HP leads all 1.2M non-Apple tablets sold in US in 2011 - Page 4

I was responding the the troll comment, which I am not . I was merely poking fun at the state of HP (and their CEO scandals). It's the entire irony of the situation that the most successful non-iPad tablet to date is a damaging.

The loss leader is why other manufacturers can't make a sound product. They only one is Google, but I don't see them making their own product anytime soon.

Microsoft is the only company I think that can create an ecosystem that rivals apple. I think (hope) they learned their lesson from Zune. They need to be more Xboxy and less, um, Zuney.

A company could take a loss for making a tablet, but the only one I can think of is Amazon....which they are doing (not a major los though). Being a manufacturer of tablets and pc products, is, uh, more brand awareness than profitablity. I mean, if you get the iPhone, you still go to the iTunes store (like you said). Get an Acer Iconia....they get no profit.

Right, and I don't disagree with that. I think the iPad is great, and I don't think there's anything on the market that matches or surpasses it. I'm also not saying one should wait - if you want something today, buy an iPad. It's a safe choice.

I'm also saying that technology doesn't stand still. Hardware components are coming down in price. Google is *seriously* stepping up their unified experience goals now that Larry Page took over as CEO. Microsoft is pulling a make-or-break Hail Mary with Windows 8, which will run on Arm and be able to provide a much better mobile experience than x86. The four horsemen are drawing nigh. Cats and Dogs living together. Mass hysteria!

I'm only half kidding. Google and Microsoft both recognize that they're failing in this emerging market, and they're both stepping up their game to make up for that. Things *will* change, it's only a matter of when. Oh, and let's not discount Amazon from this equation either.

I think that's what I've been trying to say on here for a long time. A lot of the things that Apple is successful with is just subject to time. Time brings prices down. A lot of times people act like Apple is this invincible gold child. But wasn't Sears and Roebuck? Kmart? GM motors? I'm not saying that Apple is going to crash and burn, but I am saying Micrsoft won't get slapped around for ever.

Then that line gets thinner, and competitition is very near....how will Apple react? That's my concern.

I think Microsoft is building a unified house right now. I mean Xbox is getting cloud saving very soon and their UI is about to look like Windows 8. Microsoft really need to gain the trust of the people.

I can't wait to see the really good competition between the companies. It's like how the 360 and PS3 are so close together right now because they continue to one up each other. THis is the moment I've been waiting for in PCs.

I think Amazon is a great (unexpected rather) contender. Though I think their practices might kill them. A lot of developers are unhappy wiht Amazon's app store and there has been plenty of reports that they are losing money....that's for another day.

As far as Microsoft is concerned, they better do something quickly, because the result of their "strategy" is that they weight almost nothing on the mobile phones & tablets markets, which are the fastest growing ones. I would not bet a dime on their chances, based on their track record, but OK, nobody can predict the future....

I will believe in Amazon chances when they will announce hard facts figures on how profitable they are ... it is all about making money, an exercise into which Apple excels, but which seems more difficult for its competitors....

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...s_stories.html

There's no particular reason to believe that competition yields innovation and better products. It can just as easily yield cheaper, barely good enough products. In fact, in the consumer electronics industry, that seems to be the norm.

Apple shakes things up with actual innovation. The "competition" copies that, then starts figuring out how to make it cheaper. That usually means jettisoning a lot of the quality while mimicking some of the UI and making a lot of noise about "features", i.e. spec whoring.

There's nothing remotely "innovative" about any of this, although it certainly can lead to big sales numbers. A lot of people are satisfied with good enough. But that's an entirely different phenomena from competition driving innovation, quite the opposite, in fact. Just think about what might have been possible if more companies went their own way instead of waiting for Apple to do their R&D.

This is what I've been saying this whole time.

Apple has YET to have competition in recent years. I think that's why people were leary of Steve Job's death (people see him as the only innovator). Instead of getting ot the finish line before you start, Apple will be at the start line too. I mean, it's not like their laptops have sold billions (exaggeration).

So far Apple has lead in all of the products it made.....except for Apple TV (weird product mix though). iPod. Can't Touch This. iPhone. SAY WHAAA? iPad.....they even have Maxi running behind them!

However, adda, I do disagree with the competition not creating better products. iPhone has certainly added multitasking and notifactions after the competition. Doesn't really matter that they were ahead, it's the fact that they had to stay on tehir toes still.

Interesting, I wasn't being critical or enforcing anything. I was asking the question why and included some things which seem like parallels.

Thanks for explaining why you did, the reason is great. Did you pay Netscape for a browser back in the day? I also like the android hacking reason, harks back to the old days when all you got was a cursor and learned to code.

Nothing like a simple question to shake up the ego of someone who feels precious about their decision eh.

I did not even mention the iPad.

Personally I have always barracked for Web OS, from what I saw on the web it looked very original with a lot of promise and am disapointed that it got so poorly managed then squished by HP.

Would have loved to have seen one, alas I am not in the USA so my chances are sub zero.

Back in the day I bought a Sony NZ90 with Palm OS, totally stood up to the original iPhone (less the phone) and came out years before, a real shame it got killed off.

Funny how some people thought i was having a go at their decision... mild flames aside I have really appreciated finding out the reasons people did

Nice. A failed, discontinued product sold at a massive loss was the most successful non-iPad tablet. Got it.

You can't really prove anything from this. With the possible exception of Amazon, none of these companies have really done much to produce a fully functional product. I think that may be a more significant issue than the hardware at this point. You need a truly functional OS and an environment that is good for developers. In the case of HP, they didn't have a lot of marketing on it, and the device was axed after a very short introduction. All it gave you was a single case study in what does not work.


Well at least someone else recognizes the amount of bias in some of these articles.


I typically won't update to an OS that hasn't been out at least three months or so. If any piece of software isn't fully updated and stable, there's rarely any compelling reason to make the switch. It's typically a priority of stability > speed > features.


You've been trolling this thread, but I'll give you a response anyway. OSX just like Windows has a number of outdated things that have been dragged along from earlier times. They didn't switch to a default gamma 2.2 until Snow Leopard (there are very few valid reasons to ever emulate gamma 1.8) when Windows and the display hardware OSX runs are much closer to gamma 2.2. The HFS+ file system is terribly dated. The functionality of disk warrior could have been licensed as a baseline feature long ago to help with this as they're the only ones that ever got it just right in the way it cleans up directories.


See that's just a poor interpretation of data. Things like the fire sale were essentially a liquidation. When you liquidate a product, you are pricing it to vacate shelves as fast as possible without regard for profit. The other guys didn't start with a setup like IOS and the app store already in place. Give it some time and we should eventually see some well thought out products. The OS needs work though. At least with Amazon they seem to have a plan, and the goal is probably to break even below $200. They may have a ton of market research on price points and consumer interest that you've never seen.

Woz, come out of this body !

I do not know (but he was said to have ten different smartphones). The comment is just about the fact (well documented in Isaacson's bio) that, as a technical guy, Wozniak was always frustrated by Steve's decisions to consciously prohibit the user to have access into the Apple's products, and do whatever seem fun to him (at his own risks, of course ...).

His displays the numbers more accurately than NPD did with oddly excluding the iPad as if it shouldn't be included in the tablet market because it's successful.

• http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/fun_with_numbers

Who still thinks Apple doesn't have an other iPod-like dominance on the tablet market right now?

Me. For every Windows Tablet device, your girlfriend/wife gets a free boob job.

Attacking me wasn't getting the right response so now you're attacking my significant other. Pathetic.

"wasn't get the right response"?

And what are you talking about attacking? I wasn't attacking anyone.