Lower-than-expected Xoom sales prompt Apple iPad competitors to delay tablets - Page 3

Yup, one is stolen technology, the other is attempts at innovation. I'll leave you all to figure out which is which.

Yeah, at Apple? It probably went like this:

Steve to Board: "We're making a phone"
Board to Steve: "Uhhh, okay, I guess..."
Steve to Board: "Yeaaaaaa bitches!"

while that number is certainly weak, it is irresponsible to run away with it for a number of reasons....

Number one, it is an estimate based on a chart that was released before the launch of the wifi version, which is $200 cheaper.

Number two, the chart only breaks down percentages of OS versions... no where does it state the total number of android devices that the percentages are based on.... that number in itself is also an estimate.

So we have an estimate based on an estimate of old data.... better to wait for actual numbers..... which of course will still be weaker than ipad 2 anyway, but I highly doubt they will come in that low.

Omg, the chart that this estimate is based on came out before the Xoom even launched in Europe, or before the wifi model! Does this site bother to do ANY research on any non-Apple news????

There were no Internatonal sales in the first million iPads..

The wifi version is still over-priced. Motorola does not have the brand strength to charge the same or more than Apple and still hope to compete.

If you believe that, then these statements must make equal amounts of sense:

"And Microsoft will continue to add functionality to Windows Phone 7 along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Windows Phone 7 to [sic] easily."

"And RIM will continue to add functionality to PlayBook along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from PlayBook to [sic] easily."

The biggest complaint in the Playbook reviews was that it missed key apps. You must pair it with a blackberry to get email. WP7 had pretty good reviews but it launched without multitasking and cut&paste which were already standard on iOS and Androd. But these are things that can be fixed with software updates or in the version 2 release.

Very few products are perfect from day 1 but that doesn't mean they will not go on and become extremely successful. The key question is how well and how quickly companies react to consumer feedback and fix issues. This is why I think Android will do well as Google seem to react quite quickly. In six months time there'll probably be a new version and no one will care there was originally stuff missing from the Xoom. Whereas RIM and Microsoft haven't been as fast so I don't think the outlook is as good.

Yeah, it's easy to be "successful" in the subsidized smartphone market share when you've got companies like US cellular in my area selling android phones "buy one get five free"

Care to provide one cite - a credible one, from the source (not some third-rate consulting firm or some blog passing off hearsay) - that provides 'actual numbers' on Android tablets?

Heck, I'll challenge you a step further: show me one for an Android phone.

I think one of the executives at RIM said it best. Maybe there is no tablet market. Maybe there is only the iPad market.

The biggest complaint I would have is that it is starting at the same price points for something half the size in screen.

Xoom also rhymes with Gloom, Doom, Tomb, Loon. I prefer eXoom as in exhume.

That works if the product is the first or revolutionary, like the iPhone or iPad. THe problem for Motorola is that the Xoom is neither first nor revolutionary. Are people going to wait 6-12 months for Motorola and Google to fix it, when they can buy an iPad for the same or less? The Xoom could get a reputation that would be hard to change. (It could get worse if the fixes/upgrades are delayed.) The PlayBook could be in an as bad--or worse--situation. I expect that concumers will hear that it had to tether to a BlackBerry and not even bother considering the PlayBook. Supposedly, it can tether to other phones, but can't access BlackBerry email, calendars, etc, but the idea that it works only with a BlackBerry may persist.

When paraphrase Steve Android is a big bag O' hurt. a lot of people don't want to get mixed up in Googles ethical problems. It isn't just the juy thatnwas sitting on Apples board, but it is rather a company at has serious issues with copyright, personal privacy and a number of other things that rub people the wrong way.

As for Motorola they really should have developed a clean Linux distro free or Java and other ancient technology. The problem is that is a lot of work. At this point it looks like the only solid play is going to be WebOS. I had high hopes for Playbook but I think RIM lost their way. Interestingly it looks like Motorola is hedging it's bets with it's own path into the future.

The biggest problem all these competitors have is the deth seen in iOS. There is a lot of many years in iOS that can't easily be replaced. The more that I work with it the more that I'm impressed.

Absolutely!
Also how much money it has made for Google? I'd call it successful if google was a charitable organization, but they are not.... It's a free product after all! Any Joe Schmo-phonemaker can put it on their device, but with all of this fragmentation how is it helping google?

For Google, as long as an Android device is sold and in use, it is just as beneficial to them as any new PC sold. Google makes money by selling ad-space. If someone uses Google search, and your eyeballs see an ad because of it, Google gets some money. Every single Google service is essentially geared towards the selling of ad-space. Since Google is dominant in search and display ads, the very use of the Internet is beneficial to them because it means more eyeballs to see ads.

The fragmentation is irrelevant to Google. Their biggest success was to get a lot of OEMs to use Android and a lot of carriers to sell Android devices. Their biggest problem will be trying to keep the OHA together, including the carriers, and continuing to ship Android devices. If say, Motorola, HTC and Samsung break away and use their own OS (home-grown or Android-forked, whatever), that could be a threat to Google's Android business model. All those Verizon Android devices shipping with Bing must have irked them something special.

The huge issue with Android isn't Google. The huge issue is the lack of understanding of what makes a good user experience from the carriers and manufacturers. Even AT&T with their tremendous success piggybacked off of the iPhone for 3.5 years doesn't get it.

I wanted to like Android. I had an iPhone 3G, and I loved it until iOS 3 came out. Once iOS 3 came out, the iPhone 3G was slow. Meanwhile, Android users were having this huge multitasking party. Once iOS 4 came out, my iPhone us unuseable. The keyboard lagged, loading apps was slow, using the browser was slow, texting was nearly unuseable...it was just a bad experience. I was so soured, I didn't even consider the iPhone 4. So I got a Captivate. At first it was great. It was faster, had all the apps I wanted, it was customizeable, and it was a great overall experience...at first. Later on, it started slowing down and the hacking community came up with a solution. So I used that. But there were problems with the skin Samsung used on it, so I installed a custom ROM, but that had other problems. Extrapolate on this process ad infinitum, and you get the idea of what owning this phone is like.

I now find myself kicking myself for not getting the iPhone 4. The moment I can get an upgrade I am switching. I also wanted android tablets to be good. They aren't. Nobody is developing apps for them. Google rushed Honeycomb out to compete with the launch of the iPad 2. I now find myself sick of Android, and I want an iPad.

Apple just understands what features are superfluous to the overall experience and what aren't. They get what good hardware design means. They design the device to get out of the way and the software to respond to the user. So basically what I am saying is, I am switching. Goodbye and good riddance Android.

Ad space with searches is sold on any platform with google search ... No? I gather you're saying the android thing is offering them more space. Probably but I think they had bigger plans for android.

Not sure about fragmentation being irrelevant. If not all android devices can upgrade each cycle they may lose functionality with their ad space capabilities, not to mention their marketplace with apps will have to compete with the likes of Amazon.

Their biggest problem is their new CEO

I think it's pronounced "exhume".

Oops - just saw an earlier post with the same observation.

Google needs to work something out with the retailers like Apple has done with Best Buy. You go into Best Buy and there's the little Apple area and the iPad is on its own counter ready to go.

The Xoom is at the end of a counter after all the rest of the netbooks. And because you can customize home screens, customers have made a complete hash of what you see when you first pick one up. Duplicate widgets strung along multiple windows, apps mixed with widgets mixed with minimized web pages stacked on open apps. It just looks like somebody dumped interface elements out of a bag.

I can't imagine choosing the Xoom over the iPad if all you know about either is your experience playing with on in the store-- and the fact is that describes a great many potential tablet buyers.

And I didn't even see a Tab-- they used to be near the front with the Galaxy phones, but there didn't appear to be any around.

Well, the mobile space is expected to be the dominant Internet platform as time goes by. Yeah, it's more ad space. Dumb phones will eventually become smart phones (and smart phones will become super smart phones etc.)

With Android, it's a Google-gated space, not a Microsoft one. With MS dominant on PCs, there's always a threat that MS can leverage their Windows monopoly to push Google out in favor of Bing and MS advertising or some other party.


Irrelevant is hyperbolic, but perhaps it's more "not that important" to Google. For Google, it's all about getting people to use the Internet and getting people to see ads. I don't see how fragmentation hurts that. I don't see how Amazon hurts that. It's only when you start seeing people stop using Google search, stop using Google advertising services, and the like where Google will start to worry.

I wonder what would happen if Microsoft gave out Windows for free but made it ad-supported/ search-integrated with Bing.

This is the same as asking "Hey guys, I wonder what would happen if that mom-and-pop grocery store down the street stiff-armed their suppliers like Wal-Mart." Google not only displays ads on their websites, they display ads on websites where people are using AdWords. I would say 1 of every 2 links clicked from a Bing result ends up giving money to Google. Microsoft gets money for just the search. Google gets money from the search and the result. The scale of what Google has done is astronomical.