgeous and also has a smart phone version with a 3D display (no glasses required): http://www.sharp.co.jp/mediatablet/product/home/index.html . I think it's going to be released in the US, but I'm not sure. As for actual performance I've tried out both the iPad and the Galapagos and I personally found the Galapagos much more appealing.

Well, according to Google translate:

Enjoy the magazine spread, "10.8-inch wide screen"
Images can be clearly legible letters show ,
"High-definition HD LCD (1,366 × 800) " with
microSDHC Memory Card (sample): 8GB × 1 included

Nice screen resolution, not entirely sure what the 'magazine spread' is about, cost is about $665 USD. Doesn't say much else.

Re:At this rate

[Kagetsuki]

I'm surprised you can use Google translate but not Google search. "Galapagos tablet" search returns results in English as well. As for the translation, it says "Enjoy viewing [digital] magazines spread open" - as in you can comfortably view both pages of a digital magazine on the screen. It's easily the nicest Android tablet I've tried out.

Re:At this rate

[brantondaveperson]

Not as much as how well the software is written, especially on a simple device like an iPad. I saw that video of the Dell Streak (terrible name...) lagging behind the user's finger by an appreciable amount - and it had some dual core whatsit running the show.

We're all here used to complaining about how for all our high-spec machines, Windows (for example) still runs like shit.

Re:At this rate

[romanval]

I think this is a function of the fact that there are more peripherals for Apple now, so there's more things to break. When the "It just works" campaign started, there was hardly anything available that wasn't Apple produced, so yeah, things "Just worked" in most instances, but you had an extremely limited choice of what you could use. Now that Apple products have a larger ecosystem, they are running into the same problems as PCs... and thus the migration away from the Apple price premiums for basically no benefit.

On the flip side, the non-tech people are liking the Apple garden as much or more than before, because iOS is very gentle and easy for the non-tech savvy; they have no need for flexibility and the large icons and limited customizability of the whole thing is perfect for them.

So no, I doubt the iPad 2 is going to murder the Android tablets in terms of functionality, usability, price or any other technical metric. I don't see iOS having any significant changes between now and the advent of the iPad 2. The latest iterations of Android absolutely destroy iOS in terms of usability, speed, stability, flexibility and visual interface.

You forget how apple products are designed: It's the lack of features that's a feature, especially for the common (non-techie) crowd that wants a online device that's as simple to use as an appliance (like a toaster or a TV).

The whole "walled garden" aspect is irrelevant as long as the device does what most people want.

As for iOS fragmentation; there's only 3 iOS devices being shipped (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad) with only a few variations between them.... A hell of a lot less fragmented then Android will ever be.

Re:At this rate

[HermMunster]

Honestly I can't see the iPad2 as having any real new or innovative features. Cameras? Don't think that's enough. More RAM? Still. Faster CPU/GPU (and/or dual core)? Maybe to keep the performance competitive. The Android market, being open, is what will make the biggest difference in the long run as the hardware on all platforms become similar. Tiny underpowered games and utilities which are limited by Apple's policies aren't going to help either. I think in the long run the iPad will fall into similar use as you find the Macintosh now (e.g., the vast majority of people using the PC clones while the faithful stick with Apple). I know there'll be a circus around the new iPad2 features, but I think this time the industry pundits will see the iPad2 as just keeping up, as I believe the Android tablets will take over the market--just like the Android phones have taken the number one sales spot for mobile OSes. The only thing that might impress me is if Apple halves the price of the whole line of products. That'll make it far easier for people to swallow the DRM nature of their walled garden.

Re:At this rate

[gig]

People don't see iOS as limited since it does more things than any other mobile OS, and with less training and computer knowledge required. Other mobile systems do not even have native C apps, let alone the sheer number that Apple has. Not sure if you are including the Mac in your judgement, but since it has a full Unix and by far the best creative platform I don't see how it could be called limited in any way.

Re:At this rate

[gig]

Galaxy Tab literally has less than half the screen of iPad, less than half the battery, less than half the system software, less than half the apps. That is completely indisputable.

Re:At this rate

[RogerWilco]

I only switched to Mac 3 years ago. I used Linux before that, and Windows before that.

To simply get work done and have stuff "just work", Apple still offers one of the best, if not the best product out there.

I find it's not the really tech savvy people who go back to Windows, but those that though they knew a thing or two, but basically new only a few more tricks than the basic non-tech population. The techies in my environment really relish the Unix core, once they adapt, and all the power and transparency that comes with it.

Only thing I couldn't get working with my laptop was my 9 years old scanner. Everything else has been fine.

Apple originally set out to build appliances, and now does so very successfully with their iPod, iPhone and iPad. (not so much AppleTV). As this is the core of what they do it will be hard for others to really beat them at their own game.

Re:At this rate

[Renderer of Evil]

This is MP3 wars all over again. Steady platform growth and incremental feature updates is what benefits Apple and leaves a trail of iKillers in its path.

While Android Tablet companies are trying to blow their wad on a single device that's spec'd out with last week's technology, Apple is more interested in investing into long-term platform development, rather than doing unnecessary weekly hardware refreshes. "Tegra 2. Flavor of the week!" Who cares? Not the majority of people.

The important takeaway from this is that it's a marathon, not a sprint. This is where Motorola, Toshiba, Samsung, et al are failing. They don't give a shit about "openness" or "Android." They want to ship a number of devices this quarter, forget about it and then ship some more next quarter. Especially when they're not making any money from updates or app sales. Any bugfixes, updates, recalls, or any type of customer interaction is cutting into their already razor-thin margins.

Apple has healthy margins so it's better for them to keep providing updates to old hardware. It's all about the platform.

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

No it won't. IPads are limiting and overpriced compared to a *good* Android tablet. (There are bad Android tablets that don't even have the Android market.) There's plenty of wifi-only Android tablets on the market. Same price range as IPad? No, thery're a fraction the cost. Some are down in the $100 range.

Re:At this rate

[node 3]

Wait...the iPad has half the cores and 1/4 of the RAM as the Xoom, and it 'competes well'?

Yes, because it's a minute fraction of purchasers who even know what those specs are, and really they don't matter. What matters is what you can do with it, and the iPad is significantly more functional than any Android tablet. The only feature that the Xoom has over iPad that matters is the cameras.

Don't get me wrong; the iPad is a nice device and I'm not going to buy a Xoom, but please, give us a break. This RDF shit is getting really old and tired.

Old and tired is thinking your geek values apply to the 99%+ of everyone else out there. It doesn't and it shouldn't.

Re:At this rate

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

Really? Cmon man, a cray running ms-pac man is just that. Your specs are useless, in this case apple knows it, android doesn't, and you don't.

Re:At this rate

[jo_ham]

"How limited the Apple OS's are"

I see you've never used OS X then.

Re:At this rate

[exomondo]

Galaxy Tab literally has less than half the screen of iPad

In terms of size yes, but a higher resolution just like the display of the iphone4 over its larger (size) competitors, resulting in sharper images and text. That's one thing about the ipad that annoys me, the res could be a bit higher, but i prefer the 9.7" screen to use even if it is less portable.

less than half the apps. That is completely indisputable.

While I chose an ipad over a galaxy tab i'd certainly disagree with the amount of apps being a valid metric, there are so many useless apps in the apple app store and so many bad clones of good software.

Re:At this rate

[jo_ham]

You must have missed the part where Apple's market share has been steadily growing, year on year (not just for iOS, but for OS X too - there is no way that this is simply "old faithful" users.

Almost 1 in 5 new computers sold in the US is a Mac (this is not including any iOS devices, purely OS X). Two years ago it was 15%. Two years before that it was 8%ish.

The iPhone and iPad have done more for adoption of OS X than any switch commercials ever did.

Also, why would Apple halve the price of the whole line of products, even theoretically - they are making money hand over fist, in the face of all their haters saying "Apple is dying.... no, this year.... wait, this year...... ok, with this product they will definitely start dying....." since the release of the original multicoloured iMac. They're in business to make money, and they are making *a lot* of it, and seem to have judged their market pretty well. Look at it this way - where are the comparably priced tablet competitors to the iPad? What about the iPhone? All of the comparable stuff is similarly priced, if it exists at all (the iPad really is off in its own league right now, at least until Android 3.0).

I also note you think "industry pundits" will think the iPad2 is "keeping up" (with what exactly - there is nothing better than the iPad *1* right now, 8 months after it came out) - but the crucial thing being that Apple is not selling iPads to "industry pundits" - they are selling them to the general public who are liking what they see. Witness the slew of comments about how terrible the iPad is from a large portion of slashdot.... yet it sells faster than they can make it. It does exactly what a huge proportion of people want it to do, and it does it well.

While "industry pundits" are benchmarking tablets for FPS and other nonsense, Apple are off in the corner selling an awesome user experience to their customers. The iPad 2 will be no different in this respect - they will refine it a little, and then the "industry pundits" can say what they like. Slashsdot will call it evil and closed (even if it shipped with Linux on it and full source code, it would be "oh, they are just profiting on the backs of others! evil!" - you cannot win).

Meanwhile the general public will be all over it like a tramp on hot chips.

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty stupid that manufacturers/resellers have the gumption to sell a tablet at the same price as a decently equipped laptop. And then you have consumers stupid enough to pay a laptop price for a tablet. Granted a laptop is bigger/bulkier/heavier and yada yada but you can generally do the same things with it and then some...like play CoD or actually run 2 programs/apps side by side. What a concept.

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

"How limited the Apple OS's are"

I see you've never used OS X then.

In fact, I have. It offers nothing other OS's don't already offer and I can run other OS's on commodity hardware without jumping through hoops or paying 3x or more for the privilege of running a pretty GUI that has some seriously braindead user modalities. OSX is great for Mom and Pop and people who aren't tech savvy. It's designed for that and it excels at that.

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

People don't see iOS as limited since it does more things than any other mobile OS, and with less training and computer knowledge required. Other mobile systems do not even have native C apps, let alone the sheer number that Apple has. Not sure if you are including the Mac in your judgement, but since it has a full Unix and by far the best creative platform I don't see how it could be called limited in any way.

Are you talking about the same iOS that runs on the iPod and iPhone, etc...? Because it's one of the most limited mobile OS's on the market. I'm talking about from a user perspective, not necessarily from a developer perspective. The user experience of iOS is the equivalent of Fisher Price... consequently, it's great for the masses that are afraid of technology. Once you graduate to not being afraid of technology and have the ability to manuever in the digital space easily, the limitations of iOS are glaringly obvious and exceptionally annoying.

Re:At this rate

[gig]

You are way off. You're not even making sense. Cameras won't be enough for iPad to do what? To match XOOM's higher price, lower quality, and complete lack of apps?

The apps on Apple's mobiles are more powerful than on other mobiles, not less. They are native C apps, not baby Java applets. They are desktop class code with a desktop class framework running on a desktop class OS (the core of iOS is OS X.) The interfaces are drawn 100% in the GPU, and the GPU also assists in general purpose computation, so Apple gets more out of each ARM generation than other manufacturers. Android v3 is the first version to even use the GPU. iOS apps are commonly ported from the Mac or PlayStation or another C platform, while Android apps have to be written from the ground up in Java. They are less sophisticated, less powerful, less media rich, less numerous, and less diverse than iOS apps. Tablets are all about apps. The hardware is generic. The inside of an iPad is remarkably like the inside of an Apple Newton from 1993: ARM SoC, RAM, flash storage, modem, touchscreen, batteries. The key innovation is desktop class apps. Not baby apps. Full desktop class native C apps and full desktop class HTML5 Web apps. An iPad can be made to do anything. Not mobile things or baby things, but anything.

The Mac is not some niche system. What decade are you living in? The Mac is 90% of high-end PC sales. Everyone who is serious about computing uses a Mac, except for a few neck beards on another Unix. The average selling price of a Windows PC is $425 or similar, they are relegated to being cheap low-end Mac clones only. If you are using Windows in 2011, you do not matter. You're not in the game. You're not innovating, and you're not creating the future. You are barely even in this century.

There is almost no money in either Android or Windows hardware. All of the Android makers together account for less than 5% of hardware profits, while RIM by itself is 15%, Nokia is 25%, and Apple is just over 50%. HP has to ship something like 10 PC's to make the money Apple makes on one Mac. Apple could likely kill HP with a $699 MacBook. There is nothing new or interesting coming out of Motorola or Samsung or HP. They are cloning Apple and that is it. And not even well. But their generic mobile hardware can't compete with Apple, because Apple is also making generic mobile hardware, but in much, much greater quantity and with native C apps! It's iPods all over again, with App Store instead of Music Store. There is nothing competitive on the horizon for iPad, same as iPod.

Re:At this rate

[ducomputergeek]

Last year I created a couple mobile apps for both iOS and Android that were priced with a free "lite" version with ads and then the "full" version with some added features and no ads for $.99 or $1.99. I spent about 3x the amount of time troubleshooting the minor differences between Android handsets and OS versions and Android and Android sales of the full versions were less than 15%. This was despite having 15k more Android downloads.

And the amount of money from ads all platforms barely covered the costs of my developer accounts. I made my money from sales of the "full" versions.

After talking with my friends and co-workers with Android phones, something dawned on me: they didn't buy apps. Not like iPhone users. And they don't really download many apps either outside of maybe The Weather Channel and Facebook or a twitter app. My next mobile application I'm getting ready to release will be iOS only.

Re:At this rate

[jo_ham]

"3x more for the privilege". Right 1995 called and wants its utterly inaccurate "fact" back.

If you think OS X is merely for "Mom and Pop" and "non tech savvy" then you really haven't looked very hard. It is very good at catering for those user groups. It is also exceptional at catering to the "tech savvy" too. It's aaaaaaaaal Unix under there, with all the power and flexibility that brings - with a GUI that is as easy to use as you could ever need. Sure, Finder is a bit clunky (especially in column view), but you can always put your own third party file manager on there (just like Linux), or just use the shell (just like Linux), or run an X session or twelve (just like Linux), all the while running Photoshop or AutoCAD or iPhoto or some other large commercial software alongside it (just like linu.... oh wait).

The combination of what's under the hood and the GUI on top make OS X one of the best all round OSes out there right now. Add to that the fact that Apple went and switched to x86, making virtualisation (just like on Linux) really simple and powerful, and you can do an awful lot with it. It's just as powerful as almost any flavour of Linux, and has a few things that it doesn't have, and clearly a few things that Linux has going for it that are a compromise on OS X - have to take the pros and cons here.

In terms of base function it's still better than Windows 7 (but Win 7 is way better than Vista), and there's still nothing to touch iLife for the price.

I would be interested to hear some of these "braindead modalities". I have already mentioned the weird sorting in column view in Finder (someone really needs to just rewrite it). What else? I really am interested in specific examples. I am going to be generous and assume you're not just trolling with some made up BS that you can't back up. I note you used modalities plural, so we're after more than one here.

Re:At this rate

[ILuvRamen]

I disagree. People who want an ipad have them. They've been out for a long time. This tablet, if all this info is correct, will instead get outsold by an i7 actual laptop with a blu-ray player at that ridiculous price. $800 will get you a lot of computer for the money right now. Seriously, that is completely INSANE. You don't try and compete with Apple by pricing higher than them! They're supposed to be the expensive one.

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

I am actually pretty sure one of the rules of the internet is that everyone claims they are willing to spend half the RRP.

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

> a lot less fragmented then Android will ever be.

THAN Android. THAN.

Than and then are different words with different meanings.

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

People who want an ipad have them.

I want an iPad. I don't have one. So this statement is false.

Re:At this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

and with native C apps!

it made me laugh.

Re:At this rate

[Gohtar]

I fully expect them to make another slightly better iPad at the same price point, but how do we know it is going to murder the flagship Android tablets?

Re:At this rate

[alcmaeon]

The problem with Apple, even with Jobs at the helm at this point, is that people are starting to realize how limited the Apple OS's are.

Yeah, Unix is the suckzor. It has no power. It's very limited. Good luck selling that on here. You'll have better luck selling your surveys.

That's both a good and a bad thing for Apple, but it's going to stunt their growth going forward unless they do something drastic.

Yep, it's been killing Apple so far. Much more of this "growth stunting" and Apple will be the only tech company left in the world. Poor Apple. If only the had you running the company, they might be able to move products and turn a profit on them.

Disillusioned by the "It just works" line of BS that Apple built a reputation around, they are finding just as many problems and incompatibilities as in the PC world

Such as...? Sorry, dude, I'm calling bullshit on your entire post. But, I gotta give you props for the exercise in creative writing.

Re:At this rate

[alcmaeon]

Yes, but see, for Google-bots, less of everything is a feature in and of itself. If it has half the screen, half the battery life, and half the apps, then it must be twice as good because that very lack of everything is part of its "way more features." Plus you can always just return your Galaxy Tab like everyone else and go buy and iPad. That's also a feature.

Google World is kind of like Bizzaro World, but everything there is a screwed up version of something from Apple.

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

Yeah, Unix is the suckzor. It has no power. It's very limited. Good luck selling that on here. You'll have better luck selling your surveys.

I didn't say Unix sucks, I said Apple OS's are limited. Yes, you can dig into OSX and make it do things it wasn't intended to, but that doesn't mean it was meant to. Regardless, I was more speaking about iOS than OSX.

Yep, it's been killing Apple so far. Much more of this "growth stunting" and Apple will be the only tech company left in the world. Poor Apple. If only the had you running the company, they might be able to move products and turn a profit on them.

It has been killing them, that's why they were a niche product for decades and are only now starting to become mainstream, and we are starting to see a reversal of that trend in fact, sending Apple right back to the niche market. Learn to read.

Disillusioned by the "It just works" line of BS that Apple built a reputation around, they are finding just as many problems and incompatibilities as in the PC world

Such as...? Sorry, dude, I'm calling bullshit on your entire post. But, I gotta give you props for the exercise in creative writing.

Such as? Such as printers, scanners, graphics cards, to name just a few.

You're clearly an Apple Fanboi and that's OK, just don't come in and start spouting clear nonsense without anything to back it up.

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

"3x more for the privilege". Right 1995 called and wants its utterly inaccurate "fact" back.

Really? Go price out a given laptop config and then price out the same config in Apple clothing and we'll see how big a price difference we have there.

I would be interested to hear some of these "braindead modalities". I have already mentioned the weird sorting in column view in Finder (someone really needs to just rewrite it). What else? I really am interested in specific examples. I am going to be generous and assume you're not just trolling with some made up BS that you can't back up. I note you used modalities plural, so we're after more than one here.

Sure, here's a partial list:

1. Single clicking on a window only brings focus, does not perform actions. Major pain in the ass when you want to get stuff done fast. An exceptional pain in the ass if you have to work with Windows, Linux and OSX together, since OSX is the only one that behaves that way.

2. The finder menu bar being tied to the screen and not the application is exceptionally annoying on multiple monitors. This makes OSX almost impossible to use without developing RSI on large/huge monitors (I have 3x 2560x1600 monitors in landscape). This is clearly a vestigal modality from the days of single monitors. Unfortunately, it's 2011 and multiple monitors have been around for more than a decade, yes Apple hasn't been able to fix this deficiency. Go ahead, tell me it's a feature.

3. Clicking the red close X icon on a window minimizes it to the dock. If it wanted to minimize to the dock, I would click the yellow minus. Why have two buttons that do essentially the same thing?

4. As of 10.5.2 (dunno about later versions), SAMBA has been brokenbrokenbroken when trying to to let windows machines with authentication. Not really a modality, but a core function of the OS doesn't work.

5. Safari = total joke. (Ok, that's not a modality, but I figured I'd slip that in.)

6. Lots and lots of UAC-like popups. As many as or more than Vista.

7. iLife? really? iDVD doesn't work to burn a DVD; trying to burn one causes a beep... no other error message, no explanation. Most programs would give an error message of some sort... not Apple! iMovie doesn't handle common media formats like H.264, DivX or XviD, go Apple! Multiple windows are stacked in the dock; windows has this, but can be turned off. You can't turn it off in OSX. I have enough screen real-estate that I don't need to stack multiple windows. Why does it force me to? Mail.app? Can't set unread! Can't set it to leave it unread for X number of seconds! iLife... please.

Re:At this rate

[alcmaeon]

It has been killing them, that's why they were a niche product for decades and are only now starting to become mainstream, and we are starting to see a reversal of that trend in fact, sending Apple right back to the niche market. Learn to read.

Again, gotta call bullshit on that. OSX and iOS are exactly what is making Apple "mainstream." In fact, Apple is defining the cutting edge again. What is the reversal of the trend? Apple has had record-breaking quarter after record-breaking quarter. You need to learn to read numbers. Don't just make up nonsense. Cite us to some reference for whatever downturn you are seeing that no one else sees.

Such as printers, scanners, graphics cards, to name just a few.

Do you even have access to a Mac? I have no problems with printers, scanners, or graphics cards. Again, cite us to some reference that supports your contentions.

Re:At this rate

[jo_ham]

The comparisons for equally specced Apple vs Win/other PCs have been done to death. The prevailing situation is a 10 to 20% premium over equivalent PCs. 300% is just... laughably trollish.

1. Single clicking on a window performs actions in that window, without bringing focus forward. I knew this was the case but I just double checked it. For example, you can start and stop iTunes when it is not the foreground app with a single left click on the play button. You can close tabs in non-foreground Safari windows with a single click. I can clear the downloads list (not in foreground, or even in active app) with a single click. Not sure what you're on about here.

2. The application menu being fixed to the primary screen is an annoyance if you have more than one screen and something does need to be done about it. Agreed (I have used multi screen Macs extensively in the past also). On a single screen it works very well though, but it does totally fall down when you move to more than one.

3. Clicking the red close icon closes the window. In some apps it also closes the app (it should *not* do this, it should always leave the app running). Minimising to the dock is the yellow button. The red button means "close window". The way to quit an app is command+Q, or from the menu. The only reason you don;t like this is because the "windows way" is that X closes the application (although it also closes just certain windows in some software, like Word etc). This is just personal preference.

4. SMB seems to work ok for me, but I do not have that many Windows boxes around - only two of the people I live with have Windows boxes and they don't report any problems sharing my media collection (via XBMC, on SMB-mounted volume), but I'll take your word for it - I don't have enough data.

5. Safari is almost exactly like Chrome. I use both all the time (about 60:40 Safari:Chrome). Safari does have a memory leak that requires you restart it every week or so, but it's not bad. I like the speed of both browsers. Used to use FF3.6 but it was a bit chunky on OS X. The FF4 beta is dreadful.

6. There are very few UAC-like popups - these occur when privilege escalation is required, eg for installing certain apps (not all - eg just writing to the Applications folder [which is outside your home folder] does not require a password). There is *no way* there are as many warning prompts as there are in Vista. Vista prompts you with a UAC if you open the equivalent of System Preferences for goodness sake (which OS X does not do). Safari warns you by default if you download a file that can be executed or decompressed, but you can turn this off. The system will also prompt you if something wants access to your keychain (eg, Mail.app if it gets updated and then wants to use your mail server credentials, but it can be told to always remember). Having used both Vista and OS X extensively, I will stake my left testicle on the fact that there's *considerably fewer* UAC-like prompts in OS X, certainly not "lots and lots" of them.

7. iLife is one of the best software bundles out there right now. Mail.app is *not* part of iLife (you could have put that in at number 8 for a whole new list item, but it seems to me that given that you think it's part of iLife you haven't really used the software much)

Either way, addressing Mail. Can't set unread: Right click on message, select "Mark > as unread". I just did it to the slashdot email that told me about your reply in this thread. It does not have an option to leave a message unread if you only highlight it for a few seconds though, you are correct.

Regarding actual iLife, iDVD behaving like that is odd and probably either means a bad install or something else. It has worked fine when I have used it (not too often - I have DVD Studio Pro on my primary machine, I have only used iDVD on my sister's machine while visiting her).
iMovie is a video editing app, so the formats it expects are ones designed to be source formats, like DV, HDV, AVC etc. It even edits XDCAM HD i

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

1. Single clicking on a window performs actions in that window, without bringing focus forward. I knew this was the case but I just double checked it. For example, you can start and stop iTunes when it is not the foreground app with a single left click on the play button. You can close tabs in non-foreground Safari windows with a single click. I can clear the downloads list (not in foreground, or even in active app) with a single click. Not sure what you're on about here.

Unless something drastic has changed in the versions between 10.5.2 and now, only some applications specifically designed to take the clicks on a non-focused window will take the clicks. Otherwise, the default mode for OSX is to bring a window into focus on the first click, regardless of where you click. Perhaps this has changed, but as of 10.5.2 it was exactly as I described and exceptionally annoying.

3. Clicking the red close icon closes the window. In some apps it also closes the app (it should *not* do this, it should always leave the app running). Minimising to the dock is the yellow button. The red button means "close window". The way to quit an app is command+Q, or from the menu. The only reason you don;t like this is because the "windows way" is that X closes the application (although it also closes just certain windows in some software, like Word etc). This is just personal preference.

You pretty much just made the case for me. Clicking the red icon closes the window - no it doesn't, it minimizes the window, but then you go on to say "in some apps..." Then minimizing to the dock is the yellow button - if that's the case then what does the red button do, if not minimize to the dock? That's the problem - there is no consistency with OSX when it comes to the red and yellow buttons. Often they do the same things, and according to you, sometimes they do different things and it's on an application by application basis. This is the definition of a braindead modality.

4. SMB seems to work ok for me, but I do not have that many Windows boxes around - only two of the people I live with have Windows boxes and they don't report any problems sharing my media collection (via XBMC, on SMB-mounted volume), but I'll take your word for it - I don't have enough data.

Perhaps it's been fixed, but please note I said authenticated sessions, not unauthenticated ones. Guest sessions worked just fine, but authenticated ones did/do not. This was awhile ago so I'm sure it's been fixed, but to leave a glaring omission like that out of a released OS and not issue a patch? Total garbage.

5. Safari is almost exactly like Chrome. I use both all the time (about 60:40 Safari:Chrome). Safari does have a memory leak that requires you restart it every week or so, but it's not bad. I like the speed of both browsers. Used to use FF3.6 but it was a bit chunky on OS X. The FF4 beta is dreadful.

Safari is not exactly like Chrome. Chrome has some similarities to Safari, but it's far more extensible and configurable than Safari and has a larger eco system at this point. I don't know why Apple is even bothering with Safari any longer (perhaps they aren't, which is why it's so crappy?) - Chrome took everything good about Safari and improved it.

6. There are very few UAC-like popups - these occur when privilege escalation is required, eg for installing certain apps (not all - eg just writing to the Applications folder [which is outside your home folder] does not require a password). There is *no way* there are as many warning prompts as there are in Vista. Vista prompts you with a UAC if you open the equivalent of System Preferences for goodness sake (which OS X does not do). Safari warns you by default if you download a file that can be executed or decompressed, but you can turn this off. The system will also prompt you if something wants access to your keychain (eg, Mail.app if it gets updated a

Re:At this rate

[jo_ham]

You pretty much just made the case for me. Clicking the red icon closes the window - no it doesn't, it minimizes the window, but then you go on to say "in some apps..."

No, it really doesn't. It CLOSES the window. If you open that window again, it is not in the same state. For example, a text document with the cursor halfway down the page. If you click the x the window closes. If you reopen the document it is as if the previous state never existed. Minimising specifically keeps the window open and in the same state as you left it so when you come to use it again, it is exactly the same. This is down with the yellow button.
I said "some apps do close the whole app when you click the red button" but I specifically stated that this was *incorrect* behaviour that causes inconsistency. It is usually cross platform apps that "do it the windows way", although not exclusively - the worst offender for this from apple themselves is System Preferences, which fully closes if you close the main window with the x button.

How can that be? On the Mac, "It just works?" So it's impossible to have a bad install or something else.

No, that's just marketing. Everyone has it. It's not a carte blanche statement that things never go wrong - it's a computer with hardware and software; issues will crop up, which is why there is a large knowledgebase and Apple support network. If Apple users and Apple themselves genuinely thought it was "impossible to go wrong" then these things would not exist. In the majority of cases though, things do "just work" but not all the time - no different to any other software platform. You are being deliberately disingenuous if you are actually trying to argue this as a genuine point.

So it's a video editing app that can't edit the most common formats of video? Yeah, great app... again to the third party software.

You'll find that most video editing software wants the source material in specific formats - H.264 and Mpeg2 and Xvid and so on are temporally-based compressed formats, ie you have keyframes that can stand alone, but the majority of frames depend on data from earlier frames to save filesize. These do not edit well, so must be converted into non-temporal formats first. This is just basic video editing and is common to all NLE systems. Very few editors can actually work effectively with temporally compressed files. Final Cut Pro (well, actually Quicktime) added the ability to all OS X NLE software to edit HDV format by tweaking the way it handles start and end points of the clips for this very reason, so you don;t have to go through a lengthy import step to use it.

iMovie does this on import with any video that Quicktime will play, since it uses the Quicktime library to work - it comes with a large raft of common formats already, but you can extend it with other codecs as and when you need it. You can even import and export Theora if you like (it's a major part of the OS).

Quicktime is absolute shit and the fact that OSX forces you to work in it is absolutely inexcusable, another braindead decision. Let people work in common formats.

Now you're just trolling. Quicktime is not a "format" - it's a system library (what OS X calls a Framework) that handles video and graphics. Calling it a format is like calling The big blue E on a windows desktop "the internet". On OS X, which is the only place iMovie runs, it is a no-brainer to use the OS's built in, mature, highly extensible video framework to handle video. It is far more than just "Quicktime player" that most people see on Windows. It has been around for almost 20 years and is a key component of OS X.

The Quicktime *container* (.mov) can contain a great deal of actual *formats/codecs* by nature of the design of Quicktime itself, so you can "work with common formats" as much as you like, which is probably what you mean when you say "forced to use quicktime is a disgrace" without actually kn

Re:At this rate

[NitroWolf]

No, it really doesn't. It CLOSES the window. If you open that window again, it is not in the same state. For example, a text document with the cursor halfway down the page. If you click the x the window closes. If you reopen the document it is as if the previous state never existed. Minimising specifically keeps the window open and in the same state as you left it so when you come to use it again, it is exactly the same. This is down with the yellow button.
I said "some apps do close the whole app when you click the red button" but I specifically stated that this was *incorrect* behaviour that causes inconsistency. It is usually cross platform apps that "do it the windows way", although not exclusively - the worst offender for this from apple themselves is System Preferences, which fully closes if you close the main window with the x button.

If it behaves in the way you say (I no longer have my Mac, so I can't check), then it's so wildly inconsistent as to be impossible to say it does anything specific. Again, if it actually is intended to do it that way then it goes back to the document centric nature of OSX and while I will entertain the idea of it being a "what you're use to" thing, I very still maintain that because the buttons don't do what you expect them to do, it's broken/braindead. This may be the application developers at fault, it may be the OS at fault... it's immaterial. The OS should enforce behavior of the underlying window framework - that's why it's there!

How can that be? On the Mac, "It just works?" So it's impossible to have a bad install or something else.

No, that's just marketing. Everyone has it. It's not a carte blanche statement that things never go wrong - it's a computer with hardware and software; issues will crop up, which is why there is a large knowledgebase and Apple support network. If Apple users and Apple themselves genuinely thought it was "impossible to go wrong" then these things would not exist. In the majority of cases though, things do "just work" but not all the time - no different to any other software platform. You are being deliberately disingenuous if you are actually trying to argue this as a genuine point.

I agree, it IS just marketing. It's complete rubbish, to boot. Things on the Mac do not "Just work." They never have and they never will, specifically for the reasons you cite. However, the Mac fanbase totes this line out and the uneducated masses believe it. It's a huge selling point and it's a blatent lie.

You'll find that most video editing software wants the source material in specific formats - H.264 and Mpeg2 and Xvid and so on are temporally-based compressed formats, ie you have keyframes that can stand alone, but the majority of frames depend on data from earlier frames to save filesize. These do not edit well, so must be converted into non-temporal formats first. This is just basic video editing and is common to all NLE systems. Very few editors can actually work effectively with temporally compressed files.

I understand the underlying technical reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the interface should do this transparently. I should be able to drag an H.264 or an XviD file into the timeline and be able to edit it. Whatever iMovie feels it has to do behind the scenes is fine and also irrelevant. If by "very few editors" you mean "crappy editors" then I agree with you. The big guns in the editing world let you work with common formats - the Mac doesn't.

Quicktime is absolute shit and the fact that OSX forces you to work in it is absolutely inexcusable, another braindead decision. Let people work in common formats.

Now you're just trolling. Quicktime is not a "format" - it's a system library (what OS X calls a Framework) that handles video and graphics. Calling it a format is like calling The big blue E on a windows desktop "the in

Re:At this rate

[jo_ham]

If it behaves in the way you say (I no longer have my Mac, so I can't check), then it's so wildly inconsistent as to be impossible to say it does anything specific.

In what way is "x closes the window" inconsistent? You click the x, it goes away since you're done with it. If you open a new window of the same type, or the same document it's as if you are opening it from new, because that's what you are doing. X closes the document/window/palette because you are saying "I am finished with this window". If you wanted to save the state of the window (eg, how far you have scrolled, or whatever) then why close it? That's what minimise is for.
The fact that sometimes it closes the window *and* closes the app (for example, for apps with only one window) is the erroneous behaviour. It is not common though.

The only inconsistent element on that UI piece is the green button - it always has a plus symbol on it, even when the state it will toggle to is smaller than the current window size (it toggles between two window states that you size yourself). Either the icon should be something else, or it should not be a plus when the action that results from clicking on it is actually going to shrink the window.

iMovie's import system is as transparent as you can really make a consumer NLE - you drag in the clip, it converts it, you edit it. All editors do this with a format that is not native to the timeline - FCP does it on the fly (if you have the horsepower), iMovie does it before you use it. You can work with any format you like, and for a consumer-focused home editing NLE it is frightfully good and remarkably extensible. So what you're really saying here is "ok, I was totally wrong about how iMovie doesn't support all these different formats, so now instead my argument is that it should all be totally behind the scenes and uninterrupted when you import non-native formats like a fully commercial NLE instead of having to wait while it converts the footage".

It does not edit raw H.264, or raw Xvid, or raw Divx etc, but then why would you unless you just want to shorten a clip, or throw some clips back to back with nothing more than cuts? Quicktime itself *can* do this incidentally, but if you're editing video you want to be able to use titles, transitions etc. Anything more than straight cuts and working with a temporal format like that is going to cause you issues. "The big guns" might be able to do it (Final Cut Pro will encode on the fly using RealRT if the format doesn't match the timeline settings, for example), but considering that iMovie is part of a sub-£100 software bundle I think it holds itself up pretty well. It can handle XDCAM HD footage - I put together a quick cut of a casting session on the weekend we shot it and were away from the main office (so no FCP). iMovie on a laptop did the job just fine.

I didn't say Quicktime was a format? Where are you getting that from. I'm fully aware it's a container, however the formats contained within the container are not able to be edited by iMovie more often than not.

From here:

Quicktime is absolute shit and the fact that OSX forces you to work in it is absolutely inexcusable, another braindead decision. Let people work in common formats.

Where it is clear that you don;t really understand what Quicktime is, and confuse it with the player software that is much-maligned on Windows. It is a totally different beast on OS X (being a very large and integral framework) that works with "common formats". There are Quicktime codecs for all the common formats and many uncommon ones.

iMovie does support the MKV container, because Quicktime does. It has some slight limitations in implementation (it has to scan through the whole clip when loaded rather than just immediately starting, so you have to wait if you want to scrub the clip immediately), but it does work. Quicktime also supports WMV files (with the exception of the short lived WMV9 codec -

it's android...

[Obliterous]

the tablet will be rooted in less than 24 hours.

I predict that this will be the first android device to exceed 75% of all devices rooted and a non crippled version of the OS installed.

Re:it's android...

[pablomme]

You forget about this: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/01/19/2322215/Motorola-Sticks-To-Guns-On-Locking-Down-Android

Re:it's android...

[exomondo]

You forget about this: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/01/19/2322215/Motorola-Sticks-To-Guns-On-Locking-Down-Android

And you probably didn't realise their lock-down technology has been thwarted a number of times already.

Re:it's android...

[Facegarden]

You forget about this: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/01/19/2322215/Motorola-Sticks-To-Guns-On-Locking-Down-Android

Think again - Motorola said that post was basically BS, and they are working to possibly make installing custom roms easier.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/21/motorola-ready-to-make-sweet-love-to-rom-devs-and-rooters/
-Taylor

Re:it's android...

[node 3]

I predict that this will be the first android device to exceed 75% of all devices rooted and a non crippled version of the OS installed.

If that happens, then it will not have been all that successful in the market. Geeks will root it, and if a majority of them are rooted, then a majority have been sold to geeks. Normal people aren't going to root and update the OS.

Since it's all but impossible for the Xoom to be all that successful, your number may very well be achievable.

Re:it's android...

[gig]

75% of XOOM devices will only be a few thousand units, so you may be right.

Re:it's android...

[bemymonkey]

Have you been asleep the last year? This is Motorola we're talking about.

Root, as in running as SU, yes. Non-crippled OS versions via custom ROMs? Signed kernels and an encrypted bootloader say NOOOOOO! :(

Re:it's android...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand: a vague statement from a PR drone on some social networking site that can mean anything.
On the other hand: a direct statement of another guy on another social site PLUS a history and existing technical measures to lock down phones.

Which do you believe more? If you put all your faith in the former, don't come running back here once they have pulled a Sony.

Typos

[mariasama16]

Considering the number of typos in the ad itself (octivative or activative), I'll wait until an official announcement of the price (or until it starts selling).

Re:Typos

[rainmouse]

Considering the number of typos in the ad itself (octivative or activative), I'll wait until an official announcement of the price (or until it starts selling).

Actually I misread the title... I only came here looking for an XCOM tablet.

Re:Typos

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring activation to use the non Internet parts of any device need be made a criminal act in USA. Because next you'll be charged fior application usage time.

Re:Typos

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

So...this wasn't the (An)droid you were looking for? (I'll go ahead and show myself out.)

Re:Typos

[ThinkWeak]

This is probably true. The Galaxy Tab required the same thing - only there wasn't an ad to disclose it.

Sears? Really?!?

[squ0zen]

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/search_10153_12605?keyword=tablet

Re:Sears? Really?!?

[Theaetetus]

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/search_10153_12605?keyword=tablet

Also amusing - remember how everyone was saying how stupid the "iPad" name was when it first came out, with tons of jokes having to do with periods? That page lists the ePad, the APad, and the ThinkPad.

Damn...

[lolololol]

Why can't we get some decent competition for the iPad? The iPad2 will probably be released around the same time, or shortly after, and be the same price as the current iPad, blowing this out of the water.

Re:Damn...

[Alimony Pakhdan]

Why can't we get some decent competition for the iPad?

Lots of obvious reasons maybe?

Re:Damn...

[UnknowingFool]

Maybe because manufacturing a touch screen device with at least a 10" screen, with some of the capabilities of a computer, and with the ability to communicate via Wifi or cellular 3G is a bit harder and more costly than most people realize. If I were to guess the hardest component to procure probably was the 10" screen. If I know Apple, they locked up the supply a long time ago. For the first iPod, Apple bought out all the tiny HDs that Toshiba made. Every other company had to use either laptop HDs or wait at least a year before Toshiba could produce enough for everyone or for Toshiba's competitors could make a similar product.

Re:Damn...

[linhares]

Why can't we get some decent competition for the iPad? The iPad2 will probably be released around the same time, or shortly after, and be the same price as the current iPad, blowing this out of the water.

Rather sadly, I think you're right. Apple is in on this with guns blazing, and they want to reap the network effects to the max; more users, more apps, rinse repeat. After a threshold, it might become all qwerty: perhaps substandard (one day), but pretty much a system in equilibrium, with market forces unable to enter significantly. Motorola--and google by the way--are really losing the timing with this bending over for the telcos. Sad state of affairs; I was ready and willing to get one.

Re:Damn...

[bennettp]

Because apart from some rumours, nobody knows what will be in the iPad2.

Re:Damn...

[Osgeld]

Maybe because manufacturing a touch screen device with at least a 10" screen, with some of the capabilities of a computer, and with the ability to communicate via Wifi or cellular 3G is a bit harder and more costly than most people realize.

I dunno its not been all that hard for the last 20+ years, and tbh you have to be a royal screwup to out price apple

Re:Damn...

[UnknowingFool]

20+ years? Cellular data and wifi have not been around for 20 years. Maybe a prototype in a lab somewhere. And the main part of the overall cost is making everything small enough to be portable. My desktop has more capability than an iPad, but it is far less portable and is definitely not touch oriented.

Re:Damn...

[intheshelter]

I think the Fandroids are going to be slow to come to the realization that the iPad is not a horrifically overpriced computer. Like you said, it's not easy to manufacture these tablets, and the android selections are starting to show they just can't low ball in this segment and compete that way. Add to that fact is this is $800 and the OS was GIVEN to them for free!! That sheds a bit more light on how difficult it is going to be for android tablets to compete in this segment.

Re:Damn...

[Osgeld]

there have been cel modems for a long time

It's a complete rumour..

[iserlohn]

FFS.. there are several typos in what is supposed to be a "print ad"...

Re:It's a complete rumour..

[gig]

Many print ads for generic electronics have typos. They are made on Windows, which lacks decent text rendering and a system wide spell checker.

Simple pass...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

on this and other devices in this range of price. When the prices come down to 300-400 for such a large panel and full computer functionality including netbook stuff like external monitor and keyboard hookup, then I'm going to buy one... Until then, its sidelines for me and I suspect many others.

Re:Simple pass...

[JesseDegenerate]

technically even an ipad can do what you just said. (connect to a external display (via dock to component, composite, vga or HDMI adapter) with an external bluetooth keyboard.) just so ya know.

Re:Simple pass...

[quacking duck]

iPad's external display dongle isn't a persistent video-out, apps must be written to send video-out. Not sure what special thing Apple uses for Jobs' demos that show the home screen and everything on the screen, but we the public don't have access to it.

Re:Simple pass...

[JesseDegenerate]

he probably jailbreaks and uses tv2out like the rest of us:P

Re:Simple pass...

[beelsebob]

You mean... you want a netbook. Go buy one then!

Re:Simple pass...

[Skuld-Chan]

Read the reviews for the display out on amazon - decent way to spent an afternoon.

Basically it only works with Apple's photo viewer... (its probably changed since then).

dual cams?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?
I can understand having one but why in the hell would you need two webcams?
Of course I have never owned a webcam and don't plan on buying one or making sure
my next purchase has one.

Re:dual cams?

[kevinmenzel]

One on the screen side (for where the user is the subject, ie video chat) and one on the other side (for where the user is not the subject, ie photos and such of other people) That's my assumption anyway.

Re:dual cams?

[Anonymous Coward]

Often there are two cameras because they are to be used differently - one camera is for actually taking relatively high quality pictures, typically located on the back of the device, and the other is for shooting (live) video of yourself, usually on the front of the device, for use with e.g. video chatting.

There are some devices, mostly laptops, where the camera pivots so that it can point front/up/back, but that doesn't really fit in well with a tablet (and for all I know may be patented).

Of course there's also devices with -three- cameras these days (or at least announced).. two on the back (yup, 3D), and one on the front. Only to be upstaged by the models with four cameras, of course.

Re:dual cams?

[TimHunter]

Four cameras? Fuck everything, we're doing five cameras. http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/

Re:dual cams?

[vux984]

Fuck everything, we're doing five...

I loved that article when it came out.

But were you aware that the current top of line Gillette Razor has 6 blades? 5 on the main razor, and then another one on the back for 'precision trimming'. Oh, and the lubricating strip has more lubricants and now contains mineral oil too.

Reality will not be outdone by parody.

Who would buy this?

[Anonymous Coward]

When $600 gets you a six-core desktop with 8 GB of RAM and a decent video card, why would you waste your time with a crippled tablet that costs more? The PC is a versatile machine that can do *anything*. Now I'm not against the idea of tablets, but they should be under $300. $300 would be an ideal price for something that is only suited to general web browsing and "content consumption". I'm against tablets costing over $400, and I'm against netbooks costing over $400 too. Once the price reaches a certain point, the device better be more than just a toy.

Re:Who would buy this?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Who would buy this?

Several million people.

When $600 gets you a six-core desktop with 8 GB of RAM and a decent video card, why would you waste your time with a crippled tablet that costs more? The PC is a versatile machine that can do *anything*

... except be portable.

I'm against tablets costing over $400

Miniaturization costs money and tablets require some extra R&D because they need an OS/apps that aren't already on store shelves.

It's fun to rant and all, but products aren't priced just by how many FLOPs they perform.

Re:Who would buy this?

[Anonymous Coward]

...$600 gets you a six-core desktop with 8 GB of RAM and a decent video card...

Yeah , and that's fine if you never leave your house. ...Oh, that's right: Your mom's basement.

Perhaps it's a stalking horse / trial balloon

[rsborg]

For Moto's sake, I sure hope so.
With this pricing and wifi policy, it would probably go over more like a lead balloon.

I'm still wondering why Google didn't release a canonical device with the new product category like the G1, Nexus and Nexus-S. That would have set the bar appropriately high enough so that at least the Android/Honeycomb brand wasn't harmed by this kind of leak (even if it's not true, the damage is done).

Re:Perhaps it's a stalking horse / trial balloon

[Daniel Phillips]

With this pricing and wifi policy, it would probably go over more like a lead balloon.

And if it has Moto's traditional ROM lockdown I'll definitely keep my wallet in my pocket this time round.

Looking forward to the coming influx of better/cheaper/freeer Android pads on the way. A 10 inch Archos with a decent screen would do the trick for me.

Even Moto can't get costs down

[mveloso]

You know it's bad when even Moto can't get enough volume to beat the iPad on price.

Let's see:

Apple: I want to buy 45 million IPS screens. Oh, and can you throw in 45 million pieces of 32gb of flash, a bunch of components like batteries etc? And be sure to give us a good price, since we're basically going to be making you rich for the next 5 years if everything goes right.
Supplier CEO: sure, here's my private line. iI you need anything, even a Big Mac or a foot massage we'll send it right over.

Everyone else: I'm making a tablet, and am looking at around 50k pieces to start
Supplier sales rep: uh, I'll get back to you once we're done with this Apple order. Have you tried tier 3 manufacturer around the block? Tier 2 is busy, since we're subcontracting their excess capacity.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[UnknowingFool]

Or it could have gone this way:
(1 year ago)
Apple: We like the 10" screen you make; we'd like to buy out all of them for the next year.
Supplier CEO: Ka-Ching!

(6 months ago)
Everyone else: Hey we'd like to make a small order for 10" screens. We've looked at the market and yours is the only one that's ready for production and has our price point.
Supplier CEO: We're all sold out. Sorry.
Everyone else: $&^%!

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely doesn't help that Apple gets at least 30% of the cost of each app sold on their tablets, a share of each ad's revenue from revenue supported apps, and a cut of each subscriber's subscription fee. They can pretty much sell the hardware at cost, or even at a loss (not that they do) and *still* make money.

Motorola, and it seems like all the other cellular enabled tablet, smartphone manufacturers, don't get a cut at all of any apps, or a minimal cut at best since google most probably gets the lion's share.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[TheGreek]

Or it could have gone this way:
(1 year ago)
Apple: We like the 10" screen you make; we'd like to buy out all of them for the next year.
Supplier CEO: Ka-Ching!

(6 months ago)
Everyone else: Hey we'd like to make a small order for 10" screens. We've looked at the market and yours is the only one that's ready for production and has our price point.
Supplier CEO: We're all sold out. Sorry.
Everyone else: $&^%!

I guess that's what the rest of the market gets for betting their futures on shitty netbooks instead of innovating.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[sootman]

Actually, it was five years ago, and it did go this way:

On the operational side of the house, as you probably remember, we've historically entered into certain agreements with different people to secure supply and other benefits. The largest one in the recent past has been, we signed a deal with several flash [memory] suppliers back in the end of 2005 that totaled over a billion dollars, because we anticipated that flash would become increasingly important across our entire product line and increasingly important to the industry. And so we wanted to secure supply for our company.

—Tim Cook, Apple COO

That's just one example. I'm pretty sure they did the same for screens and lots of other important bits. Steve Jobs gets all the press but Mr. Cook is definitely pulling his weight.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Renderer of Evil]

I have to admit, that's pretty "gangsta"

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[theurge14]

This is why it's not good to be a "me too" product.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, then how come the nook color is basically a galaxy tab with half the 3d rendering speed and no 3g radio for $250?

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[UnknowingFool]

They could but according to the last quarterly earning, they are making about 30% margin on hardware which is pretty healthy. As for the app and ad revenue costs, Apple probably makes a small profit but it's nothing compared to their hardware profits.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[guidryp]

Or it could have gone this way:
Apple: We like the 10" screen you make; we'd like to buy out all of them for the next year.

There are many screen suppliers. Apple has a long standing relationship with LG. Apple didn't pick a screen off the shelf. They ordered a custom designed one and likely ordered a few million to cover the custom design.

This would have no effect if you wanted to get a screen from anyone other than LG.

It was more like the iPad drops and others were scrambling, there was likely no good ready made Tablet screens. You would need to either to order a custom design, but that takes significant time and you will pay a much higher unit costs, so last years competing tablets were often using crappy netbook screens.

This year shows many using what looks like tablet specific designs. The Asus new tablets are all using good IPS screens. I don't think this is what is driving prices. The transformer model is using a 10" IPS screen and starts at $399 and most of the same specs as the Xoom. I have no idea why the Xoom is double the price of the Asus Transformer.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Anonymous Coward]

Supplier CEO: sure, here's my private line. iI you need anything, even a Big Mac or a foot massage we'll send it right over.

And if you need a replacement liver or kidney, just message me! We'll have a few of each to choose from.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Anonymous Coward]

pay me the world.

no.

sudo pay me the world.

Okay.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[minorproblem]

This is suppose to be news for nerds. Have you seen what the technology differences are between an iPad and most of the new tegra 2 devices...

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[thegarbz]

Innovating? Is that what we call releasing a phone that is too big to fit in a pocket and can't be used as a phone?

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they couldn't beat it, no, but the prices are pretty similar, the 32GB iPad with 3G is $729.
Still, too much for me no matter what, so I'll just wait until prices come down a bit.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[TheGreek]

Innovating? Is that what we call releasing a phone that is too big to fit in a pocket and can't be used as a phone?

Well, I'm pretty sure the Galaxy Tab can indeed place phone calls, but I was talking about Apple, not Samsung.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[thegarbz]

So was I. But this is something I don't quite get. The iPhone was innovation there's no doubt about it. But the iPad... it's the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed. I have used the iPad several times and the overriding thought is always: there's nothing this thing does that my phone doesn't and it's too big to fit in my pocket... and if I have my backpack why wouldn't I just carry a laptop?

Mind you I also consume news in text based format via RSS feeds, so the appeal of Wired magazine now in iPad format isn't that great for me, and even then why not buy an e-reader with a much nicer to read screen. I so far have failed to find a killer application that isn't a gimmick. Even one of my Apple anything crazed friends bought an iPad, showed me wired magazine in it's fancy format, and then was at a loss as to what else to show me. Since then he's stopped reading it, and the iPad now rarely seems to come out of the drawer. Yet Apple is praised for innovating a new market out of nothing.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[Anonymous Coward]

aint that ironic, given that back when apple was selling only computers they were the 'everyone else' who couldn't catch a break from their supply chain. i guess now they know why lock-in is such a double-edged sword.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[TheGreek]

So was I. But this is something I don't quite get. The iPhone was innovation there's no doubt about it. But the iPad... it's the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed. I have used the iPad several times and the overriding thought is always: there's nothing this thing does that my phone doesn't and it's too big to fit in my pocket... and if I have my backpack why wouldn't I just carry a laptop?

It's really not just the same thing, bigger, with a feature removed (if it were, the iPad wouldn't have UI elements like UIPopover that iPhone/iPod Touch doesn't have), but I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. But even if the iPad had no unique UI elements, its larger display still would make it more useful for certain tasks than an iPhone--just like I'd rather write code on a 24" display (preferably two) than a 13" display.

Like you, I consume almost all of my news via RSS (using Reeder and Instapaper on both iPhone and iPad and Google reader on desktops/laptops). If I'm on the couch, in bed, or, yes, even in the restroom, the iPad is the perfect form factor to read through my feeds and mail (and even reply to the occasional mail) and watch video. It's large enough that I can generally see an entire article without scrolling, and a laptop isn't nearly as comfortable to use in those places. Plus, unlike a laptop, I can actually use it all day on a single charge without plugging it in. This alone is huge.

Since then he's stopped reading it, and the iPad now rarely seems to come out of the drawer. Yet Apple is praised for innovating a new market out of nothing.

Probably because that's what they did.

Re:Even Moto can't get costs down

[UnknowingFool]

This would have no effect if you wanted to get a screen from anyone other than LG.

Depends on if there are any supply constraints with any of the components. For example, if only a few glass manufacturers can make the 10" glass screens in sufficient quantity and Apple happened to lock them all up because LG bought them all for Apple. There are probably a lot of factors that separates the Apple screens from one used in other purposes. There may be only a handful of manufacturers that can meet Apple's specs or tablet purposes. And then how many could they make 14 million screens. Multiple suppliers probably had to be used.

too expensive :(

[Anonymous Coward]

too expensive :(

Rooted Nook Color

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were a simple process of rooting the nook color, similar to the simple process of jailbreaking an iphone. Then we could all have tablets for $250.

If you can't be better, at least be more expensive

[joh]

Ever since the Samsung Galaxy Tab looked like priced way to high I have had a theory: They just fear to have their tablets to be looked upon as "cheap iPad clones". They think people have learned to think "expensive = good", so they price the things up through the roof. And then there's the fear of the death spiral downwards, with razor-thin margins and high volume sales with no profits.

But have no fear: There's an armada of cheap chinese tablets coming. Not really fast and not really good, but fast and good enough. And cheap. Once you can buy a 7" tablet running on a 800 MHz CPU with 512 MB RAM for $299 from ZTE or so, Motorola and the like will start to react. And of course the iPad 2 will give them something to think about.

ThinkPad Alternate Marketing Campaign

[zooblethorpe]

The ThinkPad. Now with remote wiping -- Prevent those embarrassing leaks!

Nah, probably not.

... or maybe so?

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you can buy a 7" tablet running on a 800 MHz CPU with 512 MB RAM for $299 from ZTE or so

You can, and I did about 6 months ago, the screen sucks but for $149 it has an ok battery and plays videos just fine.

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[zdepthcharge]

F U C K tablets. I just bought a netbook. Guess what? It does everything on the go AND has a better keyboard. ANd I didn't have to sell a kidney to buy it.

webOS Tablets on Wednesday

[El Royo]

On Wednesday we'll find out about HP's new tablets. One thing that will be very important will be the price. I'm hoping that it steers well clear of the $800 mark. As I was telling someone, there are two ways to approach this: One, a low cost device that will be an easy purchase. Two, a device with incredible specs that people are willing to pay a premium for. I honestly think that approach one, while possibly a disappointment to the tech geek crowd, will yield a lot more owners. In any case, I'll be there in SF to hear the announcement!

Re:webOS Tablets on Wednesday

[Kagetsuki]

I didn't even know about this so I just looked it up - and realized Palm makes phones? I had some impression the Palm brand was still around, and I knew HP had purchased Palm, but I didn't know they made phones. Keep in mind I live in a country where we don't have phones from Motorola or Blackberry and very very few phones from Samsung either. It really makes me further wonder why the US cell phone market is flooded with crappy phones all running their own proprietary platform - app developers must spend ridiculous amounts of time porting.

Re:webOS Tablets on Wednesday

[spxero]

I always felt the webOS was just a little too small for that screen the crammed it into. I personally found the one-button escape to be similar to my iPhone, but swiping through the open cards much easier. And the touch screen on the Pre was about as on-par as you can get to the Apple devices (Android devices have yet to come near those two on touch "smoothness").

I am hoping for a entry-level device as opposed to the premium spec'd one. Mostly because for what Apple has spec'd for the iPad, the competitors seem to be $100-200 more for similar devices. Motorola had the name in 2001 if they wanted to push a "premium" device like this, but after a horrible run of RAZR's, ROKR's, and mediocre Droids, this new device seems outpriced for what you get. If they can put a $300 webOS device (maybe a 7" or 8"?) with good enough performance and onboard h.264 rendering (and Netflix, the de-facto streaming standard), they have a good chance at winning my dollars vs. Apple's devices.

Push down, Pop up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Less 'vendor' lock-in with the OS, means more contract leveraging against the consumer. Or something like that...

Contract negotiations are a bitch!

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought an Archos 70 Internet Tablet, with a 1GHz CPU, running Android 2.2 after an update. It's half the weight of the iPad and it's seriously sleek. Still built like a tank though - accidentally threw it onto a concrete floor and no damage at all.

It was $279 Canadian.

It's WiFi only - and it's EXACTLY what I was looking for. Samsung's Galaxy Tab is a seriously clunky, heavy, slow POS beside this tablet - but hey, it costs twice as much and ties you to a cellular provider for the foreseeable future. Yay.

Of course the price is high

[Just_Say_Duhhh]

How do you think they're going to recover the cost of that super bowl commercial?

and all of those white hoodies?

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[maxume]

The Archos 70 only has 256 MB of ram, but it sells for about $275 and has been on the market for a few months.

So far Archos has been doing a decent job releasing new firmware builds (I have an Archos 32).

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[jjohnson]

They think people have learned to think "expensive = good", so they price the things up through the roof.

This is a good point, but what the manufacturers are missing is that the "expensive = good" equation adheres to the brand, not the product. This price point just makes Motorola look incompetent at controlling costs.

Seriously why would I pay

[future assassin]

Seriously why would I pay for this thing when a 13" $399 notebook will do, with wifi card already installed. I can then choose who ever for my wifi internet. Don't give me that "I want something comfortable on my couch shit", my laptop sits just fine on my arm rest with a wireless mouse.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that it will be smaller and cheaper (to make) and that it will be easier to get you to consume media content when you get all the productivity apps out of the way. I'll get a tablet when they are cheaper (to buy) than a netbook/subnotebook.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about you? 15 million didn't in 2010.

Damn nerds who think the world is all about themselves and what they think...

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

You balance the laptop on the arm rest and then use a wireless mouse for the pointer? I thought you're trying to make the iPad and tablets seem ridiculous, but the way you're using your laptop seems convoluted. When I'm using my Macbook Pro I just sit in my big leather chair, kick my legs up on the footstool and set the Macbook Pro on my lap. No mouse needed, no balancing on armrests. :-)

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[grapeape]

Really? I find resting a tablet on my lap and navigating with a finger a hell of alot more comfortable than trying to balance a notebook while scrolling a mouse along my pants leg. Its also pretty difficult to find an instant on notebook (ssd comes almost close but those aren't going to be in $399 netbooks). I find myself pulling out my iPad for all sorts of stuff that I would just not bother with if I had to boot up a notebook to do it....things like looking up something on wikipedia or imdb, checking the weather, browsing the news headlines, its really a different type of device, when they mention media consumption they mean it...no one I know that doesn't have a tablet seem to understand until they have one either android or ipad and once they get one none act like they could live without it.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how is that shit? There is a difference between "just fine" and "very comfortable" Some people are willing to pay for this luxury. Clearly you are not one of them. The only reason for you to display such aggressive anger at the situation is that you are either jealous that other people have more money than you and are willing to spend it on a luxury item or you are just a geeky asshole.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Who asked you to pay for it? Enjoy your notebook. You people are like vegetarians demanding that someone convince you to eat steak.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[future assassin]

>I find resting a tablet on my lap and navigating with a finger a hell of alot more comfortable than trying to balance a notebook

Yah on your lap then what? Try using it on your coffee table with out bending your neck all the way down. But at the end of the day its your money. i'll take the not as comfortable on my couch (according to you) note book which I can use anywhere properly as a full fledged computer with a proper keyboard then some one hand finger typing tablet.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[MistrBlank]

Because a notebook is not a tablet.

Your armrest argument doesn't hold up in all of the other places that I use my tablet without burning my legs or resting precariously.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you are clearly not part of the target market. I want a tablet. I want don't want a "notebook" or "netbook". I want to use it without turning my brain on or with some antiquated input devlce like a "mouse" or "keyboard". I want to touch the screen and make shit open/close/update using my freggin FINGERS. Do you understand? And do not try and refute any single one of these requirements. THAT'S WHAT I FREGGIN' WANT. So I'll buy a device that does what I WANT. You can have your notebook, if that's what YOU want.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[future assassin]

>? And do not try and refute any single one of these requirements. THAT'S WHAT I FREGGIN' WANT.

I guess you''re too retarded to notice I said.

Seriously why would I pay for this thing when a 13" $399 notebook will do.

Where do you see YOU or me referring to you. You can have your ipad with those bugger smears from your fingers.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want one, then you wouldn't pay for it. I don't want one (for reasons entirely unrelated to 13" laptops, which suck just as hard for my use cases as most tablets), so I won't pay for it.

The reason other people, with other use cases, might pay for it is because they want longer battery life, more portability, and 3G access (without tethering through their phone), and the ridiculously low pixel density doesn't bother them. They might also want the ability to non-permanently fingerpaint on the screen (though without an active digitizer, this is of dubious utility),

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have gotten quite adept at one hand finger typing. Keeps the other hand free to ... uh never mind.

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[multipartmixed]

What's with the false dichotomies?

You know, maybe you are unable to grasp the deep concepts here, but here it is anyhow: it is possible to (*gasp*) own more than one device, and (*shudder*) pick the right device for the task at hand!

Oh my God! Can you imagine?!

Re:Seriously why would I pay

[Merk42]

People don't all have the exact same needs and desires? Preposterous!

WiFi,or WiFi Hotspot?

[proverbialcow]

My Droid X can function as a WiFi hotspot, with corresponding service from Verizon. Are they possibly referring to this feature? Otherwise, it seems unlikely that Verizon would be subsidizing the cost of the tablets much for a one-month contract. Also, given that you sync this with a PC, it seems unlikely that a jail-breaking solution is too far off.

You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but that was just an example of the max you can get for that money. A small cheap laptop or netbook with an SSD drive is still going to be just about as tossable, way more functional, and much cheaper.

No, I don't think so.

The SSD pushes the price of the laptop or netbook up, the netbook has a smaller screen with a frankly crappy user interface compared to a tablet, the laptop weighs too much.

Tablets like the iPad aren't intended to be general-purpose computers; they are intended to be a better fit for certain user tasks.

I can't compile software on my iPad, but I can compose music on it, play games and movies, and manage all of the servers at work via VPN, the battery life is better than a laptop, it won't burn my legs, and the OS stays out of the user's way.

We recently evaluated a bunch of similar devices at work. You really have to try a modern tablet like the iPad for a while - it doesn't do everything a desktop computer does, but then the people who buy it don't want it to do that. It's a different device for a different set of tasks.

You could use a netbook with a command-line IR utility as a remote for your home theater, but it wouldn't be either convenient, the right form factor, or easy to use. A Porsche 911 GT3 is a fun car to drive fast on a track, however if you need to haul bulky items around maybe a van would be a better choice, but to suggest that everyone should buy vans because 911s are expensive and not good cargo haulers doesn't make sense.

Different devices for different uses.

Re:You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

So I've seen exactly 1 novel use that I don't use my laptop for.

And as for that use, $599 seems a tad much for a home theater remote control.

Re:You're missing the point

[adolf]

And as for that use, $599 seems a tad much for a home theater remote control.

If that's the case, then you haven't yet met Crestron.

(Nope, I'm not a shill, though I did ostensibly have a job programming Crestron gear a decade or so ago, mostly for private home theater use. I'm just trying to convey the concept that a $599 for a control system isn't really so far-fetched, if the featureset is right. In fact, $599 might be cheap.)

Re:You're missing the point

[narcc]

they are intended to be a better fit for certain user tasks. ...

it doesn't do everything a desktop computer does, but then the people who buy it don't want it to do that. It's a different device for a different set of tasks.

Not to sound snarky, but what are those tasks, exactly? I don't know that I've ever seen anyone list them out -- what do you use it for? Is it better suited for that purpose than other devices? What are the real "killer" applications for tablets?

Re:You're missing the point

[Dog-Cow]

The "killer app" isn't any particular app for me. It's the UI. There is absolutely nothing I can do on my iPad that I couldn't do on my Macbook (which I own) or on some theoretical netbook, but it's just plain easier and faster on my iPad. It's more portable. It's easier to use in a variety of positions. Due to the focused nature of smaller apps, it takes less time to get something done.

The battery life after 6 months of constant use is way better than my laptop had when it was brand new. I use it for navigation on trips instead of lugging around a laptop and Garmin hand-held GPS unit, as I use to do. Being way lighter than a laptop also makes it easier to travel with.

Re:You're missing the point

[parens]

It's shiny and makes people think the owner is important. At least, that's the best I can figure out.

There will be buyers

[McTickles]

I am not worried at all about the current supply of brainless consumers, so it will sell even if you warn the brainless before hand they wont believe you because consuming = good, criticism = bad.

Re:There will be buyers

[node 3]

They will almost certainly sell many thousands of these, although I don't think that really validates your anti-consumer rant...

Re:There will be buyers

[McTickles]

If consumers want to pay to have shit its their problem. but one can then question their views of reality and their intelligence.

Re:There will be buyers

[node 3]

Re-read my post and note the word "thousands". We are not talking about consumerism here. The Xoom won't appeal widely enough to reach that threshold.

Archos...

[markass530]

250-300 bucks. Reviews say they feel cheap, well f' it they are. Buy 3 keep 2 spares. Of course I thought the iPad would never sell at its cost either.

Re:Archos...

[node 3]

250-300 bucks. Reviews say they feel cheap, well f' it they are. Buy 3 keep 2 spares.

Why? It runs Android. That's actually *not* a selling point for most people.

Of course I thought the iPad would never sell at its cost either.

It doesn't. Apple makes a nice profit on each unit sold.

Re:Archos...

[markass530]

Of course I thought the iPad would never sell at its cost either. You're response was made absolutely no sense, so i'm gonna try and guess where you were headed. I meant, "I never thought the iPad would Sell well at the price it sold for" not sure you how you read "would never sell at its cost" as "would never sell AT COST" big difference between the two

Re:Archos...

[markass530]

*response made absolutely

Re:Archos...

[node 3]

I meant, "I never thought the iPad would Sell well at the price it sold for"

Fair enough.

not sure you how you read "would never sell at its cost" as "would never sell AT COST" big difference between the two

"Cost" has specific economic connotations which imply what it costs to make. Cost to the consumer is more appropriately called "price". I completely accept that you mean the retail price, not the component and manufacturing cost, but it's pretty easy to see why someone would interpret it in a way different from what you meant.

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[dreamchaser]

I just bought an Archos 70 Internet Tablet, with a 1GHz CPU, running Android 2.2 after an update. It's half the weight of the iPad and it's seriously sleek. Still built like a tank though - accidentally threw it onto a concrete floor and no damage at all.

It was $279 Canadian.

It's WiFi only - and it's EXACTLY what I was looking for. Samsung's Galaxy Tab is a seriously clunky, heavy, slow POS beside this tablet - but hey, it costs twice as much and ties you to a cellular provider for the foreseeable future. Yay.

I just picked up two of their 101 tablets, one for me and one for my wife. We absolutely love them. No need for 3G. They tether just fine if you want access on the go and don't have a nearby WLAN to use.

So much for the supposed iPad killer

[grapeape]

Surely that has to be for some high end iteration of the Xoom, otherwise that thing is doomed. People balked at the iPad's price even with a $499 option, I just cant see this one doing much especially if the 3g activation required part is true. I really dont understand the push for every device to have 3g it almost seems like a conspiracy with the cell phone providers. I have a mifi router with an unlimited play (clear) that is around the same price as the 2gb data plans offered by the major telcos, I have no use for 3g device but it seems thats the only choices I am seeing that are truly capable of competing with the iPad, are they really that delusional to think that the market for non 3g devices dont exist...the last stats I saw showed the wifi versions of the iPad far outselling the 3g ones. I just see trying to force 3g on potential customers as a very stupid move.

Re:So much for the supposed iPad killer

[exomondo]

People balked at the iPad's price even with a $499 option

Really?

Re:So much for the supposed iPad killer

[grapeape]

People around me did...hell if you look in this thread people are still whining about "why not just use a $399 netbook". I think most it stems from the "its just a bit ipod touch" crowd...though anyone who uses a tablet thinks otherwise very quickly.

Re:So much for the supposed iPad killer

[exomondo]

People around me did...hell if you look in this thread people are still whining about "why not just use a $399 netbook". I think most it stems from the "its just a bit ipod touch" crowd...though anyone who uses a tablet thinks otherwise very quickly.

Well it *is* just a big ipod touch, but the fact that it's big makes all the difference and $499 is hell of a lot less than what "analysts" predicted initially, in fact it's almost 1/2. I thought most people found it to be quite cheap.

Re:So much for the supposed iPad killer

[gig]

People didn't balk at the iPad price at all. The device was constantly sold out for 6 months, they could not make enough, they had a 2 per person limit, they delayed the international launch, even now it is only in half the iPhone countries. And even with all that, they still sold 15 million in the first 7-8 months. All for a device you had to try before you understood what it was for.

The reason 3G is good in iPad is it is instant-on and has a 10-12 hour battery and the plans are cheap and a la carte with no contract. Mi-Fi devices typically have 4-5 hour battery, don't turn on instantly, have contracts, and cost 2x per month what iPad's data costs. So for me, I pay a dollar a day and the entire issue of the network goes away.

Re:So much for the supposed iPad killer

[Random BedHead Ed]

I really dont understand the push for every device to have 3g it almost seems like a conspiracy with the cell phone providers.

That is exactly what it is. Motorola wants a distributor, and that distributor will be a wireless carrier. And wireless carriers, like cable companies, make a living bundling one or two things you really want with a dozen overpriced things you don't. It's why your cable lineup includes QVC and Verizon can charge you extra to use your phone as a wifi hotspot.

Widescreen? Really?

[guytoronto]

A lot of people criticized Apple for going with a 4:3 display but in reality it's the better choice for tablets.

Re:Widescreen? Really?

[Adam Appel]

I have an iPad and I have many times thought I would like a 16:9 screen, but that's only ne mino thing.

Re:Widescreen? Really?

[ChunderDownunder]

How exactly do you play 720p content on an XGA screen without scaling?

Re:Widescreen? Really?

[ray_mccrae]

How exactly do you play 720p content on an XGA screen without scaling?

You already know the answer to the question. You can't without scaling, but you missed the point. Tablets are not all about video playback, Archos has made media tablets for quite some time now and they haven't set the world on fire. 4:3 is a good aspect for general computer usage. When I think of the iPad I'm thinking about a pad of paper, and while it works in any orientation I tend to hold it in portrait mode. 4:3 is close to the 1:SQRT(2) aspect of A4 paper. All the photos from Apple of the iPad also tend to display it in portrait mode so I think Apple had a bias in the way it sees what the iPad is. The iPad is not a video playback device, but a tablet computer that happens to do a decent job at video playback.

Compare that with the competitors and they are nearly always shown in landscape mode (I'm sure they work in portrait mode, but this is about bias). Video seems to be a primary focus, dock connectors are placed for landscape docking and HDMI ports are present.

Re:Widescreen? Really?

[ChunderDownunder]

Well I guess I'm "not the target market". :( I have a 720p capable phone and I'm sure that's the baseline for current standalone digital cameras.

The inability to view, in widescreen, my own content and with the rise of social media, that of friends and family on facebook and youtube strikes me as an annoyance.

Price way too high

[roc97007]

What the hell are they thinking? Android tablets are coming from behind -- they are not in a position to charge a premium. Oh well, wait for the next one.

Those sub-$300 Chinese knock-offs are becoming more attractive.

Re:Price way too high

[gig]

That is where Android belongs. Java applets and adware and poor hardware integration and a murky software update track is not a high-end experience. $799 is almost twice the average selling price of a Windows PC. Apple is at $500 for tablets and $1000 for PC's, so clones have to be half of those prices.

Re:Price way too high

[roc97007]

I don't consider Android tablets to be clones. But neither do I consider them top shelf.

Re:Price way too high

[zyzko]

Those sub-$300 Chinese knock-offs are becoming more attractive.

Have you tried using one? At best they are mildly funny or sad depending on the point of view but even the amusement factor of how bad gadget you can make wears off quickly when you realize that somebody had to actually make those pieces of crap and they contain at least a battery which could have been put to much better use elsewhere.

No doubt the sub-$300 tablets will improve (and I reckon there even are some semi-usable ones in the $300 price point, the cheapest ones are $99 now...), but we are not just there yet.

Re:Price way too high

[roc97007]

I have, and you're right. But I suspect that some will improve. There's a big gap in the $400 range for a smaller than 10" tablet with a capacitive screen, recent version of Android (not necessarily 3.0) and access to the Android market. If the mainstream suppliers don't offer one, the Chinese will fill the void.

Re:Price way too high

[VoltageX]

Try a rooted Barnes & Noble Nook. $250 - mine's currently running Honeycomb tethered to my phone for connectivity.

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you checked out the Nook Color lately? It pretty much fits your specs, 7" tablet, running an 800 MHz CPU with 512MB RAM for $249. And people are somewhat successfully overclocking it to 1.1GHz, and working on getting Froyo, Honeycomb and Cyanogenmod running on the thing.

Dammit, I don't want an iPad 2

[Sarusa]

Seriously, the iPad has been great, but I'd love more control, real multitasking, and to flush iTunes back down to the depths of Hell it came from.

You've had a year to catch up and this is the best you can do? And don't say Galaxy Tab -maybe the Tab 2. I really hope this just turns out to be a normal Best Buy/Verizon 'Screw The Early Adopters' thing and it'll get saner as iPad 2 launch approaches.

Especially the WiFi activation: if true, good god, what foreskin up around his neck executive came up with that one?

Blame Apple for the price.

[jbplou]

The authors question of if Apple should be blamed for the overpriced Xoom is ridiculous. 1 year ago nobody thought you could create a viable tablet for $500 and Apple created the whole market overnight. Look up articles from January 2010 most of the tech analysts were projecting an Apple tablet for over $1000 some as high as $2000. Apple created the market, there is no excuse for Motorola to overprice. They have big buying power and a third party gave them an OS for orders of magnitude less money than Apple paid to develop iOS.

If this is the best Android can muster iPad1 will eat its lunch, iPad2 will dominate it if they keep price down. Right now the Playbook looks like stiffer compitition because of the business user sales channel Blackberry has available.

Xoom +$800 price tag = doa

Re:Blame Apple for the price.

[gig]

Actually, Apple's cost per unit on iOS may be less than Motorola's for Android. The software on iPad is the same as on iPhone and iPod, and the core of iOS is OS X from the Mac. And iPad is the same A4 chip and other guts from iPhone also. There are such massive economies of scale there, Apple pays very little for each iPad's software. Plus, they made it all themselves, there is no 3rd party profit to pay. Motorola may get some parts of Android for free, but other parts they pay for, like Google apps, and they have to do all the drivers to fit it to their hardware, it is a custom job.

It's so easy to say "well, Android is free," but that is just a kernel in a code repository. It's a recipe, not ready to serve muffins. Apple also uses BSD and LLVM and Clang and WebKit and Bonjour, but that didn't make iOS free.

Re:Blame Apple for the price.

[Cyberllama]

I suppose it depends on what people thought of when they thought of a "viable tablet". Most people assumed to be viable, it had to be a proper computer -- not a giant iPod touch. Turns out giant ipod touch is good enough for most people -- but is the iPad cheap? Hardly. It's expensive for what it ended up being.

I don't care if it runs Android or iOS or Palm OS or whatever. If it's just going to be a toy for content consumption, then I'm not paying $500 dollars for it -- let alone more. I mean, let's face it. Nobody needs an iPad or any iPad competitor. Right now its just a fad -- people rarely buy one with a compelling use case. Maybe the form factor does have long term promise and it'll grow into something more than fad. But present day? Well, sure, its cool -- but it's just so unbelievably unnecessary.

Re:Blame Apple for the price.

[jbplou]

iOS that runs on iPad is similar but not the same as iPhone/iPod that is why OS updates don't all come at the same time. I understand that Android is not truly free for Motorolla but they also didn't make it from scratch like iOS and it also doesn't contribute as much to the price as say Windows7 on a Dell laptop. I will agree that Apple benefits from economies of scale, however Motorolla is a huge company as well and should be able to leverage similar advantages.

Re:Blame Apple for the price.

[jbplou]

For the normal home user who browses the Internet, sends emails, and plays games who's doesn't a tablet meet requirements? Tablets also benefit from zero boot time, most people using Windows sit around waiting for the PC to boot and apps to launch. They are not a fad they are going to slowly replace the PC and laptop at home. generation 1 and 2 tablets may have some limitation but they are hardly a toy, they are very powerful computers. $500 for zero boot, all flash memory, laptop replacement seems like a cheap price to me.

Re:Blame Apple for the price.

[painandgreed]

You sounds like my father when I bought my first home computer in the 80's. Only worried about your needs which are stuck in the past and then trying to project them on others. Now yell at the iPad owners for being in your yard.

nook color

[Anonymous Coward]

Root a Nook Color and throw CyanogenMod on it.

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[Daniel Phillips]

I just bought an Archos 70 Internet Table...

I just picked up two of their 101 tablets, one for me and one for my wife. We absolutely love them. No need for 3G. They tether just fine if you want access on the go and don't have a nearby WLAN to use.

Wow, I almost pulled the trigger on the 101 but was concerned about the screen quality, including viewing angle. Got any comments on that?

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[node 3]

Ever since the Samsung Galaxy Tab looked like priced way to high I have had a theory: They just fear to have their tablets to be looked upon as "cheap iPad clones". They think people have learned to think "expensive = good", so they price the things up through the roof.

Wait a minute, your theory is that Motorola (and Samsung) deliberately overpriced their tablets in order to get people to think they are better? And that's supposed to be their strategy for a mass market product?

Doesn't it simply make more sense that they can't build their tablets at a price competitive with Apple?

January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[SuperKendall]

No one was really predicting a phone with a 10" screen...

Really? You really want to call the iPad a "big phone" when most Android devices coming to market have 7" screens?

7" is every bit the "Big Phone" that most people were branding the iPad as initially, since it's by far one of the larger tablets you just look like an idiot Apple Hater when you sling around antiquated terms like that now. Apple Haters never could keep up with current events.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[Missing.Matter]

It literally has cell phone hardware inside of it. This is a fact, not opinion. It says nothing about the relative merit of the iPad. I own one, it's a fine device. Seriously, chill the fuck out.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[Cinder6]

The iMac literally has laptop hardware in it. Is it a big laptop?

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[SuperKendall]

My god that is "literally" the stupidest thing I have read on Slashdot in over a year.

That too, is fact.

It has a microphone AND a speaker, it must be a phone! Hey, my car has a Microphone and a Speaker built in - I guess it really is a CAR PHONE!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HE!

God you Apple Haters are dumber than two bags of hammers. I'll let you have the last word so you can finish the beclowning process. Annoint thyself!

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[jon3k]

Why do you assume when anyone calls the iPad a big phone they're android fans attacking apple? It _was_ a big iPhone, and still is. You do remember when iOS was called "iPhone OS" right? It ran the exact same software as a phone. Now, I own an iPad, and I think it's a great device, but it is essentially a big iphone. There's nothing wrong with that, it's not an insult.

With that said, I had an iPad and a Galaxy tab at the same time, and the galaxy tab is SERIOUSLY just a big phone, everyone who picked it up looked at it for 5 seconds, then put it against their ear and pretended to talk on it like a phone and laughed. I think it has to do with the fact that you can hold the galaxy tab in one hand like a phone.

Anyway, I ended up with an iPad and sent the galaxy back. iOS (iPhoneOS) just translated a lot better to the tablet form factor.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[jon3k]

(Disclaimer: I own a 16GB wifi ipad, I really love it)

Please explain to me why an iPad isn't a big cellphone. The software is the same software from the iphone. The hardware is the same hardware as the iphone, except with a larger screen. So the hardware and software are the same. How is it not a big cellphone? I don't get it. Realize that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF THE DEVICE. It's a fantastic device, I _love_ mine, especially for reading, but it's 99% an iphone as far as I can tell.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[jon3k]

worst analogy ever. yes an imac is as similar to a laptop as an ipad is to an iphone. very astute observation.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[Dog-Cow]

Calling the iPad a phone is like calling a laptop a phone. Both can only make calls using some kind of VoIP client. It would be much more accurate to call the iPhone a small iPad that is also a phone. Or call the iPad a large iPod Touch.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[stewbacca]

Please explain to me why an iPad isn't a big cellphone.

Because it doesn't make phone calls? You don't get a voice plan with it? It's form factor is not condusive to being a cell phone?

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[stewbacca]

Best analogy ever.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[Anonymous Coward]

If an iPhone is a small iPad ... isn't an iPad then a big iPhone? I would agree though, large iPod Touch is probably closer, even with integrated 3G. The main distinction is the ability to use it as a cellphone. But aren't we just splitting hairs here?

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[jon3k]

First of all - sure it does, there's lots of ways to make phone calls on an iPad. Everything from Skype to just SIP softphones. It actually works pretty darn well too! How much longer do you really think before all cellphones are just using SIP services? The majority of the phone calls we make today are converted to IP at some. It's just far cheaper than using traditional TDM circuits.

But honestly, it seems like you just can't seem to see the forest for the trees. The devices are identical except one "can make phone calls" (your words, not mine) and the other one is bigger. The run the same software. The UI is the same, they have the same single home button.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[stewbacca]

Just because you CAN make a phone call with a device, doesn't mean the device was designed to be "just a big iPhone". I can make calls with clunky Dell workstation at work. It's still not a phone.

If the iPad were just a big phone, I'd drop my iPhone and pick up an iPad and tell AT&T to apply my voice plan to my new device.

I think you need to look at it a different way...there are probably things you can do on an iPad that you can't on an iPhone (I don't know, because I don't have an iPad), so that alone makes it more than just a large iPhone.

Re:January 2010 just called on its "Big Phone".

[jon3k]

Not a great analogy, because businesses all over the world are replacing traditional desk phones with softphones like Cisco's IP Communicator or Skype every day. Just because computers weren't designed to make phone calls doesn't mean they aren't exceptionally good at it. That "clunky Dell workstation" using something like Cisco Unified Personal Communicator will blow an iPhone out of the water as a communications device. Integrating voice, video, presence, messaging all into a single application that let's you switch between them seamlessly. The only limitation is that it's not portable.

Again, the iPad is a big iPhone. Not a big "phone". It's a larger version of an iPhone, the only difference is it doesn't make cellular calls. If you think making phone calls is the primary distinguishing factor of an iPhone I think you've been asleep for the last 4 years. If you think that an iPad is closer to a laptop than it is to an iPhone, you've clearly never used either device. It's not a "big phone" it's "basically a big iPhone". I don't know how else to explain it. And this isn't an intended as an insult. Turns out a big iPhone is an amazing device! I really love using mine.

Hmm, let me think about it...

[ismism]

...[several nanoseconds pass] no thanks.

Comparison please

[idcard_1]

Tell me where you can get a dual core 32gb 3g+wifi ipad with a higher resolution screen, hdmi out, two cameras, and a usb port for less than $800 and I will say this is a bad deal. This is the flagship iPad2 competitor out the door before the iPad2.

Re:Comparison please

[itsdapead]

Tell me where you can get a dual core 32gb 3g+wifi ipad with a higher resolution screen, hdmi out, two cameras, and a usb port for less than $800 and I will say this is a bad deal.

Tell me where you can get a Motorola XOOM today, and you might have a point. Unfortunately, the Moto website just says "coming soon". Judging by the rumors, the iPad2 will at least be announced (with a reliable shipping date) before then, and sounds like it will tick all your boxes except the hdmi out.

Anyway, the real point is that the "iPad killers" don't look like they're going to compete with the iPad on price alone - it will come down to Android's better specs vs. the added polish and consistency of iOS.

Re:Comparison please

[idcard_1]

Excellent point on when... but that's a different argument since it will be released later this month per the leaked promo. I know the specs of the Xoom. I don't know the specs of the iPad2. Personally I don't think the planned Xoom is a good deal. It is too expensive (for me...) But this has to be Moto's first round competitor priced towards the flagship iPad2. That is the goal. If you want a low tier tablet sub-$500 go somewhere else for now or wait for a stripped down Xoom. I'm sure it will come later since EVERYONE is posting about the price. -All IMHO... I in no way have any product in sight.

Re:Comparison please

[intheshelter]

I don't know. I think price and spec list is how the other companies think and I wonder if they were unable to put out a lower priced machine. Apple might have painted the other manufacturers into a corner on price. Who thought we'd ever say that out loud?

Re:Comparison please

[idcard_1]

I guess we will only know when someone does the hardware tear down price comparison. It's going to happen... but profit margin drives the price. It always will.

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[gig]

No, they just can't make them any cheaper in such low volumes. XOOM is the same economics as Zune in media players. They are niche devices with similar hardware to Apple but about 1% of the software and functionality and 1% of the sales. So the cost per unit is dramatically higher.

Way too much money

[DrXym]

There is no reason for any tablet to cost this much. At worst they should cost the same as an iPad. More realistically they should ditch some of the superfluous features (GPS etc.) and concentrate on a functional tablet at more affordable price point.

Part of me wonders if this isn't some kind of ruse, that they're saying $799 because they'll actually flog it at $499 on some phone plan and people will be dumb enough to think they're getting a bargain. Regardless, it's way, way, too much money.

I call

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominem + bigotry

Totally pointless.

[crhylove]

For that much I could get a top of the line computer and put multiple OSes on it. And get a big fat screen. Seriously, unless there are some $100 tablets, I don't really see the point. I can just use my phone and an actual pad of paper.

i don't care...

[bball99]

what it costs... i won't buy one until it runs GNU/Linux...

i'm sticking w/my N800 for now (on its second, easily replaced, inexpensive battery)

Wake up time for the Haters!

[intheshelter]

Hahahaha! And people call Apple greedy? $799 and then you are faced with extortion to get WiFi turned on? Isn't OPEN great!!?

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[Stuarticus]

Congratulations, welcome to 2005.

What manuevering are you talking about?

[swb]

Can you tell me what "maneuvering" you want to do you can't do on an iPhone or iPad?

Re:What manuevering are you talking about?

[NitroWolf]

Can you tell me what "maneuvering" you want to do you can't do on an iPhone or iPad?

Off the top of my head?

Widgets, place icons where I want them, size icons like I want them, arrange screens like I want them, install programs that I want to.

Unsurprising, clever, dickish.

[mbourgon]

From a monetary perspective it makes sense, but they did it wrong. They should have given a free month access (5gb limit), and once you hit 2gb or 25 days, bring up a window that says "hey, I see you're using the 3g access. Simply input your credit card for the low low price of X".

I see why they're doing it - Dick & Jane may find lots of cool uses for it that they wouldn't have thought of, if they had 3g. Now every customer becomes a potential subscriber as well. We'll see how it plays out.

pricing is insane ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're making the Tab look like a bargain. The Notion Ink Adam is c. $500 with a Pixel Qi screen ffs!

I also hope that they give up on forcing 3G enabled tablets with contract encumbrance soon as it does nothing but drive up the price, and I have zero interest in it to boot. Whitespace WiFi will be what I'll want in my next tablet, good thing that I grabbed a VS gTablet this time around, pretty much same specs minus 3G, and a little worse screen at less than half the price.

Re:I think you have your wires crossed

[DocSavage64109]

On first read, I misunderstood your post as well, though on a second read, I can't figure out how I misunderstood it. I think it's because you used "it" to mean the competitors' products, when it could also have meant apple products.

You want something F....., live it with Motorola!!

[tcheleao]

Reasonable good Netbook cost ~ $250.00.
I won pay more than that for a pad.
Good Idea item, awful sales plan.

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[Anonymous Freak]

Once you can buy a 7" tablet running on a 800 MHz CPU with 512 MB RAM for $299

You mean... Like a NOOKcolor? Oh, wait, that's $50 under your target price...

Re:If you can't be better, at least be more expens

[dreamchaser]

I just bought an Archos 70 Internet Table...

I just picked up two of their 101 tablets, one for me and one for my wife. We absolutely love them. No need for 3G. They tether just fine if you want access on the go and don't have a nearby WLAN to use.

Wow, I almost pulled the trigger on the 101 but was concerned about the screen quality, including viewing angle. Got any comments on that?

It's not that bad at all. Good bright colors, decent contrast, and the viewing angle is fine for my use. Probably not on par with that of the iPad but very nice IMO.