The iPad Is Unbeatable
slate.com
slate.com
For example, the new TV ad shows a clip of someone making a fake oil painting with their finger. That's a fad - people who use that will be people who want to see what it's like to paint once or twice, not serious painters. A fat finger on a glass pane will never be a substitute for a brush on canvas.
The other promotional video on their homepage right now shows a yuppie mom using it as a visual grocery list, a mechanic doing oily-fingered conversions on it on some gruddy garage floor while handling heavy metal equipment, old men playing backgammon, and a bunch of young adults around a table "jamming and recording" music together.
All of this is gimmickry.
The ads also show people browsing photos and videos and reading iBooks. These are things I can see people using iPad for more than few times, and the key to having tablets not fizzle out as a fad is letting the money pour in from gimmickry while focusing on these functions that can make tablets last - like a photo album and a book. People will never use iPads for half the stuff they're being marketed for. People will certainly try it (and make Apple a ton of money in the process), but they'll end up preferring the former methods because a pane of glass can only emulate them and not outdo them.
It's because personal computers will always be more sophisticated than tablets, both in terms of hardware and input. On an iPad you can play with a fake 6-inch guitar with your fingers in Garageband. That's limited gimmickry, and will only be fun/interesting the first few times. On a Macbook you can directly record an actual guitar and produce an album in Pro Tools. Nobody will ever produce an album on an iPad.
The same goes for visual and physical art, nobody will ever use iPads for Photoshop or AutoCAD. These are just things that require complex UI that you can't use without a precise, physical form of input like a mouse and keyboard. Touch input is too bulky for things like that.
There are good fields to go into with tablet apps - we're already seeing this with the watered-down photo editing Apple is selling. http://i.imgur.com/HUBeu.jpg Some apps, like this and iBooks, can still be useful to typical consumers when they're this simple. But a lot of the other stuff is just gimmickry that sells on shallow novelty.
That seems like an extraordinary claim. I'm positive somebody will eventually produce an album on an iPad if that hasn't already been done. Whether it'll be a good album is another question of course, as is whether that'll become a highly popular way to do things...
Over a year ago.
- unbeatable tech...people said this about the iPhone. But 4 years on there were a pretty good set of alternatives.
- Price being unbeatable... low prices are just not Apple with their 40% markup goal. I'm sure we will see Samsung, Huawei and others pushing the price point down on tablets. Price matters, remember those dumped HP tablets!
- "they would still lack all of the tablet-optimized apps that are now clogging Apple’s App Store"... really? Android is doing a pretty good job at this on the smartphone market. It can be done.
Apple have an awesome head start but there is no unbeatable in this market.
Tablets seem nice and all (I haven't been compelled to get one), but I want a really awesome good-sized reading device. The Kindle DX is so tempting, but it's too expensive (relative to tablets) and it's still just a wee bit too small.
Well, I would, and then I would sell them and get another Android tablet. I haven't liked a piece of equipment so much in ages.
I want it for watching shows and browsing the web, which was a bit overkill, but I figured I'd indulge myself. I love it, though.
1982: The IBM PC is unbeatable.
1985: SONY is unbeatable.
1988: Microsoft DOS is unbeatable.
1990: Kodak is unbeatable.
1993: Windows is unbeatable.
1994: AOL is unbeatable
1996: Netscape is unbeatable.
1998: Internet Exlorer is unbeatable.
2002: Krispy Kream is unbeatable.
2004: MySpace is unbeatable.
2006: Real estate is unbeatable.
2008: Toyota is unbeatable.
2012: The Ipad is unbeatable.
> Why Apple’s tablet competitors don’t stand a chance—and maybe never will.
Is the iPod unbeatable? Well, no, of course not. It's losing a sales, but mostly, from what I've seen, to smartphones, and of those, most are iPod Touches or iPhones. It's possible that soon, the iPod's sales will dwindle to minimal numbers, but it may still hold the majority of the market of MP3 players. Apple's MP3 player competitors didn't stand a chance, and the way things look they never will, not until something changes pretty dramatically in the market. That's the key issue.
The iPad isn't 'unbeatable'. Something better will come along eventually. My question is, is that 'something better' going to be from Apple's tablet competitors? Or from another Apple project that renders tablets in general obsolete for the majority?
I suppose a better title would be 'Apple's tablet competitors can't beat the iPad', which seems true to me until they change something to improve their chances.
To say that something is unable to be beaten is intrinsically a claim about the future.
Did he really mean forever? Just that competition? Until Arnold retired? I think the expression “unbeatable” always means “Under the current circumstances, roughly now-ish, for the foreseeable future, &c.” If you take it literally, there would be no use for the word.
Saying “Arnold is Unbeatable” in 1975 meant that the current crop of body builders couldn’t beat him, that either he would grow old, or retire (which he did, and then un-retire to win again), or some new young phenom would come out of nowhere.
Saying “IBM 370 is unbeatable” in 1979 meant simply that nothing at that time would beat it, that only time or the unforeseeable would unseat it, which is what happened.
To call something 'unbeatable' means that there are still variables that can come into play in the contest, but they don't even matter. The victor is already decided even allowing for the most extreme probabilities.
For many or most of the items in the list you were replying to, the contest was not over when the crown was lost.
The OPs list was intended to show that many companies lost their tremendous advantages in a variety of ways, that the variables are such that the iPad shouldn't be labeled as unbeatable.
And of course, no one really believes the iPad is unbeatable in any meaningful sense. It's just hyperbole for being in a dominant position.
Really? Everything I know about philosophy, science, and traditional knowledge points me towards the notion that everything is transient.
Anyone who states or receives the message that "something is unbeatable" with an implied "indefinitely" is naive or has been lured into wishful thinking.
When did Windows stop being the dominant PC platform? Sure it's on it's way down in the "post-PC" era, but AFAIK it's still far and away the dominant platform on traditional PCs. But, even if you assume that Windows is no longer dominant when did that happen? 2010, maybe 2007 at the earliest? That's at least 14 years of complete domination of the personal computing market. So by this standard we should expect an iPad killer in 2024?
In other cases, the market dominance was quite complete and it took a market shift to unseat them (Kodak, Sony).
In any case, even if the iPad is bettered, how much of the competition will be around to see it? I think that's more the point of the article than the hyperbolic title.
I was just discussing this yesterday, the best thing Apple has done is to not let it's prior success prevent it moving forward. The iPod is "dead" for all purposes (I'm talking about the original form) the name lives on in the iPod touch, however the touch itself is really just an iPhone without connectivity.
You could be "unbeatable" in Point and Shoot cameras however I would not want to be in that market when almost every phone new has a 8mp camera built in.
Markets come and go, staying ahead of the changes is what's important.
So far, it seems that Microsoft has decided that the most competitive response is to release an "no compromise" MP3 player which is also great at playing cassettes.
In this, we can see a good model for the eventual decline of Apple. So long as Apple can see technological potentials and the 2nd/3rd order future of market direction (+), they will continue to dominate. Whether or not they can do so for longer than the 3-5 year timeframe all depends on how well they marshall the culture and other soft assets that allowed them to get to their current position. (Word to the wise -- if you have an inside view to how Apple's internal culture changes, you might make some money with short selling.)
(+) - It takes an organization like Apple to see the fad for netbooks going on all around and extrapolate to the mobile computing "post PC" model.
If you want to make a point you will have to counter the arguments laid forth in the article, and show why it is likely the iPad will go the same way as Netscape. It will contribute to the discussion much more than just spouting dates.
IBM PC: Not really beaten, so much as completely took over the world. Most servers are PC descendants, as are Macs and basically everything else that isn't a tablet or phone.
Sony: (Assume you mean the Walkman) Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology.
DOS: Not really beaten, so much as replaced with a new product by its manufacturer.
Kodak: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology.
Windows: Still enjoys 90% market share.
AOL: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology.
Netscape: Beaten. But seriously, who thought they were unbeatable?
IE: Beaten. Thank goodness.
Krispy Kream: Who?
MySpace: Beaten.
Real estate: Market bubbles aren't quite what we're talking about here.
Toyota: 20% market share is hardly a lock on the industry.
850k Android activations per day according to Andy Rubin last month. Turns out decentraliztion wins out in the end, just like it did in the 80s with Apple vs MS.
Actually, I'd argue that the ipad is probably unbeatable, but only because its a peripheral in the Apple ecosystem like a firewire cable or white speakers. No one wants a competitor because its not an apple product. The ipad isnt a new class of product, its just a dumb interface to Apple's various stores and services. Its like saying there's no competitor to AppleTV. There's not, my Tivo can't buy from iTunes, thus AppleTV is unbeatable.
Witness the risible, tortuous linguistic analysis trying to prove the referenced article is wrong because it must be claiming that the iPad will be dominant for evermore. "One tablet to rule them all."
* control over essential components.
* market leadership in applications.
* continual innovation.
The application one has been discussed a lot on HN, but basically what it boils down to is Apple's policies with regards to applications acceptable for publication creates a more homogenous user experience. There is anecdotal evidence that this translates into a user perception of 'quality' to those applications.
And finally they don't stop, like Intel's tick-tock sort of model they move incrementally forward each release. You can argue that the 'new iPad' is what the iPad 2 should have been but missed out, or you can argue its the same old same old with just a higher res screen and 4G, but the release after release means that if you're an Asus or a Samsung or a Dell, Etc and your development cycle is 2 years you have to guess where they will be in 2 years if you want to compete head to head. That is harder than you might think until you've tried it a few times. And of course the risk is that the 'new' thing might have come out of left field so its high risk.
A strategy which has more understood risk is to create your own product in the space which has your own vision of what it will be, but folks like RIM who have tried that have been challenged to think outside the space that they were successful in. Apple's advantage here was that the iPad is in many ways just a big iPod touch. And they had a lot of information about the touch which could help them vet various ideas.
People like analogies. Two regular comparisons on HN and elsewhere are Windows vs Mac and iPhone vs Android (interestingly the second is also used as an analogy for the first).
All of these analogies are wrong.
A smartphone has very high (what I call) built-in utility. You can use it to make and receive calls, send and receive SMSs/emails, take photos, get directions and browse the Web. At a guess, this accounts for probably 70% of smartphone usage. A large portion of the rest would be (again, I'm guessing here) games.
Android is a commoditizing product. With the standard Google apps, you get 70% of the utility (based on my earlier assumptions) of an iPhone. The point here is the ecosystem doesn't matter as much.
The iPad is a different beast entirely and (as I've been saying for 1.5+ years now) IMHO much more important and will be a much bigger market than the phone market. It will (and already is) cannibalizing a lot of PC usage and sales.
The thing to note about the iPad is that 70% figure is (at least anecodtally) vastly different. The ecosystem matters. Apps and content matter much more than on phones. And this is where the iPad competitors really suffer and will continue to suffer.
It's why I have the most hope for Amazon in the iPad competitor space because they have the closest thing to what the iTunes ecosystem can provide. Without this, despite the relatively low price, I don't think the Kindle Fire would've sold anywhere near the number of units than it did.
A better analogy for the iPad than the iPhone is actually the iPod. 10+ years after the iPod's release it still accounts for the majority of MP3 player sales. Yes you can rip your own CDs and buy your MP3s from Amazon and elsewhere but the convenience of the ecosystem trumps pretty much everything else. Last year it was rumoured that Apple would kill the Classic until it was pointed out that the Classic is the fifth biggest selling MP3 player (the top 4 are all Apple too).
Apple's supply chain management, innovative financing and unprecedented warchest certainly have given it a massive advantage, no question. No one else can (yet) create a product at similar specs for a similar price. But it's the ecosystem that has driven and will continue to drive the iPad's dominance.
Three questions/comments:
1) Why do you feel it is bigger than the phone market? I'm skeptical of this, at least until the day tablets and laptops merge (imagine a tablet that docks into a keyboard/touchpad). Almost everyone needs a phone these days. And if you could only have one, I imagine most would take the laptop/desktop over the tablet.
2) How much evidence is there for large-scale cannibalization? I always figured the iPad is growing so much faster than PCs, because the PC market is saturated and frequent upgrades are no longer necessary. Everyone has a computer already and a 4+ year old one works fine. Tablets are new and desirable - but is there that much evidence yet that a tablet is actually more desirable than a computer?
3) Strongly disagree that apps are more important on a tablet than a phone. Phones are lower power typically and screen space is at a premium, so I'd argue that native apps are more important on a phone. Tablets should be able to handle webapps fine.
On capability (relative scaling)
Phone: 1 PC: 10 tablet: 5
Portability: Phone: 10 PC: 1 Tablet: 3 (doesn't fit in my pocket.. main advantage is can use it standing up)
Price-wise, equally-spec'd laptops are pretty on par with tablets cost-wise.
I only use my phone for calls, messages (SMS/email), maps and occasionally for Web usage. That's 95% of my phone usage at least. I don't believe my experience is atypical. The phone is ultimately a communication device (and, these days, a camera).
IMHO it's reasonably likely we're heading for a point where the phone will be replaced by a (largely if not completely) nonvisual communication device. Maybe the whole glasses thing will happen (although I'm skeptical that any electronic display can match the latency required to interpose imagery over what you're looking at, which is a problem for augmented reality in general).
Look at it another way: how much do you use your phone versus a tablet (assuming you have one)? For me, it's a factor of 10-20x in favour of the tablet. I know other people vary on this. Some spend all day sending and reading messages. A few even spend all their time on Facebook (or even Twitter) on their phones.
Basically, I just believe tablets will be bigger because rather than being hybrid communication devices like phones they'll encroach on general computing.
I use a tablet for Web browsing, email, books, games, Netflix and photos. I have a Macbook Air. I use it a lot too but if I'm just reading/browsing/consuming, I'll use the iPad in preference to any other device. And that covers a lot of my technology use.
> 2) How much evidence is there for large-scale cannibalization?
There is some evidence [1] but the trend (if it is that) is, at best, emergent.
> 3) Strongly disagree that apps are more important on a tablet than a phone.
Native apps are vastly superior on the iPad to Web apps too. Low power is an issue for tablets too. People use them on sofas, on buses/trains/planes, etc. Battery life matters. The battery life of an iPad dwarfs that of pretty much any other laptop.
Compare native apps to the ghastly hybrid native/Web apps that some put out there (that are essentially a UIWebView with HTML/JS/CSS). They have all been in my experience terrible.
[1]: http://betanews.com/2011/01/12/it-s-official-ipad-sapped-win...
> If I'm just reading/browsing/consuming, I'll use the iPad in preference to any other device.
To each their own. I don't own a tablet, but used my roommates iPad for a few weeks to see what all the fuss was about. I constantly longed for my laptop, which was far more comfortable to use, faster (in terms of web navigation), larger screen space, etc.
Sure I use a phone less than a laptop, but I absolutely need both.
My phone is primarily used for light-duty consumption of text content (email reading, twitter, etc.) and gaming when I'm bored (waiting rooms, transit, etc.). And, of course, voice communication. Web browsing, reading eBooks, etc. is quite difficult on the small screen, retina-display notwithstanding. I always have my phone with me.
The iPad tends much more to web browsing, sending email (it's difficult to send an email of any length on a phone, much easier on the iPad), playing games, etc. I have it sitting next to my couch and when watching a "live" TV show (you know, the things with commercials) I'll absent-mindedly pick up the iPad and thumb through Tweets or HN or Reddit etc. The battery life on the iPad is considerably better than my phone - so when I go on long trips I'll use the iPad as my time-killer. My iPad is within reach 100% of the time at home, and 100% of my time on vacation and long trips.
My MBA is used for hard-core web browsing (researching lots of data, figuring out problems = e.g. lots of task switching), programming, writing papers (the physical keyboard can't be beaten; I don't own a bluetooth keyboard so don't know if I'd write on the iPad), etc. I work on my laptop, but in general it stays put (strange, eh?). However, I may take it on short or long term trips if I know that I will be doing any work or needing the power and flexibility of a "real" computer over the iOS devices. This is becoming more infrequent, however.
In short:
iPhone: Portable gaming device and light-duty text consumption. With me 100% of the time.
iPad: Web browsing, gaming, and video player. With me 100% of the time at home and long trips/vacations
MBA: Hard-core computer-y stuff that you can't do on tablets or phones (or just too painful to do). Rarely travels with me on vacation and long trips.
Apple has done a perfect job positioning all three devices right in the sweet spot of what I want to do. They own each of these scenarios. This is why I firmly believe that Apple will never produce a smaller iPad or a larger iPhone - it doesn't create a "new" space that isn't already overlapped with the iPhone or iPad, and in the weird not-quite-phone, not-quite-tablet space it inherits the weaknesses of both.
In order to see a smaller iPad or bigger iPhone, Apple would have to carve out a distinct space in the market that isn't better served by the existing products. That seems quite difficult.
Android manufacturers seem content to produce a panoply of devices without regard to actual utility and devoid of real strategic thought. As long as they continue to flail about, I see no reason why Apple won't continue to dominate the market.
According to Pew 46% of American adults already have smartphones. This number is increasing rapidly.
Apple sold 11.12 million iPads in Q4. That's already more than an single PC manufacturer. I'm sure they'll do even better in the year ahead.
But that's not going to add up to a "much bigger" market than the phone market.
First off, apps: I would expect an increasing number of apps to be released multi-platform, for iOS and and Android and possibly for Windows P.O.S., because hey, why not release it multi-platform? The web is an important special case of multi-platform development and Google is keen on establishing web apps as just apps, too.
And content: While Apple owns a huge amount of the market, they don't own the actual content and I don't see why the content owners would restrict themselves to just one distributor. They'd reach a wider audience and they might even get a better deal if there's competition on the market.
The situation with the iPad might be similar to the iPod, but I don't think it's because of the content ecosystem. As you say, there are many other ways of obtaining MP3s, including many legal ones. I'm sure Google Music or Play or whatever they're calling it now will be just as convenient. It's a bit similar in that the iPods were always iconic. I don't want to play up the status symbol angle because I think it's exaggerated; the point is that to many people an iPod was almost synonymous with MP3 player, and at least it was the default option. The same seems to be true with the iPad.
Last year's iPad and iPhone run web-apps faster than any other tablet or phone by a large margin, so Google's being "keen on establishing web apps as just apps" isn't going to help them - they (esp now considering the Moto purchase) will need ensure that the browsing experience on their tablets are better than the iPad.
However, the fact is that browsing/webapps experience is merely one of the factors where Apple has a huge lead. Even in media content, Apple is the leader, but if you look at songs vs. apps, the writing is in the cards - apps are by-and-away the big money maker for device content and the gap is growing.
Apple sells out of launch-day iPads
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/03/09/apple_sells_ou...
With tablets on the other hand, where were the established players prior to Apple joining the fun? I can't think of any companies whose bread-and-butter was tablet computing and who would need to compete with the iPad or go out of business.
For phone companies, failure to adopt Android would be disastrous (unless they had access to another half-decent OS already eg. Palm or RIM). For consumer electronics companies, trying to enter the tablet business and compete with Apple could bring disaster. Android does not play the same role here.
Apple has great momentum right now. But if history teaches us anything, it's that nothing lasts for very long in tech, even if it feels like it will.
But hey... what do I know. I'm just some idiot that doesn't own an iPhad. rolls eyes
Maybe thats a thing with techies, so we dont really have use for such a casual device but i use my iphone alot daily, like 10x more than my iPad.
The only time I reach for my iPad or Samsung Tab is when I want to read comics (thanks Comixology) or want to play a game.
I think key on the Android side is going to be value. They really need at $99-$250 price points.
On the Windows side, I think Microsoft is playing their cards right. They have virtually no apps but with Windows 8 they will have a storefront that will be installed on tens of millions of devices, which should solve the app problem over time.
(Most) people don't want a computer.
They want something to give them access to shop online or to keep in touch with friends, to watch videos or to play games and at the moment the iPad provides the easiest, most hassle free way to achieve that.
No A-V, easy updates, no worries about drivers or compatibility and it's relatively cheap. It's also very easy to use.
As an anecdotal point I've recently introduced my mother who's in her sixties and father-in-law who's in his eighties to iPads and they've both been able to use them easily and without a lot of the questions and problems that technologists learn to dread when they're providing family IT support.
The iPad isn't likely to replace laptops or desktops for IT professionals any time soon, but I think that for a lot of people it does what they want in an easier more intuitive way.
As an early Asus Transformer TF101 adopter I'm totally sold on the idea of a tablet/laptop combo but as much as I like Android as a phone and basic tablet OS, I find myself wishing I could use the Transformer as a full-blown no-excuses laptop for development, etc (there are some sort-of-options there involving installing Ubuntu for ARM, but too much hassle to deal at this point and not well supported).
Enter Windows 8 and the eventual laptops that are either ARM tablets with Metro-only or full blown x86 laptops when the tablet/screen is docked. That is the device I want. To some degree I don't care if it is running Windows 8 or Android + Linux, or OS X + iOS, but I suspect Microsoft will have their solution polished up before anyone else since nobody else is making strong moves into this space right now.
If I had to sum up my experiences with tablets: iPads: reliable, albeit boring Samsung Tab: kill it with fire.
The Samsung Tab just killed any enthusiasm I ever had for Android.
I want to like it. I want to give it a chance but any extended use causes me to scream obscenities.
The iPad just did its first $100 drop by using the previous model (per iPhone strategy). I would expect that next year we will see another $100 drop either through the old model approach or introduction of a new member of the line.
It is really going to be hard for companies without Apple's supply change to keep up.
The traditional cell phone manufacturers will continue to use Android (or whatever) to sell mountains of cell phones like they have been doing for over a decade, but a tablet is a consumer software platform and after using Windows 8 it's painfully clear that only Microsoft and Apple really understand how to deliver such a platform.
It will be a two horse race.
The problem for Microsoft is that it will be Windows 8 v2 or v3 before is starts to match iOS feature for feature, and that's at least 2 years away. I may be on my 3rd iPad by then.
So no change there, at least.
The windows tablets will be a computer replacement because you'll be able to jump into desktop mode and keyboard and mouse around.
The problem microsoft is going to have is getting their tablets into a form factor/price point that is competitive with the iPad. It has to be just as fast, just as cheap, and just as small. Unless Microsoft starts selling their own tablets, I think the only company really capable of building an Apple quality product is Apple.
"Because Apple has used its plentiful cash to corner the market on key tablet components—like touch-screen displays—many competitors will find that the only way to make a tablet with comparable features but a lower price is to sell it at a loss. You can’t do that unless you have some other way to make money, like a big digital media store."
That argument was used in regards to the iPhone as well. Apple's supposedly insurmountable component purchases would make it impossible for competitors to ... compete.
And there's Android, out activating the iPhone three to one. Apparently those Android phones are either made out of cardboard, or the manufacturers found components.
In reality, 2012 will be the year the iPad loses its market dominance in tablets. By the end of 2013, Apple will hold 1/4 to 1/3 of the market, which is exactly what their entire business model is designed around: lower market share, much higher margins.
The assumptions by the slate article defy the nature of constantly improving hardware with falling prices.
The iPad, unlike the iPhone, doesn't get to benefit from the carrier subsidies that hide the real price from consumers. The radical majority of iPad sales are the wifi model. The iPad will be left to compete straight up on price, much like Apple's PC products.
Cheap tablets will dominate the market, Mr. Moore will make sure of it.
I absolutely disagree. Unfortunately there is no data on how much each version of iPad has sold, but eBay says that Wi-Fi model accounts for about 60% of all (of their) iPad sales: http://www.quora.com/iPad/What-percentage-of-iPads-sold-are-...
On the other hand, it's been rumored that Apple (at least for the first batch of iPad 2's) had ordered 60% 3G and 40% Wi-Fi: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/04/over_60_of_app...
I believe the first (60% Wi-Fi), but still it's not * radical majority*.
Really great software for tablets takes massive resources to develop - e.g. GarageBand or the new iPhoto.
At the moment, Android tablets are caught in a chicken and egg situation - there isn't enough penetration to justify massive development efforts, and this seems to be getting worse, not better.
How do you see them overcoming this?
And much like in the music player market, I suspect the bulk of those cheap tablets will have an Apple logo on it. You do realize that Apple will also get to benefit from cheaper component prices? Only moreso than their competitors because they will be able to pre-order them in huge volumes.
That said, who do you see Apple losing market dominance to this year (or next)? With phones, it was clear that carrier issues would prevent Apple from having massive market share. But carriers have little to no impact on tablet sales.
FWIW, I think it's Apple's game to lose. The iOS 5 today uses the exact same interface as the iOS we saw 5 years ago. Eventually someone is going to iterate their software past Apple, and then we'll see whether Apple has the software vision to keep up (I'm thinking they don't).
Foxconn isn't going to hand Apple a permanent monopoly over efficient processes to the detriment of their domestic buddies. That's not how China works.
Every day that goes by, Apple's lead will erode in both quality of product and manufacturing advantage. It's not due to anything Apple will do wrong, it's due to how markets work, particularly in technology.
For one, Foxconn is Taiwanese, not Chinese, it's just that it has factories in China.
Second, money is how China works. Where does the delusion comes that China will ...sabotage Apple in chinese factories in order for Chinese device makers to win?
As a matter of fact, China is opening to be Apple's largest market, with raving reception this past year.
Tell me... how is "China" going to copy Apple's well-curated ecosystem of apps, content and accessories?
They're a Chinese company. Period. If China believed differently, they wouldn't be allowed to do what they do in domestic China.
China is nationalistic first, concerned with money second. That has always been the case and will always be the case. There's no amount of money that can buy you a lot of segments in their country; there are countless monster companies locked out of China right now, who would willingly pay countless billions just to get proper access to their markets - China promotes their domestic giants first, always.
Sure, after being called on it, you are suddenly "well aware".
Anyway, it's not a technicality by any stretch of the word --it's where the company was founded and where its headquarters are. A different country. Not to mention that they also have factories in 6-7 other countries besides China.
(Plus, it's not like China and Taiwan are in best terms, anyway, such that a taiwanese company could suddenly, by some mysterious process, turn into a "de facto" chinese one. Taiwan and China are not like US and Kayman Islands).
If China believed differently, they wouldn't be allowed to do what they do in domestic China. China is nationalistic first, concerned with money second.
I don't see China being any more nationalistic than the US is. At least they aren't invading all other the place, nor do they play "world cop". As for China protecting it's national interests, more power to them.
You don't have to like it, but the answer is: the same country that now owns Hong Kong.
Foxconn is a Chinese company. It's why they're given special privileges that no foreign company can ever get, when it comes to everything from trade protections to labor regulations.
However, Apples biggest advantage is the enormous cash reserve they have, which enables them to get extremely good deals on essential parts such as flash memory and displays. This has nothing to do with where the devices are manufactured. Even when selling plastic tablets, other companies have a hard time matching the price of iPads (and now MacBook Airs).
"software" vision != TouchWiz, Motoblur, HTC sense, widgets or any of that crap.
"software" vision = ease of use, speed, elegance, stability, secured (NO viruses/malware/spyware), good developer support, good ecosystem.
Actually somebody already did. Microsoft gets a lot of flak for its design skills, but I think they did splendidly with WP7. Having used a Lumia 800 for a week I was extremely disappointed to go back to my iPhone 4S. I believe that the future of the smartphone market is a battle for supremacy between WP7 and Android, and I for one am rooting for WP7. Apple's last 'successful' iPhone might well be the next one they release, unless they have got something incredible cooking.
If someone is going to innovate past Apple, they can't just make a sligtly better iPhone or iPad, they need to invent the new product category that will make one of those devices irrelevant.
Not true, but I'm assuming you're referring to the springboard/icon/home button paradigm.
You think this isn't by choice?
All that said, I do agree their tablet share will go down as competition increases, Android is too mature for someone not to close the gap in the next year.
Perhaps where you're sitting, but in my experience, it's more like 5%
The success of Amazon and the B&N last year seems like it would make it even harder for Android tablets to find a foothold this year.
Those 3-1 are in the cheaper end of the market.
Those devices could as well be made out of cardboard.
You can't compare Android vs iPhone sales by lumping "get for free with a contract" Android devices in the lower tier of the market. They are sold to people who don't even care about the "smart" in smartphones, anyway.
That's why the iPhone has more profit despite less market share, and that's why the iOS App ecosystem makes 5 times the money the Android one does, and that's why iPhone users use 80% of the mobile web traffic while there are more Android devices.
Uh, that's a pretty bold assertion to make without bringing any data to back it up. How do you know that those consumers don't care about data access? How do you know that they don't "care about the 'smart' in smartphones"?
2 got droids, 3 got iphones. I've know the rough usage patterns of all the folks by asking what apps/services they use.
The droid users use it as a 1) phone, 2) email/message device, 3) maps and 4) one or two apps (not games). Basically, a google core-apps phone. One of the iPhone users is similar to the droid users (in addition, using the phone for taking photos/videos often).
Now the two remaining iPhone users are heavy data-folks. Both use bluetooth accessories, and in addition to the above uses, also play games, do twitter/social sharing, run lots of web searches.
Not a single of these users tethers or does advanced remote computing (ie, shell/vnc) - so are more "mainstream" users.
I contrast that with the Android users I know (including myself). I know of only one user who is still on a stock ROM. I don't know of any that have less than 15 apps.
If you haven't figured it out yet, most of the iOS users I know are older adults who value simplicity and ease of use. Most of the younger people I know value Android and are more than willing to accept a slightly higher initial complexity for vastly greater control. That's why I asked for data, specifically. It's very easy to draw incorrect conclusions by extrapolating from your own worldview, simply because your friends tend to be like you.
The only comparison I've seen between Android and iOS users is this (http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/17/smartphone-data-usage-jumps-89...) 9 month old study comparing the data usage between Android and iPhone users, and that actually stated that Android users consume more data than iPhone users. So, given that, I don't see how anyone can confidently assert that iPhone users use their phones more heavily than Android users. The (admittedly weak) data tells us the opposite, if it tells us anything at all.
I always find it fascinating how the Apple arguments now center almost exclusively on who's making the most money. It's a fine argument to make, but it sure sounds shallow when you stack it up against the supposed Apple ethos.
You'll notice I didn't say Apple wouldn't dominate the profit center, much like they do in PCs.
I said they'll lose their market dominance. Their market share will erode until it finds a balancing point based on the iPad being at the high end of the product category. Apple has no interest in positioning the iPad anywhere else, so they will absolutely hold their pricing high.
Apple is a company, it's out to make money. What "Apple ethos"?
If anything, the Apple ethos is about designing highly usable, uncomplicated and beautiful devices and software. Which they kinda do --and has nothing to do with what part of the market they target.
Who ever said Apple wasn't going to try to maximize profit? I certainly didn't say that. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Actually this thread is about the inverse: how Apple gets the most cash out of their customers providing some of the BEST prices for the device category.
To quote the article:
= =
Let’s go back to pretending you’re one of Apple’s competitors. How can you possibly beat the iPad? Well, not on price. Even before the new iPad, rivals were having a hard time matching Apple’s prices while still making a profit. Now that the cheapest iPad cost $399, they face an even tougher road. Because Apple has used its plentiful cash to corner the market on key tablet components—like touch-screen displays—many competitors will find that the only way to make a tablet with comparable features but a lower price is to sell it at a loss.
= =
Big profit margin != highest prices.
It's because of the streamlined design and product purity that they get to do so. Fewer models instead of confusion multitude of options means huge savings in economy of scale.
Insisting on quality vs quantity, translates to people wanting to buy their stuff despite them being on the high end of the market. Not to mention that given they cater the high end of the market, they do offer the best prices, or near. Can you find a cheaper touch tablet or phone? Yes. Can you find a cheaper tablet or phone that you feel it belongs in the same league? Hardly.
Except if you explain the iPad's success and Apple's 12 year rise with "sheep" and "fanboys" [], no company built something like the iPad, that a large number of people wanted to buy, UNTIL the iPad. And even after, judging from the mediocre sales of competitors.
[] which doesn't even explain how they went from 1-2 million customers and a company close to extinction to 80 million fanboys, much less how 1/4 of the US population can be an "Apple fanboy", or how a "fad" builds up and lasts for 12 years, which is an eternity in tech terms
I'd gladly agree, if that only was true. As an iPhone user, I tend to think, that "highly usable and beautiful devices and software" is on decline. They are more interested in keeping the market share, and more profit than giving people what they want.
The most annoying thing is that Apple is thinking that it does know better what their customers want. And after few weeks of whining, people usually agree. Since there is no point in disagreeing - nobody is listening.
Like Android today, Nokia had a huge market share. but that market share was useless because their users didn't give a shit about their crappy phones. their users were not spending money, etc.
(myself I always thought they had the best hardware and craptastic software)
Some of those people loved their Nokias entirely too much.
Still, I think the big advantage of Android is the variety. There's pretty much an Android device for whatever it is you require, whether that's a phone with a built-in projector, a phone with a 41MP camera, a top-of-the-range quadcore smartphone or a cheap-as-chips-barely-a-smartphone smartphone.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qp...
This makes it pretty unlikely that your stat about data usage is right either.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...
iOS originates 61% of mobile data traffic vs. 19% for Android.
Most of my circle of close friends are not geeks and Android frustrates them, it confuses them....and none of them, not a single one have even asked me about an Android based tablet other than the Fire and that doesn't even really count. Most of these friends are the ones that Samsung and other higher end Android devices would love to have as customers...highly educated with high disposable income. And they don't even consider their devices.
Variety is over valued in the geek community and just doesn't drive real profits in most cases and I believe this is one of them. Each of those unique phones has a lower profit ratio and drives a race to the bottom in quality because of it. None of them will drive enough sales to have a decent profit margin due to additional engineering, marketing, and support costs due to the different models.
Now, to be sure, Android isn't going away and eventually someone will find a way to make a dent in the iPad's market share but I just think the tablet market is very very different from the smart phone market. Everyone pretty much has a mobile phone and when you can get a smartphone for free you take it...but the tablet market is more discretionary and there and I just don't see people going away from iPad. If anything, the iPad could be what helps continue to drive iPhone sales since you can share your apps across devices.
Apple has a temporary advantage because they have used their cash reserves well and they have designed good products. But only a sycophant or a fool would believe that their advantage would last forever.
Edit: the comparison to the iPhone is apt, as modern phones such as the Galaxy Nexus are every bit as good as the iPhone in many ways and superior in others (more RAM, faster CPU, LTE, NFS, better front-facing camera, etc.)
Beyond bragging rights, how much of Apple's market actually cares about this?
At home I run a PC I built myself and have Linux running in various places and even I don't care what CPU/RAM specs my phone has. My decision to buy an iPhone was driven by my existing collection of iOS apps (I used an iPod as a PDA for a few years) and the general reliability of the iOS experience (stuff doesn't stutter, webpages render properly, few/no OS-level crashes, etc). Things like the camera were a definite plus but not deciding factors. The retina display was probably the biggest selling point of a 4/4S over a 3GS actually since it makes the whole iOS experience even more pleasant.
"In reality, 2012 will be the year the iPad loses its market dominance in tablets. By the end of 2013, Apple will hold 1/4 to 1/3 of the market, which is exactly what their entire business model is designed around: lower market share, much higher margins."
Consumers don't all want to own the same smart phone, in fact quite the opposite: consumers are completely unwilling to all own the same smart phone.
Then to top it off, the smart phone market is roughly 20 to 30 times larger than the iPod market. Which means a helluva lot more competition. There's also no simple blocking method available to Apple to own the smart phone market, unlike the iTunes + music licensing moat they had in music players.
The iPod had a moat around it courtesy of the extremely difficult dynamics of dealing with the music cartels. Apple broke the cartels and came to dominate them; nobody else was able to. Such problems don't exist in either smart phones or tablets.
If you look at their profits in phones last year, Apple are making (by my estimate) $31 for every $1 their competitors make (8.7% market share 75% profits).
Look at how much Apple can slash prices and still have the majority of profits. We have not seen Apple get aggressive on pricing.
From the authors profile page:
"Farhad Manjoo is Slate's technology columnist and the author of True Enough: Learning To Live in a Post-Fact Society."
Edit: I really feel that any person saying X is unbeatable, is really underestimating competition and the drive to improve what they make.
The iPad at this moment is the best tablet overall, but it won't be long before someone is able to match the quality, and surpass in features. I think what really will clinch this is that once Android tablets come out in force, there will be so many options the iPad will be lost in the noise. This isn't to say the iPad will be the only right choice in that situation, just that when there are options, especially cheaper options, people tend to shop for what suits their needs at a price they can stomach.
The iPad is still too much for most consumers. I myself cannot justify the cost for a consumption device, not to mention how I dislike Apple's handling of their app ecosystem.
They claim it can't be beat on price, but, due to the varying size and features of other tablets, that's simply not true (see Asus' MeMo 370T http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57393947-64/google-asus-to...).
They claim it can't be beat on battery life, but reviews have shown that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Transformer Prime both come within a few percentage points of usable time. Certainly close enough for practical use.
If the other tablets want to win, they have to be better. Either cheaper or more functional or more novel or better styled.
When there are so many options, which tablets do you really think will be lost in the noise?