
Consumers Don't Want Tablets, They Want iPads - ssclafani
http://allthingsd.com/20110620/consumers-dont-want-tablets-they-want-ipads/
======
mquander
Look, that's because non-iPad tablets with a real (touchscreen, tablet-sized)
OS didn't exist until 3 months ago. Give Android a year and a half to let the
Android Market populate with some great tablet-sized software, and who among
us doubts that the tablet market will look just like the phone market does
now?

EDIT: The commenters responding to me made a really good distinction -- phones
are near-necessity devices that are subsidized by carriers, whereas right now,
tablets are more or less a luxury purchase. I agree that this might have an
effect on how things play out.

~~~
danilocampos
> who among us doubts that the tablet market will look just like the phone
> market does now?

I do.

For one thing, building tablet software is _hard_. I mean, extremely hard work
from a UI perspective. It makes stuff for the phone look like a cakewalk (I'll
share a blog post sometime). So if Android Market continues sucking ass in
terms of rewarding developers versus what they can make on the App Store,
you'll get a bunch of turd apps and not much magic because what's the point of
all that sweat?

Secondly, Android is inflated by the fact that if you want a cell phone you
_will be given an Android device for free_ if you start new service.

There is no magic free Android tablet tree – the economics are completely
different. There's the argument that you might see a halo effect from all
those phones... but people don't tend to value what's free and the carriers
are doing whatever they can to cram these phones with junk anyway.

So, like I said, I do.

~~~
mquander
I know you said you're working on a blog post, but I'd be really interested in
if you could elaborate on the challenges inherent to building tablet software
-- I build big enterprise-y software that is on Windows Mobile phones and
Windows tablets, and I find the tablet part to be much easier in terms of
designing a usable interface for the form factor.

Are there particular things you have in mind that are much easier to design
for a phone than for a tablet?

~~~
danilocampos
It's a focus thing, really. I suppose it depends on perspective.

With a phone, right, you have this 3-4ish inch screen to work with. You
absolutely have to focus. You've got a _gun to your head_ requiring focus,
commanding the basic flow of the application fit tidily within the confines of
this small space, this teensy viewport the user has into what they're working
on. Now, it's still possible to make crap (definitely) but the kinds of
mistakes you're able to make are limited by both space and what the user can
realistically accomplish with the limited time and tools inherent to the phone
form factor.

Now. You get to tablet land. Holy shit! Look at all this room. I can put
things here, and over here, and this place is nice – and then you have this
jumbled, unfocussed mess. For me, the tablet gives you a lot of rope to hang
yourself. Since the form factor isn't compelling focus and clarity, now you
have to do it yourself.

I love the luxury of creative constraints. Tablets just have fewer
constraints. A blessing and a curse, to be certain. Lots of great stuff you
can only do on a tablet, too.

~~~
nazar
We've been developing for desktop/laptop computers for years now. They also
give developer plenty of space to play with. From your comment I conclude that
developing for desktop must be the hardest thing ever, not talking about the
27' iMacs.

~~~
bigiain
Well, the quality of the "typical website" (aimed at desktop browsers)
certainly seems to support that conclusion...

There's certainly a very different mindset you adopt when developing for a
phone sized screen, and the constraints require super tight focus on the site
goals and processes that is often missing from the planning and requirements
stage of less-constrained web development.

Google the "mobile first" movement, and pay particular attention for the
writing of Luke Wroblewski - while not fully subscribing to "mobile first"
myself, I'm seeing some _strong_ benefits from at least considering it at the
very early planning stages of any new web project.

------
TomOfTTB
To me this article boils down to one main point: Apple is a premium brand
that's decided to sell its product for a less than premium price.

People almost always prefer the premium brands. It's a rare person who would
pick a Honda Civic over a BMW 5 Series if both were the same price. The
difference here is Apple's selling the low end iPad for a price companies like
Samsung can barely match. You're constantly hearing stories of how Apple has
an unbeatable advantage because they're already selling in such bulk.

So that's the problem. Other companies can't undercut Apple on price and lack
Apple's brand prestige.

~~~
ja27
It's also Apple's direct and retail sales infrastructure hurting non-iPad
prices.

It'd be like Honda trying to sell their cars through a bunch of third-party
car dealers like "Bob's Auto Mart" while BMW sold all of theirs through their
own BMW-owned dealerships.

~~~
revorad
That analogy doesn't hold up against the dominance of Windows vs Mac.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Actually, it kind of does.

Why, ultimately, did Windows initially achieve market dominance? Because it
evolved from MS-DOS.

Why did MS-DOS have market dominance? Because it ran on PC compatibles.

Why did PC compatibles have market dominance? Because they were drop-in
replacements for the IBM PC.

And why, despite being relatively late to the market, despite having a
relatively high price tag and a really ugly grey boxy look, did the IBM PC
have market dominance? Because IBM put their product into the hands of their
well-established and reputable corporate sales network dedicated to selling
IBM hardware, and they sold it all over.

Of course, this argument is incomplete and flawed because I haven't used the
words _Lotus 1-2-3_ yet. Unfortunately, the fact that killer apps also sell
hardware comes as little relief for Android. The closest thing to a killer app
that Android has come up with so far is Flash support. Unfortunately, with
mobile Flash it's still not clear who is doing the killing and who is doing
the dying.

~~~
revorad
So Windows and MS-DOS which ran on third party "dealer" imitations beat IBM
originals sold through an in-house sales network. I don't see how you are
refuting my argument.

~~~
Steko
Your argument is a total non sequitur to begin with.

If you were a large business buying computers in the mid 80's you bought them
directly from manufacturer (Compaq, Apple, whoever).

If you were a small business you bought your computer(s) from a third party
(computer store, Sears, wherever).

The Mac lost because most businesses bought for price and compatibility.

------
AretNCarlsen
Bernstein Research surveyed consumers to ask whether they would prefer a 7"
screen or a 10" screen? That does not have anything to do with iPad branding.
Would you prefer a 70" TV, or a 100" TV? You say 100"? Well, since Sony
manufactures the only popular 100" TV, I will infer that you prefer Sony brand
TVs.

The second half of the Bernstein release states that "Fifty percent of
respondents preferred Apple over all other brands." That is EXACTLY HALF, so
feel free to spin it the other way: "Fifty percent of respondents would not
choose Apple over another brand."

~~~
cwp
Except consumers aren't choosing between Apple and not-Apple. The second-
strongest brand in the survey is Dell, preferred by 12% of respondents. You
really think that focussing on Apple, with a brand 4x stronger than its
nearest competitor, is just spin?

Here's another quote from the article: "Apple has more than double the brand
appeal of BlackBerry, HTC, Motorola, Nokia and Samsung combined." Care to spin
that another way?

~~~
T-R
But for Android consumers, hardware manufacturer is usually a secondary
choice. I won't contest that Apple's ahead, but all this survey really points
out is that Apple has more control over their branding - consumers have no
need to distinguish between Apple, iPad, and iOS. Sure it's not beneficial for
manufacturers (in terms of market share) to be competing within a single
brand, against a company that controls its brand entirely - that's pretty
obvious. It doesn't support a conclusion that "customers want iPads, not
Tablets", however, since customers mostly aren't framing their purchasing
decisions around hardware manufacturers.

Again, I'm not saying Apple isn't dominating, but it does seem like the
question was written with the conclusion already in mind.

~~~
TheOnly92
Well, except that it doesn't matter for average consumers. If you read the
article closely, what the consumers want is to get a tablet and use it
comfortably. Why should they bother if they want 7" or 10"? Heck, why should
they even bother to _think_ about that?

This is different from a TV screen size, you don't have to hold the TV but you
definitely need to hold the tablet, too small and you can't get your things
done, too big it would be annoying to hold on to it as well. It does prove
that Apple had done research and a lot of testing to get the correct size.
Once this correct size is being pushed out, I don't see why consumers would
want to prefer other sizes.

Note: When I say consumers I refer to average consumers, geeks like options
and customizations, but average consumers don't want to be bothered by these.

------
wccrawford
Sure, Apple has half the market... Of a market they created and had a
headstart on.

Seems to me the others are catching up nicely, especially since most of them
are using the same OS series.

I just got an Asus Transformer and it is NICE. Especially now that I found
some software to let me remote into my desktop and have the tablet act as a
dumb terminal. My tabletpc (which I used mainly as a laptop) sits unused now
because the tablet is smaller, lighter, snappier, and produces no heat. I can
do all my Android-y games and little apps, as well as access the big stuff
from my PC in the other room, all from the couch.

And reading comics on it? Awesome.

I considered an iPad. Seriously considered it. What finally decided it was
open source software and creating my own apps. (And I have written 1 so far,
but not published... Need to polish it.)

~~~
r00fus
So you're really looking for a netbook and you decided (wisely) not to choose
the iPad?

The real slam here is that there is any such thing as the "tablet" market.
There's an iPad market, the netbook market, smartphone market, and PC market.
Trying to make something that addresses all of these poorly is a bad idea.

Windows TabletPCs never really caught on, and as you mention, an ARM-based
android "netbook" kills it for the target market.

Android tablets suffer from an app deficiency and still-maturing OS, not to
mention, they are addressing the iPad's native market (if they switched gears,
took netbooks head-on like the Asus Transformer they would probably have
better results).

~~~
wccrawford
Actually, what I wanted was an extremely lightweight netbook that could run
Android apps, but Bluestack hasn't taken off yet. The fact that the keyboard
is removeable is a huge bonus because it drops half the weight and size.

There will probably be something in the future that does more of what I want,
but this is good enough to get me by for a few years.

As far as I know, the iPad can't do what I want, even if I replace 'android
apps' with 'ipad/iphone apps'.

~~~
redrobot5050
Um, Remote Desktop and VNC apps are on the App Store aplenty.

And there are plenty of Keyboard Docks / Bluetooth Keyboards for the iPad.

------
kelnos
As an Android fan, I'm actually encouraged by this.

Look, when you're buying a tablet, you're buying into an OS/software
ecosystem. Yes, people are buying Apple because it's Apple. But they're also
buying Apple because of the App Store and because of a proven track record of
apps they enjoy and find useful (assuming some previous iPhone/iPod Touch
ownership).

But Android doesn't really have the brand thing so much with regard to the
individual manufacturers. I have an HTC phone right now, but I don't feel much
loyalty to HTC. My next phone might be made by Samsung or Motorola. I don't
much care, because I'm loyal to Android, not to the particular manufacturer.

So in that light, the US numbers for next tablet purchase are 50% iOS, 33%
Android, 9% RIM, and 8% don't care. And that's not bad, considering that Apple
has a good year's head start on Android wrt tablets.

------
hrabago
To me, this sounds very close to the Idea vs Execution we are all so familiar
with here at HN. People who know can't really claim that it's because Apple
came first - Windows had tablet devices before. People also can't claim it'd
because Apple learned from earlier tablets, because others have come after
that aren't as good. It's a result of Apple producing a good tablet.

I have a PlayBook I use for day-to-day in my day job, and it sometimes feels
as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be different from Apple.
However, it leads to an overall inferior experience for me, that I'm close to
giving up on the device. I can't see myself recommending it to anyone, except
for the fact that it plays Flash. However, even that issue isn't as big as it
was before.

I'm still hoping someone else produces a compelling product to challenge
Apple, whether it be Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. It would not be good for
all inovations in this product category to only come from one company.

~~~
bluekeybox
> It's a result of Apple producing a good tablet.

Yes, and not just anybody producing a good tablet, but _Apple_ producing a
good tablet.

> it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be
> different from Apple

It is tough to follow without being labeled a follower. If you do things the
same way, you are branded a copycat; if you do things differently, people will
say you are trying too hard to appear original even though in reality you are
no different from others (this was Apple in the early 2000s -- remember how
some people criticized them for trying too hard with fruity-looking iMacs,
etc.?) Being different works, but you have to do it consistently as well as
strengthen your image with positive real-life outcomes.

------
FilterJoe
There IS one kind of tablet people want besides an iPad, as proved by sales
numbers:

The Color Nook

According to various recent reports, Apple has about 10% share in ebook sales,
Barnes and Noble 25%, and Kindle over 60%.

Don't know the latest sales figures, but as of March 28, 2011, 3 million Color
Nooks were shipped, according to Digitimes:

Barnes & Noble already takes delivery of 3 million Nook Color e-book readers,
say sources

Yenting Chen, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES [Monday 28 March 2011]

Barnes & Noble has taken delivery of close to three million Nook Color e-book
readers from its production partner, according to an estimate by sources from
the Nook Color supply chain.

With a clear differentiation to Apple's iPads in display size, targeted market
and pricing, the Nook Color, priced at US$249, has actually taken up over 50%
of the iPad-like market in the North America market, indicated the sources.

Sales of the Nook Color topped one million units in the North America in the
fourth quarter of 2010 and reached 600,000-700,000 units a month during the
January-February period of 2011, the sources noted.

Barnes & Noble outsources the production of the Nook Color e-book readers to
Inventec, noted the sources, adding that Inventec has landed tablet PC orders
from Hewlett-Packard (HP).

EDIT: formatting

~~~
r00fus
So you're calling the Nook Color a tablet? I'm not sure that's a fair
representation of the device... it's cheap, a decent e-reader, and hackable to
run at least Froyo (from last I checked).

In comparing the e-reader to the tablet, the Nook does indeed blur the lines,
but it's resistive touch and e-ink display combined with hackery to run a full
touch OS means it's really in a league all it's own.

Perhaps this is the recipe to success for the upstarts. Ignore the "X market"
as that means X is commoditized. Differentiate by seeing the pricing and/or
vision gap and dive into it deftly.

A footnote: comparing "shipped" vs. "sold" numbers is a bit facile. Lots of
difference there. It'd be nice to see definitive "sold" B&N details, but
they're not sharing.

~~~
FilterJoe
Agreed on shipped vs. sold (Though I DID have a conversation 2 months ago with
a B&N employee - says they went out of stock a couple times).

Agree also about the recipe for success: Find a niche and optimize for it.

If even Apple doesn't yet know what their tablet is for, how are we supposed
to know what their inferior knock-offs are for? But it sure is obvious what a
Color Nook is for. It does have an app store but the apps are for the most
part related to reading, as you'd expect.

The fact that the Color Nook can be converted into the least expensive half-
decent Android tablet is just an interesting aside.

EDIT: typo

------
ghshephard
I'm also interested in seeing how quickly iPads start to penetrate other
verticals beyond the traditional consumer market. Education, Health, are two
of the commonly cited areas where a lot of growth is expected, but I'll be
interested in seeing how quickly they penetrate low-end retail as well.

I was in Santa Barbara this weekend, at "La Tour Wine Merchants" - Purchased
every thing there through an iPad + Square.

One thing important to note - the transaction took under 5 seconds for him to
process, + 3-4 for me to sign. Receipt was then automatically filled out with
my email address (I'd used square somewhere else) - and, from the time I
handed him my credit card to the time I was done was under 10 seconds. It felt
a lot faster than normal credit card transactions.

So - every single person who comes into that Wine Merchant is going to have
the iPad marketed as hyper efficient (and low cost transaction fee) credit
card processing platform to boot.

Not to say that the Droid Tablet's won't get square soon (if they don't
already) - but the solution is certainly going to be well regressed on the
iPad more quickly.

Popularity sometimes results in a network-effect of quality improvements
resulting in further popularity - I think that's what we're going to see with
the iPad.

------
haseman
The conventional wisdom was exactly the same 2 years ago concerning android
phones vrs the iPhone. Android has since moved to match the iPhone for market
share. The same will probably happen for tablets. It'll just take a few years.
I think the android tablets aren't very good right now, but I felt the same
way about the android phones when they first came out.

~~~
Anechoic
> _The conventional wisdom was exactly the same 2 years ago concerning android
> phones vrs the iPhone._

The difference is that the iPad doesn't have the same constraints (namely
available only on AT&T) that the iPhone had. Would Android really have had the
same success it had if the iPhone was available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile
(and assuming Apple could keep up with the volume) from the start?

Anecdote: everyone I know who has an Android phone really wanted an iPhone but
didn't want to leave Verizon. Now that the iPhone is on Verizon, most of those
folks intend to switch to an iPhone once their contract is up.

(FTR I don't own an iPhone, iPad or an Android device)

~~~
zppx
> Would Android really have had the same success it had if the iPhone was
> available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile (and assuming Apple could keep up
> with the volume) from the start?

That's in the US, what about the rest?

Yes, this is an honest question.

~~~
Anechoic
Good question, what are the Android/iPhone market numbers outside the U.S.? I
suspect that Android might have a lead in undeveloped countries since there
are lower cost models available. I'd love to see the data.

~~~
dagw
According to some numbers I can find for Sweden (which probably doesn't
classify as an undeveloped country), Android caught up with iPhone during Q1
of this year (1), and is currently growing faster than iPhone.

(1)[http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/android-ifatt-iphone-i-
sverige-1...](http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/android-ifatt-iphone-i-
sverige-1.469834.html)

------
dannyr
To those people making the argument that IPad will be unbeatable because there
is no carrier lockin unlike the IPhone. Here are some stats:

In Germany, the IPhone is available at the 3 major carriers, O2, Vodaphone &
TMobile.

Marketshare for Android in Germany is 35.5% versus 24.4 for iOS.

------
choko
I would argue that the headline isn't necessarily true. The Asus Transformer
just came out, and they can't get them to store shelves fast enough. It took
me a month to get one, and I almost missed my chance(again). The Transformer
is really the first non-iPad tablet to get it right, IMO. It's fast, stable,
the screen is beautiful, and everything works. The Xoom had a shot, but too
many features were not working when the tablet was shipped. Now that they are
working, it's kind of too late, since Motorola has already put a bad taste in
consumers' mouths. The other side is effective marketing. Apple is the first
tech company to put together appealing commercials that make people(non-geek)
want their products, without really knowing why they want them. The iPad is
decent (I own one of those as well), but it doesn't really offer much more
than a well-made Android tablet. Apple has done well in making their product
look cool.

------
nextparadigms
The Android tablet market is still in its early life, and the problem is the
initial manufacturers screwed up on pricing, but overspeccing the tablets, and
then charging more than $500, without even a Wi-Fi only version.

But I think people will be surprised that Android tablets will take off in the
second wave of Android tablets, when the Tegra 3 chip shows up in them, and
Amazon takes the market by storm, too. That should push iPad's market to under
50% by the time iPad 3 is released. And that will be just the beginning.

And I know there have been stories how competitors can't build a tablet for a
low price, but that has been already disproven by Asus, which has pretty much
identical specs with iPad, yet it's $100 cheaper.

The Amazon quad core Tegra 3 tablet is rumored to be priced at $450.

~~~
technoslut
I agree that the pricing of the Xoom was a huge mistake but I still wonder
whether Android will enjoy as much success with tablets. Asus cut their
shipment of tablets for the year by 60% even though it was cheaper than the
iPad. Amazon at this point would be the most serious competitor to Apple.

If no OS has been able to make a serious dent in iPad market share by next
year then the iPad will go the way of the iPod dominance. You can't give Apple
three years with no competitve threat to the iPad.

~~~
nextparadigms
That was Acer, not Asus. It's ok, it happens a lot.

Asus actually _increased_ their production for their Transformer tablet.

------
digikata
The iPad competitors seem to be shoved out into the light a bit early. I came
across a an Android tablet on demo in a department store the other day. Hey,
nice, let's see how it works. Hmm, the camera app came up with a black screen
- nothing to see, no interface. OK restart, try a game - oops this game needs
to download more data to start and no internet connection existed. Ok, browser
- same thing, no surprise there. Sliding over into the next page of apps to
find something, anything, that worked the slide animation starts to stutter.
So for the same price as an iPad, I could get this? Why the rush to release
when it's this unfinished? You're only going to be digging yourself out of a
negative initial impression like this.

------
cryptoz
This is interesting. I'd argue that while vaguely true, this is somewhat
irrelevant. If you look at the "rival brands" you'll see that most of them
produce Android tablets. So while the hardware guys will all have a very
difficult time "dominating" the tablet market, together they all build
basically the same ecosystem together, with Apple in a different world. Since
the Samsung tablets run the same OS and applications as the HTC and Motorola
tablets, I think the more informative information about consumers desires
would be a graph of OS mindshare: do you want an Apple OS or a Google OS?

~~~
protomyth
Upon HP's release, the top three brands known to consumers in the US in the
tablet market will not be running Android. Samsung is the best known of the
Android unless Sony decides to show up.

~~~
kenjackson
Curious, what are the top 3 brands?

Apple, HP, and ? Amazon?

~~~
cwp
Blackberry

------
pseudonym
I think that, at this point in time, the question's moot-- much like iOS vs.
non-iOS phones, the market is based almost entirely on the availability of
3rd-party applications for a piece of software. I'd _like_ to have an Android
tablet. However, for the time being, I _have_ a 1st-gen iPad because that's
where all of the applications are. Maybe in a year or two the market will have
shifted somewhat, but without the 3rd-party base to back it up, non-Apple
tablets have a distinctly uphill battle.

------
flyosity
The iPad didn't validate the market for tablets, it validated the market for
iPads.

And if over 50% of people prefer a 10" tablet to a 7" one, why in the world
would Samsung, RIM and others think they could sell one at a smaller size? Did
they do any market research at all?

~~~
icegreentea
Well... if that means 40% (or whatever the number is) of people would prefer a
7" to a 10" one... that's still a ridiculous amount of people. I think that
-is- market research.

~~~
kenjackson
Exactly. If the iPad is cleaning up the 10" market and you know that even 15%
strongly prefer 7", and there is no iPad in that market, it would make sense
to do a 7" version and clean up the 7" market.

~~~
flyosity
The problem is you're not attacking the market of people who prefer 7"
tablets, you're attacking the market of people who prefer a 7" tablet SO MUCH
they're willing to _not_ get an iPad because of it. Who are these people?
Probably geeks. Regardless, it's a much smaller slice of the overall pie.

~~~
aphexairlines
> Who are these people?

People embarrassed to pull out a huge 10" screen to read in a train.

~~~
flyosity
But will instead pull out a magazine or book that's larger? I don't see the
logic.

------
hammock
Interesting how defensive people are getting in the comments. I think the
headline says it all- tablets have been around for over a decade and never
caught on. In fact they still haven't caught on, just the iPad has caught on.

------
forgotAgain
_Apple is succeeding in the category because it reinvented it._

Prior to iPad, how many consumers had spent a moment of time considering what
a tablet computer would be like? How many had a chance to hold one and
interact with it at a local store? Most people use iPad as a reference point
because it was their first experience with a tablet. It was first and it
worked. People want iPads because, for now at least, it's the definitive
product for the category.

------
learc83
I just bought a capacitive screen multi touch android tablet for less than
$200 from dealextreme for some prototype work I'm doing. There's no reason to
assume that the iPad will continue to be comparatively cheaper a year or two
out.

When everyone has the production ironed out, android tablets will drop, and
apple will keep selling iPads for a premium price.

I love apple, but the tablet will never spread effectively if it costs $500 or
more.

------
nextparadigms
I don't want an iPad. I want an Android tablet (waiting for a good one). And I
know there are a lot of Android users who think the same way.

~~~
KeyBoardG
I agree, there just hasn't been a killer Android tablet yet. I was suprised at
how laggy the Moto Xoom was. I've had hopes for Playbook but even that killer
hardware has flopped on the software front.

------
pistacchio
i can summarize this pretty easily. competitors that see the argument like
"apple is giving 1GB RAM for 500$, i'll give 2GB RAM for 500$!" are really
missing the whole point. when you buy an apple phone / mp3 player / tablet /
computer you're probably well aware that with the same price you can get a
more powerful/feature rich device elsewhere, but you decide, instead, to
invest in a brand you trust because has given you other reliable, innovative
products that you already own and you know the new device will integrate
seamlessly with whatever you already have, or you're buying "the iPhone", not
a generic smartphone, the iPad, not a table, an iPod, not a mp3 player, so
there's really no choice because apple is the only one doing it.

------
brudgers
The article defines "the tablet market" narrowly and ignores important
competition for the iPad in terms of sales (if not mindshare). The iPad
competes with devices such as the Kindle which have significant adoption and
handle the killer slate app - reading very well at very competitive price
points. This class of competitor also often provides better performance in
important areas, e.g. battery life.

I also suspect that if people were asked their preference regarding wide
screen format vs. 4:3 the iPad would not fare quite so well as it does in
questions regarding screen size.

------
noonespecial
I haven't seen a tablet yet that is as good for less than an apple. They all
seem to be a mix of worse and/or more expensive (or with ridiculous multi-year
carrier lockins). Until this happens, this is a non-issue. If consumers are
snubbing cheaper better products to have fruit on the front, that's a story,
but until then, shrug.

The tablet market just doesn't have its IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad yet.

------
jim_h
I want a tablet that has Wacom and stylus along with capacitive touch screen.
Heck, throw in Windows 7 and I'll be happy. (W7 has great handwriting
recognition.) W7 + OneNote would make a very nice (and expensive) electronic
notebook if the tablet was thin and had decent battery life. I like to write
instead of touch typing on a screen.

~~~
r00fus
> W7 + OneNote would make a very nice (and expensive) electronic notebook if
> the tablet was thin and had decent battery life. Hasn't this existed for
> years (TabletPC) running Windows (well except the thin and decent battery
> life part)? Why haven't you gotten one already?

~~~
jim_h
i DO have one. I am now waiting for another version that's thinner and has
better life.

------
dannyr
A lot of people I know (non-tech) have no idea that Android tablets exist.
They only know of the IPad.

~~~
ctdonath
And of many/most non-techies who do know about other tablets they think
"tablet == iPad" like "paper tissue == Kleenex" and "photocopy == Xerox".

------
scrrr
It's about who is first in the consumer's heads. iPad is like Coca-Cola.

------
sigzero
Not surprising really. Apple got the iPad "right" from the get go and tweaked
that success on the iPad2. The other tablets struggled right out of the gate
and continue to do so.

------
mathly
I've been saying this from the start. Normal people just don't need tablets.
What can you do on it? Music - Have an ipod or other music device Movie - Have
a big tv Movie in bedroom - Have a big tv in bedroom Internet? - have
smartphone/netbook/laptop Games? - Xbox/PS3/smartphone.

At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, there's just no use case for
tablets.

------
chrisjsmith
I don't think consumers WANT tablets or iPads. They have been told that's what
they WANT by marketing.

WANT is a disease in this society. NEED is the great leveller.

The following is from experience dealing with hundreds of people:

They NEED a cheap, flexible computer that just works, doesn't poke you in the
eye, doesn't try to upsell everything to you every 5 mins (like apps and virus
scanners), lasts a good number of years without spectacular failures, doesn't
pick up diseases like a cheap whore and doesn't set fire to your house.

------
Tichy
bullshit

