"But does the Aigo have what it takes to be an Apple iPad killer? Well, let us take a closer look at the specs."
I think when you go that direction, you've lost already. The iPad's success (or any other Apple product as far as I know) has very little to do with numbers in a hardware spec.
The people who use their products seem to love the experience not the fact that it has such-an-such memory or processor. That fabled Apple experience seems to be combination of great many factors including packaging, marketing, surface design, hardware specs, software design and the brand.
It's not perfect and it's not for everyone, but if someone is to "kill an iPad" they must greatly outperform Apple in all these areas -- not just one.
I have yet to see an iPod killer. I doubt it will happen.
Equally if you're looking for a single device to "kill" iPad you've gone in the wrong direction and missed the whole point of Android. And believing you have to beat the iPad in every area is exactly the spec checklist mentality you seem to be warning against. If it can be cheaper for the price conscious and loaded with specs for the spec conscious (not necessarily in the same device!) and fill enough market niches left unloved by Apple's strict product vision then Android will do fine.
Exactly. This is definitely not a one-wins-all situation.
I have dreamed of a tablet device ever since I've seen Star Trek. And while iPad is the closest thing to it of all the projects currently for sale, it is not the one I hope to have.
The tablet I desire would not require iTunes or a similar program binding it to a PC, for instance. Nor would it center around a specific set of marketplaces.
Personally, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for something like ChromeOS tablet combined with faster and better Internet.
My point is that it's not a single feature -- even if that feature is the whole ecosystem.
Windows never killed MacOS or Linux in the sense that MS Excel killed Lotus 1-2-3 or MS Word killed WordPerfect.
I doubt anything will replace the iPad. I hope that there will be something that would complement it. But I don't think that an Android device would be intriguing for the same sort of people as iPad is now.
If executed properly, an Android device with both multitouch and a pressure sensitive stylus would be compelling for me. Add a transflective Pixel Qi screen, and this could be an iPad killer. (Depending on price)
No. I cannot see this appealing to people seriously considering an iPad. It doesn't have the screen size (and presumably quality), it doesn't have the resolution and most importantly it doesn't have the software. I can however seeing this appealing to people who find the iPad too big and/or expensive and who aren't too into the whole Apple experience thing.
For something to be even considered an iPad killer it must offer something significant that the iPad doesn't have (like notion ink's pixelQi screen) and not just be a couple of hundred dollars cheaper.
This device? No, but I'm really hoping to see some quality Android-based options soon. That's what's so exciting. We have the potential of any hardware maker coming along and making a great device that suits your needs.
I strongly disagree with the Apple philosophy and choose to vote with my money and not buy an iPhone or iPad. It's too bad because they make great products in many ways but just fall short for me.
This is probably off topic, but are there any well-known cases of a product labeled "$name killer" having actually become a success? Many (unsuccessful) iPod killers, iPhone killers, and Google killers, to name a few, come to mind from recent years.
Both Windows NT and Windows 95 were tagged as "OS/2 killer", and that slaughter-job couldn't have turned out better.
Of course it helps to be the original creator of the product that you set out to kill... (In this sense, the iPad could deservedly be called the "Mac killer".)
OS/2 was killed by IBM's refusal to market it, the requirement for developers to jump through painful hoops just to get permission to be considered for developer status, and their total disdain for those developers who did manage to get product out.
Choppy graphics, unresponsive touch screen, too many ports, too small a resolution. So from a technical perspective it's not very attractive. Speaking of attractive, the device is pretty ugly and the swivel flaps look flimsy.
(And can people please stop saying "HD video playback" and "1080p HD compatible" on a screen that isn't even 500 pixels high!)
Maybe this device will appeal to a some geeks, I dunno. Either way, there's no chance it will have mass consumer appeal. So: linkbait title.
I have to say I went for all the high tech solutions first - zappers and stuff. The fly paper won hands down. Sugary sticky stuff on some paper - sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.
First, this is mostly a rehash of an Engadget article - little to no original content here. And second, it doesn't really answer the stated question. It enumerates the specs of the device and comes to the tired old conclusion that based on them "...the number one iPad-Killer seems to be Aigo N700."
"But does the Aigo have what it takes to be an Apple iPad killer? Well, let us take a closer look at the specs."
I think when you go that direction, you've lost already. The iPad's success (or any other Apple product as far as I know) has very little to do with numbers in a hardware spec.
The people who use their products seem to love the experience not the fact that it has such-an-such memory or processor. That fabled Apple experience seems to be combination of great many factors including packaging, marketing, surface design, hardware specs, software design and the brand.
It's not perfect and it's not for everyone, but if someone is to "kill an iPad" they must greatly outperform Apple in all these areas -- not just one.
I have yet to see an iPod killer. I doubt it will happen.