
Why Can’t Tablet Makers Just Freaking Ship? - solipsist
http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/02/17/why-cant-tablet-makers-just-freaking-ship/
======
muhfuhkuh
Because it's really hard to make a market-reactive product that is more
powerful and featureful than the preceding product it is catching up to clone.

Apple just happened to have caught the entire planet with it's pants down when
they introduced the i-Devices. I mean, look at what Google was working on[1]
after Apple introduced the original iPhone. Google was chasing the market
leader in style and interface at the time (Blackberry). When Apple introduced
iPhone 3G, all bets were off and Google went back to the drawing board.

iPod Touch is introduced, and the only real competitor that comes to the fore
is Microsoft, with the Zune (RIP) brand that mimics the Touch to no end and
barely does anything better (yes, I'm taking the soon-to-be-dead Zune Pass
into account).

Now it's tablets, and again, the rest of the industry reacts. I'm certainly
surprised MS hasn't tried to hook up with a HW vendor to make a Phone 7
tablet.

Apple is on a hot streak. First with seriously consumer-friendly smartphones,
then with software and media ecosystems, now with disruptive computing
platforms.

It'll eventually run out of steam, but will the rest of the industry kill
itself trying to keep up in the meantime?

[1] <http://news.cnet.com/2300-1037_3-6230132.html>

~~~
greyman
I am also surprised why MS at least doesn't talk about WP7 tablet. Nobody
wants Win7 tablet with desktop software, so the only option left is that Win8
will natively support tablets, but then, what about apps?

~~~
pixcavator
I have HP Slate. It's "Win7 tablet with desktop software" which is exactly
what I wanted.

~~~
illumin8
That's great, it probably requires a stylus and gets less than 5 hours of
battery life... go you.

~~~
pixcavator
It _allows_ a stylus... probably!

------
tghw
Somewhat ironic commentary considering they were just as unable to ship the
CrunchPad. And what did ship (the JooJoo) got completely panned in the
reviews.

Really the issue is that hardware is _hard_ to get right and requires a lot of
resources, resources that Apple has and many other companies do not.

~~~
rje
But shouldn't companies like Motorola, Samsung, Palm, et al have those
resources at their disposal? They are consumer electronics companies, after
all.

~~~
rahoulb
The real shift that started with the iPhone was that the software became as
important as the hardware - how they work together [1].

Motorola, Samsung, Nokia et al don't have the extensive software culture.

Palm/HP is the only one that does.

[1] Also a weakness with Android phone manufacturers - my phone has a small
screen, making the icons just too small to hit accurately - Apple would never
let a device like that leave the building, Samsung are quite happy to and
Google are OK with having their name slapped on the back of it.

EDIT: forgot about formatting

~~~
arethuza
Is that a Samsung Galaxy Europa by any chance?

~~~
rahoulb
yes :-)

------
ardit33
From first hand experience, it takes up two years to ship a new product that
is of a decent quality. Assuming a lot of the hardware OEM started working on
a tablet device around second half of 2009 when the iPad rumors started, then
the later half of 2011 is when the tablets will start shipping.

It just not that simple as slaping few components together, put some software
on top and you are done.

My guess on the age of engaget, or "i build an web app in two weeks" posts,
people expect that manufactures can come with great new devices overnight.

Also when you are working with hardware you have to consider supply chain
capacity, component quality, etc.

Hardware is just a lot harder to build and harder to scale(and maybe thats why
PG advocates startups to steer away from it as much as they can).

~~~
wmeredith
That's fine and dandy, but quit showing mock-ups and talking about how great
they are going to be and how they're going to change your life and all the
other heavy breathing. Wait until it ships.

------
martythemaniak
Why can't the blogoechochamber just fucking relax? It's been less than a year
since the iPad launched, tablets haven't made it to most people's radars yet
and the market will play out over the next 5-10 years.

In the grand scheme of things, who actually cares whether the Xoom ships on
Feb 17 or gets "delayed" to Feb 22, or that RIM announced March availability
for the PlayBook and will instead ship it in April?

~~~
vacri
Simple: consumers live in the moment. They have no idea how much work goes
into creating a product, nor do they see more than a couple of months into the
future.

~~~
martythemaniak
Yes, so if a consumer wants a tablet now they'll get an iPad. If they want one
for the holidays, they'll have 4 different OSs and 10s (if not 100s by then)
of individual tablets to choose from. Unlike some tech bloggers, consumers
don't get aneurysms because RIM delayed shipments by 3 weeks.

------
cletus
There are several reasons:

1\. It takes time to develop the supply chain, product design and so forth;

2\. Apple completely caught the industry with its pants down, creating a
market where previously there was none where the consensus seemed to be that
tablets were niche products;

3\. Apple's competitors are constantly chasing last year's Apple product. It's
why it's a huge mistake (IMHO) for competitors to draw attention to the iPad:
at some point very shortly there will be a newer better iPad and suddenly they
won't want to make those comparisons anymore (at least not for awhile);

4\. These companies generally have absolutely no understanding of the markets
they're entering. It's what I call the Cargo Cult School of Product
Management; and

5\. Whereas Apple went all-in with the iPad into unknown waters, every other
suppliers seems to not believe in their product. It's a typical business
strategy: test the waters, don't overcommit.

The problem is that Apple's "overcommitment" helped bring the price down.

~~~
yuhong
"These companies generally have absolutely no understanding of the markets
they're entering. It's what I call the Cargo Cult School of Product
Management; " Yea, I mentioned the myth that a MBA can manage everything
before.

------
jasongullickson
What are you waiting for?

<http://www.apple.com/ipad/>

Seriously though, what is so compelling about the non-shipping tablets that
makes them worth waiting for (or complaining about) than what Apple is already
shipping?

Aside from the arguments that don't impact most consumers (jailbreaking, etc.)
could it be that it's just not in the cards at the moment to come out with a
device that competes with the iPad (price, performance, whatever, pick your
metric)?

~~~
tomjen3
I want a tablet with flash that I can also use as an USB drive.

Neither of those things are stuff that doesn't impact consumers.

~~~
rayiner
You want to use a $500 tablet as a $20 flash drive? And carry a USB cable
that'll take up more space in aforementioned $20 flash drive?

That is really one of the problems with Apples' competitors - they just don't
get the use cases.

~~~
T-hawk
I think the parent meant _Adobe_ Flash.

~~~
rayiner
Fair point, but using it as a USB drive? To what end?

~~~
guelo
The idea is to be able to move music and movies on and off the device without
having to go through iTunes and the nightmare of "syncing" to only one
computer at a time.

------
sambeau
I suspect this has something to do with it, too:

"Apple secures 60% of global touch panel capacity, causing tight supply"

<http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110216PD219.html>

------
thought_alarm
iOS is merely an iteration of a platform that's been under development for
over 20 years.

It took Microsoft over 10 years to create a consumer-friendly version of
Windows NT, and almost another 10 years to deliver an acceptable followup.

Software is hard. Consumer software much harder. Platforms take years and
years to develop and mature.

------
mjfern
> _First, Apple has the tablet component market sewn up. An entrepreneur I
> talked to in China described the difficulty he still has buying touchscreens
> that are worth a darn. The real reason most of the current tablets are 7
> inches? Because Apple bought up all of the 10-inch capacitive touchscreen
> stock and if they didn’t then they drove the price too high for smaller
> orders. There is no way to dabble in the market without paying a premium._

Most people attribute Apple’s stunning financial performance to its
differentiated products, which integrate excellent hardware, software, and
content. If you dig deeper, however, you realize that other critical factors
have played a substantial role in Apple’s financial performance over the last
decade.

One factor rarely discussed in detail, but that has significant impact on
Apple’s success, is the way in which the company manages the critical forces
within its industry. There are five key industry forces, according to Michael
E. Porter, but here I just want to focus on one force: “the bargaining power
of suppliers.”

Let’s start with the iPod and iPhone. Most iPod’s except for the “Classic,”
rely on flash memory -- instead of a hard drive -- for storage. The benefits
of flash memory are reliability, form factor, and energy consumption.
Realizing the significant benefits of flash memory for portable media devices,
Apple formed long-term relationships with Samsung, Intel, and Micron, and by
mid-2007 commanded about 25% of worldwide flash production.

Fast forward to today, and we are seeing a similar scenario unfold for the
iPad and the tablet market. It turns out that Apple has secured about 60% of
global touch panel capacity, with a focus on 10-inch displays. As mentioned in
the article, this has forced some competitors to initially focus on devices
with 7-inch screens, such as Samsung with its Galaxy Tab.

What’s the effect of commanding such a large portion of the worldwide supply
of a key component for a product?

First, because Apple is buying these components in such large quantities it
can exercise significant leverage over suppliers. This leverage enables Apple
to negotiate favorable terms and pricing. For instance, South Korean Fair
Trade officials alleged that Apple struck a special deal with Samsung to
obtain flash chips at below market rates. This favorable pricing means that
Apple has a lower cost structure for its products relative to competing
products. And all else equal, this lower cost structure results in higher
margins for Apple versus a competitor.

Second, when Apple commands such a large portion of the global market for a
key component it creates enormous barriers to entry for potential competitors.
Competitors can obtain the component in limited quantities but at a higher
price, therefore placing the competitor at a cost disadvantage. Next, the
competitor can launch a different product -- a hard drive based portable media
device or a 7-inch touch screen tablet – that may not match the preferences of
consumers. Alternatively, the competitor can just sit and wait until more
supply of the component is made available, which in some cases takes years.

In sum, Apple’s financial success as a company hinges in part on
commercializing differentiated products. But this is just part of the story.
As important to Apple’s success is the company’s strategy around managing key
industry forces. As described above, Apple’s control over the worldwide market
for key components has reduced Apple’s cost structure and has created
significant barriers to entry for competitors. This yields significantly
higher margins and market share for Apple, among other benefits.

~~~
Yaggo
Is the number of LCD panel manufacturers limited by some universal constant or
why Apple's competitors just don't build their own factories?

~~~
masklinn
> Is the number of LCD panel manufacturers limited by some universal constant

It's limited by the ability to forecast the future as well as the costs (in
money and time) to build a new panels factory and ramp up its production.

> or why Apple's competitors just don't build their own factories?

Because most of them have no core competency in manufacturing, because
manufacturing is expensive to setup and evolve, because manufacturing is hard
and because manufacturing does not mean you'll make money (one part of Apple's
come-back strategy was to get rid of _all_ its manufacturing capacity, a plan
executed by Tim Cook)

------
FiddlerClamp
The smaller names are already shipping - I got an Archos 70 and 101 this week
(after weeks of delay for the 101, mind you). The Viewsonic G-Tab and Huawei
Ideos are out there, too.

I think that Honeycomb introduced a lot of uncertainty into requirements. When
would it be ready and would the shipping product be able to support it? Would
Gingerbread be sufficient?

------
mburns
The problem of designing and manufacturing a new product is harder than you
think.

~~~
tesseract
The problem of sourcing components and getting them delivered in a timely
fashion is harder than you think. Especially on the heels of a global
recession that caused suppliers to cut back on their manufacturing output.

------
shimi
A year ago I had a gig for a big name prototyping an Android tablet. The
message that was passed from other vendors was that Goggle were that they
aren't looking into tablets. The project was cancelled. How wrong they were...

When Android 1.0 was released a lot of vendors approached it with caution, 2
years down the road same story again...

------
nl
Hey, that's what I said: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2215290>:

 _Ever wonder why it's taken a year for anyone to build a 9"/10" iPad
competitor? It's because no one can get capacitative touch screen in
sufficient quantities. Even Samsung (which owns the factory!) had to make do
with 7" screens. Now, finally new factories are beginning to come online,
which means that competitors can release their products. The problem for them
is that Apple locked in much lower prices (because of their bigger purchasing
power), which makes it hard to compete on price._

------
Bitmobrich
So when is the CrunchPad being shipped?

------
navan
There are many cheap 5" and 7" tablets. But very few 10" tablets. ViewSonic
gTablet or viewpad10, Archos 101. They all have pretty good hardware with many
of them with two cameras and comparable price with low end iPad. Processor
manufacturers like nVidia gives them good frameworks to start with. In
addition to several things mentioned in the comments, these tablets had
problems like,

1\. Almost all except Samsung Galaxy lacked direct use of Android market. 2\.
Some had software problems with bad out of box experience. (For example:
[http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/18/viewsonic-g-tablet-
pulled...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/18/viewsonic-g-tablet-pulled-from-
staples-stores-manufacturing-de/)) 3\. Regular apps built for Android phones
did not give good experience on the tablets

For the future tablets, waiting for Android 3.0 may not be a good reason. They
always can release the hardware and then update the software later. HTC flyer
is following this approach. There is a risk of users turning away if the first
impressions are really bad. Announced prices for several of them are on the
very expensive side. Among the announcements I also notice that very few come
with wifi only option which is another reason for high price.

I collect tablet information at tbltpc.com.

------
guelo
One problem is that Google is too tight-lipped about the Android roadmap even
with its manufacturing partners. I know from working with one manufacturer how
surprised they were with the pace of the Gingerbread and Honeycomb releases
and how this has completely screwed up their schedule.

------
ReadyNSet
Well didn't you look at Samsung? They did ship and what was the result..

------
epynonymous
because nobody wants to re-create microsoft's mis-steps and it's clear that
tablets are entering mobile territory.

------
TGJ
Wow, what's with the comments section in the article showing like 5 copies of
each post?

