I can't get past this: "...most ppl don't know about iPad apps." You say that, then you list 9 items, many of which are apps on the iPad platform. Maybe what you're saying is that people don't care so much about "apps" (as in download and install, e.g., Apple App Store) as they do the "thing" they want to do. If that's the case, I'd agree to an extent.

I'm one of those geeks who loves to teach, and I used to run a local tech consultancy, so I have a sizable network of people who come to me for advice. These days, I pick and choose who I work with, but I still help a fair number of people set up their iOS devices. I sit with around one person a month on average. During these sessions, I like to take a back-seat approach to teaching them. Rather than pro-actively tell them what to do, I let them set the direction. I'm constantly surprised by what these new users know, and don't know.

One of my observations is that almost every one of them asks "how do I download 'apps'" within the first 5 minutes. I put quotes around apps because when the user says "apps", they say it as if it's some technical term. They annunciate it and give it emphasis within the sentence. This tells me that Apple's advertising is doing a good job, because they're reaching people about this whole "app" thing; not to mention the impact of the iPhone. Users who already have iPhones ask in a very straight forward way, "Where's the App Store." Sometimes they'll say, "Can I get 'X' for this," where "X" is their favorite iPhone app (usually Facebook or a game).

The other thing I observe is that every single person I've worked with prefers apps over websites. The distinction is pretty clear for users who already own an iOS device (iPhone or iPod Touch). They want to know where the Facebook app is. When I tell them there isn't an "official" one, they look at me with a face that says, "That can't be right, Facebook is huge and I have a Facebook app for my iPhone." Many straight up tell me I must be wrong.

I've taken some insight away from these experiences:

* Users identify the responsiveness of native apps with the term "apps" and look for it whenever they can * Even though the data in an app like Facebook for iPhone takes a while to refresh, the simple fact that the interface renders quickly and allows the user to move in and out of screens quickly (without redrawing) gives them the perception that the app is "better"

I can't stress this enough. The #1 factor I observe driving users toward "apps" is responsiveness; the speed with which the screen renders something that is recognizable as an app, rather than parts of an app, or a jumbled mess.

There's nothing inherent about a native app that makes this happen. If a user downloads a poorly written app that isn't responsive, they're just as unhappy. Friendly, for example, is my "go to" app for Facebook on the iPad. Users consistently remark that is "isn't as good" as the Facebook app on the iPhone. If you've ever used Friendly, you'll know why. It's just not as responsive.

A web app that solves this responsiveness problem will be equivalent in the user's eyes. They have no concept of why apps they get through the Apple App Store are better, they just know what they experience. If someone built a web app framework that used local caching and data stores to effectively replicate the responsiveness of native apps, users won't care. Build a web-based "app store" where they can get these responsive apps and they'll flock to it.

It's all about the experience.

I don't think it's as simple as price. If that is the case then why did the iPod become such a dominant device back in the early 2000s when it cost $400-500? My guess is that there is a limit to where the customer is willing to pay for a quality product.

Marco seems to go a little overboard but it is legitimate to ask why reviewers seem to pull their punches with any iPad competitors. Whether it's to create a storyline of Apple vs whomever or there is a distaste for Apple products, these reviews aren't helping anyone make a purchasing decision.

With the iPod there was no competitively sized device for a while. And the iPod actually did develop an ecosystem that did matter -- HW ecosystem. The iPod could plug into anything.

In contrast the iPads ecosystem is a lot less important. And the HW/SW advantage the iPad has is dwindling quickly (the HW advantage is basically gone -- but it is still better SW, even ecosystem aside).

Also the iPod, with the white headphones, became a fashion statement. That's why Apple spent so much time on the iPad2 cover. They wanted to create the same visual fashion statement, but I don't think the iconic look has been created.

For these reasons I think price will play a major role. Not yet. i still don't think the core Android platform is good enough. But by the holidays, it might be.

I will say though that if Android misses the holidays, then Windows will likely be the one to really take on the iPad and Android on tablets will probably go the way of Linux on netbooks.

I don't think this game is going to be decided in a year. I suspect people mostly use tablets for web browsing, checking email + Facebook, and watching the occasional video. None of these applications are particularly "sticky" and I don't think dominance today is going to guarantee you dominance two years down the road at all.

    why did the iPod become such a dominant device 
    back in the early 2000s when it cost $400-500? 

I don't know why you say the iPod is a "dominant" device.

Sure it is successful, but it created a new market - tablets before it weren't really counting. It's easy to be "dominant" in a market that you created, but I'm also pretty sure that if you compare the number of iPad owners to the number of PC-owners, well, those numbers won't look so great.

What I'm trying to say here is that a LOT of people that would be interested in something like the iPad haven't bought one yet, and those people are much more in number than the current iPad users.

The pie is currently very small. It can be much bigger and everyone can have a slice ;)

iPod != iPad.

The iPod marketshare was really high for a premium priced product (on specs at least)

Oh, sorry, yeah, I misread.

The iPod really is dominating :)

I agree with you. Price will be the biggest advantage for every other ecosystem. Android's success has largely been possible because of the huge price-range in which you can buy Android devices. Today, you can get an Android phone (unlocked, no contract) for as low as $120. Low price smartphones make a sizable portion of Android sales, (atleast, here in India).

So you basically say: costumers are stupid sheep that always buy the cheapest stuff, as long as you can show them that it somehow does what the competitor does?

Sorry, I think its a little bit more complex then that.