Then it's doomed.
Any tablet with a higher price than the iPad fails to generate any kind of lasting interest, I don't see why it will be different here.
Well, the wifi version is the same price, and, given the Apple nonsense of the past few days, if it lets me read and buy Kindle books, I'm likely going to be a customer.
The Xoom will mostly compete with the yet-to-be-announced iPad 2. The Xoom's specs completely blow the original iPad out of the water, so it's likely okay that it's priced above the current iPad; we'll have to wait and see what the iPad 2 brings to the table. If Apple can hit similar specs at a cheaper price then you might be right, but I doubt that'll happen.
The Xoom also has the Honeycomb advantage; I wonder what iPad 2's UI will look like. I think you underestimate how impressed average people will be when casually browsing tablets in stores. Honeycomb is gorgeous.
It needs to have higher specs, as it is running a knocked off Java. And as good as honeycomb cereal is, Android is pretty sluggish and ugly compared to iOS. iOS is <I><b>gorgeous.</b></I>
Nobody bought the iPad because of specs, aside from the battery life. If you think they did, you still do not understand the market, and are probably baffled that people are not buying Intel based tablets.
> It needs to have higher specs, as it is running a knocked off Java
What? This makes no sense at all. How are those two thoughts related at all? And Android runs real Java, not "knocked off" Java.
> And as good as honeycomb cereal is, Android is pretty sluggish and ugly compared to iOS. iOS is <I><b>gorgeous.</b></I>
Oh I see, you're a troll. I'll respond anyway. Android is not sluggish compared to iOS; especially given that Honeycomb isn't even out in the wild running on real devices yet, this statement is totally unfounded. I'll grant you that iOS is gorgeous, though. But so is Honeycomb. :)
> Nobody bought the iPad because of specs, aside from the battery life. If you think they did, you still do not understand the market, and are probably baffled that people are not buying Intel based tablets.
iPad was a new product in a new form factor. It was a "game-changer". Nobody bought it based on specs because they had nothing to compare it to. I'm definitely not suggesting that people will buy new tablets based on specs either, but it will matter that the two devices are in the same league.
I'm not a troll, I'm perfectly serious. I am pointing out that Google claims that Dalvik "IS NOT JAVA!!!" which is funny because everybody knows Android runs Java™.
Additionally, the specs are irrelevant when comparing the iPad, which runs C applications, to something that must ram everything through a Java VM. And I mean, irrelevant to geeks, as the platforms are so different that it is impossible to compare them based on specifications. To normal people, the specs are completely, 100%, totally irrelevant, aside from battery life.
The new iteration of Android has some UI tweaks, but it's still awfully busy. It's clearly made for the power user who cares about specs. I mean, yeah, you can see two things at once. Ordinary people will just say "I typed in the wrong window." It seems like an important spec to be able to have an arbitrary number of things going on at once on the device, and their Expose knockoff is, well, an Expose knockoff, but I just wonder if they thought this through all the way, or if they are thinking in a Microsoft sort of way, that one more bullet point on a spec sheet will make that sale.
As Apple discovered from the other side of the fence, the better specs often don't overcome a large pricing difference. Also, betting that the iPad 2 will cost more than the iPad 1 is probably not a winning bet. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a price drop coming.
Well, the 32Gb iPad 1 with Wi-Fi is $599 and Motorola is quoting $600 for 32Gb Xoom with load of more features - USB 2.0 port in itself is a big win along with plenty (1Gb) of RAM.
A message to anyone still believes the specs have something to do with the success of a tablet, against the iPad:
Only two things matter: The price, and the OS.
No tablet is even coming close to competing the iPad to this day only because of these two things. I'm not sure I actually have to dig into the mass grave of all "iPad killers" to prove my point.
Honeycomb based Android tablets, for the first time, are getting it right on both counts. You may not like Honeycomb and that would be your personal taste, but both feature wise and aesthetics/attractiveness/usability wise, it is looking great in comparison to iOS 4.x.
I don't see why it has to be doomed at this price. It is in the same ballpark as the iPad. With a subsidy, it will appear even cheaper than iPad. I am sure it won't ever beat the iPad on sales, but I can easily imagine it being a very successful and profitable product.
We learned from the iPod competitors that cheaper price and cheaper looking devices, even with more features/storage, won't win. So why not go head to head with a similarly priced, similar build quality device? I feel like Apple gets this win-win perception. Competitor releases a cheaper product, it is called a piece of junk that is DOA. Competitor releases a similar or higher priced product, it is overpriced and DOA.
Plus, "[a]ny tablet with a higher price than the iPad fails to generate any kind of lasting interest, I don't see why it will be different here"? Isn't a bit early to say? There has been only one real competitor, and while the Galaxy Tab hasn't taken the world by storm, it seems to be doing a tidy business.
I disagree. The Xoom has superior specs to the iPad. Pricing it any lower would give the consumer an unmistakable whiff of inferiority. Pricing it dead even with the iPad is exactly what Motorola should be doing.
>>> Any tablet with a higher price than the iPad fails to generate any kind of lasting interest, I don't see why it will be different here
Which tablet higher priced than the iPad failed to generate any interest? Xoom should the first Honeycomb based tablet. Given how close the Xoom is the current iPad in price but blows it away in specs, hard to see why it should be priced lower than the current iPad.
Glad to see Moto doing the most sensible thing - Very appealing price even when compared against the yet-hypothetical iPad 2 which is not likely to have 1Gb of RAM, dual cameras or USB 2.0 port for that matter.
I can buy a 3G USB dongle for, what, £20? Heck, for that price difference, I can buy a whole 3G Kindle.
I find it very hard to believe they're both subsidised that heavily by their respective backers, so why (other than supporting the price of overpriced 3.7" tablets, er smartphones) is the 3G enabled tablet so much more expensive?
What an awful name. Of course the iPad gas a lame name, but at least it has an obvious pronunciation. I see "Xoom" and say "exhume" which means to dig a body up.
I think I smell the reek of death. Now if the exhume was only say, $300 for the wifi only unit, they'd have something. Even $400 would be too much for what consumers will call a "generic iPad" as even the hard-up could find another $99 if they already had $400 to drop on a toy like a tablet.
Exhume indeed. This may illustrate to clever marketers that for a lot of people, the obvious and seemingly correct pronunciation for a clever brand might bite them. My grandpa called Qwest "queue west" as they made him wait for a customer service agent too long for his liking. He was onto something.
when the Apple tablet was announced, the chosen name for the device was subject to ridicule for weeks on the internet. After it became one of the fastest selling tech products ever, the internet whiners were nowhere to be found...
Hell I am writing this on my iPad, and I still think it is an awful name.
On edit: you missed my main point, which is that Xoom has no clear pronunciation. Is it "zoom?" I am supposing that is what they want me to call it, but "exhume" is what it looks like.
The main problem for me is that they destroyed trust by refusing to update the Android OS on some of their phones. Presumably the same thing will happen on the tablet.
Google got burned when they tried to sell Nexus phones directly; they couldn't match the carriers' bundled prices. But it might make sense for Google to sell a WiFi-only tablet directly.
Exactly. The Nexus One at $599 (I think) was competing against Verizon's Droid at $99 with rebate. A Google WiFi-only tablet would compete against the WiFi-only Xoom at $599 and could be price-competitive.
Xoom is running a stock install of Honeycomb with no Motorola UI modifications so hopefully this means quick updates. Also a Wifi only version means no additional delay due to the network carrier.
Wow, completely amazing pricing. Going to get the wi-fi version. This completely blow away the current iPad. Has front/back facing camera with video capture, better resolution, dual-core processor with graphics acceleration, HDMI, USB, microSD, Android 3.0 etc. Good strategy of going after the high end. After all, in another 6 months you will be able to get the current iPad like specs on the low end for $300/$400 from commodity players.
There's also Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1" coming out soon, wonder what the price would be for that device. With all this new subscription policy mess Apple is making, I'd rather be sure I have a Kindle and an Audible apps and not overpaying for the content, so I'm seriously considering an Android tablet.
36 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 89.1 ms ] threadWhich is sad, the Xoom looks like a great tablet.
The Xoom also has the Honeycomb advantage; I wonder what iPad 2's UI will look like. I think you underestimate how impressed average people will be when casually browsing tablets in stores. Honeycomb is gorgeous.
Nobody bought the iPad because of specs, aside from the battery life. If you think they did, you still do not understand the market, and are probably baffled that people are not buying Intel based tablets.
What? This makes no sense at all. How are those two thoughts related at all? And Android runs real Java, not "knocked off" Java.
> And as good as honeycomb cereal is, Android is pretty sluggish and ugly compared to iOS. iOS is <I><b>gorgeous.</b></I>
Oh I see, you're a troll. I'll respond anyway. Android is not sluggish compared to iOS; especially given that Honeycomb isn't even out in the wild running on real devices yet, this statement is totally unfounded. I'll grant you that iOS is gorgeous, though. But so is Honeycomb. :)
> Nobody bought the iPad because of specs, aside from the battery life. If you think they did, you still do not understand the market, and are probably baffled that people are not buying Intel based tablets.
iPad was a new product in a new form factor. It was a "game-changer". Nobody bought it based on specs because they had nothing to compare it to. I'm definitely not suggesting that people will buy new tablets based on specs either, but it will matter that the two devices are in the same league.
Additionally, the specs are irrelevant when comparing the iPad, which runs C applications, to something that must ram everything through a Java VM. And I mean, irrelevant to geeks, as the platforms are so different that it is impossible to compare them based on specifications. To normal people, the specs are completely, 100%, totally irrelevant, aside from battery life.
The new iteration of Android has some UI tweaks, but it's still awfully busy. It's clearly made for the power user who cares about specs. I mean, yeah, you can see two things at once. Ordinary people will just say "I typed in the wrong window." It seems like an important spec to be able to have an arbitrary number of things going on at once on the device, and their Expose knockoff is, well, an Expose knockoff, but I just wonder if they thought this through all the way, or if they are thinking in a Microsoft sort of way, that one more bullet point on a spec sheet will make that sale.
Only two things matter: The price, and the OS.
No tablet is even coming close to competing the iPad to this day only because of these two things. I'm not sure I actually have to dig into the mass grave of all "iPad killers" to prove my point.
Honeycomb based Android tablets, for the first time, are getting it right on both counts. You may not like Honeycomb and that would be your personal taste, but both feature wise and aesthetics/attractiveness/usability wise, it is looking great in comparison to iOS 4.x.
We learned from the iPod competitors that cheaper price and cheaper looking devices, even with more features/storage, won't win. So why not go head to head with a similarly priced, similar build quality device? I feel like Apple gets this win-win perception. Competitor releases a cheaper product, it is called a piece of junk that is DOA. Competitor releases a similar or higher priced product, it is overpriced and DOA.
Plus, "[a]ny tablet with a higher price than the iPad fails to generate any kind of lasting interest, I don't see why it will be different here"? Isn't a bit early to say? There has been only one real competitor, and while the Galaxy Tab hasn't taken the world by storm, it seems to be doing a tidy business.
Which tablet higher priced than the iPad failed to generate any interest? Xoom should the first Honeycomb based tablet. Given how close the Xoom is the current iPad in price but blows it away in specs, hard to see why it should be priced lower than the current iPad.
Guess we'll have to wait and see though!
I find it very hard to believe they're both subsidised that heavily by their respective backers, so why (other than supporting the price of overpriced 3.7" tablets, er smartphones) is the 3G enabled tablet so much more expensive?
I think I smell the reek of death. Now if the exhume was only say, $300 for the wifi only unit, they'd have something. Even $400 would be too much for what consumers will call a "generic iPad" as even the hard-up could find another $99 if they already had $400 to drop on a toy like a tablet.
Exhume indeed. This may illustrate to clever marketers that for a lot of people, the obvious and seemingly correct pronunciation for a clever brand might bite them. My grandpa called Qwest "queue west" as they made him wait for a customer service agent too long for his liking. He was onto something.
Hell I am writing this on my iPad, and I still think it is an awful name.
On edit: you missed my main point, which is that Xoom has no clear pronunciation. Is it "zoom?" I am supposing that is what they want me to call it, but "exhume" is what it looks like.
I wish for a "Nexus One" of Honeycomb tablets...