Slashdot Mirror
Why the Tablet Market is Really the iPad Market
Hugh Pickens writes writes "James Kendrick writes that after Apple introduced the iPad, companies shifted gears to go after this undiscovered new tablet market but in spite of the number of players in tablets, no company has discovered the magic bullet to knock the iPad off the top of the tablet heap. 'What's happening to the 7-inch tablet market is what happened to the PC market several times. Big name desktop PC OEMs, realizing that consumers didn't care about megahertz and megabytes — yes, that long ago — turned to a price war in order to keep sales buoyant,' writes Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. 'Price becomes the differentiating factor, and this in turns competition into a race to the bottom.' Historically, when a race to the bottom is dictated by the market, it's more a sign of a lack of a market in general. If enough buyers aren't willing to pay enough for a product to make producers a profit, the market is just not sufficient. Price is a metric that most people know and understand because it's nowhere as ethereal or complicated as CPU power or screen resolution. Given a $199 tablet next to another for $299, the $100 difference in the price tag will catch the eye before anything else. But if price is such an important metric, why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers. 'So the problem with the Kindle Fire — and the Nexus 7 — is the same problem that's plagued the PC industry. Deep and extreme price cuts give the makers no wriggle room to innovate,' writes Kingsley-Hughes. 'By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed the tablet market by creating unrealistic price expectations.'"
The Nexus 7 is certainly not a "race to the bottom". It has an excellent spec, including a better CPU than the iPad and similar graphics capability. Okay, it doesn't have everything that the iPad has, but it costs a fraction as much and for most people does the same thing (display web pages, email, Facebook, photos etc).
As for innovation Android itself is innovative, and even on very low end tablets all the features work. Much of the software that makes tablets useful doesn't even run on the tablet anyway, it runs on a server somewhere over the net.
The tablet market is about to explode with the Nexus 7 and Surface. These are devices that people want - cheap but powerful devices for some casual web browsing, ebook reading and Angry Birds. Apple fanbois are getting nervous.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's actually GOOD. Before the iPad was announced, people were speculating that it would cost $1000, and they thought that was a great price. But then it was introduced at $500. For $500, you get a device you saw on Star Trek 20 years ago... and it is a joy to use.
Witness this article, referenced elsewhere in /. earlier today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/if-the-iphone-5-really-looks-like-this-apple-may-be-screwed-2012-7
which states:
"Now that most phones do the same things and work pretty much the same way, the most obvious (and, arguably, important) difference between them is the screen."
This is hogwash. No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy, I think Steve Jobs was a jerk, but Apple simply has done things better.
go look at meritline.com, dealextreme.com, and chinavasion.com: search for 'android' without specifying tablet
Look at how many devices you get, in how many different formfactors, with how many different featuresets.
They have GPS tablets now for under 100 bucks, some even have 3d acceleration.
They have PSP style game consoles 75-150 bucks.
They have tablets with and without hdmi-out, with and without capacitive touch, with and without bluetooth 55-300+ dollars.
Point? There's plenty of innovation going on in the tablet market, it's not stopped by price, and if you look at the specs in some of the 'cheap' devices, you'll see that you're getting performance comparable to the last generation 'high end' devices with perhaps lower build quality, screen size, or accessories, but some people are willing to trade that in order to be able to play the latest wiz-bang game on it.
The tablet market is just getting started and anybody who thinks otherwise likely also thinks America is the only country that can innovate.
'By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed the tablet market by creating unrealistic price expectations.'"
Uh no. By driving prices down to this level so rapidly, both Amazon and Google have irrevocably harmed Apple's ability to dominate the tablet market by creating realistic price expectations. It's only getting cheaper to make tablets. There's literally dozens of different tablet designs available in this price range, see DealExtreme for numerous examples including all the way up to IPS and A10 for $207 or so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"why is the iPad — with its premium price tag — so popular? Simple," It's not because "it was the first tablet to go mass market, and cumulative sales of around 85 million gives the iPad credibility in the eye on potential buyers" as the author states. There were tablets on the mass market long before the iPad showed up. It's because the iPad is a Veblen good. Peoples' preference for it increases as its price goes up because the higher price confers a greater status on having it.
From TFA:
why is the iPad so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market
This is nonsense. I have used both iPads and Androids, and the iPad is far easier to learn and use. Apple did many, many things right. And they were NOT first to market a tablet. Many, many people tried to make a successful tablet before the iPad. I have a drawer full of their failures.
Oh, and before anyone calls me an Apple fanboi, let me assure you that while I have respect for their products, I hate Apple as a company. But I am forced to use their products because I am married to an Apple fangoil.
No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy
It's only taken the iPhone 2 years to catch up partially with the features which sold me on the far better Android platform (yes I'm am now an Android fanboy) with things like a useful notification bar, multitasking, or home screen widgets, and even now what I don't miss is paying 99c for every bloody app no matter how basic.
There's a difference between features and experiences. Users care more about the overall experience a lot more than a set of features. They are even willing to go without features if they like the experience.
My company home page
It's called the Apple cycle for a reason....
I'm thinking about taking some spare cash and putting a ridiculous short option on Apple stock for the next 12-18 months. Only part that makes it high risk is the capricious nature of jurists in Apples' many lawsuits and their currently health cash reserves. Might be 24-36 months until we are looking at the desperate Apple of the 90's again, but it will happen.
It's just a repeat of what happened in the smartphone market, and, a long time ago, in the PC market.
Apple introduced a new product, captured a gigantic portion of the market they essentially created, then their marketshare slipped in response to competition from others. But despite the marketshare slip, Apple still makes most of the profits.
Microsoft taught everyone to worship marketshare because they used theirs to bully everyone into buying their other products. Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money. They'd much rather sell half or a quarter of the devices at a nice profit than three quarters of the devices at a loss.
Background: Not an apple fanboi. Owned no apple products other than a $1500 used Mac Lisa that VPI forced the CS class to buy back in the day because they had a version of Uniplus Sys V for it...
I've owned C64, Amigas, now a bunch of PCs that have various versions of Windows and Linux starting with Windows 3.1 and Linux 1.0 (4 floppies for a distro, I miss that).
I went to the store to look at the Transformer and some other android tablets after checking out a friend's. All the Android tablets were so-so. I'd have to sideload Netflix on most of them. The displays were ok. They had an apple section so I said "what the heck, let me check out this iPad thing".
Looked at an iPad (3rd gen, retina display). Wow. It just worked so well, the display was unbelievable. Everything was super smooth. Reading docs on it was amazing. It made the Android tabs look terrible. There was just no comparison. I went back over to the Android tabs and gave them another shot. There was just no going back anymore.
I bought a 3rd gen iPad, came back for a 2nd for the kids the next day. I tried an iPad 2 for the kids, no good, 1024x768, could not use it after using the retina display (2048x1535), so exchanged that one for a 2nd new 3rd gen iPad. Definitely worth the extra $150.
I keep an eye on the Android tablets, They're starting to come out with 1920x1080 res devices now, still no comparison.
I borrowed a mac mini to try out Xcode (you have to develop iOS aps on a mac). I had tried the android SDK, not too impressed, and the nightmare of managing all the different platforms is no fun (I have to do that at work). I actually liked OS X. Nothing like the crappy OS 9 and prior. A BSD-based desktop OS - imagine that. A Linux-like desktop that is actually good.
I've been eyeing the Macbook Pro w/retina display... 2880x1800 in a 15" package. To run Windows and Linux because I have to.
If I could extricate myself from the Windows / Linux ecosystem that I write software for I would, but I can't, too many PCs, too many ties. I have to write windows and linux software. Windows 8 holds nothing for me, current distros of linux are going in the wrong direction with their insane UIs (activities? really?). But OS X is nice. Too bad the mac desktop/laptop hardware is so expensive and limited, and I can't use a phone w/out a slider keyboard.
But for the tablet experience, I wouldn't trade the retina display iPads for any android tablets. There's just no comparison.
There's a difference between features and experiences.
Sure. Features can be objectively defined and compared. "Experience" is utterly subjective. Seriously, what does "overall experience" mean, unless you break it down to the combination of features that you are really describing?
If a user's "experience" is enhanced by a lack of features, it is because their requirements are more narrow, or they are intimidated by options, or both.
NTTAWWT. I have an iPod Touch. I didn't even think I wanted such a device over a netbook, but a friend was upgrading and I ended up with it. I like the "experience". But I can actually tell you why. It has very few features and options, but those that are present are basically what I need for my very limited requirements when using such a device (casual web browsing, alarm clock, shallow gaming).
I'm one person who bought a tablet, knowing that it was going to be more expensive than an available iPad at the time. Why? Because I disagree with monopolies. And one reason fw I don't like monopolies, is my belief that competition must always be allowed to exist in some form.
So while I admit that Apple did invent the tablet computer in its present form, I don't think that this makes them the owner of all tablets.
I know that this entire comment is counter to what was originally posted, but that's how I see it, and one trend which I've looked upon with disdain, is how strongly Apple enthusiasts forget this idea, just like Microsoft enthusiasts had often forgotten it. The concept against either monopoly was the same, except that many Apple followers see _themselves_ as The Winners now... (*)
And I'm very satisfied with my Android tablet, without wanting to become another advertisement for one particular brand.
*) It also fits into my greater philosophy, that Capitalist Societies need to be lead and managed, and should not be left to run themselves. And one failure of recent self-proclaimed Capitalists has been, not to engage in enough anti-trust action.
What this tends to do is prove their insincerity, not that they truly believe in Capitalism, as if to say "Too much wanting to make Capitalism work is a bad thing. Watching Capitalism defeat itself is a good thing."
why is the iPad so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market,
No, you idiot, that is not only not the reason, it's also wrong. There have been many, many attempts at the tablet market before, many of whom were intended and manufactured for the mass market, except that the market left them on the shelves.
The iPad is so popular because it simply works. Your little kid can pick it up and use it. And your grandma. And your uncle John who hasn't seen a computer since he was sent to prison 12 years ago.
Also, it has a cool factor.
It's not the first. It's just the first that actually works. And it still offers more than all the competitors. Not necessarily "more" in the geek categories nobody really cares about (memory, CPU power and other stuff that you can spend an hour explaining to your non-geek friends), but more in the categories that matter to normal people. And that's why they're still being bought as fast as they roll off the production lines.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org