What happened to the iPad killers of 2010? | Hacker News Reader

What happened to the iPad killers of 2010?

extremetech.com

22 pointsukdm25 comments

I continue to believe this isn't the right way of looking at the problem. There isn't a "tablet" market yet. The iPad sells to iPhone users only. It's an attractive upgrade/enhancement, and a fun device. But it hasn't creates a new market yet, in the sense that no one decides to buy a "tablet" and then researches alternatives. Instead, people fall in love with the iPad specifically and buy that.

So manufacturers chasing "tablet" sales are fooling themselves. Maybe tablets will come of age, or maybe they're a fad. But right now the only way to displace the iPad is to displace the iPhone first.

> The iPad sells to iPhone users only.

Though I agree with your assessment, I've seen the exact opposite. Most heavy iPad users that I know well likely do not have an iPhone. In fact, the iPad does really well with kids and seniors.

Case in point: my parents and parents-in-law all have iPads, none have an iPhone. They were previously relying on work laptops or home desktops, with varying degrees of frustration/friction. They are all now happily using Mail, Skype/Facetime and various game/lifestyle apps. Only one uses a computer regularly.

But you have an iPhone, right? And you no doubt plugged the device to your family? And they bought it in large part on that recommendation?

Assuming that's true, I don't see how this does anything but support my point. Your parents didn't make a decision to buy a "tablet", and I'm willing to bet they never so much as touched a Honeycomb or WebOS or Windows model. Right?

> But you have an iPhone, right? And you no doubt plugged the device to your family? And they bought it in large part on that recommendation?

I do have an iPhone.

My parent-in-laws made the decision on their own to get the iPad (I don't interact with them often). I did gift one to my Mom after she saw the iPad2 and mentioned she'd like one.

There are a couple of factors at play. My mother bought an iPad2 (I was surprised!), and she's never owned a portable gadget more complex than a feature phone. Her reasoning boils down to network effect--she's easily able to Facetime some of her kids (and grandkids) overseas, because they have an iPad.

It's not a matter of displacing the iPhone or iPad, it's a matter displacing the network ecosystem of capabilities and users built up around it. And that's why no one's done it yet.

Hardware won't do it. Software won't do it. Even hardware and software together won't do it. So long as the cost of switching to a new "network" of features is higher than the perceived value of the new network, it ain't gonna happen.

I thought this until last weekend (I got to fly right seat on a cross country trip).

(Forgive me if I get some of these terms wrong. I'm not a pilot)

The iPad has completely revolutionized the way that pilots interact with their navigation equipment. Normally, pilots carry around a stack of maps called "sectionals". These have got things called IFR cooridoors, which are like interstate highways for aircraft, VOR intercepts (like checkpoints), radio frequencies, airport information etc.

They're annoying, and they change every so often, and you have to keep them up to date.

My pilot didn't have these. He had an iPad that automatically updates its maps (with FAA approved "sectionals"). The iPad has a moving-map (like what you see in a car's satnav) with terrain (this is a big deal. Terrain means "There are mountains here, here, and here. Judging by your elevation, you will run into a mountain if you go that way, so don't.).

This isn't just private pilots, either. I guess major carriers are putting iPads in all of their cockpits (I think the carrier a pilot friend was telling me about was fed ex).

This $800 device is literally replacing thousands of dollars worth of cockpit equipment, and it can also watch netflix.

You are entirely wrong about "the iPad sells to iPhone users only". There are lots of customers who use iPads and have Android, Blackberry, and other phones too. People buy the iPad not because it's a bigger iPhone, but because it's the best tablet on the market.

However you do have a point about there not really being a tablet market. The iPad really is its own market right now. I've used other tablets like the Xoom and Galaxy S and they really don't compare. My friend that works at Microsoft likes to argue that MS has made tablets for years. I've yet to disabuse him of the notion that laptops with touchscreens aren't tablets.

But no, iPads being the most popular tablets has nothing to do with iPhones.

Obviously in any big market there may be "lots" of consumers with any characteristic you want. I'm just saying that in my experience, every iPad I've seen has been owned by a previous iOS user. Every single one. Many of these people are geeks and might "have" Android/RIM devices too, but they're uniformly Apple fans. And they bought their iPads because they wanted the iPad. None of them looked at other tablets.

So just like the manufacturers, I think you're fooling yourself, just in the other direction. The iPad isn't "winning" the tablet market. The iPad lives in its own market, and that's a proper subset of the iPhone market.

So we're rejecting anecdotal evidence because of the existence this other anecdotal evidence?

> Obviously in any big market there may be "lots" of consumers with any characteristic you want.

Right...

> I'm just saying that in my experience, every iPad I've seen has been owned by a previous iOS user. Every single one.

Did the same person write both those sentences?

Anecdotally, that's not my observation. The iPad is certainly popular with iPhone owners, but it seems to be popular with non-iPhone owners as well.

Edit: I dug up some actual data: only 27% of iPad owners own an iPhone, while 32% own a blackberry or android phone (and a significant fraction do not own a smartphone at all).

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/19/a-look-at-ipad-users-...

The Kindle Fire is going to compete nicely with the iPad at $199. However being an iPad Killer, is just wishful thinking. Being an iPad Competitor is probably more realistic.

Kindle Fire isn't a direct competitor. It's a device for consuming content from Amazon. Targeted mostly at existing Amazon customers.

Many Amazon Customer are Apple Customers as well. The Kindle Fire is definitely a direct competitor not only in hardware but also in digital goods (books, movies, and music).

It's at least as much of a competitor as any other 7" Android tablet.

I have a pretty solid theory: Anything with "{X} Killer" attributions is going to fail.

I think the failure of ipad killers can be attributed to them "having NO humanities and liberal arts in their DNA." as Jobs once said about Microsoft and Google. "They just didn't get it. Even when they saw the it they couldn't even copy it well." I think for that reason no ipad-wannabe-killers (present or future) will come close to displacing the ipad unless they manage to trump it in design/UX/UI. Currently, their only strategy seems to be waging a price war in hopes of covering their cost price(at the very least) and gaining some market share (at best).

I was actually impressed with the basic functionality of the Playbook, but it's ridiculous that it shipped months ago and still doesn't have email or calendar support without a tethered Blackberry. It's also hard to believe that they're pinning their hopes for a vibrant app market on emulating Android, instead of encouraging native apps. Can anyone at RIM not see what a disaster that's going to be?

I don't know why the iCrowd continues to be so smug about the iPad and write these articles. It just reeks of hubris. It's just a matter of time before what happened to the iPhone happens to the iPad. The same thing happened with Windows and Mac OS. Or McDonalds and nice burger places. Cheap plentiful shit will eventually overtake high quality products.

I'm unsure about this. So far it hasn't. And there has been plenty of "plentiful shit" at a cheap price point.

The difference to the phone market is that the tablet market is (largely) un-subsidised and not coupled to a contract. It'll be interesting to see how the Amazon Fire will fare. It is subsidised, unlike the iPad, and probably very polished, has a successful ecosystem and will likely be a very good gadget. Only the future will tell..

The iPad will dominate the tablet market like the iPod did to the mp3 player market.

"Cheap plentiful shit will eventually overtake high quality products"

You're right about this one.

on the Xoom:

> the ridiculous $800 it eventually debuted at in February 2010

I am so sick of this. The Xoom cost $600 at launch for the WiFi model - every single time anyone quotes Xoom vs. iPad prices, they find the most expensive Xoom and compare it to the cheapest iPad. The Xoom was significantly cheaper than the iPad if you picked an expensive iPad and a cheap Xoom to compare.

According to Wikipedia, the WiFi-only Xoom wasn't available at launch, and only showed up a month later. Presumably that's why.

If I remember correctly I was scheduled to purchase one until they crippled the flash (randomly delayed I think it was) and the memory card issue (delayed?). Together with the lack of long-term corporate support it would have no doubt had made it a cancelled purchase for me.

Shame really, it looked nice at the time.

How do they compare spec wise at different levels? I am not in the market for a tablet so I'm not even sure what the different iPad competitors are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com