This isn't surprising at all, but could have been mitigated somewhat had Apple made iPad 1 a far higher speced system. The low res screen, lack of cameras, limited RAM, and poor connectivity (not even a single USB port? Come on Apple) make this very, very much a 1.0 product. Maybe not even 1.0.
I believe it to be indisputable that Apple has eschewed the specsmanship and feeping creaturitis that infects equipment that may be more to your liking. The advent of undifferentiated operating systems necessitates that inclusion of differented hardware, leading directly to a race to the bottom.
As for the screen, it's one of the lowest DPIs on any Apple product, and is so low as to render small text very ugly. (try going to The Guardian and don't pinch to zoom) It's rather telling that the iPhone 4, with it's microscopic screen, almost matches the resolution of the iPad.
Erm try comparing the screen res of your all singing dancing (and crap) 'netbook' I just picked 5 at random 1024 x 768 or 1024 x 600
So to call the iPad screen 'low res' when you yourself are trying to compare with netbooks is just plain silly.
I fail to see why Apple couldn't have included a USB port (for example) on the iPad. Which part of being able to plug a digital camera directly into an iPad to view photos is bad thing?
I think the next iPad will have an SD slot. I also think the iLife apps (iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand) will be written from scratch for the iPad, just like the iWork apps were, but I am not expecting them to come pre-loaded like they do on the Mac.
iDVD will be an obvious no-show, but iWeb is an unknown entity. Is Apple going to release a new web development application for the Mac and iPad or is Apple going to let iWeb stagnate since it is no longer listed as an iLife application? I can see Apple not wanting to step on 3rd-party developers like Panic, but with their data center, iTunes Store, iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and pushing HTML5, Apple is going to want to make sure there is an application that will provide a way for developers to take advantage of the newer standards.
This is pretty close to one of the stupidest comments ever posted on AI, and there have been plenty of stupid comments.
Agreed. (Gee, I wish this forum had a 'thumbs-up/thumbs-down' feature of some kind. And an 'ignore this person' option would make stupid commenters irrelevant.)
Are you saying that holiday sales will drop because of a spring offering? I don't think so for a product in the $500-$600 range. This is one piece of computer hardware that is attainable for even those on a restricted budget.
Actually no. What they are saying is that rumors that the ipad 2.0 will launch in the early part of 2011 (possibly as early as February) is going to keep folks from buying non ipad tablets. Because they will want to see what the ipad 2.0 looks like first.
But I have a counter theory. I think that folks won't be buying those non ipad tablets because there are none out for open sales. You can't buy what isn't being sold. And for the holidays folks don't buy what they can't put in their hands right then. Cuts the risk of a delivery issue. Plus they know what they are getting because they saw it. So if it's not in stock at the local Best Buy, etc, it's a no go.
And then they added to their comment saying that the experts have said that after the ipad 2.0 launches, other tablet sales will again suck. Basically saying that next year will be a repeat of this year. Rather easy call to make really. Especially when you add the lack of competitive. Nothing else is out and what is predicted for any time soon is on record as 'for business focused customers, not the ipad type customers' so it's not expected to be sold anywhere 'common'. So course there won't be large sales. They are trying to replace "Ipads added to another business" type articles with "X that is not an ipad added to another business" type articles. Not sell to the masses. it's actually a very smart move but first they have to actually have something for sale
For me, proof of the iPad's appeal lies in the fact that my original plan was to keep my iPad v1 pristine until Spring, then sell on eBay for at least 80% value and get v2.
Now, I'm wrestling with the fact that that would probably mean living without my iPad for a month or more, and that thought seems very unappealing.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my iPad/iPhone combo is my primary rig, and I use my full Mac about once a week, mostly for syncing, ripping, and the occasional need for extended typing (although with the bluetooth keyboard, I really don't even need that.)
Targeted apps have become WAY more useful than general purpose behemoth applications to my current life.
Plug your camera into your computer, then sync the photos to the iPad. That's why you have a computer, remember? Wait a second - hold the phone! You CAN plug your camera directly into the iPad via the connector adapter for the tiny percentage of people who give a crap about that.
I have that connector-adapter. You actually get two adapters: one for SD cards and another for a USB port. They work great, and I use them frequently when shooting pics away from my home-bound desktop computer. Even if my iPad had a USB port, I would probably use an adapter to read in the SD card.
People shopping for the Hoidays will purchase the current Apple Ipad as they don't have the luxury of waiting till the new Ipad comes out. I don't believe sales will be hurt and this will be a good opportunity for Apple to lower inventory in preparation for an upcoming launch next year.
Another quick scan seems to show majority of netbooks with ≈ 10.1" screen vs iPad 9.7"
And many 7" netbooks have 800 x 480 pixels, which is still less DPI.
800/7 = ~115
1024/9.7 = ~106
EDIT: oops. those are diagonal measures. 5am doesn't help anyone. It's actually pretty close. ipad is 132, 7" netbook 133.
Re 10in and above, see below.
Quote:
So even the DPI is better on the iPad than the average netbook. Calling the iPad 'low res' by comparison to netbooks is nonsense.
Not by your example, it isn't.
Quote:
Come on guys you need to try harder.
Try harder at what? Troll much?
The last time I looked at netbooks (like I did the ipad) was some time ago and the screens weren't so big on them. God save me for referencing wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_netbooks but it would appear that DPI generally for the larger screened netbooks probably comparable with the iPad according to that list. The list doesn't suggest that the majority of netbooks are 10" and up, as it happens.
EDIT: oops. those are diagonal measures. 5am doesn't help anyone.
Re 10in and above, see below.
Not by your example, it isn't.
Try harder at what? Troll much?
The last time I looked at netbooks (like I did the ipad) was some time ago and the screens weren't so big on them. God save me for referencing wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_netbooks but it would appear that DPI generally for the larger screened netbooks probably comparable with the iPad according to that list. The list doesn't suggest that the majority of netbooks are 10" and up, as it happens.
Mate check your maths. I'm not the troll, I just have little patience for people who talk rubbish.
The reality is: The only scenario where you could sensibly call the iPad "low res" would be in comparison to high end (niche) netbooks or the iPhone 4. Which isn't really a fair comparison. To call the iPad "low res" would imply that it has a lower resolution than average, which it clearly has not.
Like comparing sports cars, then arguing that the Ferrari is crap because it has a smaller engine than a moped. It's just an irrelevant comparison. Not only that, it's also completely wrong.
Listen I got work to do, I will compromise at "average res" ?
No, the iPad is a tablet, the Macbook is a laptop. It's really very simple. If I want a tablet, why would I buy a Macbook?
I fail to see why Apple couldn't have included a USB port (for example) on the iPad. Which part of being able to plug a digital camera directly into an iPad to view photos is bad thing?
I think apple made the choices they made with the iPad in order to:
1. Keep cost as low as possible - since they didn't know how successful it would be.
Things like a higher resolution screen, dual cameras, more memory, USB, etc. Would have cut into their margins. If apple is planning to produce 40 million iPads for 2011, economies of scale will allow them to add more features and/or lower the price.
2. Get the device to market as quickly as possible.
Certain features and functionality would have required iOS 4.2 - im thinking FaceTime support. Apple would have had to delay introducing the device for several months, in order to graft camera support into 3.2, which would have delayed the release of ios 4.2
3. Remove unecessary hardware. Apple never includes hardware that is useless - cameras without ios 4.2, USB/SD ports that are not identified as "need to have" features. At the time the iPad was introduced, they were nice to have - if customer feedback has shown they are now necessary features, I'm sure apple will add them.
I think apple made the choices they made with the iPad in order to:
1. Keep cost as low as possible - since they didn't know how successful it would be.
Things like a higher resolution screen, dual cameras, more memory, USB, etc. Would have cut into their margins. If apple is planning to produce 40 million iPads for 2011, economies of scale will allow them to add more features and/or lower the price.
2. Get the device to market as quickly as possible.
Certain features and functionality would have required iOS 4.2 - im thinking FaceTime support. Apple would have had to delay introducing the device for several months, in order to graft camera support into 3.2, which would have delayed the release of ios 4.2
3. Remove unecessary hardware. Apple never includes hardware that is useless - cameras without ios 4.2, USB/SD ports that are not identified as "need to have" features. At the time the iPad was introduced, they were nice to have - if customer feedback has shown they are now necessary features, I'm sure apple will add them.
Mate check your maths. I'm not the troll, I just have little patience for people who talk rubbish.
The reality is: The only scenario where you could sensibly call the iPad "low res" would be in comparison to high end (niche) netbooks or the iPhone 4. Which isn't really a fair comparison. To call the iPad "low res" would imply that it has a lower resolution than average, which it clearly has not.
Like comparing sports cars, then arguing that the Ferrari is crap because it has a smaller engine than a moped. It's just an irrelevant comparison. Not only that, it's also completely wrong.
Listen I got work to do, I will compromise at "average res" ?
I take your point. The pixel pitch on the iPad however is low enough to warrant the original point made. My other computing devices outshine it by a handy margin (MBP, iPhone and Dell 12") and it's quite noticeable. In fact, one of the first things I noticed.
Chinese white-box OEM suppliers are already flooding the market with 7" WiFi Android tablets. Most of these are currently selling for $99-$149 range. These cheap 7" tablets typically run an older (non-tablet optimized) version of Android, have resistive instead of capacitive touchscreens, and relatively low capacity batteries. They usually also have pretty minimal memory configuration and older generation ARM processors.
However, given the extremely low cost points of these devices even at relatively low volumes, I expect some of the better brand Taiwanese OEMs like Asus and MSI to offer decent 7" Android 2.2 tablets to market close to $200 early next year. These are likely to come with capacitive screens, longer battery life, higher performance ARM processors, etc. When that happens, despite Steve's comments about how 7" tablets suck, iPad will no longer be able to maintain 95% of the tablet market share.
Apple is likely to win in big in the business market where the 9.7" screen size, 3G option, Apple brand name and app store are differentiators. Unless Apple manages to pull off some surprises in terms of lower priced, smaller form factor iPad versions, iPad's market share could be down to 50% by the end of 2011.
No, the iPad is a tablet, the Macbook is a laptop. It's really very simple. If I want a tablet, why would I buy a Macbook?
No, they are all tools to do work or tasks. Categories are ridiculous. You should get the most cost effective tool for the tasks you want to complete. Companies want you to think like you are thinking. "This is a tablet so i don't need this feature, or this feature." It is all brainwashing to make you buy products that lack capabilities.
[for various debatable reasons, the] iPad will no longer be able to maintain 95% of the tablet market share.
Apple is likely to win in big in the business market where the 9.7" screen size, 3G option, Apple brand name and app store are differentiators. Unless Apple manages to pull off some surprises in terms of lower priced, smaller form factor iPad versions, iPad's market share could be down to 50% by the end of 2011.
This argument isn't too much of a concern for apple. If cheep tablets become popular and expand the market, Apple will surely be happy to take %50 of sales (the high end, of course) and %85 of the profit.
Remember, Apple (and Gateway and Dell...) has proven over the last 10 years that market share is not the best indicator of health. %50 of 100million is better than %95 of 50million. Furthermore, a healthy market of inferior tablets could bring new people to the market who end up wanting the premium experience Apple offers.
I'm sure Apple s much more concerned about quality Android tablets after the tablet optimized Android is released...
Actually no. What they are saying is that rumors that the ipad 2.0 will launch in the early part of 2011 (possibly as early as February) is going to keep folks from buying non ipad tablets. Because they will want to see what the ipad 2.0 looks like first.
Then again, those people won't buy iPads for the holidays either, because they'll be waiting for the new one...
This argument isn't too much of a concern for apple. If cheep tablets become popular and expand the market, Apple will surely be happy to take %50 of sales (the high end, of course) and %85 of the profit.
Remember, Apple (and Gateway and Dell...) has proven over the last 10 years that market share is not the best indicator of health. %50 of 100million is better than %95 of 50million. Furthermore, a healthy market of inferior tablets could bring new people to the market who end up wanting the premium experience Apple offers.
I'm sure Apple s much more concerned about quality Android tablets after the tablet optimized Android is released...
I do agree. Apple will take higher margins over higher market share if there is a choice to be made.
However, there are financial analysts making predictions for the future value of Apple stock based on projections of tablet sales for the next few years and Apple's estimated market share. Expecting Apple's tablet market share to only go down to 80% by 2012 is not a realistic assumption.
Maybe there is some analogies compared to Apple's entry into MP3 player market. Apple was not even the first to market but they did capitalize on capturing the limited supply of 1.8" HDDs to lock other players out of the market for the first few years of the iPod and then their volume buying power to get NAND flash at lower cost in the later years. Despite all of this, Apple eventually did offer iPods models at lower price points not to leave the low end of the market completely to the competition. As long as the volume (and profit) distribution is weighed toward the high end of the product line, Apple is likely to offer iPads (though they may be called something else, e.g. iPod jumbo) with smaller form factor and less features.
Comments
This isn't surprising at all, but could have been mitigated somewhat had Apple made iPad 1 a far higher speced system. The low res screen, lack of cameras, limited RAM, and poor connectivity (not even a single USB port? Come on Apple) make this very, very much a 1.0 product. Maybe not even 1.0.
I believe it to be indisputable that Apple has eschewed the specsmanship and feeping creaturitis that infects equipment that may be more to your liking. The advent of undifferentiated operating systems necessitates that inclusion of differented hardware, leading directly to a race to the bottom.
Netbooks offer far more for less money.
As for the screen, it's one of the lowest DPIs on any Apple product, and is so low as to render small text very ugly. (try going to The Guardian and don't pinch to zoom) It's rather telling that the iPhone 4, with it's microscopic screen, almost matches the resolution of the iPad.
Erm try comparing the screen res of your all singing dancing (and crap) 'netbook' I just picked 5 at random 1024 x 768 or 1024 x 600
So to call the iPad screen 'low res' when you yourself are trying to compare with netbooks is just plain silly.
I fail to see why Apple couldn't have included a USB port (for example) on the iPad. Which part of being able to plug a digital camera directly into an iPad to view photos is bad thing?
I think the next iPad will have an SD slot. I also think the iLife apps (iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand) will be written from scratch for the iPad, just like the iWork apps were, but I am not expecting them to come pre-loaded like they do on the Mac.
iDVD will be an obvious no-show, but iWeb is an unknown entity. Is Apple going to release a new web development application for the Mac and iPad or is Apple going to let iWeb stagnate since it is no longer listed as an iLife application? I can see Apple not wanting to step on 3rd-party developers like Panic, but with their data center, iTunes Store, iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and pushing HTML5, Apple is going to want to make sure there is an application that will provide a way for developers to take advantage of the newer standards.
This is pretty close to one of the stupidest comments ever posted on AI, and there have been plenty of stupid comments.
Agreed. (Gee, I wish this forum had a 'thumbs-up/thumbs-down' feature of some kind. And an 'ignore this person' option would make stupid commenters irrelevant.)
Are you saying that holiday sales will drop because of a spring offering? I don't think so for a product in the $500-$600 range. This is one piece of computer hardware that is attainable for even those on a restricted budget.
Actually no. What they are saying is that rumors that the ipad 2.0 will launch in the early part of 2011 (possibly as early as February) is going to keep folks from buying non ipad tablets. Because they will want to see what the ipad 2.0 looks like first.
But I have a counter theory. I think that folks won't be buying those non ipad tablets because there are none out for open sales. You can't buy what isn't being sold. And for the holidays folks don't buy what they can't put in their hands right then. Cuts the risk of a delivery issue. Plus they know what they are getting because they saw it. So if it's not in stock at the local Best Buy, etc, it's a no go.
And then they added to their comment saying that the experts have said that after the ipad 2.0 launches, other tablet sales will again suck. Basically saying that next year will be a repeat of this year. Rather easy call to make really. Especially when you add the lack of competitive. Nothing else is out and what is predicted for any time soon is on record as 'for business focused customers, not the ipad type customers' so it's not expected to be sold anywhere 'common'. So course there won't be large sales. They are trying to replace "Ipads added to another business" type articles with "X that is not an ipad added to another business" type articles. Not sell to the masses. it's actually a very smart move but first they have to actually have something for sale
Erm try comparing the screen res of your all singing dancing (and crap) 'netbook' I just picked 5 at random 1024 x 768 or 1024 x 600
So to call the iPad screen 'low res' when you yourself are trying to compare with netbooks is just plain silly.
Erm, dots 'per inch'. Since most netbooks have a smaller screen size, their DPI is going to be greater than the iPad.
I'm one of those people waiting for iPad 2. The first one was interesting, but not a 'buy' for me.
Now, I'm wrestling with the fact that that would probably mean living without my iPad for a month or more, and that thought seems very unappealing.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my iPad/iPhone combo is my primary rig, and I use my full Mac about once a week, mostly for syncing, ripping, and the occasional need for extended typing (although with the bluetooth keyboard, I really don't even need that.)
Targeted apps have become WAY more useful than general purpose behemoth applications to my current life.
Plug your camera into your computer, then sync the photos to the iPad. That's why you have a computer, remember? Wait a second - hold the phone! You CAN plug your camera directly into the iPad via the connector adapter for the tiny percentage of people who give a crap about that.
I have that connector-adapter. You actually get two adapters: one for SD cards and another for a USB port. They work great, and I use them frequently when shooting pics away from my home-bound desktop computer. Even if my iPad had a USB port, I would probably use an adapter to read in the SD card.
Erm, dots 'per inch'. Since most netbooks have a smaller screen size, their DPI is going to be greater than the iPad.
I'm one of those people waiting for iPad 2. The first one was interesting, but not a 'buy' for me.
Another quick scan seems to show majority of netbooks with ≈ 10.1" screen vs iPad 9.7"
And many 7" netbooks have 800 x 480 pixels, which is still less DPI.
So even the DPI is better on the iPad than the average netbook. Calling the iPad 'low res' by comparison to netbooks is nonsense.
Come on guys you need to try harder.
Another quick scan seems to show majority of netbooks with ≈ 10.1" screen vs iPad 9.7"
And many 7" netbooks have 800 x 480 pixels, which is still less DPI.
800/7 = ~115
1024/9.7 = ~106
EDIT: oops. those are diagonal measures. 5am doesn't help anyone. It's actually pretty close. ipad is 132, 7" netbook 133.
Re 10in and above, see below.
So even the DPI is better on the iPad than the average netbook. Calling the iPad 'low res' by comparison to netbooks is nonsense.
Not by your example, it isn't.
Come on guys you need to try harder.
Try harder at what? Troll much?
The last time I looked at netbooks (like I did the ipad) was some time ago and the screens weren't so big on them. God save me for referencing wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_netbooks but it would appear that DPI generally for the larger screened netbooks probably comparable with the iPad according to that list. The list doesn't suggest that the majority of netbooks are 10" and up, as it happens.
800/7 = ~115
1024/9.7 = ~106
EDIT: oops. those are diagonal measures. 5am doesn't help anyone.
Re 10in and above, see below.
Not by your example, it isn't.
Try harder at what? Troll much?
The last time I looked at netbooks (like I did the ipad) was some time ago and the screens weren't so big on them. God save me for referencing wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_netbooks but it would appear that DPI generally for the larger screened netbooks probably comparable with the iPad according to that list. The list doesn't suggest that the majority of netbooks are 10" and up, as it happens.
Mate check your maths. I'm not the troll, I just have little patience for people who talk rubbish.
The reality is: The only scenario where you could sensibly call the iPad "low res" would be in comparison to high end (niche) netbooks or the iPhone 4. Which isn't really a fair comparison. To call the iPad "low res" would imply that it has a lower resolution than average, which it clearly has not.
Like comparing sports cars, then arguing that the Ferrari is crap because it has a smaller engine than a moped. It's just an irrelevant comparison. Not only that, it's also completely wrong.
Listen I got work to do, I will compromise at "average res" ?
No, the iPad is a tablet, the Macbook is a laptop. It's really very simple. If I want a tablet, why would I buy a Macbook?
I fail to see why Apple couldn't have included a USB port (for example) on the iPad. Which part of being able to plug a digital camera directly into an iPad to view photos is bad thing?
I think apple made the choices they made with the iPad in order to:
1. Keep cost as low as possible - since they didn't know how successful it would be.
Things like a higher resolution screen, dual cameras, more memory, USB, etc. Would have cut into their margins. If apple is planning to produce 40 million iPads for 2011, economies of scale will allow them to add more features and/or lower the price.
2. Get the device to market as quickly as possible.
Certain features and functionality would have required iOS 4.2 - im thinking FaceTime support. Apple would have had to delay introducing the device for several months, in order to graft camera support into 3.2, which would have delayed the release of ios 4.2
3. Remove unecessary hardware. Apple never includes hardware that is useless - cameras without ios 4.2, USB/SD ports that are not identified as "need to have" features. At the time the iPad was introduced, they were nice to have - if customer feedback has shown they are now necessary features, I'm sure apple will add them.
I think apple made the choices they made with the iPad in order to:
1. Keep cost as low as possible - since they didn't know how successful it would be.
Things like a higher resolution screen, dual cameras, more memory, USB, etc. Would have cut into their margins. If apple is planning to produce 40 million iPads for 2011, economies of scale will allow them to add more features and/or lower the price.
2. Get the device to market as quickly as possible.
Certain features and functionality would have required iOS 4.2 - im thinking FaceTime support. Apple would have had to delay introducing the device for several months, in order to graft camera support into 3.2, which would have delayed the release of ios 4.2
3. Remove unecessary hardware. Apple never includes hardware that is useless - cameras without ios 4.2, USB/SD ports that are not identified as "need to have" features. At the time the iPad was introduced, they were nice to have - if customer feedback has shown they are now necessary features, I'm sure apple will add them.
exactly.
Mate check your maths. I'm not the troll, I just have little patience for people who talk rubbish.
The reality is: The only scenario where you could sensibly call the iPad "low res" would be in comparison to high end (niche) netbooks or the iPhone 4. Which isn't really a fair comparison. To call the iPad "low res" would imply that it has a lower resolution than average, which it clearly has not.
Like comparing sports cars, then arguing that the Ferrari is crap because it has a smaller engine than a moped. It's just an irrelevant comparison. Not only that, it's also completely wrong.
Listen I got work to do, I will compromise at "average res" ?
I take your point. The pixel pitch on the iPad however is low enough to warrant the original point made. My other computing devices outshine it by a handy margin (MBP, iPhone and Dell 12") and it's quite noticeable. In fact, one of the first things I noticed.
Chinese white-box OEM suppliers are already flooding the market with 7" WiFi Android tablets. Most of these are currently selling for $99-$149 range. These cheap 7" tablets typically run an older (non-tablet optimized) version of Android, have resistive instead of capacitive touchscreens, and relatively low capacity batteries. They usually also have pretty minimal memory configuration and older generation ARM processors.
However, given the extremely low cost points of these devices even at relatively low volumes, I expect some of the better brand Taiwanese OEMs like Asus and MSI to offer decent 7" Android 2.2 tablets to market close to $200 early next year. These are likely to come with capacitive screens, longer battery life, higher performance ARM processors, etc. When that happens, despite Steve's comments about how 7" tablets suck, iPad will no longer be able to maintain 95% of the tablet market share.
Apple is likely to win in big in the business market where the 9.7" screen size, 3G option, Apple brand name and app store are differentiators. Unless Apple manages to pull off some surprises in terms of lower priced, smaller form factor iPad versions, iPad's market share could be down to 50% by the end of 2011.
No, the iPad is a tablet, the Macbook is a laptop. It's really very simple. If I want a tablet, why would I buy a Macbook?
No, they are all tools to do work or tasks. Categories are ridiculous. You should get the most cost effective tool for the tasks you want to complete. Companies want you to think like you are thinking. "This is a tablet so i don't need this feature, or this feature." It is all brainwashing to make you buy products that lack capabilities.
Wake up!!!
[for various debatable reasons, the] iPad will no longer be able to maintain 95% of the tablet market share.
Apple is likely to win in big in the business market where the 9.7" screen size, 3G option, Apple brand name and app store are differentiators. Unless Apple manages to pull off some surprises in terms of lower priced, smaller form factor iPad versions, iPad's market share could be down to 50% by the end of 2011.
This argument isn't too much of a concern for apple. If cheep tablets become popular and expand the market, Apple will surely be happy to take %50 of sales (the high end, of course) and %85 of the profit.
Remember, Apple (and Gateway and Dell...) has proven over the last 10 years that market share is not the best indicator of health. %50 of 100million is better than %95 of 50million. Furthermore, a healthy market of inferior tablets could bring new people to the market who end up wanting the premium experience Apple offers.
I'm sure Apple s much more concerned about quality Android tablets after the tablet optimized Android is released...
Actually no. What they are saying is that rumors that the ipad 2.0 will launch in the early part of 2011 (possibly as early as February) is going to keep folks from buying non ipad tablets. Because they will want to see what the ipad 2.0 looks like first.
Then again, those people won't buy iPads for the holidays either, because they'll be waiting for the new one...
This argument isn't too much of a concern for apple. If cheep tablets become popular and expand the market, Apple will surely be happy to take %50 of sales (the high end, of course) and %85 of the profit.
Remember, Apple (and Gateway and Dell...) has proven over the last 10 years that market share is not the best indicator of health. %50 of 100million is better than %95 of 50million. Furthermore, a healthy market of inferior tablets could bring new people to the market who end up wanting the premium experience Apple offers.
I'm sure Apple s much more concerned about quality Android tablets after the tablet optimized Android is released...
I do agree. Apple will take higher margins over higher market share if there is a choice to be made.
However, there are financial analysts making predictions for the future value of Apple stock based on projections of tablet sales for the next few years and Apple's estimated market share. Expecting Apple's tablet market share to only go down to 80% by 2012 is not a realistic assumption.
Maybe there is some analogies compared to Apple's entry into MP3 player market. Apple was not even the first to market but they did capitalize on capturing the limited supply of 1.8" HDDs to lock other players out of the market for the first few years of the iPod and then their volume buying power to get NAND flash at lower cost in the later years. Despite all of this, Apple eventually did offer iPods models at lower price points not to leave the low end of the market completely to the competition. As long as the volume (and profit) distribution is weighed toward the high end of the product line, Apple is likely to offer iPads (though they may be called something else, e.g. iPod jumbo) with smaller form factor and less features.