Looks like even Google is afraid to directly take on the 800lb. gorilla that is the 10" iPad at the $500 price point. Xoom, Touchpad, Playbook(7") and countless others seem to have bit the dust trying. HTC and LG have even temporarily quit the tablet market to stem the bleeding. Wonder if ASUS is seeing volume on its Transformer line. Also, does anyone know how the Galaxy Tab is doing?
Even Kindle Fire's sales are slowing, so lets see how the market reacts to this. Unlike phones, which are must-haves, people have a lot of discretion when it comes to owning a tablet or not. Sadly, the only real competition to take the iPad head on this year seems to be the Surface and we'll have to wait and see what the price is.
FWIW, this is from recent Morgan Stanley coverage entitled "Tablet Landscape Evolution
Window(s) of Opportunity":
Amazon.com was not in our Blue Paper a year ago. After
a rapid Kindle Fire ramp in 4Q11, its long-term share
looks uncertain. The company gained 17 points of tablet
market share in 4Q11 after launching the Kindle Fire in mid-
November. Just as quickly, the product lost steam and fell to 4% share in 1Q12. While the company looks to be committed
to the tablet market long-term, it is not a preferred way to play tablet proliferation given the current uncertainty in our view.
[...]
Amazon.com’s Kindle Fire is also seeing less interest—
with only 4% of the current tablet installed base and with only 3% of prospective tablet owners planning to purchase an
Amazon.com tablet. However, we believe Amazon.com may
refresh the Kindle Fire in Q3, with an update to the current 7-inch product and potentially a new 10-inch Kindle Fire.
Amazon.com has been elusive about any upcoming product
releases and consumers have not seen any prototype, so
potential demand for a refreshed 7-inch Fire and a new 10-
inch Fire tablet are likely not fully captured in this survey.
It was mostly about other topics, but I think their sales research is accurate.
"According to a recent report from Pacific Crest Securities, a Portland, Oregon-based investment bank, orders for components used in Amazon's standard e-readers have fallen 75% from the bank's previous expectations."
HTC quitting the game is actually a bit of a shame. The 7" HTC Flyer has been the best home browsing device I've had.
This new Nexus 7 sort of fills the same gap, but without the tap the screen with the stylus to take a screenshot, doodle on it, and send it onwards aspect that is so handy for web/mobile developers.
I fail to see how a 10" iPad is a compelling device. Theres one sitting here in my household and it barely gets used. It's far too locked down to be of any use at that size. Far too close to an actual laptop than a phone in reality.
Where these new range of devices excel is their ability to be used single handed. Physically and Psychologically it becomes a small device similarly to your phone.
Y'know, maybe Google is afraid to take on the iPad at $500, but thats such a waste of money and such a big risk. The market has proven theres a demand for cheap and small tablets.
I don't think google can compete with the ipad. The ipad is priced competitively, and the question every similar tablet has to answer is why on earth would I pay as much for this as I would for an ipad? There doesn't appear to be any good answers. The android tablet manufacturers don't appear to able to compete on price with a similar hardware quality.
edit: I meant compete directly. Obviously they can make something nowhere near as nice but a lot cheaper. But is there much profit in that? The answer so far from android phones seems to be there isn't much profit and it's hard to walk up the value chain.
It's also 3" smaller, shorter battery life, much lower resolution, and maxes out at 16GB of storage.
I suspect Google has priced this very competitively (low margins) specifically to compete with iPad by offering something half the price.
If they'd put out a device with comparable features in screen, battery, and storage it would have had to be priced so close to the iPad that the question "why not just have an iPad?" would still remain.
This is pitched aggressively against the iPad as a (good) inferior product at an amazing price point.
216 PPI vs 264 for the new iPad and vs 132 PPI for the old $400 iPad. How is that not extremely competitive? It even has a quad core processor compared to iPad's dual core.
Not sure what people are looking for to see them "competitive with the iPad". Would you be happy if it was 10% weaker on hardware but 5x cheaper? Would that make Android tablets "competitive" from your point of view?
I think the hardware is not a problem at all. It's the perception that Android doesn't have tablet apps, but on 7" tablet apps are almost a non-problem since most phone apps should work fine. The problem is a little bigger with 10" tablets. But at this point I really think the bigger issue is the perception. At this point even if Android had half the tablet apps of the iPad with with $100 cheaper price, people would still think it's not competitive.
In the same time, they seem to be excited about $600 Windows RT tablets with similar hardware as this Nexus 7 $200 tablet, that has no ecosystem of apps at all. So clearly this is much more about perception than it is about reality.
I think the key thing here is the "built for Play" moniker. It's also an extension of just how deeply integrated Android has always been with the cloud.
I've been using Android since the G1 first came out. My devices are a portal to my stuff rather than a container, and I don't overly care about storage space as a result. My music streams from Play to my phone in the car. I stream Netflix to my tablet. I haven't manually synced my phone to anything in years, and been through multiple devices and hundred of factory wipes playing with different ROMs in that time. Facebook statuses asking phone for phone numbers after losing a phone mystify me because I can't remember the last time I had to manually sync a device to back up my data.
The relatively slim storage is as much about a different approach to mobile devices as anything, IMO.
I understand where you're coming from, but customers who want/need to swap out batteries themselves are too small of a market for Apple to care about. Unfortunately for you, the trend of ever-tighter industrial design (which means integrated batteries) only looks like it will continue.
will_work4tears: Lithium batteries (used in all modern phones and tablets) work best when not drained completely before recharging.
In fact, there's usually firmware specifically designed to cut power off before the battery completely discharges, because completely discharging the battery can physically damage it. (Completely discharging LiPoly batteries can actually produce a fire hazard, because gaseous hydrogen is generated inside the cell!)
Because I like to be able to swap my batteries without paying 200 bucks and having my electronic device away (Send to apple to replace).
Also, I'm don't like Apple as a company and am not a brandphile. Having a smart phone or tablet is enough for me, I don't need to flash around a brand name to feel important.
you are a brandophobe then, completely guided by a logo rather than the capabilities of the device.
i own iPad 1, 2 and 3 devices (through my job) - never, ever did i need to replace the battery. it lasts very long, days, by then you have plugged it in somewhere.
my customers are big on ipads for their mobile sales forces and none, NONE, report issues with the batteries. that's a sample size of 15k+ users, worldwide.
>you are a brandophobe then, completely guided by a logo rather than the capabilities of the device.
I don't like Apple as a company, but I'd buy their products if their capabilities matched my requirements. A changeable battery is my gamechanger. My ONLY major one (price is often an issue, but I agree that the quality of Apple products reasonably matches the price - if only a bit inflated).
And just because people don't complain to you about the battery usage doesn't mean there aren't issues - nor that they just don't blindly accept the limitations. Why would they report it to you anyway? Are you working for Apple tech support?
I actually think they are putting this up head to head by making people ask the question about whether they should bother spending the extra £200 on an iPad.
Tablets are very much a luxury item, no one really needs two of them.
Essentially they're after people who are on the fence by making it too attractive price-wise to pass up on.
I think you're right that tablets are a luxury item but that might also be part of the iPad's success too. People aren't really looking for the cheapest option it seems. I remember reading somewhere that the average iPad sale price ends up being above $650 since a good number of people opt for the larger capacity or cellular models.
it's also crap compared to the ipad. Smaller, lower resolution screen. Less storage. No ability to directly access wireless networks. Crappier apps. Fewer apps. Crappy entertainment ecosystem compared to itunes. Most likely Google will dick you on OS updates just like the nexus phone that waited months and months. No genius bar to send your mom to. etc etc etc.
Can't believe i'm even replying to this but here goes.
Your'e exactly whats wrong with Apple, instead of looking and hoping for innovation and risks your essentially saying don't bother, it's been done before. Maybe this device will be 'crap' but who knows? Maybe this device becomes the best selling 'tablet' over the next 12 months and Apple changes their game.
This is a fantastic, cheap piece of hardware with an elegant ecosystem, with lots of potential might I add. If you don't find that exciting - I feel bad for you.
When I got my transformer it was competing directly against the ipad. Flash, a video app I trusted to play everything, and (being honest, and going against my normal tendencies) that beautiful copper look are reasons I would have paid an ipad price for it, and it was actually substantially cheaper.
DF / allthingsd is relevant: essentially, there is no profit in the google nexus tablet and they're selling it at a loss. Thus my point is correct: Google can't compete with the iPad and instead they're going for decent but really cheap. Which is fine, but how long are they going to take a loss on the hardware? Also, this quote is money:
"When it gets sold through the Play store, there’s no margin,” Rubin said. “I
t just basically gets (sold) through.”
However, it appears that the Nexus 7 is headed for retail shelves, as well,
though only the plans for the Google Play store were announced on Wednesday.
While that kind of cost structure could make life challenging for any other
hardware makers looking to sell Android tablets, Rubin insists there is
plenty of room left for Android tablet innovation.
That was the sound of Google's partners being dicked.
Even Kindle Fire's sales are slowing, so lets see how the market reacts to this. Unlike phones, which are must-haves, people have a lot of discretion when it comes to owning a tablet or not. Sadly, the only real competition to take the iPad head on this year seems to be the Surface and we'll have to wait and see what the price is.