That's fine if you are willing to drop $1000 on a laptop, I don't expect we'll see $400 laptops @2560x1600 for several years - the Tablets have the advantage of free operating system, lower computing requirements, smaller physical screens, and, in the case of Amazon/Google, a willingness to subsidize the hardware sales in order to capture downstream Content/Search revenue.
Google's disconnect from the hardware also shows how you actually can have performance on older hardware - apparently the new real-time Google Voice is on older iOS devices that Apple said couldn't handle Siri - if you don't have an interest in the upgrade cycle.
On tablets and phone, these high profits have been driving wonderful innovation bringing us better devices at lower prices every year. It's not like we're getting overcharged for stagnant products. This December's devices would have been an incredible last year.
Price gouging implies overcharging on essential items because the consumer has no choice. The only power Apple have over their consumers is that they really really want the stuff Apple makes, right now.
To put it more clearly - Google is not selling tablets to make a profit on hardware. They are selling tablets so they can profit from search/advertising through those tablets.
Re: Google Voice on older IOS equipment. I installed it on my iPhone 4 today - it runs significantly faster than Siri on an iPhone 4S. Search results are instant, as well. Completely agree with you that this is an example of where the disconnect from hardware greatly benefits the consumer.
Which tablets do you mean? Certainly not those running Android, iOS or Windows.
In the case of Android, manufacturers pay Microsoft for the privilege. Android users pay with their personal information and by looking at ads. iOS isn't free either, development of the OS is included in the hardware price. And Windows RT is certainly not free, manufacturers license it from Microsoft.
Laptop Makers end up paying fees per device - typically to Microsoft. OEM Fees are around $50 for Windows XP/Windows 7.
Are you suggesting ads are built into the Android software? I was considering getting a Nexus 7 but this would totally change my mind.
However, since Android comes with Flash, you're likely to see more ads than on other platforms, even if you use a Nexus device.
http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
Adobe stopped supporting Flash for Android 2 months a go, hardly an eternity.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/260901/android_flash_player_r...
Edit: Adobe made their original statement that they were moving away from Flash on mobile devices a year ago: http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/9/2549196/adobe-flash-androi...
And yes, Adobe made their intentions known a year a go, but that's not quite the same as ending support. Especially since many new Android devices will still have Flash.
http://www.slashgear.com/adobe-no-jelly-bean-flash-flash-pla...
http://bgr.com/2012/09/10/kindle-fire-hd-ad-removal/
You've never noticed Flash ads on a Galaxy Tab? Unless you turned off Flash, use a pop up blocker, or if you use a text browser like Lynx, I seriously doubt that: they're pretty hard to miss.
look, you obviously don't use an android tablet so please stop telling people who do use them what their experience is like. we understand that you find your kool-aid delicious, let's move on.
There are quite a few free apps that use ads as a way of supporting themselves but the OS has no ads itself. And you can almost always purchase premium versions of the apps that remove the ads as well.
Not to mention with Android there is the possibility of using something like AdAway
Still, AFAIK, you won't see actual ads in the OS.
Someone else in the thread is complaining you can avoid these things if you try, install alternatives, but it is still true Google makes money after the sale, and that they pay Mozilla a ton of money to be default search on that platform, so it is very valuable to them.
Ads in apps is a lot different than ads built into the OS. What are your examples of ads built into Android itself?
If those apps come pre-installed, what's the difference?
What a load of malarkey. You have full control over how much information you give Google when you use the device. You can even get apps with a throwaway gmail and give them no data at all. Further, there are no ads built in the OS and I never see any, period. It's just like on iOS, I don't know what on earth he's on about.
You don't even have control over how much information you give Google when you use their search engine on a desktop computer. Even if you sign out of Google, turn off cookies and use a browser without geolocation. Google will always continue gathering information about you and providing you with custom search results.
But even if you could turn off all data collection, the vast majority of users won't know about it. As a result, they pay Google by sharing their personal information, their interests, their location, their contacts, etc. Google's core business is advertising, they can't help themselves.
This is something that google pays organizations like Mozilla, and Apple, hundreds of millions of dollars to have on their browsers.
The vast majority (95%+) of people take the default search engine and map engine that comes with their tablet/smart phone. Google is willing to take a loss on the 5% who might decide to use some other system (though, given that google makes pretty good mapping and searches, there is a better than average chance those 5% will stick with google anyways)
That's why google is willing to sell a tablet for $200 that others might have to sell for $250 or $275 in order to make a profit - they don't have the search engine revenue.
One can choose to give one's personal information to a company whose core business isn't to sell personal information to other companies. That excludes Google and Facebook.
Also, you're absolutely insane and bordering on fanboi territory to act like Microsoft and Apple aren't collecting the exact same usage data from location services etc. You have some bone to pick with Google over advertising yet ignore the fact that it's completely a choice to use it. You people act like Google is breaking into your house and installing a GPS chip in you. It's dishonest.
Assuming that's true, that doesn't change the fact that most users will send loads of personal data to Google without knowing it, let alone knowing how to turn it off.
"like Google is breaking into your house and installing a GPS chip in you."
They don't need to. They know that most users don't understand computers and don't read end-user agreements.
But even if you don't use Android, they'll indeed drive by your home, take pictures and collect information about your wifi network, which enables them to link your digital life to a physical one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9432518/Google-...
That might've been your interpretation, but I wrote:
"Android users pay with their personal information and by looking at ads."
By which I mean a typical Android experience. Not the Android OS, or the official Google Android experience. Most Android users are subjected to lots of ads because they don't buy apps; they download ad-supported apps. They don't buy third party navigation apps, they use the ad-supported Google Maps app. Etc etc.
All it does is make you look like you have a bias against Google.
I love all the free stuff I get from Google.
Their latest GoogleVoice App is amazing - if anything, I have a huge bias for google.
It's okay to be analytical about something you love. Apple makes money on hardware. Google makes money on services. Each have different business models, and will price their products accordingly.
My objective was to emphasize that the entire business objective of Android, an operating environment that Google has spent billions of of dollars developing and protecting, is to provide a platform for Google's advertising in search, in maps, and, soon, in voice.
Because Google gets little, if any profit from hardware sales, and no (to my knowledge) license fee's from third-parties vendors, all of their profit has to come in the form of advertising.
What this means, is that when comparing a hardware product from Google, and from Apple - we need to understand that Google's profit comes downstream from the advertising revenue, whereas the bulk of Apple's come's front loaded, from the hardware sale.
This will then have an impact on the margins that each of the organizations will be required to pursue at various stages of the product lifecycle.
Apple will start off with a high (30-40%) margin up front, but has less pressure to monetize the user eyeballs in its services.
Google will start off with a lower (approaching 0%) margin up front, but then has much more pressure to monetize user eyeballs in its services.
Neither business model is inherently good/bad/otherwise, but you case see how the incentives for Apple and Google are differently aligned - we've already identified one - Apple did not release Siri on the iPhone 4, even though the phone was more than adequate to run Google Voice, which was release for the iPhone 4. Google's got no skin in the game selling you more hardware. Apple isn't really incentivized to release it's premium services on old hardware...
I was referring to Amazon's Kindle Fire, but the Android experience in general is filled with ads. Not only does a core app like Google Maps include sponsored links, Google pushes consumers and developers towards ad-supported apps by offering limited payment options in the Google Play store. Three quarters of all apps in the Google Play store are free, and many of those have ads supplied by Google or its daughter companies.
http://www.appbrain.com/stats/free-and-paid-android-applicat...
Ok, and so does every single marketplace ever that charges a brokerage fee. I think it's completely acceptable to whine about an application that can give you a shortest path between any two spots in the world, 3d buildings, 3d perspective, vector tiles, the best business listings outside of the old white pages, etc, etc, for giving me RELEVANT sponsored results when I look for something. yeesh.
That's true to some extent, but Google does both. Google charges 30%, just like the other app marketplaces. On top of that, it even makes developers pay for chargebacks.
http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/a...