iPad - useful for what?
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
Mise
isle of lucy
I think a lot of those criticisms would disappear if they weren't priced at $600. If they were priced at $300, then those criticisms wouldn't stick; for $600, you expect a hell of a lot more from a tablet than for $300. There are competitors that sell for $300 that do what the iPad does. I'm happy to agree that there are uses for tablet PCs that sell for $300, but not for a tablet PC that sells for $600.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Indeed. And on the topic of price there is an issue re portable use. One reason for the utility of the netbook is not simply that it is affordable but that it is cheap enough to use in public without looking over your shoulder. £450-£650 for an iPad vis £200-£350 for a netbook puts them in psychologically different leagues in terms of worrying they'll get nicked.
I don't believe there's any tablet that cheap that is equal to the iPad. I want something powerful enough to be able to play decent games on it. But also, I'm pleased enough with my iPod touch, which has been extremely reliable and versatile, to want something similar but heftier. It seems to me that in this sort of area it's worth getting the best version one can afford, because whenever I've not done that in the past I've generally come to regret it.
This is my instinctive reaction too. When I first got my iPod touch I was reluctant to take it out on the bus. Now, of course, everyone on the bus has something probably more powerful than it. Right now I wouldn't pull out an iPad on the bus, at least not around where I live, but they are so common on the Tube and the train that I'm not bothered.
My laptop is not the largest or heaviest kind, but it's still appreciably bulky. And it is hot and whirs loudly and constantly. I just don't like watching things on it. It won't fit on the little tray you get on the train. I have used it on the train before when really forced to and it is not pleasant. The iPad feels fundamentally different (this is an iPad 2 so perhaps it's a bit lighter than the original). I wouldn't hold the iPad up in the air to watch things on it - that would be a bit heavy - but it's easy to rest it on my lap or on the tray while holding it, and it's just pleasant to look at it - and without the heat, bulk, and whirring. Of course some of these issues wouldn't apply to a netbook, but I would rather have the immediacy of a touch screen device and the form of something that I can hold in the same way as a hardback book (plus being able to turn it on and off instantly is a huge bonus in these conditions, even compared to a speedy laptop). I really wouldn't want to read a book on a netbook and one certainly couldn't do so while standing on the Tube.
Mise
isle of lucy
You won't get something equivalent to an iPad 2 for $300, but you will easily get something like the first iPad for that price. For $300 you can get something that will do all the things you said in your first post, in addition to playing games.
In any case, even if you couldn't get a device for $300 that did all of those things, my point still stands. I can't see a reason to spend $600 for those features, but I can see a reason to spend $300 for those features. For $600, I expect a lot more than those features. This is entirely independent of whether there are, in fact, devices that do those things at those prices. It was true in 1980, when there were no such devices; it's true now. This is why people are so critical of the iPad, because they simply can't justify spending $600 for doing those things. If it was priced at $300, then those criticisms would disappear.
Here's why there will always be products that are cheaper than Apple's:
Spoiler :
Fair enough, but then you're just talking about perceived value, which isn't really quantifiable. Were the first home computers worth the enormous sums of money they cost, for the feeble computing power they offered (compared to what we have now)? There's no answer to that other than whether people thought they were, which evidently they did, or at least some people did. The same goes for any device. The question What does it do? is answerable, but the question Is it worth the price? is not.
But if that is so, then why do other products which are comparable to the iPad 2 in terms of power and so on - such as the Motorola Xoom - cost more, or at least no less? Those that are cheaper, such as the Advent Vega, are not as powerful. When it comes to tablets, Apple have not done their usual thing of making products that are significantly more expensive than those of their rivals, which is one of the reasons the iPad remains so dominant in the field. The only one I can see that is comparable to the iPad in terms of both power and price is the new Asus Transformer (which I think looks really impressive).
Mise
isle of lucy
Because most of the things I said in the spoiler about competitors now apply to Apple. Apple doesn't have to create demand for a new class of devices - they've already done that. Apple doesn't have to create a whole new supply chain - they've already done that. The designs for a dual-core device aren't massively different from the design of a single-core device - and they've already done that. The OS? Already done that. Apps? Games? iStore? Already done that. They can afford to price the iPad 2 more competitively now, which is what they're doing. All they've done differently here is added a few tweaks and stuck a dual-core processor instead of a single-core one. Other competitors are basically doing exactly what Apple is doing, so there's no reason why the iPad 2 should cost more than its peers.
Now I'll admit, the price of an iPad 2 is much more competitive than is usual for Apple. I think the main reason is this: Apple always release the 2nd gen of their product lines at the same price points as the 1st gen. By the end of the product's lifecycle, the margin becomes enormous as the device becomes entrenched. They rarely reduce the price over time - instead they just release a slightly better version at the same price. The timing of the release usually still makes the next gen product look overpriced -- however, I suspect they were forced to release the iPad 2 soon enough after the iPad 1 because they didn't want to lose market share to their competitors, who have been eating away at Apple's share of new smartphone sales and Apple doesn't want that happening in the tablet market.
Now I'll admit, the price of an iPad 2 is much more competitive than is usual for Apple. I think the main reason is this: Apple always release the 2nd gen of their product lines at the same price points as the 1st gen. By the end of the product's lifecycle, the margin becomes enormous as the device becomes entrenched. They rarely reduce the price over time - instead they just release a slightly better version at the same price. The timing of the release usually still makes the next gen product look overpriced -- however, I suspect they were forced to release the iPad 2 soon enough after the iPad 1 because they didn't want to lose market share to their competitors, who have been eating away at Apple's share of new smartphone sales and Apple doesn't want that happening in the tablet market.
Yes, I agree. But then you can't lay it down as an immutable law that "there will always be products that are cheaper than Apple's", because in cases such as this they are choosing to take advantage of the infrastructure that they've already invested in, as you say.
Mise
isle of lucy
Well, fair enough, but in all their other products they've priced the next generation higher than their competitors. iPhone, iPod, iMac...
Abaddon
Deity
Thankfully my parents who were planning to get one realised that one of the most important websites for my dad (a share price checking site) used flash.. so that was it for the ipad!
