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.

>and maxes out at 16GB of storage.

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.

iOS can do all of what you listed.

And it still has decent storage options for media/books/etc that you want to use whilst offline.

I'd pay more than an iPad for a tablet with identical specs if it had replaceable batteries.

I'll never, ever personally purchase an Apple product until they do.

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!)

"only looks like it will continue"

This is probably true, but hopefully battery technology gets better and electronics require less and less power.

Charging every day is a hassle. Especially since you supposedly shouldn't charge until it's entirely drained.

>Especially since you supposedly shouldn't charge until it's entirely drained.

Is this true? I thought it was an old wives tale.

> I'd pay more than an iPad for a tablet with identical specs if it had replaceable batteries.

Why?

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?

Exactly, it's not competing on features, it's competing on price. That's sort of what it means to be "price-competitive" :)