or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google 'quite focused' on low-end Android tablets as iPad controls high end
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google 'quite focused' on low-end Android tablets as iPad controls high end - Page 2

post #41 of 65
All Google is doing is trying to expand the android net for search and ads.

Google does not care about quality products or a positive user experience.

They want your private information so they can monetize it. That is their business. That is all they care about, to the extent that they will even bypass Safari's security measures to steal private information.

Apple has been in the business of making quality products that people love for 30 years. It shows. It's why they are the market leader.

I have the new iPad. I'm very happy with it. It was a little expensive, but it's a good product. No way I would buy an android low end shit tablet. Even the "high end" android tablets are shit, so lord knows how bad the low end models will get.
post #42 of 65
How are those low end laptops (netbooks/Chromebooks) working out?
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google CEO Larry Page said on Thursday that his company is "quite focused" on reaching the lower end of the tablet market, even as Apple's iPad continues to dominate the high-end price range. [...]

There are apparently many off-brand Android pad makers who are also "quite focused" on the low end of the tablet market. Because there's zero chance of them moving to the mid-range or high end. There is no race to the bottom because they're all already there.

One of my buddies went to China and brought back a 7" no-name Android pad. Murky screen, stuttery graphics while playing Angry Birds, ridiculously short battery life. But hey, it was only $100.

That's the market Page is talking about. The "I know it sucks, but oh well, it was cheap" market. The "Android market" if you will.

Here's a link to the Engadget blurb on the device and the company, unfortunately named Ainol:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/05/a...id-4-0-tablet/

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

Look for the iPad 2 to hang around and drop to $199 for 16gb in an answer to the "low end" android junk. This aggression will not stand, man.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some price jockying at Apple in this area as Apple has no price gap to sell refirbed New iPads at present.

Now:
$499 new New iPads
$399 new iPad 2 and possibly refirbed New iPads
$299 refirbed iPad 2

Possible Near Future:
$499 new New iPads
$399 refirbed New iPads
$350 new iPad 2
$250 refirbed iPad 2

Not the $199 you were thinking about, but closer than at present. This would leave no breathing room for Samsung with a smaller screen in a plastic case, and no decent choice of apps.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #45 of 65
Android is basically a piece of junk.

Using it after using iOS is like playing in mud after have a shower.

People who don't know any better will buy it.

but for those who know there is a more excellent way will not.

Interesting how google has had to essentially concede the profit margin sweet spot to Apple.

Now, they are competing in the bargain bin with a product that truly belongs there. Only they will have mud on their faces after previously competing against the iPad. Now, the excellent Kindle Fire will beat them with a refined setup.

I guess it's only right. Rip off Steve Job's brainchild straight from a board meeting, build it with tech stolen from sun Microsystems, then refuse to pay licensing even after the theft is proven... then offer it for free and make money on advertising... google is a mess.

Not only is their business model for android a shaky proposal (unless you are an OEM - hey, free OS!), but now its halo effect over their company is tainted. The halo has turned into a crown of thorns.

What ever happened to "don't be evil?"

google is a great ad revenue company. But many other things they reach are subpar.

Sure, people like google Docs, because it's FREE! Not because it's great.

People like many things Google makes that are free. but Google won't make money off of it. Instead they make money around the fact that you use a "free" product of theirs. Kind of creepy when you think about it.

That's why GMail is a privacy nightmare. They want to recoup the investment they made in giving you something free - then they turn around your info and send you ads for you to click (and hopefully put money in their partners' pockets) and them to make money on.

ChromeOS? what a joke! "Hey everyone! You know how the Personal Computer revolutionized computing by giving users their own OS and local storage? Yeah... well, let's go back to the days where you needed to connect to a mainframe (only now "internet" sounds cooler) to access your data and apps!" talk about a backwards step.

This is what happens when a company ONLY cares about its own agenda, regardless of its effect on an industry or the people it serves.

In short, Google is a great search company that runs a great ad revenue business.

Everything else is a business mess. They have not only survived, but prospered due to ADVERTISING and investors. People "like" Google. but their business model is rough.

Now, we are seeing the truth of what happens when they have reached beyond their scope.

Android exists simply to make iOS better. so for that, thank you google. but once it has served its purpose, to the bargain bin it goes.

As it should be.

Google tried to be Apple. But that's not Google.

Apple could take on Google.

Or they could just buy them and rename their search engine "Watson"...
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

Look for the iPad 2 to hang around and drop to $199 for 16gb in an answer to the "low end" android junk. This aggression will not stand, man.

Dream On! The BOM is more than $199.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Not sure what your point is. Apple's success is based on marketing, whereas BMW's on their engineering, product performance, etc. It's not just aesthetics that attracts BMW buyers.

So where's your evidence that people purchasing Apple products are only interested in aesthetics? Oh, there isn't any? You just made it up? Figures.

People buy Apple products for all sorts of reasons and I can claim with 100% certainty that it's not just aesthetics (since I don't even consider the aesthetics before buying Apple products). More importantly, I don't think it's even mostly aesthetics.

Most of the people I know who buy apple products do so because of:
- Ease of use. Nothing else comes close.
- Reliability
- Ecosystem. Again, nothing else comes close.
- Recommendations from friends.
- Value (10 years ago, no one would have believed this, but many Apple products are now priced very competitively).
- Support

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

That perhaps explains why Jobs's NeXT failed to gain any significant market share in the Unix market back in the 90's, and why Apple, to this date, is conspicuously absent in lucrative high end server market, now dominated by HP.

Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Just as an observation. Using the long held Apple comparison of BMW is pretty funny.

Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.


BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.

Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Not sure what your point is. Apple's success is based on marketing.....

And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.

"sweaty little Google licker"...
I think I just found my next signature.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #51 of 65
"I think there's a number of Android tablets out there"

Is that a transcription error or is Larry Page living under a rock?
How can he not know that there are a number of Android tablets?
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

The consumer who adopts the iPad typically invests in App Store, iBooks content. Most of this content can be downloaded to the iPhone without additional charges. So, an iPad owner should typically stick to iPhone.

I would expect that the addition of Siri to the iPad, plus integration with apps like Yelp, Netflix, etc will encourage iPad owners to stick with the iPad. Even vice versa.

However, I expect Android to be there for folks who can afford the bare minimum only... like a 7 in model with a cheap screen/camera, short life battery, WiFi only, used mostly for surfing the web, email, free apps, Skype. There are hundreds of millions in the poverty level.

The Nook is really a nice little tablet, get rid of the pre-installed OS and install Android and it becomes a really nice tablet. The battery is over 8 hours, IPS screen, 1GB Ram, 16GB Rom, 1 GHZ dual core cpu all in a cute light weight package.

Samsungs 8.9" is now only 300 dollars and that's a really nice inexpensive tablet.

I'm sure Google's little guy will be much more powerful then the Nook, which will make for a fantastic little tablet for those who can't afford a iPad. I don't know which apps you guys are using but most are now available on the Android platform. I have exactly the same apps on my iPad that are on my Android tablets except the music creation apps and a few games.

There is still a whole lot of people who don't own a tablet or even a smartphone yet. So Google has a big market to play with.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.


BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.

Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.

So Apple is defiantly like BMW then.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So where's your evidence that people purchasing Apple products are only interested in aesthetics? Oh, there isn't any? You just made it up? Figures.

People buy Apple products for all sorts of reasons and I can claim with 100% certainty that it's not just aesthetics (since I don't even consider the aesthetics before buying Apple products). More importantly, I don't think it's even mostly aesthetics.

Most of the people I know who buy apple products do so because of:
- Ease of use. Nothing else comes close.
- Reliability
- Ecosystem. Again, nothing else comes close.
- Recommendations from friends.
- Value (10 years ago, no one would have believed this, but many Apple products are now priced very competitively).
- Support



Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).

I really liked the Xservers but they were defiantly way to expensive. The server marker is so saturated now, I don't think Apple could make money their as IT people don't care that their is an Apple symbol in the front so Apple couldn't get away with their normal huge margins like they can with normal consumers buying a iPad.

Their are a lot of people who buy Apples because of popularity in the media and aesthetics. Name recognition goes a long way. Oh and the ecosystem only matters to Apple fanatics, most of your normal users only use the iPad for surfing and email. I know so many mothers in my daughters school that have never even looked at the iTunes app store, I don't think they even know how. I am the IT mommy now, I literary provide tech support for over 20 moms and most of their questions are how do I watch TV shows. Thank goodness for Zattoo.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Want to reconsider the term 'taking over' in that context? Try looking at profit margins along with volume. Ask HTC about how well volume worked out for them.

Well Apples tactics work well for Sammy. Literarly Sammy has nobody but Apple to thanks for its success. And this is not only because of the copying. Hell I bought androids for the kids because i couldnt buy the iphone 3GS:s which would have been about the same kind of hardware and price that they got but isnt sold in Europe. Well close enough anyway... just without any connection to apples application and music stores...

Thanks Apple for making my choice so easy. Samsung or Samsung? Ehm well lets see.... Somebody should be fired!
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

So Apple is defiantly like BMW then.

Dont throw fuel in the fire!

"I am a Zither Zather Zuzz" is just trolling..
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

So Apple is defiantly like BMW then.

I see them more like Toyota, to be honest.

They both emphasize simplicity and reliability. They are both bought by the masses. Neither of them have "ultra-high performance" models as their bread and butter, but instead mostly sell upper-mainstream stuff.

Both brands attract many of the same buyers looking for the same things.
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.


BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.

Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.

lol what are you on about?? Apple is rare and exclusive?

I can only assume that your post was either sarcasm or a troll.
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.

...that was all kinds of awesome!
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
..... the greatest fame comes from adding to human knowledge, not winning battles.
Paraphrased from Napolean Bonaparte, 1798
Reply
post #60 of 65
Google may be targeting $299 as the only gap in this line up:

$499 iPad 3
$399 iPad 2
$299 ?
$199 iPod touch

So should Apple fill the gap? One option would be an 8gb 7" iPad, but I think iPhone 5 will sport a 4" screen - and so will a new high end iPod touch, which will fill the gap.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.


BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.

Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.

That's absolutely absurd - at many levels. But, then, we've come to expect that from you.

For starters:
- Price. Ferraris are well outside the budget of most people. Most Apple products (iPhone, iPad, Mini, MBA, etc) are priced very competitively.

- Market share. The iPhone has something like 30% of the market. The iPad is around 60% (and that's even assuming you count the Kindle as being in the same market). Even Macs are around 10% US and 5% globally. Apple products are not tiny niches.

- Usability. Ferraris are enormously limited in their capability. While they have incredible acceleration and handling compared to mass market cars, you can never carry more than one passenger, tow a trailer, or carry enough luggage for more than a couple of days travel. Apple products face no such limitations.

There really isn't an equivalent in the car arena, but Lexus is the closest. The cars are generally perceived of as having the highest quality with no limits and pricing is competitive at the low end (where else can you get a 40 mpg SUV for under $30 K?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I really liked the Xservers but they were defiantly way to expensive.

That's a common complaint, but only applies if you're using a free OS and/or have extra Windows licenses lying around. When we bought ours, the Windows client licenses alone would have been higher than the cost of an xServe with unlimited client licenses, so we essentially got the hardware for free. Look at Windows license costs and compare it to the unlimited client OS X Server.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.

*google licker*

ROLF!! Jesus, what are you? still in 3rd grade?

I have no axe to grind - I'm a Apple shareholder (though only 100 shares at the moment) and have owned 3 iPhones (3G, 3GS & 4G) and 3 iBooks in the past - though happily switched to Samsung Galaxy S2 recently. I use Google on daily basis, especially since both my school and work migrated to Google Apps last year, but I don't own any Google share; nor have I ever directly purchased anything produced by Google.
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).


That's soooo typical Apple.. Yes, Apple can't compete with the big boys on performance or engineering. Apple excels in *marketing* consumer friendly goods to techno-phobes and grandma's. (duck)
post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

That's soooo typical Apple.. Yes, Apple can't compete with the big boys on performance or engineering. Apple excels in *marketing* consumer friendly goods to techno-phobes and grandma's. (duck)

Apple makes technology accessible. If by "the big boys" you mean companies that completely lack any empathy for their customers and compete on specs, then you are correct, Apple isn't playing their game. Apple puts customers, not specs first. Ever try getting post-sales help from Sony or Samsung?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

You forgot the Chromebooks. The ones that are now "adopting" a "more Windows-like" interface....


1. Google's never had any success in hardware. They had NO live support for their first directly-marketed phone. Period. And now they've bought a cell phone company that's had its own marketing and support woes and is far from being the leader in the field.

2. Their app and other product ecosytem is inferior not only to Apple's, but also Amazon's (and their forked version of of Android which takes people right to that system). And for tablet apps, it looks it'll be inferior to Microsoft's within a year of Win 8's launch, if not AT launch. MS looks to have three targets - most of the consumer range including the basic iPad range with WOA and the slightly bulkier but full Wintel business tablet - a segment in which they've repeatedly blown chunks - but they ARE taking a completely fresh whack at it. It might have a decent niche - or not. Hard to make the odds.

3. They make no money on the OS itself, though they're forced to spend a lot on iterating it. Ironically MS makes money on each copy of Android sold because of patent infringements, and Apple's bidding to do the same. How funny and poetic is that??

4. In integratedhardware/software terms, they're caught where Gil Amelio was caught at Apple before Jobs returned, only in a much worse position - if they make devices (and they certainly own a device maker now) they're competing with their own OEM's to whom they depend on licensure for nearly 100% of their market share at present. If they quit licensing, they lose all their outside manufacturers, who need to be in the tab market and so will go with Windows. And at least Apple was still selling more Macs than any of their clone makers (if less than all of them) when Steve returned.

Apple voluntarily went from 10% of the PC market to 3% to end licensing. (In retrospect you see just how gutsy he was in making his bets.) Google would start at a tiny base of the Android market and no rep or cult following for any physical product bearing a Google label and not much more for Moto mobile.

So no "owning" of either "the majority" of the hardware OR software in sight. In fact, because of the open source provisions, another company like Amazon may end up doing better iterations of Android than Google. Or Samsung. To paraphrase Shakespeare (Marc Antony on Caesar), "You have heard it said they are ambitious..." Or....??

That's a lot of mountains to climb!


Great observation!


And I think you may be onto something important as well....

Except that there's even more at play. Unlike Apple's original media players, tablets are already becoming big in the Enterprise, medicine and all of business as well as education. The iPad's had great F500 acceptance (and Macs are almost mainstream there now). Plus IT still loves MS's breadth of product for their needs and their investment in it (software, equipment, and staff) - and one thing Win 8 will have is all kinds of hooks into all of Mr. Softie's huge Server, Exchange, Windows 365, Cloud and other Enterprise infrastructure - which is another mature and entrenched ecosystem, if of a different nature than Apple's - and Office will likely be on every tablet. And Google has no rep over that way to speak of. Google Docs, Google Schmocks.

Another big wall for Google to climb.

problem is that the win8 tabs will be running on a ARM processor... So that means everything has to be rewriten for ARM... so why not just do it for Ipad too... a lot bigger market!...

Microsoft could not get vista right the first time (the second time was win7\. so how are they going to get it right the first time on ARM?... they can't just recompile the code to run on a win8 (or Win 'ate' my profits) ... or can they...
if Microsoft did happen to release a perfect win8 tablet, and gave away the tablet to the F500 companies as a demo (how many? 10? 1? 100? each) would companies use an unknown product and ...so on

TL;DR ... Oh vay, unlikely!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Google 'quite focused' on low-end Android tablets as iPad controls high end
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google 'quite focused' on low-end Android tablets as iPad controls high end