iPad - useful for what?

[Plotinus]

Fine, but most of the criticisms seemed to be about the iPad qua tablet rather than as opposed to other tablets, so I responded in kind.

 

[Mise]

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]

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.

 

[Olleus]

Much iPad dislike on this thread... Well, I got one recently, when I found that my extremely long commute to work is going to remain a fixture in my life for the foreseeable future. My trusty iPod touch (first generation!) has been a life-saver while commuting, but I wanted something heftier.

The iPad has been fantastic for this. I absolutely hate using a laptop on a train. The iPad is much pleasanter to hold and far more convenient. Yes, it is just a giant iPod touch, but that's precisely what I want on such an occasion, because I'm tired of squinting at that little screen. It's great for reading books on and excellent for watching video. If I want to do some work on it I can just whip out a bluetooth keyboard. But the point is that when I don't want to do that kind of thing - which is most of the time - I don't have a keyboard getting in the way.

Plus it's extremely nice to use at home for casual things such as checking things on the Internet, checking email, looking at news, fly-by moderation on CFC, etc. Also streaming programmes on iPlayer, MSN Video, and similar services. (I hate watching TV on the laptop.) Yes, of course you can do all these things on a netbook. But that's not the point. It's pleasanter and quicker this way. If the "But you can do that on existing technology X" were the be-all and end-all, then we wouldn't have laptops, because you can do all that on a desktop. Laptops found a place because although they couldn't do anything new, they had a more convenient form factor. So does the iPad, though in a less dramatic way. So I'm very happy with it.

(Also, putting it on the piano music stand and playing YouTube boogie tutorials whilst following along on the piano is far, far superior to putting a laptop on a table next to the piano and constantly twisting around. There is no comparison.)

I'm slightly confused, why do you hate using a laptop on the train but not the iPad? I find the iPad far too heavy to hold for large amounts of time and needs to be placed on a table just like a laptop. Also, why do you like watching tv on your iPad but not on your laptop?

 

[Plotinus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm slightly confused, why do you hate using a laptop on the train but not the iPad? I find the iPad far too heavy to hold for large amounts of time and needs to be placed on a table just like a laptop. Also, why do you like watching tv on your iPad but not on your laptop?

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]

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.

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 :

With an iPad, as with all Apple products, you are paying a premium for (a) the brand and (b) to get it first. If you break down the price of Apple products into its component costs, the manufacturing cost is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of market research, design, marketing, patents, etc. Competitors who follow Apple's lead don't have to spend anywhere near as much on design and marketing as Apple do, because Apple have already figured out the right form factor most people want, what features most people want, what speed and responsivity most people want, what battery life most people want, what applications most people want, etc etc. Apple have already created a market for tablets, touch-screen phones, etc too (and spent a lot of money in doing so). And they've already sourced and ordered the components, so there are already manufacturers, distributors, etc in place when the next guy comes along (i.e. the manufacturing know-how and technology, and supply chain to support it, is already in place). So Apple's competitors can afford to undercut Apple on price, because they don't have to spend money on any of that stuff -- Apple have already done most of the hard work for them. It's only because of Apple's brand, and its first mover advantage, that it can afford to sell at such inflated prices. The market price of a tablet with the iPad's specifications is always going to be lower than the price that Apple sells at -- that's how Apple makes any money at all.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

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.

Here's why there will always be products that are cheaper than Apple's:

Spoiler :

With an iPad, as with all Apple products, you are paying a premium for (a) the brand and (b) to get it first. If you break down the price of Apple products into its component costs, the manufacturing cost is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of market research, design, marketing, patents, etc. Competitors who follow Apple's lead don't have to spend anywhere near as much on design and marketing as Apple do, because Apple have already figured out the right form factor most people want, what features most people want, what speed and responsivity most people want, what battery life most people want, what applications most people want, etc etc. Apple have already created a market for tablets, touch-screen phones, etc too (and spent a lot of money in doing so). And they've already sourced and ordered the components, so there are already manufacturers, distributors, etc in place when the next guy comes along (i.e. the manufacturing know-how and technology, and supply chain to support it, is already in place). So Apple's competitors can afford to undercut Apple on price, because they don't have to spend money on any of that stuff -- Apple have already done most of the hard work for them. It's only because of Apple's brand, and its first mover advantage, that it can afford to sell at such inflated prices. The market price of a tablet with the iPad's specifications is always going to be lower than the price that Apple sells at -- that's how Apple makes any money at all.

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]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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]

Well, fair enough, but in all their other products they've priced the next generation higher than their competitors. iPhone, iPod, iMac...

 

[Abaddon]

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!