

The iPad Is Unbeatable - robjama
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/new_ipad_how_apple_s_tablet_strategy_parallels_its_unbeatable_ipod_success_.single.html

======
artursapek
Sometimes the way I see Apple promoting iPad makes me see it as a fad, but
sometimes it feels like there are spots it can secure for good.

For example, the new TV ad shows a clip of someone making a fake oil painting
with their finger. That's a fad - people who use that will be people who want
to see what it's like to paint once or twice, not serious painters. A fat
finger on a glass pane will never be a substitute for a brush on canvas.

The other promotional video on their homepage right now shows a yuppie mom
using it as a visual grocery list, a mechanic doing oily-fingered conversions
on it on some gruddy garage floor while handling heavy metal equipment, old
men playing backgammon, and a bunch of young adults around a table "jamming
and recording" music together.

All of this is gimmickry.

The ads also show people browsing photos and videos and reading iBooks. These
are things I can see people using iPad for more than few times, and the key to
having tablets not fizzle out as a fad is letting the money pour in from
gimmickry while focusing on these functions that can make tablets last - like
a photo album and a book. People will never use iPads for half the stuff
they're being marketed for. People will certainly try it (and make Apple a ton
of money in the process), but they'll end up preferring the former methods
because a pane of glass can only emulate them and not outdo them.

~~~
glhaynes
The vast majority don't make art and music with their computers, either, but
we don't consider it "gimmickry" when some do. Most computer users use their
computers for a narrow and mostly similar range of things, just like most iPad
users do. Both computer ads and iPad ads mix a few of the niche apps with a
few more commonly used apps because it makes a good ad. I think it's really
clear that tablets are not a fad or in danger of fizzling out.

~~~
artursapek
The difference I'm pointing out is between these niche apps - sure they exist
on both platforms. Plenty of professionals produce music and art with
computers, I don't think I need to prove that. But nobody will do this stuff
on tablets.

It's because personal computers will always be more sophisticated than
tablets, both in terms of hardware and input. On an iPad you can play with a
fake 6-inch guitar with your fingers in Garageband. That's limited gimmickry,
and will only be fun/interesting the first few times. On a Macbook you can
directly record an actual guitar and produce an album in Pro Tools. Nobody
will ever produce an album on an iPad.

The same goes for visual and physical art, nobody will ever use iPads for
Photoshop or AutoCAD. These are just things that require complex UI that you
can't use without a precise, physical form of input like a mouse and keyboard.
Touch input is too bulky for things like that.

There are good fields to go into with tablet apps - we're already seeing this
with the watered-down photo editing Apple is selling.
<http://i.imgur.com/HUBeu.jpg> Some apps, like this and iBooks, can still be
useful to typical consumers when they're this simple. But a lot of the other
stuff is just gimmickry that sells on shallow novelty.

~~~
glenra
>Nobody will ever produce an album on an iPad.

That seems like an extraordinary claim. I'm positive somebody will eventually
produce an album on an iPad if that hasn't already been done. Whether it'll be
a _good_ album is another question of course, as is whether that'll become a
highly popular way to do things...

~~~
glhaynes
[http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/27/gorillaz-ipad-album-
now-a...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/27/gorillaz-ipad-album-now-
available-as-are-the-apps-used-to-make/)

Over a year ago.

------
Gustomaximus
This is a bit-o-nonsense;

\- unbeatable tech...people said this about the iPhone. But 4 years on there
were a pretty good set of alternatives.

\- Price being unbeatable... low prices are just not Apple with their 40%
markup goal. I'm sure we will see Samsung, Huawei and others pushing the price
point down on tablets. Price matters, remember those dumped HP tablets!

\- "they would still lack all of the tablet-optimized apps that are now
clogging Apple’s App Store"... really? Android is doing a pretty good job at
this on the smartphone market. It can be done.

Apple have an awesome head start but there is no unbeatable in this market.

------
SageRaven
When the hell am I gonna be able to buy an 8.5x11" e-paper device for reading
conference papers and other full-sized PDFs? I know this isn't as sexy and
glossy as the likes of tablets, but I can't be the only on who's been
impatiently waiting for such as series of devices to crop up.

Tablets seem nice and all (I haven't been compelled to get one), but I want a
really awesome good-sized _reading_ device. The Kindle DX is _so_ tempting,
but it's too expensive (relative to tablets) and it's still just a _wee_ bit
too small.

~~~
krschultz
The Kindle DX is really nice. I have one and prefer it to the regular size one
quite a bit.

------
StavrosK
Whatever, I just got a Transformer Prime and wouldn't exchange it (or any
other comparable Android tablet) for ten iPads.

Well, I would, and then I would sell them and get another Android tablet. I
haven't liked a piece of equipment so much in ages.

~~~
jc4p
When'd you get your Prime? I attempted to purchase one for my girlfriend for
Christmas and it was a big mess of a problem that I don't ever want to deal
with again containing canceled after canceled preorders and finally after
getting the device having it force reboot and lose WiFi every time it went to
sleep until ASUS pushed an update weeks later.

~~~
StavrosK
I went to Best Buy two days ago, when I came in the US, bought one in a few
minutes and left. I have zero issues with it (maybe a little bit of graphical
flickering for a few ms in the recently used programs list).

------
amitparikh
Every person in history who has ever said "X is unbeatable" has been
eventually proven wrong.

~~~
glhaynes
Well, sure, in the long-term everybody's dead. But the point of the article is
that perhaps Apple's success with the iPad will be more like their success
with the iPod (market-share domination, 2nd place is only a minor player) than
their success with the iPhone (lots of profit but lots of other players are
making lots of revenue, at least).

------
edw519
1979: The IBM 370 is unbeatable.

1982: The IBM PC is unbeatable.

1985: SONY is unbeatable.

1988: Microsoft DOS is unbeatable.

1990: Kodak is unbeatable.

1993: Windows is unbeatable.

1994: AOL is unbeatable

1996: Netscape is unbeatable.

1998: Internet Exlorer is unbeatable.

2002: Krispy Kream is unbeatable.

2004: MySpace is unbeatable.

2006: Real estate is unbeatable.

2008: Toyota is unbeatable.

2012: The Ipad is unbeatable.

~~~
raganwald
Tense matters. In 1979 the IBM 370 was unbeatable. “The iPad is unbeatable” is
true. “The iPad will always be unbeatable” is a different statement.

~~~
eavc
This is a weird bit of equivocation, and it's kind of clever and fun to think
about. But they aren't really different statements plainly spoken.

To say that something is unable to be beaten is intrinsically a claim about
the future.

~~~
raganwald
I think you’re taking it too literally. In the movie “Pumping Iron,” Serge
Nubret says to Arnold Schwarzenneger at the 1975 Mr. Universe competition,
“You are unbeatable!”

Did he really mean forever? Just that competition? Until Arnold retired? I
think the expression “unbeatable” always means “Under the current
circumstances, roughly now-ish, for the foreseeable future, &c.” If you take
it literally, there would be no use for the word.

Saying “Arnold is Unbeatable” in 1975 meant that the current crop of body
builders couldn’t beat him, that either he would grow old, or retire (which he
did, and then un-retire to win again), or some new young phenom would come out
of nowhere.

Saying “IBM 370 is unbeatable” in 1979 meant simply that nothing at that time
would beat it, that only time or the unforeseeable would unseat it, which is
what happened.

~~~
eavc
The word is always used with an implied context, yes, but that context is
never just 'the present' with all circumstances staying as they are.

To call something 'unbeatable' means that there are still variables that can
come into play in the contest, but they don't even matter. The victor is
already decided even allowing for the most extreme probabilities.

For many or most of the items in the list you were replying to, the contest
was not over when the crown was lost.

The OPs list was intended to show that many companies lost their tremendous
advantages in a variety of ways, that the variables are such that the iPad
shouldn't be labeled as unbeatable.

And of course, no one really believes the iPad is unbeatable in any meaningful
sense. It's just hyperbole for being in a dominant position.

------
ChuckMcM
The title is link-baitey of course, but the general thesis is this:

    
    
      * control over essential components.
      * market leadership in applications.
      * continual innovation.
    

The first one is the way in which Apple dominates and controls the supply
chain. It's not monopolistic since they are paying real money for goods from
third parties, but one has to wonder if there is restrictions on starting up
new production lines. This becomes a huge barrier to entry to anyone else. I'm
really curious to know where ASUS is getting their 1920x1200 glass for the new
Transformer Prime. Like nuclear proliferation, there are a few key components
that can prevent others effectively from building tablets. These are currently
displays and radios.

The application one has been discussed a lot on HN, but basically what it
boils down to is Apple's policies with regards to applications acceptable for
publication creates a more homogenous user experience. There is anecdotal
evidence that this translates into a user perception of 'quality' to those
applications.

And finally they don't stop, like Intel's tick-tock sort of model they move
incrementally forward each release. You can argue that the 'new iPad' is what
the iPad 2 should have been but missed out, or you can argue its the same old
same old with just a higher res screen and 4G, but the release after release
means that if you're an Asus or a Samsung or a Dell, Etc and your development
cycle is 2 years you have to guess where they will be in 2 years if you want
to compete head to head. That is harder than you might think until you've
tried it a few times. And of course the risk is that the 'new' thing might
have come out of left field so its high risk.

A strategy which has more understood risk is to create your own product in the
space which has your own vision of what it will be, but folks like RIM who
have tried that have been challenged to think outside the space that they were
successful in. Apple's advantage here was that the iPad is in many ways just a
big iPod touch. And they had a lot of information about the touch which could
help them vet various ideas.

------
cletus
"Unbeatable" is hyperbole but it's not that far off the mark. IMHO the iPad
will dominate the tablet market for _at least the next 3 years_.

People like analogies. Two regular comparisons on HN and elsewhere are Windows
vs Mac and iPhone vs Android (interestingly the second is also used as an
analogy for the first).

All of these analogies are wrong.

A smartphone has very high (what I call) _built-in utility_. You can use it to
make and receive calls, send and receive SMSs/emails, take photos, get
directions and browse the Web. At a guess, this accounts for probably 70% of
smartphone usage. A large portion of the rest would be (again, I'm guessing
here) games.

Android is a commoditizing product. With the standard Google apps, you get 70%
of the utility (based on my earlier assumptions) of an iPhone. The point here
is the ecosystem doesn't matter as much.

The iPad is a different beast entirely and (as I've been saying for 1.5+ years
now) IMHO much more important and will be a much bigger market than the phone
market. It will (and already is) cannibalizing a lot of PC usage and sales.

The thing to note about the iPad is that 70% figure is (at least anecodtally)
vastly different. The ecosystem matters. Apps and content matter much more
than on phones. And this is where the iPad competitors really suffer and will
continue to suffer.

It's why I have the most hope for Amazon in the iPad competitor space because
they have the closest thing to what the iTunes ecosystem can provide. Without
this, despite the relatively low price, I don't think the Kindle Fire would've
sold anywhere near the number of units than it did.

A better analogy for the iPad than the iPhone is actually the iPod. 10+ years
after the iPod's release it still accounts for the majority of MP3 player
sales. Yes you can rip your own CDs and buy your MP3s from Amazon and
elsewhere but the convenience of the ecosystem trumps pretty much everything
else. Last year it was rumoured that Apple would kill the Classic until it was
pointed out that the Classic is the fifth biggest selling MP3 player (the top
4 are all Apple too).

Apple's supply chain management, innovative financing and unprecedented
warchest certainly have given it a massive advantage, no question. No one else
can (yet) create a product at similar specs for a similar price. But it's the
ecosystem that has driven and will continue to drive the iPad's dominance.

~~~
usaar333
> The iPad is a different beast entirely and (as I've been saying for 1.5+
> years now) IMHO much more important and will be a much bigger market than
> the phone market. It will (and already is) cannibalizing a lot of PC usage
> and sales.

Three questions/comments:

1) Why do you feel it is bigger than the phone market? I'm skeptical of this,
at least until the day tablets and laptops merge (imagine a tablet that docks
into a keyboard/touchpad). Almost everyone needs a phone these days. And if
you could only have one, I imagine most would take the laptop/desktop over the
tablet.

2) How much evidence is there for large-scale cannibalization? I always
figured the iPad is growing so much faster than PCs, because the PC market is
saturated and frequent upgrades are no longer necessary. Everyone has a
computer already and a 4+ year old one works fine. Tablets are new and
desirable - but is there that much evidence yet that a tablet is actually more
desirable than a computer?

3) Strongly disagree that apps are more important on a tablet than a phone.
Phones are lower power typically and screen space is at a premium, so I'd
argue that native apps are more important on a phone. Tablets should be able
to handle webapps fine.

~~~
cletus
> 1) Why do you feel it is bigger than the phone market?

I only use my phone for calls, messages (SMS/email), maps and _occasionally_
for Web usage. That's 95% of my phone usage at least. I don't believe my
experience is atypical. The phone is ultimately a communication device (and,
these days, a camera).

IMHO it's reasonably likely we're heading for a point where the phone will be
replaced by a (largely if not completely) nonvisual communication device.
Maybe the whole glasses thing will happen (although I'm skeptical that any
electronic display can match the latency required to interpose imagery over
what you're looking at, which is a problem for augmented reality in general).

Look at it another way: how much do you use your phone versus a tablet
(assuming you have one)? For me, it's a factor of 10-20x in favour of the
tablet. I know other people vary on this. Some spend all day sending and
reading messages. A few even spend all their time on Facebook (or even
Twitter) on their phones.

Basically, I just believe tablets will be bigger because rather than being
hybrid communication devices like phones they'll encroach on general
computing.

I use a tablet for Web browsing, email, books, games, Netflix and photos. I
have a Macbook Air. I use it a lot too but if I'm just
reading/browsing/consuming, I'll use the iPad in preference to any other
device. And that covers a lot of my technology use.

> 2) How much evidence is there for large-scale cannibalization?

There is some evidence [1] but the trend (if it is that) is, at best,
emergent.

> 3) Strongly disagree that apps are more important on a tablet than a phone.

Native apps are vastly superior on the iPad to Web apps too. Low power is an
issue for tablets too. People use them on sofas, on buses/trains/planes, etc.
Battery life matters. The battery life of an iPad dwarfs that of pretty much
any other laptop.

Compare native apps to the ghastly hybrid native/Web apps that some put out
there (that are essentially a UIWebView with HTML/JS/CSS). They have all been
in my experience terrible.

[1]: [http://betanews.com/2011/01/12/it-s-official-ipad-sapped-
win...](http://betanews.com/2011/01/12/it-s-official-ipad-sapped-windows-pc-
shipments-during-q4-2010-but-macs-more/)

~~~
usaar333
> Look at it another way: how much do you use your phone versus a tablet
> (assuming you have one)?

> If I'm just reading/browsing/consuming, I'll use the iPad in preference to
> any other device.

To each their own. I don't own a tablet, but used my roommates iPad for a few
weeks to see what all the fuss was about. I constantly longed for my laptop,
which was far more comfortable to use, faster (in terms of web navigation),
larger screen space, etc.

Sure I use a phone less than a laptop, but I absolutely need both.

------
harold
Wordstar, Netscape, Myspace, Palm OS. These and many more were once considered
"unbeatable".

Apple has great momentum right now. But if history teaches us anything, it's
that nothing lasts for very long in tech, even if it feels like it will.

------
jack-r-abbit
I guess this is how we are different. I am an avid Android user (phone &
tablet). I like my devices. They work for me. I think both the iPhone and the
iPad are nice pieces of hardware. They are slick. They function well. They do
about the same things that my devices do. Some things are better... somethings
are not (they do lack a couple things I really enjoy about my devices).
Unfortunately for Apple, they are the very reason I probably will never own
one of those devices. But if the iPad is what works for you... awesome. Use
it. Love it. I don't think we need an "iPad killer" or an "iPhone killer". It
would be a very sad world if there truly was only one option for a phone or
tablet (even if it was an Android based device). There is plenty of space for
multiple players. It is just plain arrogant douche-baggery to go around with
this "the iPad is all you will ever need so stop looking" attitude. The best
tool is the one that works best for you. Funny thing is, that is not be the
same tool for everybody. Do I care that the iPad may have 99.9999% of the
market share of tablets today? Nope. Just because all those people decided the
iPad was the best tool for them it is irrelevant to which tool is best for me.
Perhaps down the road more people will start choosing something else. Maybe
not. I still like my choice. I'm not going to tell you what device to use...
so don't start telling me which one I should (unless you're just trying to be
an arrogant douche wagon for the heck of it).

But hey... what do I know. I'm just some idiot that doesn't own an iPhad.
_rolls eyes_

------
kayoone
Its funny. Apple sells 15M iPads per quarter, more than any PC manufacturer
sells PCs. For comparision, they sell around 2M Macs in that timeframe. I know
some people who own an iPad, i do so myself. But whenever i talk to them about
it or look at myself i realize: almost noone really uses them.

Maybe thats a thing with techies, so we dont really have use for such a casual
device but i use my iphone alot daily, like 10x more than my iPad.

~~~
navs
I think it's the convenience of always having the iPhone on you.

The only time I reach for my iPad or Samsung Tab is when I want to read comics
(thanks Comixology) or want to play a game.

------
megaman821
Well the title is a bit of hyperbole, but Apple is in an unbelievably strong
position right now.

I think key on the Android side is going to be value. They really need at
$99-$250 price points.

On the Windows side, I think Microsoft is playing their cards right. They have
virtually no apps but with Windows 8 they will have a storefront that will be
installed on tens of millions of devices, which should solve the app problem
over time.

------
raesene2
I'm not sure that the iPad is unbeatable (and in the long run what is,
really), but in my opinion it is and will continue to be extremely successful
for one main reason.

(Most) people don't want a computer.

They want something to give them access to shop online or to keep in touch
with friends, to watch videos or to play games and at the moment the iPad
provides the easiest, most hassle free way to achieve that.

No A-V, easy updates, no worries about drivers or compatibility and it's
relatively cheap. It's also very easy to use.

As an anecdotal point I've recently introduced my mother who's in her sixties
and father-in-law who's in his eighties to iPads and they've both been able to
use them easily and without a lot of the questions and problems that
technologists learn to dread when they're providing family IT support.

The iPad isn't likely to replace laptops or desktops for IT professionals any
time soon, but I think that for a lot of people it does what they want in an
easier more intuitive way.

------
georgemcbay
In the pure tablet space, iPad probably _is_ unbeatable for the foreseeable
future, but I think a lot of people are underestimating Microsoft's potential
to change the game with Windows 8.

As an early Asus Transformer TF101 adopter I'm totally sold on the idea of a
tablet/laptop combo but as much as I like Android as a phone and basic tablet
OS, I find myself wishing I could use the Transformer as a full-blown no-
excuses laptop for development, etc (there are some sort-of-options there
involving installing Ubuntu for ARM, but too much hassle to deal at this point
and not well supported).

Enter Windows 8 and the eventual laptops that are either ARM tablets with
Metro-only or full blown x86 laptops when the tablet/screen is docked. That is
the device I want. To some degree I don't care if it is running Windows 8 or
Android + Linux, or OS X + iOS, but I suspect Microsoft will have their
solution polished up before anyone else since nobody else is making strong
moves into this space right now.

------
navs
I'm not a fan of tablets at all but at least I can use my iPad with minimal
frustration. I recently acquired a Samsung Tab 10.1 and its been a frustrating
experience.

If I had to sum up my experiences with tablets: iPads: reliable, albeit boring
Samsung Tab: kill it with fire.

The Samsung Tab just killed any enthusiasm I ever had for Android.

~~~
UrLicht
I'm curious to know what was so frustrating. I've had my tab for a few months
and love it to death.

~~~
navs
Yes, I'm puzzled by how many folks gave it a good review. The tab is slow,
jerky slow when it comes to animation, sometimes freezing mid-transition. Most
of my touch actions either don't register or are delayed. A lot of the time I
can't open the camera because: 'media scanner is running'. I've given it a
factory reset, removed all widgets and while performance improved slightly, it
was short term.

I want to like it. I want to give it a chance but any extended use causes me
to scream obscenities.

------
mcantelon
The "post-PC" era will eliminate PCs like McDonalds eliminated kitchens.

------
protomyth
The iPod (5gb) started at $399, had an added model the following year (10gb)
at $499, then started a slow downward price with adding new model types at the
low end.

The iPad just did its first $100 drop by using the previous model (per iPhone
strategy). I would expect that next year we will see another $100 drop either
through the old model approach or introduction of a new member of the line.

It is really going to be hard for companies without Apple's supply change to
keep up.

------
thought_alarm
Microsoft is the only company that can compete with Apple in the consumer
software space. The difference between the iPad and the iPod is that a
consumer tablet platform really plays into Microsoft's strengths as a platform
company in a way the iPod and iTunes absolutely did not.

The traditional cell phone manufacturers will continue to use Android (or
whatever) to sell mountains of cell phones like they have been doing for over
a decade, but a tablet is a consumer software platform and after using Windows
8 it's painfully clear that only Microsoft and Apple really understand how to
deliver such a platform.

It will be a two horse race.

The problem for Microsoft is that it will be Windows 8 v2 or v3 before is
starts to match iOS feature for feature, and that's at least 2 years away. I
may be on my 3rd iPad by then.

~~~
forcer
Why do you think it will be 2 years away? I would not be suprised if by the
end of this year, just few weeks after of W8 release there will be tons of
apps that will match what 90% of consumers need. There are already lots of
developers building W8 apps and they will all be tablet ready if MS plays it
right - and they would be completely dumb if it would not be ready when they
already did such a huge leap with their W8 UI revamp for laptops/desktops.

------
raldi
"Meanwhile Google, which makes all its money through ads, will find itself
reaching its customers through a device made by a hostile rival."

So no change there, at least.

------
RandallBrown
The iPad is not quite a computer replacement. Most people are going to have an
iPad and a desktop or laptop as their main computer.

The windows tablets will be a computer replacement because you'll be able to
jump into desktop mode and keyboard and mouse around.

The problem microsoft is going to have is getting their tablets into a form
factor/price point that is competitive with the iPad. It has to be just as
fast, just as cheap, and just as small. Unless Microsoft starts selling their
own tablets, I think the only company really capable of building an Apple
quality product is Apple.

------
davidcollantes
I found the article right on the spot. It is unbeatable. For how long is the
important question without an answer, so far.

------
calebgilbert
and the Titanic was unsinkable...

------
Alcedes
Android on the tablet will be doomed to the Zune fate.

------
shingen
This:

"Because Apple has used its plentiful cash to corner the market on key tablet
components—like touch-screen displays—many competitors will find that the only
way to make a tablet with comparable features but a lower price is to sell it
at a loss. You can’t do that unless you have some other way to make money,
like a big digital media store."

That argument was used in regards to the iPhone as well. Apple's supposedly
insurmountable component purchases would make it impossible for competitors to
... compete.

And there's Android, out activating the iPhone three to one. Apparently those
Android phones are either made out of cardboard, or the manufacturers found
components.

In reality, 2012 will be the year the iPad loses its market dominance in
tablets. By the end of 2013, Apple will hold 1/4 to 1/3 of the market, which
is exactly what their entire business model is designed around: lower market
share, much higher margins.

~~~
Lewisham
But isn't it the case that the iPad is being manufactured much more cheaply
than the competitors can (eg. the Xoom) because of Apple's manufacturing
processes? Phones are a slightly different beast.

FWIW, I think it's Apple's game to lose. The iOS 5 today uses the exact same
interface as the iOS we saw 5 years ago. _Eventually_ someone is going to
iterate their software past Apple, and then we'll see whether Apple has the
software vision to keep up (I'm thinking they don't).

~~~
shingen
You mean China's manufacturing processes.

Foxconn isn't going to hand Apple a permanent monopoly over efficient
processes to the detriment of their domestic buddies. That's not how China
works.

Every day that goes by, Apple's lead will erode in both quality of product and
manufacturing advantage. It's not due to anything Apple will do wrong, it's
due to how markets work, particularly in technology.

~~~
batista
_You mean China's manufacturing processes. Foxconn isn't going to hand Apple a
permanent monopoly over efficient processes to the detriment of their domestic
buddies. That's not how China works._

For one, Foxconn is Taiwanese, not Chinese, it's just that it has factories in
China.

Second, money is how China works. Where does the delusion comes that China
will ...sabotage Apple in chinese factories in order for Chinese device makers
to win?

As a matter of fact, China is opening to be Apple's largest market, with
raving reception this past year.

~~~
ceejayoz
Sabotage, no. Copy wholesale, sure.

~~~
r00fus
> Sabotage, no. Copy wholesale, sure.

Tell me... how is "China" going to copy Apple's well-curated ecosystem of
apps, content and accessories?

------
shingen
Well there's a pile of hubris a mile high.

------
chapel
I think this is a suitable explanation for this 'article'.

From the authors profile page:

"Farhad Manjoo is Slate's technology columnist and the author of True Enough:
Learning To Live in a Post-Fact Society."

Edit: I really feel that any person saying X is unbeatable, is really
underestimating competition and the drive to improve what they make.

The iPad at this moment is the best tablet overall, but it won't be long
before someone is able to match the quality, and surpass in features. I think
what really will clinch this is that once Android tablets come out in force,
there will be so many options the iPad will be lost in the noise. This isn't
to say the iPad will be the only right choice in that situation, just that
when there are options, especially cheaper options, people tend to shop for
what suits their needs at a price they can stomach.

The iPad is still too much for most consumers. I myself cannot justify the
cost for a consumption device, not to mention how I dislike Apple's handling
of their app ecosystem.

~~~
zefhous
Don't just dismiss it outright. If you have some insight and think the article
is wrong then refute it with a meaningful, substantial argument.

~~~
Jaecen
A couple easy points:

They claim it can't be beat on price, but, due to the varying size and
features of other tablets, that's simply not true (see Asus' MeMo 370T
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57393947-64/google-asus-
to...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57393947-64/google-asus-to-hook-up-
on-7-inch-android-tablet-says-report/)).

They claim it can't be beat on battery life, but reviews have shown that the
Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Transformer Prime both come within a few percentage points
of usable time. Certainly close enough for practical use.

~~~
krschultz
Since when did "come within a few percentage points of it" and "beating it"
become the same thing?

If the other tablets want to win, they have to be _better_. Either cheaper or
more functional or more novel or better styled.

~~~
Jaecen
You're right, I stated the claim wrong. The correct claim is "None of Apple’s
rivals has managed to even match the iPad’s battery life." On that count, they
are, for practical purposes, incorrect. Additionally, Engadget's test have
shown The Galaxy Tab 7.7 significantly besting the iPad 2 in battery life
([http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/samsung-galaxy-
tab-7-7-re...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/samsung-galaxy-
tab-7-7-review-international-edition/)).

