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

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 102
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post


    Eric Schmidt sat on Apple's board when the iPhone was in early development, so, He was able to steal it while it was happening, I'm not sure why Apple has not sued the pants off him for that. Now that Google wasn't on the Apple Board.....well.......ya get ...Honeycomb in all its glory. With all the Tablet manufactures putting their eggs in one basket, so to speak, they all get to fail together.



    According to the new book on Google, steve was so infuriated by that betrayal that he kept any knowledge of the iPad from Schmidt while he was on the board.
  • Reply 22 of 102
    Not going to be easy for the competitors. They now have to either be equal AND cheaper then ipad, since Apple is the 'high priced, premium' brand, that happens to also be the cost leader. Or be same price and better. But better and more expensive won't sell much.



    Google is blowing their chance now, we need Microsoft to jump in and give us something really different the iPad/iOS. how about a $500 Windows Mobile Tablet with front and back facing Kinect hardware! That platform would own augmented reality.
  • Reply 23 of 102
    walshbjwalshbj Posts: 864member
    Throws a lot of cold water on everyone who said the iPad is just a big iPod touch.
  • Reply 24 of 102
    512ke512ke Posts: 782member
    It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.
  • Reply 25 of 102
    boogabooga Posts: 1,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Apple cannot patent the idea only the code a UI methodology. Google did not use any of Apple's code or directly use the iPhone's UI.



    This is the opposite of true. Copyright applies to code, while patents apply to the ideas behind the code. You can't patent facts or goals, but you can patent any methodology whether you have code for it or not.
  • Reply 26 of 102
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...] Problems cited by sources in Taiwan include "brand image, pricing, insufficient applications and the unstable performance of Android 3.0." [...]



    That pretty much sums it up. Except for the lack of an infrastructure for media and app delivery, and 200 million accounts with associated credit card info.



    Oh, and there's also the overall experience. Sometimes the intangibles are the hardest to get right.
  • Reply 27 of 102
    The Droidtards always say that Apple's brand image isn't worth anything. Consumers are really foolish just paying extra for an Apple logo. But as far back as I remember, most of the consumers that I know have always been willing to pay more for a branded logo.



    Some analyst is saying that Apple might be able to sell between 45 and 60 million iPads this year. The number seems to be increasing by the month. That's an unbelievably high number of tablets increase from one year to the next. Possibly 3X to 4X the amount as last year. Let's see if Apple's share price moves accordingly.
  • Reply 28 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Richr1951 View Post


    Xoom rhymes with Zune



    I'm pretty sure Xoom is droid-speak for "Soon."
  • Reply 29 of 102
    mlayermlayer Posts: 23member
    1. Don't rush the product just to beat Apple. Whether it's Samsung last year or Motorola in March or RIM preannouncing in September, it's bad form to release half-baked. Unlike phones, people are reading the reviews on these things to see which ones work best. The ones with mediocre reviews aren't selling. Apple got its fans to buy in, which created a network effect as new apps and functionality was released. Few of the competitors will be able to do that.

    2. Tablets aren't phones.Both Samsung and Motorola thought they could simply leverage the same old carrier-based subsidy/spiff sales style and rack up the sales. They did not foresee that people didn't want yet another contract. Now Samsung is being forced to practically dump its products and the first 3g-based Xoom sales are weak.

    3. Margins are going to be crushing. Apple was taking a risk when selling the iPad because it's a higher cost to build, potentially lower margin product. They made up for that by having built-in value-add as the average selling price over time is over $600. If people looking for an alternative don't like Apple's "premium" brand guess what's going to sell? The ultra cheap models with razor thin margins. Just like netbooks it'll be a race to the bottom all over again. Then again, Google is forcing higher hardware specs for Honeycomb, which should help keep the discounters at bay.

    4. The component crush. Apple buying up over half of the touchscreen market (and other parts with upfront cash) makes it harder for the compeitiors to forecast and book production. Can new plants come online fast enough to meet demand? If you're Apple, not fast enough.



    Tablet sales are being propelled by one simple question, "Tablets are different, but why are they good?" Apple has answered that question. When the others start capably solving that riddle, their sales can start to take off too.
  • Reply 30 of 102
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    There is a lot of gray area in there. The over all point is that Apple cannot copywrite or patent everything about the iPhone to the point where no one else is able to create a similar type of mobile platform.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    This is the opposite of true. Copyright applies to code, while patents apply to the ideas behind the code. You can't patent facts or goals, but you can patent any methodology whether you have code for it or not.



  • Reply 31 of 102
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 512ke View Post


    It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.



    The cell carriers heavily influence smart phone sales. The BlackBerry used to be the darling of Verizon. Got thrown under the bus when Verizon saw Android as the new hot thing. Oops.



    But pad computing is a whole different scene. You don't actually need 3G or LTE connectivity in your iPad or iPad clone if you use it with wi-fi. This means you don't necessarily need a cell plan, which drastically reduces the cell carriers' ability to mess around with you. And that makes pads less interesting to the cell carriers. They aren't a major revenue stream because they don't get users locked into cell plans. So the carriers don't bother promoting them very heavily. The cost/benefit is too high.



    So it's up to the retailers. The big-box electronics stores, etc. Why retail? Why don't people just buy their pads sight unseen from Apple.com or Motorola.com or Samsung.com? For the same reason people don't buy cars online (very much anyway.) We need to things it out in person.



    And that's where Apple gets their hooks in us. Ever since the original iPod, Apple has tried to make all of their hand-held products feel really great in the hand. It's just part of the overall Apple experience, which as we all know includes hardware design, software design, and the integration between the hardware and software. All of which adds up to a superior experience.



    The experience is what sells iPads. Not the cheapest 2000 minute rollover plan. And that's why Android is DOA in the pad space.
  • Reply 32 of 102
    ted13ted13 Posts: 65member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 512ke View Post


    It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.



    It's pretty obvious when you think about -- Android phones are successful because they are pushed or given away for free by the carriers. Their true cost is hidden from the customers. Most Android phone are dimly aware of Android -- they just know they are getting an App phone from their current carrier.



    Android Tablets on the other hand have to actually compete head to head with the iPad, unsubsidized. It immediately becomes obvious that compared to the iPad they are either more expensive or markedly inferior.



    Lastly, Android phones are not as successful as you have been led to believe -- a lot of them are "Android" phone -- no Google apps, no Marketplace, not even Google search -- just a fork based on an older version of Android's source code. This is particularly true in the Chinese market. As time goes on these phones will resemble Google's Android less and less. Calling them Android phones silly, but is good for Andy Rubin to trumpet how successful Android is.
  • Reply 33 of 102
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    It's simple really, people don't want tablets, they want iPads...



    ...or $300 netbooks that can do "real" work.*





    *Source 10 million blog posts from Droid/Win-tards pre iPad 1 release.
  • Reply 34 of 102
    ivladivlad Posts: 742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post


    Not really



    Apple invested a lot of effort (and money) in many years (since Newton) in the iPad. The success is earned by hard work and dedication. It didn't become a success overnight. Rumor had it that the iPad was ready for market before the iPhone, although the latter was publicized first.



    Competitors will have to work hard to deserve a slice of the tablet market. So far, I feel that they haven't done enough homework ...



    It wasn't iPad it was Safari tablet and Jobs took it apart and made Apple to focus on iPhone instead. That was way back in 2006.
  • Reply 35 of 102
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkalu View Post


    This is strange. In spite of the great reviews of Xoom by anti Apple bloggers.



    This is great news, I imagine the Tablet manufacturers are heaving a collective "Thank God for the Earthquake" , because now they have a legitimate reason to delay their launches behind shortages of components and save face. They can blame their delays on the parts shortage and spend the time improving their implementations and at least attmpt to compete with the iPad2 on some sort of level playing field.
  • Reply 36 of 102
    jacksonsjacksons Posts: 244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post


    Eric Schmidt sat on Apple's board when the iPhone was in early development, so, He was able to steal it while it was happening, I'm not sure why Apple has not sued the pants off him for that.



    Because they can't.
  • Reply 37 of 102
    jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,564member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post


    Eric Schmidt sat on Apple's board when the iPhone was in early development, so, He was able to steal it while it was happening, I'm not sure why Apple has not sued the pants off him for that.



    I would have no knowledge of this so I'm curious. Do board members normally have insight into R&D projects, other than high level? As in, "We're going to make a phone." or "We're going to make a tablet." Does the board know any of the technical details or specs of such projects?
  • Reply 38 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Apple cannot patent the idea only the code a UI methodology. Google did not use any of Apple's code or directly use the iPhone's UI.



    From the way it sounds getting an early peek at the iPhone gave Google a road map with where to go with Android development.



    Now with the tablet space they have no direct access to Apple's ideas and have to develop it all on their own.





    What about conflict of interest? A member of the board of directors is supposed to look out for the best interests of the corporation he is representing. If he cannot because of a conflict of interest, he is obliged to recuse himself. If he doesn't, he is liable to civil and criminal prosecution.
  • Reply 39 of 102
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post


    its all about the ecosystem.



    I think it's all about making a finished product. I mean honestly, who in their right mind would buy something that needs sending back to be finished.



    The problem here isn't Google and it's not ecosystem related, it's a Motorola problem. If they had waited until it was finished, sales would probably have been pretty good. Now even when they do finish it, sales will be muted because in peoples minds it will always be the tablet that has to be sent back.
  • Reply 40 of 102
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    I would have no knowledge of this so I'm curious. Do board members normally have insight into R&D projects, other than high level? As in, "We're going to make a phone." or "We're going to make a tablet." Does the board know any of the technical details or specs of such projects?



    In my experience how much the board knows about what is going on varies from company to company. I imagine in Apple they know very little beyond, "we're going to make a phone".
Sign In or Register to comment.