I think in iPad 2 Apple will further bury the hatchet by lowering its price and by adding features like FaceTime, larger capacities, and even better battery performance. The competition will not be in a position to match Apple's offerings.
Competitors will have to sell their tablets at a loss in order to move units. And even then, because of the feature disparity, it will be an arduous task.
I think that you're wrong.
Same prices and more features will be good enough to maintain profitability and bury the competition.
After the novelty of the "tablet" form factor wears off, it will come down to functionality. If Android devices are largely email, web and media devices and the iPad/iOS family are capable of replacing your computer, then we're actually talking about different product categories.
I believe that you mean media consumption devices -- and I agree.
I, for one, am curious if Apple will offer the iMovie app on today's iPad. It may be that the iPad has insufficient RAM -- though the 4-Gen iPod Touch is supported (same RAM as iPad);
That's for today's iPad. What about iPad 2. I assume that it will have 1 GB RAM, a dual-core Cortex A9-based CPU and a GPU capable of running OpenCL.
That's some pretty serious compute power!
I suspect that it could handle iMovie as well as today's Mac iMovie -- and maybe even a iPad version of Motion!
I think in iPad 2 Apple will further bury the hatchet by lowering its price and by adding features like FaceTime, larger capacities, and even better battery performance. The competition will not be in a position to match Apple's offerings.
Competitors will have to sell their tablets at a loss in order to move units. And even then, because of the feature disparity, it will be an arduous task.
I think that you're wrong.
I just think it is funny how he used the term "burry the hatchet..."
Except nobody has to sign contracts with 7" tablets that would discourage them from switching over to a different tablet size.
The form factor of tablets does not mirror the carrier system for cellphones.
I dont think the comparison is particularly tight, but I still think it has some validity.
With phones, there were people who would not consider switching to AT&T--they might have bought iPhones but now many of the have Andriod phones.
With tablets, many people think that the iPad is too big or heavy. If Apple does not give them what they want, many of them will buy from competitors who do offer the form factor they want. While those competitors are figuring things out and working out the bugs, their users will not necessarily see the product as inferior to the iPad because they may not see iPad as comparable due to its different form factor..
The fact that there are no contracts means that switching from one product to the other is easier, sure. However, people will still have an investment in apps and a familiarity with the operating system they have been working with and maybe some sense of brand loyalty.
Besides, it is not the two year contract which sent many Verizon users to Android but the lack of an Apple product that they could get...
I'm not sure why people get so defensive about Apple offering a 7" version of the iPad. I know the screen resolution becomes a problem (unless you pack the same pixels in as the full size iPad, but that would preclude a full size retina display).
The way I see it, the iPhone not being on Verizon created an opportunity for Android to not only establish a foothold, but to get some unchallenged momentum in the smartphone space. Leaving the 7" tablet market to RIM and Android only gives them a chance to get set up with no Apple competition.
There is an interesting review of the Galaxy Tab at:
It has some interesting insights about the 7" form factor, in general -- for example:
Quote:
Haptic feedback is where the pleasantness of typing on the Tab ends. This is not just a matter of getting used to the keyboard. The device is simply too small to house a practical and functional landscape keyboard. I have typed many 1000+ word documents on my iPad onscreen keyboard in landscape mode with only minimal frustration. Trying to type even a paragraph though on the Tab was irritating for me – to the point where I had to go do something else for a bit. If you want to know what it is like to type on the Tab’s landscape keyboard and you own an iPad, you are in luck – flip your iPad into portrait view and pop up the keyboard, what you are looking at is faster to type on than the Tab’s landscape keyboard. This has to do with both the size and layout of the Tab keyboard. The layout should be a non-issue after using the device for a while, however the size will always be an issue.
It has some interesting insights about the 7" form factor, in general -- for example:
Yeah, but it was written by someone who already decided that 7" was not the size for him. Nevertheless, there is also this quote:
Quote:
so too then does the Tab make an excellent tablet for the right user.
If you are on the go all day and rarely create any content (more on this in a bit) then I think the Tab would suit you well. I can picture political aides running around with these things, emailing on their Blackberries and then grabbing the Tab to gulp down some news and policies while going from meeting to meeting.
Several of the iPad owners who I know do little or no content creation. Typing would not be an issue for them...
Remember, I am in no way arguing that 7" is the ideal size, only that some people will prefer it.
It has some interesting insights about the 7" form factor, in general -- for example:
Thanks for posting the link - it is an interesting review, without either the complete pro or anti -apple bias you so often get. Overall conclusion was iPad superior, but both had their value, drawbacks, and place.
My view is still that Apple had it right with 10" as a first device. But once they have established this, and are well in credit with their developer support, they should introduce a 7" along when they can carry their app developer base to optimise for this version too.
The 7" Galaxy Tab is not a very good size, having used one it's too big for a pocket so you need a bag, then you may as well get the superior iPad.
My iPhone 4 is in for repair, so I've been using a few Android phones an underwhelming and annoying experience, it's like the difference between Coca Cola and a no name brand of Cola, sort of the same but different, I want my "real thing" back.
7x5 inch size is primo for lab coats and some
pockets
8x5 in is better
anyway the 8x5 7x5 size will be the best in the long run
I'm not sure why people get so defensive about Apple offering a 7" version of the iPad. I know the screen resolution becomes a problem (unless you pack the same pixels in as the full size iPad, but that would preclude a full size retina display).
How is screen resolution a problem? You use whatever screen you want in the device, be it one pixel per inch or 300. The goal is to get the physical size down to a managable level.
Quote:
The way I see it, the iPhone not being on Verizon created an opportunity for Android to not only establish a foothold, but to get some unchallenged momentum in the smartphone space. Leaving the 7" tablet market to RIM and Android only gives them a chance to get set up with no Apple competition.
From the standpoint of a stockholder I find it frustrating the Apple would give up so much market share. From the standpoint of a user, the lack of suppport for wide aspect ratios and a smaller screen leaves me frustrated.
In any event niether of these concerns are defensive. Rather it is an expression of desire for things to be seen in iPad 2.
By the way if iPad 2 comes out with all the features I'm expecting I might buy into the platform. But the issue with respect to size is real, iPad is just a bit to big to take with you every where you go.
How is screen resolution a problem? You use whatever screen you want in the device, be it one pixel per inch or 300. The goal is to get the physical size down to a managable level.
I'm not a developer, but as I understand it, developers at present have to develop for the iPod touch/iPhone's screen resolution or for the iPad's. Sure the iPad can scale up the phone images, but it is not ideal. This leads to apps being developed and sold for both platforms. Would a new screen resolution in the mix not be annoying for developers (and for consumers)?
Maybe i'm wrong here. Or maybe Apple could design the 7" screen with the 960-by-640 resolution of the iPhone or the 1024-by-768 resolution of the iPad. I dunno.
Quote:
From the standpoint of a stockholder I find it frustrating the Apple would give up so much market share. From the standpoint of a user, the lack of suppport for wide aspect ratios and a smaller screen leaves me frustrated.
In any event niether of these concerns are defensive. Rather it is an expressiondesire for things to be seen in iPad 2.
Sorry about the confusion!
I was trying to agree with you here, not call you defensive. On many threads, people have been vociferous trashing the 7" idea (even before Jobs took a whack at it, but even more so now).
As a stock holder and a user, I also think Apple should be in that market even it is less than ideal for what Jobs thinks tablets should be used for.
I agree. we have no way of knowing for sure and Apple has not (and will not) provide data to prove or disprove the point. If the profit margins do continue to drop as iPad sales increase we may infer it, but we won't really know.
(But you have to admit, the article did indicate that iPads were putting downward pressure on margins whether they can prove it or not.)
The implication was made, but I don't put much stock in implications.
Apple's margins on the iPad must be tight since their competitors clearly cannot compete. It's obvious nobody else can deliver a device with a capacitive touchscreen over 7 inches for a similar price (if at all). It's a testament to the irrationality of Apple's detractors that some have convinced themselves the diminutive touchscreens on competing tablets are by choice rather than necessity.
Agree except for "margins on the iPad must be tight." Businessweek estimates the low-end iPad's component costs to be about $259:
The screen is the most expensive component, followed by flash RAM, then the A4 system-on-chip. Apple keeps its costs down by using very similar circuit boards in all their iDevices, from iPhone to iPod touch to iPad to Apple TV. They can thus purchase components (especially flash RAM) in huge quantities at the best per-unit prices in the industry.
It all started way back in 2005 with the first flash RAM-based iPods, the iPod shuffle and nano. That's how long Apple has been working on increasing their use of flash RAM. Apple is now the world's leading consumer of flash RAM, and as such, they get the best prices. And Apple is obviously itching to extend the use of flash RAM (in the form of SSDs) in Macs beyond the MacBook Air line.
Oh, and as for 7" tablets? 7" is exactly the wrong size. Too small to touch-type on, too big to fit in a pocket, too big to use as a phone, too small to be a laptop replacement. A useless "tweener" size. The Samsungs of the world, with their small tweener tablets, are desperately flailing around in the wake of iPad. Trying something, anything, to make themselves more relevant in the post-PC era.
Oh, and as for 7" tablets? 7" is exactly the wrong size. Too small to touch-type on, too big to fit in a pocket, too big to use as a phone, too small to be a laptop replacement. A useless "tweener" size. The Samsungs of the world, with their small tweener tablets, are desperately flailing around in the wake of iPad. Trying something, anything, to make themselves more relevant in the post-PC era.
I was at The Source today to have a look at the Galaxy Tab. The first thing out of the salesperson's mouth, "Unlike the iPad, the Galaxy Tab displays flash.". I told her that is a non-issue with me. Her answer, "Well, yes, it would be a non-issue for someone who is stuck on the iPad and won't look at anything else.". At which point I told her that she was correct... I didn't want to look at anything else... and then I promptly left the store.
As a stock holder and a user, I also think Apple should be in that market even it is less than ideal for what Jobs thinks tablets should be used for.
How anyone who professes to be a stockholder can express even mild disappointment in the strategy of Steve Jobs absolutely blows me away. Apple has a very focused strategy that is proving itself to be the envy of all of its competitors. It is a result of this focus that Apple is not trying to be everything to everyone .... unlike most of the rest of their competition. Let the "bottom feeders" have the multi-size, multi-style designs ..... let Apple dominate the "right size and style" as defined by the marketplace and let us be happy, while we keep watching our money grow.
I was at The Source today to have a look at the Galaxy Tab. The first thing out of the salesperson's mouth, "Unlike the iPad, the Galaxy Tab displays flash.". I told her that is a non-issue with me. Her answer, "Well, yes, it would be a non-issue for someone who is stuck on the iPad and won't look at anything else.". At which point I told her that she was correct... I didn't want to look at anything else... and then I promptly left the store.
[on edit - full disclosure... I own an iPad.]
That?s what I?d expect from vendors. Besides Flash, is there really anything else non-iPad tablets can feasibly market to the average user?
Right strategy, wrong rationale. The Mac was never a leading product and was released into a market already dominated by IBM-PC clones. This wasn't a mistake, it was just the way the market was preconfigured. For the iPad, Apple has a clear field. The company is signaling a similar strategy to the one they've taken with the iPhone. Apple will challenge competitors or potential competitors on price, and will not provide them with a price overhang to squeeze under.
I don't know about that. Apple is one company. In 2011 to 2012 they will face an onslaught of low-to-zero margin poor-quality products thrown into the market. Apple will have to cede marketshare. People will always buy cheap crap, and Apple doesn't do that, so... I see Apple ceding 50% of the tablet market by end of 2011 to other manufacturers. But just like iPhone, iPad will be a significant product still. Not like the Mac, which is not as significant in terms of market share and volume of PCs sold.
What Apple has learnt is that it can still be significant by innovation, volume of products and appropriate pricing. Mac is "niche" for many reasons, but iPhone/iOS and iPad would hold at least a third of their respective markets in 2011, at very rough estimates (I know this sounds vague). Bottom line, iPhone, iOS, iPad is a significant, major player in 2011 and 2012, but may not be dominant.
Comments
I think in iPad 2 Apple will further bury the hatchet by lowering its price and by adding features like FaceTime, larger capacities, and even better battery performance. The competition will not be in a position to match Apple's offerings.
Competitors will have to sell their tablets at a loss in order to move units. And even then, because of the feature disparity, it will be an arduous task.
I think that you're wrong.
Same prices and more features will be good enough to maintain profitability and bury the competition.
After the novelty of the "tablet" form factor wears off, it will come down to functionality. If Android devices are largely email, web and media devices and the iPad/iOS family are capable of replacing your computer, then we're actually talking about different product categories.
I believe that you mean media consumption devices -- and I agree.
I, for one, am curious if Apple will offer the iMovie app on today's iPad. It may be that the iPad has insufficient RAM -- though the 4-Gen iPod Touch is supported (same RAM as iPad);
That's for today's iPad. What about iPad 2. I assume that it will have 1 GB RAM, a dual-core Cortex A9-based CPU and a GPU capable of running OpenCL.
That's some pretty serious compute power!
I suspect that it could handle iMovie as well as today's Mac iMovie -- and maybe even a iPad version of Motion!
.
I think that you're wrong.
Same prices and more features will be good enough to maintain profitability and bury the competition.
I think you're right.
I think in iPad 2 Apple will further bury the hatchet by lowering its price and by adding features like FaceTime, larger capacities, and even better battery performance. The competition will not be in a position to match Apple's offerings.
Competitors will have to sell their tablets at a loss in order to move units. And even then, because of the feature disparity, it will be an arduous task.
I think that you're wrong.
I just think it is funny how he used the term "burry the hatchet..."
Except nobody has to sign contracts with 7" tablets that would discourage them from switching over to a different tablet size.
The form factor of tablets does not mirror the carrier system for cellphones.
I dont think the comparison is particularly tight, but I still think it has some validity.
With phones, there were people who would not consider switching to AT&T--they might have bought iPhones but now many of the have Andriod phones.
With tablets, many people think that the iPad is too big or heavy. If Apple does not give them what they want, many of them will buy from competitors who do offer the form factor they want. While those competitors are figuring things out and working out the bugs, their users will not necessarily see the product as inferior to the iPad because they may not see iPad as comparable due to its different form factor..
The fact that there are no contracts means that switching from one product to the other is easier, sure. However, people will still have an investment in apps and a familiarity with the operating system they have been working with and maybe some sense of brand loyalty.
Besides, it is not the two year contract which sent many Verizon users to Android but the lack of an Apple product that they could get...
I'm not sure why people get so defensive about Apple offering a 7" version of the iPad. I know the screen resolution becomes a problem (unless you pack the same pixels in as the full size iPad, but that would preclude a full size retina display).
The way I see it, the iPhone not being on Verizon created an opportunity for Android to not only establish a foothold, but to get some unchallenged momentum in the smartphone space. Leaving the 7" tablet market to RIM and Android only gives them a chance to get set up with no Apple competition.
There is an interesting review of the Galaxy Tab at:
http://brooksreview.net/2010/11/tab-review/
It has some interesting insights about the 7" form factor, in general -- for example:
Haptic feedback is where the pleasantness of typing on the Tab ends. This is not just a matter of getting used to the keyboard. The device is simply too small to house a practical and functional landscape keyboard. I have typed many 1000+ word documents on my iPad onscreen keyboard in landscape mode with only minimal frustration. Trying to type even a paragraph though on the Tab was irritating for me – to the point where I had to go do something else for a bit. If you want to know what it is like to type on the Tab’s landscape keyboard and you own an iPad, you are in luck – flip your iPad into portrait view and pop up the keyboard, what you are looking at is faster to type on than the Tab’s landscape keyboard. This has to do with both the size and layout of the Tab keyboard. The layout should be a non-issue after using the device for a while, however the size will always be an issue.
There is an interesting review of the Galaxy Tab at:
http://brooksreview.net/2010/11/tab-review/
It has some interesting insights about the 7" form factor, in general -- for example:
Yeah, but it was written by someone who already decided that 7" was not the size for him. Nevertheless, there is also this quote:
so too then does the Tab make an excellent tablet for the right user.
If you are on the go all day and rarely create any content (more on this in a bit) then I think the Tab would suit you well. I can picture political aides running around with these things, emailing on their Blackberries and then grabbing the Tab to gulp down some news and policies while going from meeting to meeting.
Several of the iPad owners who I know do little or no content creation. Typing would not be an issue for them...
Remember, I am in no way arguing that 7" is the ideal size, only that some people will prefer it.
There is an interesting review of the Galaxy Tab at:
http://brooksreview.net/2010/11/tab-review/
It has some interesting insights about the 7" form factor, in general -- for example:
Thanks for posting the link - it is an interesting review, without either the complete pro or anti -apple bias you so often get. Overall conclusion was iPad superior, but both had their value, drawbacks, and place.
My view is still that Apple had it right with 10" as a first device. But once they have established this, and are well in credit with their developer support, they should introduce a 7" along when they can carry their app developer base to optimise for this version too.
They have, iPod Touch and iPhone.
The 7" Galaxy Tab is not a very good size, having used one it's too big for a pocket so you need a bag, then you may as well get the superior iPad.
My iPhone 4 is in for repair, so I've been using a few Android phones an underwhelming and annoying experience, it's like the difference between Coca Cola and a no name brand of Cola, sort of the same but different, I want my "real thing" back.
7x5 inch size is primo for lab coats and some
pockets
8x5 in is better
anyway the 8x5 7x5 size will be the best in the long run
a large touch i guess
9
I'm not sure why people get so defensive about Apple offering a 7" version of the iPad. I know the screen resolution becomes a problem (unless you pack the same pixels in as the full size iPad, but that would preclude a full size retina display).
How is screen resolution a problem? You use whatever screen you want in the device, be it one pixel per inch or 300. The goal is to get the physical size down to a managable level.
The way I see it, the iPhone not being on Verizon created an opportunity for Android to not only establish a foothold, but to get some unchallenged momentum in the smartphone space. Leaving the 7" tablet market to RIM and Android only gives them a chance to get set up with no Apple competition.
From the standpoint of a stockholder I find it frustrating the Apple would give up so much market share. From the standpoint of a user, the lack of suppport for wide aspect ratios and a smaller screen leaves me frustrated.
In any event niether of these concerns are defensive. Rather it is an expression of desire for things to be seen in iPad 2.
By the way if iPad 2 comes out with all the features I'm expecting I might buy into the platform. But the issue with respect to size is real, iPad is just a bit to big to take with you every where you go.
How is screen resolution a problem? You use whatever screen you want in the device, be it one pixel per inch or 300. The goal is to get the physical size down to a managable level.
I'm not a developer, but as I understand it, developers at present have to develop for the iPod touch/iPhone's screen resolution or for the iPad's. Sure the iPad can scale up the phone images, but it is not ideal. This leads to apps being developed and sold for both platforms. Would a new screen resolution in the mix not be annoying for developers (and for consumers)?
Maybe i'm wrong here. Or maybe Apple could design the 7" screen with the 960-by-640 resolution of the iPhone or the 1024-by-768 resolution of the iPad. I dunno.
From the standpoint of a stockholder I find it frustrating the Apple would give up so much market share. From the standpoint of a user, the lack of suppport for wide aspect ratios and a smaller screen leaves me frustrated.
In any event niether of these concerns are defensive. Rather it is an expressiondesire for things to be seen in iPad 2.
I was trying to agree with you here, not call you defensive. On many threads, people have been vociferous trashing the 7" idea (even before Jobs took a whack at it, but even more so now).
As a stock holder and a user, I also think Apple should be in that market even it is less than ideal for what Jobs thinks tablets should be used for.
I agree. we have no way of knowing for sure and Apple has not (and will not) provide data to prove or disprove the point. If the profit margins do continue to drop as iPad sales increase we may infer it, but we won't really know.
(But you have to admit, the article did indicate that iPads were putting downward pressure on margins whether they can prove it or not.)
The implication was made, but I don't put much stock in implications.
The implication was made, but I don't put much stock in implications.
Then you've missed out. Implication stock has been on a tear since the mid 90s.
Apple's margins on the iPad must be tight since their competitors clearly cannot compete. It's obvious nobody else can deliver a device with a capacitive touchscreen over 7 inches for a similar price (if at all). It's a testament to the irrationality of Apple's detractors that some have convinced themselves the diminutive touchscreens on competing tablets are by choice rather than necessity.
Agree except for "margins on the iPad must be tight." Businessweek estimates the low-end iPad's component costs to be about $259:
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...046_788280.htm
The screen is the most expensive component, followed by flash RAM, then the A4 system-on-chip. Apple keeps its costs down by using very similar circuit boards in all their iDevices, from iPhone to iPod touch to iPad to Apple TV. They can thus purchase components (especially flash RAM) in huge quantities at the best per-unit prices in the industry.
It all started way back in 2005 with the first flash RAM-based iPods, the iPod shuffle and nano. That's how long Apple has been working on increasing their use of flash RAM. Apple is now the world's leading consumer of flash RAM, and as such, they get the best prices. And Apple is obviously itching to extend the use of flash RAM (in the form of SSDs) in Macs beyond the MacBook Air line.
Oh, and as for 7" tablets? 7" is exactly the wrong size. Too small to touch-type on, too big to fit in a pocket, too big to use as a phone, too small to be a laptop replacement. A useless "tweener" size. The Samsungs of the world, with their small tweener tablets, are desperately flailing around in the wake of iPad. Trying something, anything, to make themselves more relevant in the post-PC era.
Oh, and as for 7" tablets? 7" is exactly the wrong size. Too small to touch-type on, too big to fit in a pocket, too big to use as a phone, too small to be a laptop replacement. A useless "tweener" size. The Samsungs of the world, with their small tweener tablets, are desperately flailing around in the wake of iPad. Trying something, anything, to make themselves more relevant in the post-PC era.
I was at The Source today to have a look at the Galaxy Tab. The first thing out of the salesperson's mouth, "Unlike the iPad, the Galaxy Tab displays flash.". I told her that is a non-issue with me. Her answer, "Well, yes, it would be a non-issue for someone who is stuck on the iPad and won't look at anything else.". At which point I told her that she was correct... I didn't want to look at anything else... and then I promptly left the store.
[on edit - full disclosure... I own an iPad.]
As a stock holder and a user, I also think Apple should be in that market even it is less than ideal for what Jobs thinks tablets should be used for.
How anyone who professes to be a stockholder can express even mild disappointment in the strategy of Steve Jobs absolutely blows me away. Apple has a very focused strategy that is proving itself to be the envy of all of its competitors. It is a result of this focus that Apple is not trying to be everything to everyone .... unlike most of the rest of their competition. Let the "bottom feeders" have the multi-size, multi-style designs ..... let Apple dominate the "right size and style" as defined by the marketplace and let us be happy, while we keep watching our money grow.
I was at The Source today to have a look at the Galaxy Tab. The first thing out of the salesperson's mouth, "Unlike the iPad, the Galaxy Tab displays flash.". I told her that is a non-issue with me. Her answer, "Well, yes, it would be a non-issue for someone who is stuck on the iPad and won't look at anything else.". At which point I told her that she was correct... I didn't want to look at anything else... and then I promptly left the store.
[on edit - full disclosure... I own an iPad.]
That?s what I?d expect from vendors. Besides Flash, is there really anything else non-iPad tablets can feasibly market to the average user?
Right strategy, wrong rationale. The Mac was never a leading product and was released into a market already dominated by IBM-PC clones. This wasn't a mistake, it was just the way the market was preconfigured. For the iPad, Apple has a clear field. The company is signaling a similar strategy to the one they've taken with the iPhone. Apple will challenge competitors or potential competitors on price, and will not provide them with a price overhang to squeeze under.
I don't know about that. Apple is one company. In 2011 to 2012 they will face an onslaught of low-to-zero margin poor-quality products thrown into the market. Apple will have to cede marketshare. People will always buy cheap crap, and Apple doesn't do that, so... I see Apple ceding 50% of the tablet market by end of 2011 to other manufacturers. But just like iPhone, iPad will be a significant product still. Not like the Mac, which is not as significant in terms of market share and volume of PCs sold.
What Apple has learnt is that it can still be significant by innovation, volume of products and appropriate pricing. Mac is "niche" for many reasons, but iPhone/iOS and iPad would hold at least a third of their respective markets in 2011, at very rough estimates (I know this sounds vague). Bottom line, iPhone, iOS, iPad is a significant, major player in 2011 and 2012, but may not be dominant.
Then you've missed out. Implication stock has been on a tear since the mid 90s.
I invested quite a bit in innuendo. Made out like a bandit.
I invested quite a bit in innuendo. Made out like a bandit.
Dammit. I doubled down on forthrightness and lost my shirt.