I love it when the faithful think that features and price are not competitive.

They're really not. My dad knows what an iPad is. Unless this device lays golden eggs he'll probably never hear of it.

Also, there are unmentioned features in the iPad's favor, most notably an App Store with 200k titles in it.

Well I'll be getting a cheap Android tablet eventually for stuff that the iPad simply is too expensive for. For example to make a kind of dashboard out of it, or sticking it to the fridge.

Not every tablet needs to compete on all the same aspects as the iPad.

Not every tablet needs to even compete with the iPad. Apple clearly doesn't care about the home hobbyist crowd.

This argument is getting lost in semantics. What does "compete" mean in this instance? Does Kia compete with Lexus? They both make cars, but I doubt anyone looking at an RX350 ever ended up in a Sportage.

I'd argue "compete" should mean that someone looking for an iPad might end up buying the competing device instead.

That definition of compete is really quite useless. Sure, if you define it like that, you win the argument, but we have learned nothing.

That's how Apple would define it. Lexus doesn't care what Kia's building, they care what BMW is.

True enough, but not everyone needs (pr wants, considering price) a Lexus, some people only need and want a Kia, as long as it meets certain requirements.

However, in the market today, for all practical purposes, almost all you can get in the tablet space is the Lexus (iPad), when a lot of people actually want a Kia (in this case the Pandigital Novel).

So as time goes on, this is definitely relevant to Apple. I wouldn't classify it as a "threat" quite yet, but over time products like this will at the very least remove a great deal of their pricing power.

And, of course, Apple relies on the image of a refined taste, so its customers will have the illusion that by having an iPad, they are on the same league as those who get driven around in Maybachs.

That's the difference between a mature and a young market.

In the earlier days of motoring, the Kia equivalent would have competed with Lexus. No one would have known, for example, whether Lexus is luxury, Kia is budget or both.

I think that just goes to show you the power of Apple's marketing machine.

Just because your dad won't know about it, doesn't mean that features and price aren't competitive.

So your dad never browses Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, or anywhere else?

This is in the netbook range Best buy will throw next to the check-out aisle.

The fact that you've heard of an iPad makes it significantly more likely you would choose it over the competitors even in a Best Buy. There have been mp3 players that were better than the iPod throughout pretty much it's entire existence, and they sat right next to the iPods at Best Buy and Wal-mart. They didn't put a dent in iPod sales at all. The only one that was wildly successful was the Sandisk Sansa, and the price/feature differential was such that saying it competes with the iPod is like saying Kia competes with Ferrari.

It'll be the same with these two tablets. People may buy the $200 thing because it's cheaper. Some (maybe even myself) might buy it because it's hackable. But nobody who wants an iPad will buy this instead, therefore they don't really "compete" by any meaningful usage of the word.

The first thing my dad says when I bought an iPad into my house was "hey was that that Apple thing? Pad something?" It surprised me that he even heard of it, given we're living in Thailand.

If you're looking for a tablet you probably already know which one you're going to buy before you set foot in a physical store.

What if you are not looking for a tablet? Few people were looking for a tablet before the iPad launch.

True, but that's irrelevant.

My point is that few people buy electronics on impulse, without research, before walking into a store.

Where's the evidence for that?

Perhaps if the price is $500+, but at $200 it can be an impulse buy.

Why is the onus on me to prove it is one way or another?

The information is available online. Do you really think people walk into Best Buys before they do their research? Perhaps if money is no object. But for most people, it is, and therefore research is pretty imperative.

Don't assume everyone is like you.

I do most of my 'research' by browsing in shops. I often go into places like Best Buys, Frys, looking for 'stuff I probably want'.

Also most people have credit cards. Most people often don't worry about money when purchasing things. They worry later when they're in debt.

The threshold is different for everyone, but I would say that $200 is below the threshold it makes sense to bother researching all that much if it looks like it might be useful. No point spending a couple of hours, extra petrol etc to "save" a few $.

Totally agreed. When I was shopping for a netbook I often saw people in stores who wanted a netbook, asked the store employee what they should buy, and then bought one. The same goes for camera's. Why should this be different for tablets?

I take it you've never worked at a major electronics retailer. People will drop several thousand dollars on impulse if a slick sales person does a catchy demo.

Unless it's an Apple product.

Only if you are looking for an iPad.

I would bet his dad asks him what device to buy instead of buying a random/cheap device in a store. My dad would.

He might know it as fake ipad. Knockoffs can be competitors.

App Store with 200k titles is a plus? Are you serious? How will your dad be able to find anything useful there?

Looking at the top free/paid apps is a pretty good strategy, search, or word of mouth. The App Store promotes exploration by having good descriptions/screenshots, categorizations, colorful icons, clean text, etc. It's almost automatic for me to pop into the App Store to see what's new almost every time I pickup my iPad.

You're right, the App store is a real problem. Because of the low signal-to-noise ratio, discoverability is less than optimal, even using search.

The only way I find out about good apps right now is through word-of-mouth and through reviews on trusted sites.

Apple needs to fix this.

I'll just call further attention to this - it's highly unhelpful that the reviews can be sorted by best/worst/newest.

Best is always "WOW I CAN SEE MY COMPUTER" style and worst is always "IT DOES NOT WORK GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK".

Actually helpful app reviews would be a massive improvement.

I bet a lot of other companies wish they had this problem.

The search box?

Um dude, I recommend that you take a marketing course.

Just because they are in the same larger market doesn't mean that two products are "real" or "direct" competition.

Do you think BMW considers a person who buys a Corolla (and can't otherwise afford a 3-series) a lost customer?

If BMW was the only car brand out there, then yes the emergence of the Corolla would actually represent new competition.

While they may be the most successful to date, but Apple isn't the first or only company to release a tablet style of device.

That's not counting the pre-announced devices from every one else.

> I love it when the faithful think that features and price are not competitive.

I don't love it when jerks deride Apple fans as "the faithful". We're a pretty damn discriminating and thoughtful bunch of folks.

> I love it when the faithful think that features and price are not competitive.

A great many things are a ripoff at any price.

On features and price, a truck beats a Ferrari anytime. People (who can afford them) still prefer Ferrari.

When you need to haul something a truck is infinitely more useful than a Ferrari.

True. And indeed those are the cases where you buy a truck. In the 90% of other cases, you get a Ferrari. Most people that need a car, not a truck.

Features that you don't need/use are not relevant and most people will prefer design/style/etc... to those extra features.

IMHO this is what Apple's success is based on. Quality and style over Feature lists.

There's a lot of people who look at the Ferrari and then buy something affordable. Apple is always susceptible to that.

> People (who can afford them) still prefer Ferrari.

It really depends on whether I need to carry stuff from one place to another. Or whether I want to use a road to do it.

A more apt comparison might be between a Mustang and a Ferrari.

I think this one has less bullet point features and it's cheaper. Tough crowd.