Consumers Don't Want Tablets, They Want iPads
allthingsd.com
allthingsd.com
EDIT: The commenters responding to me made a really good distinction -- phones are near-necessity devices that are subsidized by carriers, whereas right now, tablets are more or less a luxury purchase. I agree that this might have an effect on how things play out.
I do.
For one thing, building tablet software is hard. I mean, extremely hard work from a UI perspective. It makes stuff for the phone look like a cakewalk (I'll share a blog post sometime). So if Android Market continues sucking ass in terms of rewarding developers versus what they can make on the App Store, you'll get a bunch of turd apps and not much magic because what's the point of all that sweat?
Secondly, Android is inflated by the fact that if you want a cell phone you will be given an Android device for free if you start new service.
There is no magic free Android tablet tree – the economics are completely different. There's the argument that you might see a halo effect from all those phones... but people don't tend to value what's free and the carriers are doing whatever they can to cram these phones with junk anyway.
So, like I said, I do.
Are there particular things you have in mind that are much easier to design for a phone than for a tablet?
With a phone, right, you have this 3-4ish inch screen to work with. You absolutely have to focus. You've got a gun to your head requiring focus, commanding the basic flow of the application fit tidily within the confines of this small space, this teensy viewport the user has into what they're working on. Now, it's still possible to make crap (definitely) but the kinds of mistakes you're able to make are limited by both space and what the user can realistically accomplish with the limited time and tools inherent to the phone form factor.
Now. You get to tablet land. Holy shit! Look at all this room. I can put things here, and over here, and this place is nice – and then you have this jumbled, unfocussed mess. For me, the tablet gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself. Since the form factor isn't compelling focus and clarity, now you have to do it yourself.
I love the luxury of creative constraints. Tablets just have fewer constraints. A blessing and a curse, to be certain. Lots of great stuff you can only do on a tablet, too.
So instead of hard, you're saying it's too easy for its own good.
It's like a laser. If you put lots and lots of light in a very small (constrained) pinhead-sized surface, you can cut steel like it was butter. If you put as much light in a surface the size of a plate, you might barely heat the surface.
Among the hardest challenges you could ask for UX-wise, definitely. That's why so much desktop software has been shit since the 80's. As a guy who specializes in mobile, desktop stuff is horrifying. You have to consider all kinds of screen resolutions, interactions with other apps, huge variations in system performance, printing... On and on. No constraints to speak of.
I mean, Office only recently (last five years) emerged from mediocrity into something decent. And even then, it's not awesome. Though I'll always have a place in my heart for Excel. What a great product.
Meanwhile, look at Skype. The latest Skype for Mac is utter shit. This is not easy work.
There's certainly a very different mindset you adopt when developing for a phone sized screen, and the constraints require super tight focus on the site goals and processes that is often missing from the planning and requirements stage of less-constrained web development.
Google the "mobile first" movement, and pay particular attention for the writing of Luke Wroblewski - while not fully subscribing to "mobile first" myself, I'm seeing some _strong_ benefits from at least considering it at the very early planning stages of any new web project.
He/She is arguing that the prevelance of good UIs will win the tablet battle, rather than simply the presence of apps.
I'm not sure how I feel about that aspect, but I agree that tablet uis are harder to do RIGHT than phone UIs.
IPhone is not locked-in to a specific carrier unlike in the US and Android has the largest smartphone market share worldwide.
But Android is still growing pretty damn fast.
Yet Android has overtaken the iPhone there too.
See this for one example of buying an android phone in Japan: http://www.withinjapan.com/htc-desire-x06htii-buying-a-smart...
There are sometimes discounts on Android handsets, but they don't reach Softbank's discount of just completely giving away the iPhone.
There's not the same "magic free Android tree" - but there are some analogous patterns. With Android the carriers needed Android to succeed. So they made it succeed. No carriers for tablets (well, that's not quite true, but as an approximation). So who needs Android tablets to succeed? Well, every major hardware vendor and every major retail outlet. The hardware manufacturers are obvious - without a counterpoint to iOS they are screwed in potentially a huge strategic category. But even retail outlets need this. Some of them are lucky enough to be allowed to resell Apple equipment - but they know they are at Apple's mercy. After the warm glow of selling some iPads wears off they will know that they have to foster an alternative or have Apple dictate terms to them and take their margin and eventually even screw them by establishing Apple stores nearby. But that's not even talking about retailers not privileged to sell Apple gear. Those guys are absolutely going to stock Android tablets and advertise and market them heavily.
So we may not see "free" tablets but we absolutely are going to see the same vacuum effect that caused a giant glut of Android phones to hit the market and the same "coalition" of interests rises to compete with the iPad and create publicity, awareness, brand image, and they will eventually compete heavily on price and features - things consumers will respond to.
Right now you can get Galaxy Tab from verizon with a 2 year data contract for 199. So the idea exists..but do people want 2 year contracts for a 2nd device with their carrier?
Even then - you need a phone. You don't need a tablet. I think aside from the operating systems, you're really looking at two entirely different situations
IMHO tablets are similar. Android is, without question, a stunning success in the phone world. As is iOS, which singlehandededly transformed the mobile phone industry. People expect the same pattern to repeat in the tablet world.
I disagree. There are several fundamental differences:
1. Phones have a specific purpose, which for most people is the ability to make phone calls, send and receive text messages and use maps. I would guess that these are the three biggest uses of smartphones (but it is only a guess).
What's more, I think these account for the majority of actual usage. Apps are of course important but they are an add-on. Some people will use their smartphones almost completely app free (seriously). People I think forget this too.
Tablets are a different beast. There is much less inbuilt and obvious functionality. Apple has a vision of what the use case for this. I don't think anyone else really does (yet).
The ecosystem then becomes far more important and it's Apple with the music, movies/TV and, to a lesser extent, books (mainly due to Kindle, which is cross-platform). Android simply doesn't have this ecosystem so the use case for Android tablets for most people is a much tougher and less obvious sell.
I just don't see Android tablets (or any non-iPad tablets for that matter) gaining serious mass market traction for years to come.
I suspect we'll look back on this early period of tablet software design with a laugh. All these clones of real-world objects (iBooks) will seem quaint and naive and conservative.
1. Spider-Man Total Mayhem HD (3D ACT)
2. Ultimate Mortal Combat 3 for iPad (3D Fighting)
3. Splashtop Remote Desktop for iPad (Remote Desktop)
4. Angry Bird Rio HD
5. Pages
6. Angry Bird HD
7. Words with Friends HD
8. GarageBand
9. Gangstar: Miami Vindication HD (3D ACT)
10. Real Racing 2 HD (3D Racing)
Only 4,6,7 fit your discription and for now the Chrome Store port of Angry Bird performs rather poorly on a duo core Atom system. And the facebook version of Scrabble doesn't compare to the iPad version.
I think your experience is not very typical.
My reply was more targeted at this part of his comment:"apps that are essentially just iPad optimized web pages, and games that could have been done in a properly touch-enabled Flash (which may not exist yet, but will come eventually)."
But if you want evidence for people not spending majority time using browser on iPad, here is Flurry's analytic data:
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/63907/Mobile-Apps-Put-the-Web-in-...
My conclusion stands, his experience is not very typical.
1) apps that could be web pages are generally free so don't show up on the "top ten paid apps" list. The cooking apps I used are a prime example here.
2) flashy games are often purchased but forgotten, it's the apps with good gameplay but not necessarily as flashy graphics that get replayed and replayed and replayed. canonical example: angry birds.
3) Flash can do 3D too.
4) in your top ten list, only #3 and #8 would not be possible as a web site.
Most apps could be web sites, so any stats that say most time is spent in apps is meaningless.
Angry Bird/Tiny Wings/Fruit Ninja etc are not as graphically demanding as say Infinite Blade, but they are still very well done games with impressive art work. As a matter of fact all the Zynga games and Gameloft titles in the top 10 are not flashy by any means, to be honest Gameloft's 3D engine is so out of date it's laughable.
I'm sure given enough motivation Adobe can make Flash do anything, it could do your dishes and make your coffee. But it doesn't mean you should let Flash take over.
IMHO your wishful thinking is as meaningless if not more, especially when you don't even have stats.
[1] http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/03/ipad.2.4x.fast... [2] http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/benchmarks/sunspider/Table...
That said, Apple is of course trying to create that lock-in by creating an ecosystem with content (music, movies, etc.) that only works on Apple devices. So you might very well be right that Android tablets won't get any real traction, but I think the forces are less strong than they were for Windows and Mac in the 90s.
People who buy phones with a specific purpose buy dumbphones. The average iOS user has 50 apps on them nowadays. You've narrowed the use case too much.
That's also the appeal of the Apple brand to consumers: Buy it today, who knows what else you'll be using it for tomorrow?
With iMessage, a lot of people paying AT&T for unlimited texting are going to be dropping those plans. In theory, if all your friends have iPhones and will only have iPhones, you never need to pay for a text message plan on top of your data plan.
>Tablets are a different beast. There is much less inbuilt and obvious functionality. Apple has a vision of what the use case for this. I don't think anyone else really does (yet).
They really don't, and they're not marketing tablets to consumers intelligently at all. Regular consumers don't care about Flash. Heck, that holy war is pointless even among geeks. What consumers want is an easy way to view the view on the web: be it native apps or a flash plug in. They don't care about HOW. They just care that they can' Most consumers don't see the iPad as "crippled without Flash" because something like 80% of the video on the web is accessible through Apps. (Whereas I don't believe any of the Android Tablets have Netflix).
Netflix is trying hard to replace cable for consumers. For me, a device not having a netflix tie in is a dealbreaker.
They still have ways to go.
People almost always prefer the premium brands. It's a rare person who would pick a Honda Civic over a BMW 5 Series if both were the same price. The difference here is Apple's selling the low end iPad for a price companies like Samsung can barely match. You're constantly hearing stories of how Apple has an unbeatable advantage because they're already selling in such bulk.
So that's the problem. Other companies can't undercut Apple on price and lack Apple's brand prestige.
It's an easy trap to fall into: Well, gosh, the specs are the same. It's shaped basically the same. Huh. But they don't like it. Fuck, it must just be some ineffable brand thing.
Which it is. But it has absolutely nothing to do with "luxury."
Instead, the brand signals something important that other tablet competitors aren't strategically configured to match:
It works really well.
The screen size, carefully balanced against the needs of the tasks performed, along with the fingers necessary to perform them, comes in a specifically determined size. Not a size determined for differentiation, or a size necessitated by commodity supply constraints.
The size that works best.
There is a processor with an integrated GPU. Nothing special. But what does that processor do? It drives a mature collection of software libaries that are well calibrated for performance, visual appeal and flexible use. Making it easy to build software that solves problems while being transparent, even enjoyable, to the user.
It's software that works really well.
There is a retail network that makes it very easy not only to experiment with the device, but also get questions answered. And if something goes wrong, they can repair or replace it. Often for free. Even if it's your own fault.
There is an ongoing software development effort, incentivized by ongoing hardware sales, that ensures the continued maintenance, improvement and evolution of both the underlying developer-facing software platform and the outward user experience of the device.
There is a content delivery and monetization ecosystem that rewards users with ease of use and content developers with boatloads of money.
I can go on and on.
But the point here is this: the brand has nothing to do with luxury. It's about shitty – and not being shitty. About mediocrity – and higher aspiration. About short-term thinking – and long-term vision. Incentives based on owning the experience as a whole, versus owning a small subset that's cut off from the rest.
Apple's goal, as a business, is the same as any other: make a shitload of money. They go about it differently than almost everyone else. I'd love it if it were possible for another company to take a similar approach. But, for whatever reason, this attitude is very difficult to replicate. Apple isn't preferred because they're Apple. Apple is preferred because they're the only ones who are.
And that's how they get so many consumers who prefer their stuff, especially when the prices are equal.
And then you proceed to describe exactly what I'd expect from a "luxury" device. Polished experience and excellent customer service. Heck, that's precisely what luxury is - not-crap and others standing by to meet your desires.
>About mediocrity – and higher aspiration.
And not mediocrity - and luxury? Seriously, what's the difference? Any smart phone / supplemental computer is very strictly a "luxury", because it's not necessary. Or does it need to be made of gold to be luxury?
>Apple is preferred because they're the only ones who are.
Does it need competition to be luxury? If I make a fromjab, spend billions developing it, sell it for millions of dollars, and polish the heck out of it, is it somehow not a luxury item if I'm the only fromjab maker in the world? What does this say about Picasso artwork? There's only one producer there.
This isn't a fur coat, a diamond ring, a Tiffany lamp or a gold plated cigarette case.
This is a product that costs the same as its competitors. But is nonetheless better in almost every respect.
That's not a luxury brand. That's just a making better shit than everyone else brand.
How many people subscribe to either of our uses of the term, I have no idea. But under that (or a similar) definition, you're entirely correct, Apple isn't luxury. Different only in the lack of (significant?) artificial inflation, and therefore less social prestige?
It'd be like Honda trying to sell their cars through a bunch of third-party car dealers like "Bob's Auto Mart" while BMW sold all of theirs through their own BMW-owned dealerships.
Why, ultimately, did Windows initially achieve market dominance? Because it evolved from MS-DOS.
Why did MS-DOS have market dominance? Because it ran on PC compatibles.
Why did PC compatibles have market dominance? Because they were drop-in replacements for the IBM PC.
And why, despite being relatively late to the market, despite having a relatively high price tag and a really ugly grey boxy look, did the IBM PC have market dominance? Because IBM put their product into the hands of their well-established and reputable corporate sales network dedicated to selling IBM hardware, and they sold it all over.
Of course, this argument is incomplete and flawed because I haven't used the words Lotus 1-2-3 yet. Unfortunately, the fact that killer apps also sell hardware comes as little relief for Android. The closest thing to a killer app that Android has come up with so far is Flash support. Unfortunately, with mobile Flash it's still not clear who is doing the killing and who is doing the dying.
If you were a large business buying computers in the mid 80's you bought them directly from manufacturer (Compaq, Apple, whoever).
If you were a small business you bought your computer(s) from a third party (computer store, Sears, wherever).
The Mac lost because most businesses bought for price and compatibility.
Of course, now that they lost that war, they have an awesome prize. They are the most profitable computer maker today.
Before Apple stores, you could go to CompUSA, and there was an Apple section staffed with Apple employees -- they even existed before the Apple stores became more ubiquitous.
The second half of the Bernstein release states that "Fifty percent of respondents preferred Apple over all other brands." That is EXACTLY HALF, so feel free to spin it the other way: "Fifty percent of respondents would not choose Apple over another brand."
Here's another quote from the article: "Apple has more than double the brand appeal of BlackBerry, HTC, Motorola, Nokia and Samsung combined." Care to spin that another way?
As AllThingsD certainly doesn't pass along a definition of "brand appeal", in the context of the article that 66% claim is neither fact nor spin. It is nothing at all.
Again, I'm not saying Apple isn't dominating, but it does seem like the question was written with the conclusion already in mind.
This is different from a TV screen size, you don't have to hold the TV but you definitely need to hold the tablet, too small and you can't get your things done, too big it would be annoying to hold on to it as well. It does prove that Apple had done research and a lot of testing to get the correct size. Once this correct size is being pushed out, I don't see why consumers would want to prefer other sizes.
Note: When I say consumers I refer to average consumers, geeks like options and customizations, but average consumers don't want to be bothered by these.
Seems to me the others are catching up nicely, especially since most of them are using the same OS series.
I just got an Asus Transformer and it is NICE. Especially now that I found some software to let me remote into my desktop and have the tablet act as a dumb terminal. My tabletpc (which I used mainly as a laptop) sits unused now because the tablet is smaller, lighter, snappier, and produces no heat. I can do all my Android-y games and little apps, as well as access the big stuff from my PC in the other room, all from the couch.
And reading comics on it? Awesome.
I considered an iPad. Seriously considered it. What finally decided it was open source software and creating my own apps. (And I have written 1 so far, but not published... Need to polish it.)
The real slam here is that there is any such thing as the "tablet" market. There's an iPad market, the netbook market, smartphone market, and PC market. Trying to make something that addresses all of these poorly is a bad idea.
Windows TabletPCs never really caught on, and as you mention, an ARM-based android "netbook" kills it for the target market.
Android tablets suffer from an app deficiency and still-maturing OS, not to mention, they are addressing the iPad's native market (if they switched gears, took netbooks head-on like the Asus Transformer they would probably have better results).
There will probably be something in the future that does more of what I want, but this is good enough to get me by for a few years.
As far as I know, the iPad can't do what I want, even if I replace 'android apps' with 'ipad/iphone apps'.
And there are plenty of Keyboard Docks / Bluetooth Keyboards for the iPad.
I'm not sure the sales data backs that up, especially if the #2 is now Blackberry.
The real question: why is Apple so much better than these other companies at creating markets?
Look, when you're buying a tablet, you're buying into an OS/software ecosystem. Yes, people are buying Apple because it's Apple. But they're also buying Apple because of the App Store and because of a proven track record of apps they enjoy and find useful (assuming some previous iPhone/iPod Touch ownership).
But Android doesn't really have the brand thing so much with regard to the individual manufacturers. I have an HTC phone right now, but I don't feel much loyalty to HTC. My next phone might be made by Samsung or Motorola. I don't much care, because I'm loyal to Android, not to the particular manufacturer.
So in that light, the US numbers for next tablet purchase are 50% iOS, 33% Android, 9% RIM, and 8% don't care. And that's not bad, considering that Apple has a good year's head start on Android wrt tablets.
I have a PlayBook I use for day-to-day in my day job, and it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be different from Apple. However, it leads to an overall inferior experience for me, that I'm close to giving up on the device. I can't see myself recommending it to anyone, except for the fact that it plays Flash. However, even that issue isn't as big as it was before.
I'm still hoping someone else produces a compelling product to challenge Apple, whether it be Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. It would not be good for all inovations in this product category to only come from one company.
Yes, and not just anybody producing a good tablet, but Apple producing a good tablet.
> it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be different from Apple
It is tough to follow without being labeled a follower. If you do things the same way, you are branded a copycat; if you do things differently, people will say you are trying too hard to appear original even though in reality you are no different from others (this was Apple in the early 2000s -- remember how some people criticized them for trying too hard with fruity-looking iMacs, etc.?) Being different works, but you have to do it consistently as well as strengthen your image with positive real-life outcomes.
I was in Santa Barbara this weekend, at "La Tour Wine Merchants" - Purchased every thing there through an iPad + Square.
One thing important to note - the transaction took under 5 seconds for him to process, + 3-4 for me to sign. Receipt was then automatically filled out with my email address (I'd used square somewhere else) - and, from the time I handed him my credit card to the time I was done was under 10 seconds. It felt a lot faster than normal credit card transactions.
So - every single person who comes into that Wine Merchant is going to have the iPad marketed as hyper efficient (and low cost transaction fee) credit card processing platform to boot.
Not to say that the Droid Tablet's won't get square soon (if they don't already) - but the solution is certainly going to be well regressed on the iPad more quickly.
Popularity sometimes results in a network-effect of quality improvements resulting in further popularity - I think that's what we're going to see with the iPad.
The Color Nook
According to various recent reports, Apple has about 10% share in ebook sales, Barnes and Noble 25%, and Kindle over 60%.
Don't know the latest sales figures, but as of March 28, 2011, 3 million Color Nooks were shipped, according to Digitimes:
Barnes & Noble already takes delivery of 3 million Nook Color e-book readers, say sources
Yenting Chen, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES [Monday 28 March 2011]
Barnes & Noble has taken delivery of close to three million Nook Color e-book readers from its production partner, according to an estimate by sources from the Nook Color supply chain.
With a clear differentiation to Apple's iPads in display size, targeted market and pricing, the Nook Color, priced at US$249, has actually taken up over 50% of the iPad-like market in the North America market, indicated the sources.
Sales of the Nook Color topped one million units in the North America in the fourth quarter of 2010 and reached 600,000-700,000 units a month during the January-February period of 2011, the sources noted.
Barnes & Noble outsources the production of the Nook Color e-book readers to Inventec, noted the sources, adding that Inventec has landed tablet PC orders from Hewlett-Packard (HP).
EDIT: formatting
In comparing the e-reader to the tablet, the Nook does indeed blur the lines, but it's resistive touch and e-ink display combined with hackery to run a full touch OS means it's really in a league all it's own.
Perhaps this is the recipe to success for the upstarts. Ignore the "X market" as that means X is commoditized. Differentiate by seeing the pricing and/or vision gap and dive into it deftly.
A footnote: comparing "shipped" vs. "sold" numbers is a bit facile. Lots of difference there. It'd be nice to see definitive "sold" B&N details, but they're not sharing.
Agree also about the recipe for success: Find a niche and optimize for it.
If even Apple doesn't yet know what their tablet is for, how are we supposed to know what their inferior knock-offs are for? But it sure is obvious what a Color Nook is for. It does have an app store but the apps are for the most part related to reading, as you'd expect.
The fact that the Color Nook can be converted into the least expensive half-decent Android tablet is just an interesting aside.
EDIT: typo
The difference is that the iPad doesn't have the same constraints (namely available only on AT&T) that the iPhone had. Would Android really have had the same success it had if the iPhone was available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile (and assuming Apple could keep up with the volume) from the start?
Anecdote: everyone I know who has an Android phone really wanted an iPhone but didn't want to leave Verizon. Now that the iPhone is on Verizon, most of those folks intend to switch to an iPhone once their contract is up.
(FTR I don't own an iPhone, iPad or an Android device)
That's in the US, what about the rest?
Yes, this is an honest question.
(1)http://www.mobil.se/nyheter/android-ifatt-iphone-i-sverige-1...
Being exclusive to AT&T was as much Apple's choice as Android's was to be on them all.
Yes I'm sure it impacts adoption rates, but we didn't see a huge rush to the Verizon iPhone. But, as you say, the real test won't come until people's contracts end over the next 2 years.
In Germany, the IPhone is available at the 3 major carriers, O2, Vodaphone & TMobile.
Marketshare for Android in Germany is 35.5% versus 24.4 for iOS.
But I think people will be surprised that Android tablets will take off in the second wave of Android tablets, when the Tegra 3 chip shows up in them, and Amazon takes the market by storm, too. That should push iPad's market to under 50% by the time iPad 3 is released. And that will be just the beginning.
And I know there have been stories how competitors can't build a tablet for a low price, but that has been already disproven by Asus, which has pretty much identical specs with iPad, yet it's $100 cheaper.
The Amazon quad core Tegra 3 tablet is rumored to be priced at $450.
If no OS has been able to make a serious dent in iPad market share by next year then the iPad will go the way of the iPod dominance. You can't give Apple three years with no competitve threat to the iPad.
Asus actually increased their production for their Transformer tablet.
On the Apple side, there's no decisions to make, and upgrade paths are very clear.
On the Android side, there's plenty of options and it's a very competitive market. If you don't like the current offerings, 3 months will see a bunch of new devices.
Apple, HP, and ? Amazon?
And if over 50% of people prefer a 10" tablet to a 7" one, why in the world would Samsung, RIM and others think they could sell one at a smaller size? Did they do any market research at all?
People embarrassed to pull out a huge 10" screen to read in a train.
There are certainly use cases (and clothing styles!) that creates niches for 7", but I doubt they are anywhere close to 40% of users. IMHO, this is a case of inexperienced consumers.
Don't you need to read pdfs and browse full size web pages? Or you do it so little, it isn't a problem? Then the interesting part: Why would that be a large set of customers these days?
Or do you just have young eyes and can see smaller points -- and old farts which need 10" should just die?
As for what I use it for, reading pdf's and ebooks probably make up 80% of my usage. As for my eyesight, it's OK, but nothing remarkable, very slightly shortsighted, but not so bad that I need glasses. And anyway I'm certainly not arguing against the existence of 10" tablets, but for the co-existence of both sizes and that one is not inherently better than the other.
But sure, I don't have references so call it an anecdote. :-)
That was why I asked if 'dagw' had good eyesight, or something. Maybe he doesn't want to read a page at a time? Never mind, I'll wait until I meet someone that has those unusual tablets...
In short, you're using a 7" as I use my 13" laptop. It strains my eyesight to use a 10" as my laptop. I assume this is an age thing; I'm over 40. It influences the eyes badly, sigh.
Prior to iPad, how many consumers had spent a moment of time considering what a tablet computer would be like? How many had a chance to hold one and interact with it at a local store? Most people use iPad as a reference point because it was their first experience with a tablet. It was first and it worked. People want iPads because, for now at least, it's the definitive product for the category.
When everyone has the production ironed out, android tablets will drop, and apple will keep selling iPads for a premium price.
I love apple, but the tablet will never spread effectively if it costs $500 or more.
I also suspect that if people were asked their preference regarding wide screen format vs. 4:3 the iPad would not fare quite so well as it does in questions regarding screen size.
The tablet market just doesn't have its IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad yet.
At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, there's just no use case for tablets.
WANT is a disease in this society. NEED is the great leveller.
The following is from experience dealing with hundreds of people:
They NEED a cheap, flexible computer that just works, doesn't poke you in the eye, doesn't try to upsell everything to you every 5 mins (like apps and virus scanners), lasts a good number of years without spectacular failures, doesn't pick up diseases like a cheap whore and doesn't set fire to your house.