From my understanding Apple spent a lot of time getting the form factor right for the iPad. A lot of thought went into ensuring the OS was adequate for the device. None of Apple's competitors was expecting a marketplace for tablet devices like the iPad.
All of iPad's competitors right now are jokes. It's as if companies think it's the shape of the device matters more than the experience of using the device. I guess knowing this is the difference between creating a market and just trying to build devices for a market.
From my understanding Apple spent a lot of time getting the form factor right for the iPad. A lot of thought went into ensuring the OS was adequate for the device.
The device is too big and too heavy. The OS far from optimal for the device. That the Galaxy Tab is a pretty marginal device, with a slew of weaknesses, in no way validates anything that Apple has done with the iPad.
The iPad is a superior device to the tab. However I, and billions of other people, haven't opted to buy it. The market waits for something that fits our needs better.
It's as if companies think it's the shape of the device matters more than the experience of using the device. I guess knowing this
What does this even mean? It sounds like some sort of iPad-owner defensive reaction to a smaller tablet. Samsung couldn't suddenly make Android tablet-ready, but as above you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
A 7" tablet with a unoptimized OS does not invalidate a 7" tablet. A tablet with an unoptimized OS does not validate every facet of a tablet with a more appropriate OS.
As one aside, and to go slightly conspiratorial, the lack of decent Android competitors to the iPad falls largely on Google's shoulders. It strongly seems like Google was of mixed emotions about tablets, desperately wanting devices bigger than a smartphone to be owned by the ChromeOS project. They ignored the market, undermined the market, and only came around after lots of delays, all while ChromeOS slowly pushed its way into the light.
I honestly think the iPad size is spot on - a larger one would be too clumsy and a smaller one would sort of defeat the purpose of a device a bit.
It might be a bit on the heavy side (and I had to think about that) but I guess it is a trade off with battery size - and I'm pretty pleased with the battery life.
I'm not a particularly enthusiastic smartphone user (I have both a work iPhone and a personal Android phone) - I use the iPad far more than my phones.
I think it is still a bit early to rule out 7" tablets, since Tab is the only 7" device in the market now and running a non-recommended OS.
"Price" could be a deciding factor in this case. $649 is a ridiculous price. ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00480P67K/ref=asc_df_B00480P67K141... )
Pricing it above iPad is unbelievable. Someone who pays $649 (or $599 through discount stores) expects a greater value than iPad experience, which Froyo does not meet.
I agree. The iPad size allows me to, more or less, read web pages and standard pdf documents even with my old eyes.
7" must be a sweet spot for some people that don't need to read documents and want a screen larger than a mobile phone -- but still need the difference in portability.
" However I, and billions of other people, haven't opted to buy it. The market waits for something that fits our needs better."
are that this could have been said of any object 9 months after its appearance. This could have been said about movies, TV, radio, cell phones, etc.
I think it's clear that there is a market for iPad like devices.
My statement about shape versus experience is that there are a slew of tablet devices that clearly have been rushed into production. I think companies are doing this because they want to say, "We're in the tablet market too." Samsung made a tablet for the sake of making a tablet. I don't think they put much thought into the device. They were more focused on having a device than on having a device with a good user experience. Apple spent a lot of development time before they released the iPad. This shows in their product.
There is nothing wrong with a 7" tablet. There is something wrong with a 7" tablet using an OS not designed for such a device. Android isn't tablet ready and people should not expect Android tablets to be as good as the iPad.
BTW I don't own an iPad. I never buy first generation hardware.
I think it's clear that there is a market for iPad like devices.
Of course there is, as the market has clearly shown. I suspect that there will be a market for 5", 7", 10", 12", and so on tablets. Consumer choice is good.
Yet your post seemed to posit that because the iPad has succeeded where the Tab hasn't, every decision Apple made with the iPad (in particular form factor) has been validated. That is specious reasoning.
My original post mentioned that Apple spent a lot of time thinking about the user experience of the iPad before they actually produced it. Samsung hasn't put nearly as much thought into the user experience. The point being that it's natural that the Galaxy Tab has a higher rate of return than the iPad.
It should be the case that iPad is the market leader in this category. They created the category and made a very nice device. The other tablets are not nearly as polished as the iPad and this is obvious once you use them.
Concluding from what I've written that I think that "every decision Apple made with the iPad (in particular form factor) has been validated" is a miscarachterization.
Apple didn't create the category. Archos did, even though they saw none of Apple's great success. Nor did Apple create the touchscreen mobile smartphone category, but again their success has seen a lot of historical revisionism. I guess it is, as they say, the victor gets to write the history books.
However your original statement didn't have a lot of substance beside calling Apple's competitor's a "joke", and I took from it what I could glean.
It didn’t seem so bad when I tried it. As it stands nothing I would buy instead of an iPad but I couldn’t find any glaring flaws. Using it felt like using a smartphone with a somewhat larger screen, maybe not particularly optimized for its form factor but ok. I would be interested to know why people return it.
As an owner of an original Samsung Galaxy (i7500) I can safely say that I'm not surprised. Samsung's approach to Android has been to quickly release poor-quality phones with broken firmware and little thought in regard to the actual user-experience.
If I'm honest, it shocks me that people still buy Android phones from Samsung. Nearly everything they've released for Android has been of poor quality, yet they sweep their old products under the rug and release something new and shiny for Android fanboys to gawk over. I cannot help but believe that the desire for a platform to come out on top suppresses much of the deserved criticism some Android phones face.
Unfortunate owner of i7500 here. What a nightmare that was. The only thing stopping me from getting a SGS is previous history with their product and the uncommitted upgrade answers from the VP.
I'll also never touch a Sony Ericsson for the same reason.
They've published the audio and transcript from the Samsung official that apparently said sell-through was "quite small" and in reality they said "quite smooth".
What the hell does that even mean? When someone asks for a quantity you give them a number or an estimate of a number (big,average,small). When you want to describe squishy things then you can use smooth in the sentence (ie, the UI is smooth, workflow is smooth, this ice cream is smooth).
More importantly, regardless of whether they said small or smooth, the fact that they didn't give a number or at least a ballpark number (e.g. 'more than 1.5 mil") for the sell-out is indicative of sales not being all that good.
When you have to back off your 'sales' number for being a 'shipped' number and then decline to specify your actual 'sales' number, 'small' is the implication; whether they said it or not.
I've had a Galaxy Tab since they first came out, and I use it just about daily, in bed, on the exercise bike, in a jacket pocket out to Starbucks. I think the size is perfect, and with only one exception (TMZ) the apps have scaled to the 1024 x 600 screen resolution.
The big advantage of the Tab is that it's here and got good reviews. I waited just about all of 2010 for an Android tablet, the Adam, Joojoopad... and I'm skeptical of any Android tablet's ship dates. Maybe by the 2011 holiday season I'll have the choice of good quality Android tablets I thought I would have at the 2010 holiday season, but I'd have had use of the Tab for a year.
My real complaint with it is this is my first experience with Verizon. I'm supposed to have a "month-to-month", no contract data plan, months I don't want 3G I just don't pay, but my account seems to be accumulating past due amounts? Any ideas?
There is one major reason why people are returning the GT. The iPad launched with an operating system (OS 3.2) that was designed specifically for it's form factor yet Samsung chose to launch their flagship device with regular, off the shelf Froyo. Perhaps the return rate will go down(and the huge number of unsold tabs will finally start moving) once Honeycomb finally premiers. I know that's what's holding me back from buying it. Imagine an iPad that could only run iPhone apps in that cheesy 2X mode. No thank you.
Android does natively support quite decent resizing, so it isn't quite as bad as the 2x mode.
While a slicker, more polished interface will do wonders, I do suspect that a lot of the returns right now are still network effect issues: People who get the Tab as a present and then wonder why they can't run all those cool apps that their iPad toting friends have, etc. I would expect that return rates are much higher than iPhone return rates on smartphones as well, for the same reason.
That is changing, of course. The app situation -- and the network inclusion -- is quickly improving.
The Tab only makes sense as a device significantly discounted below the iPad. That it is actually the more expensive option is just perverse.
The Tab got some good reviews, some people comparing it favourably with the iPad. And they did rejigger some of the included apps for the bigger screen. Most of the negative chatter seems somewhat ideological, what with it apparently having the "wrong" size or "wrong" OS rather than any specific issues caused by these decisions. Even if this return rate applies across the globe they've sold more than I would have expected.
Since people repeatedly harp on the price, which has always been the same or less than the iPad+3G I'm guessing that the continued lack of a Wi-Fi only model is the real bone of contention (and/or the fact that tablets in general are too expensive for most folk, even/especially those who've already spent thousands on a slightly smaller, data-connected touchscreen slab that they carry as a phone).
I'm guessing the lack of Wi-Fi only was the (unforseen?) consequence of Google's restrictions on device capabilities which meant you needed a 3G radio and phone capabilities to get access to the Market. Google is supposed to have relaxed these and a Wi-Fi only model has been teased, though whether that will be eclipsed by the 2nd gen or not is a matter of timing.
I don't know what this statistic really means and I doubt anyone yet does. For years I've encountered people on the Net who think nothing of ordering the latest device just to "try" it and return it! They've stated so outright. So I wonder if this 16% does nothing but reflect those kind of people who make things miserable for everyone else who just want to buy?
If anyone is competing with iPad, they better price it appropriately. There is no reason for a typical consumer to choose a tablet that costs more than iPad, unless it provides a damn good experience that is beyond the iPad experience.
I bought a Mac Mini and returned it last year. If it had cost 1/2 as much, I wouldn't have returned it. It just didn't do enough for me to justify the price. If something turns out to be worth less to you than (the return value - time and irritation cost of doing the return), you return it.
32 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 32.5 ms ] threadAll of iPad's competitors right now are jokes. It's as if companies think it's the shape of the device matters more than the experience of using the device. I guess knowing this is the difference between creating a market and just trying to build devices for a market.
In fact right before iPad came out most competitors had products in the pipeline.
The second they saw what the iPad was they all scraped it.
At least you gotta give them credit for that.
The device is too big and too heavy. The OS far from optimal for the device. That the Galaxy Tab is a pretty marginal device, with a slew of weaknesses, in no way validates anything that Apple has done with the iPad.
The iPad is a superior device to the tab. However I, and billions of other people, haven't opted to buy it. The market waits for something that fits our needs better.
It's as if companies think it's the shape of the device matters more than the experience of using the device. I guess knowing this
What does this even mean? It sounds like some sort of iPad-owner defensive reaction to a smaller tablet. Samsung couldn't suddenly make Android tablet-ready, but as above you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
A 7" tablet with a unoptimized OS does not invalidate a 7" tablet. A tablet with an unoptimized OS does not validate every facet of a tablet with a more appropriate OS.
As one aside, and to go slightly conspiratorial, the lack of decent Android competitors to the iPad falls largely on Google's shoulders. It strongly seems like Google was of mixed emotions about tablets, desperately wanting devices bigger than a smartphone to be owned by the ChromeOS project. They ignored the market, undermined the market, and only came around after lots of delays, all while ChromeOS slowly pushed its way into the light.
It might be a bit on the heavy side (and I had to think about that) but I guess it is a trade off with battery size - and I'm pretty pleased with the battery life.
I'm not a particularly enthusiastic smartphone user (I have both a work iPhone and a personal Android phone) - I use the iPad far more than my phones.
"Price" could be a deciding factor in this case. $649 is a ridiculous price. ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00480P67K/ref=asc_df_B00480P67K141... ) Pricing it above iPad is unbelievable. Someone who pays $649 (or $599 through discount stores) expects a greater value than iPad experience, which Froyo does not meet.
7" must be a sweet spot for some people that don't need to read documents and want a screen larger than a mobile phone -- but still need the difference in portability.
But I doubt it is a large niche.
" However I, and billions of other people, haven't opted to buy it. The market waits for something that fits our needs better."
are that this could have been said of any object 9 months after its appearance. This could have been said about movies, TV, radio, cell phones, etc.
I think it's clear that there is a market for iPad like devices.
My statement about shape versus experience is that there are a slew of tablet devices that clearly have been rushed into production. I think companies are doing this because they want to say, "We're in the tablet market too." Samsung made a tablet for the sake of making a tablet. I don't think they put much thought into the device. They were more focused on having a device than on having a device with a good user experience. Apple spent a lot of development time before they released the iPad. This shows in their product.
There is nothing wrong with a 7" tablet. There is something wrong with a 7" tablet using an OS not designed for such a device. Android isn't tablet ready and people should not expect Android tablets to be as good as the iPad.
BTW I don't own an iPad. I never buy first generation hardware.
Of course there is, as the market has clearly shown. I suspect that there will be a market for 5", 7", 10", 12", and so on tablets. Consumer choice is good.
Yet your post seemed to posit that because the iPad has succeeded where the Tab hasn't, every decision Apple made with the iPad (in particular form factor) has been validated. That is specious reasoning.
It should be the case that iPad is the market leader in this category. They created the category and made a very nice device. The other tablets are not nearly as polished as the iPad and this is obvious once you use them.
Concluding from what I've written that I think that "every decision Apple made with the iPad (in particular form factor) has been validated" is a miscarachterization.
However your original statement didn't have a lot of substance beside calling Apple's competitor's a "joke", and I took from it what I could glean.
If I'm honest, it shocks me that people still buy Android phones from Samsung. Nearly everything they've released for Android has been of poor quality, yet they sweep their old products under the rug and release something new and shiny for Android fanboys to gawk over. I cannot help but believe that the desire for a platform to come out on top suppresses much of the deserved criticism some Android phones face.
I'll also never touch a Sony Ericsson for the same reason.
What the hell does that even mean? When someone asks for a quantity you give them a number or an estimate of a number (big,average,small). When you want to describe squishy things then you can use smooth in the sentence (ie, the UI is smooth, workflow is smooth, this ice cream is smooth).
That sales, as a function, have derivatives of all orders?
While a slicker, more polished interface will do wonders, I do suspect that a lot of the returns right now are still network effect issues: People who get the Tab as a present and then wonder why they can't run all those cool apps that their iPad toting friends have, etc. I would expect that return rates are much higher than iPhone return rates on smartphones as well, for the same reason.
That is changing, of course. The app situation -- and the network inclusion -- is quickly improving.
The Tab only makes sense as a device significantly discounted below the iPad. That it is actually the more expensive option is just perverse.
Since people repeatedly harp on the price, which has always been the same or less than the iPad+3G I'm guessing that the continued lack of a Wi-Fi only model is the real bone of contention (and/or the fact that tablets in general are too expensive for most folk, even/especially those who've already spent thousands on a slightly smaller, data-connected touchscreen slab that they carry as a phone).
I'm guessing the lack of Wi-Fi only was the (unforseen?) consequence of Google's restrictions on device capabilities which meant you needed a 3G radio and phone capabilities to get access to the Market. Google is supposed to have relaxed these and a Wi-Fi only model has been teased, though whether that will be eclipsed by the 2nd gen or not is a matter of timing.
If anyone is competing with iPad, they better price it appropriately. There is no reason for a typical consumer to choose a tablet that costs more than iPad, unless it provides a damn good experience that is beyond the iPad experience.