Linked by David Adams on Wed 17th Aug 2011 17:46 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Ars Technica is reporting that US Retailer Best Buy has been able to sell less than 10% of the TouchPad tablets that it ordered from HP, and now wants HP to take them back. Similarly, deal-a-day site Woot offered TouchPads at a very aggressive price, and only managed to sell 612 of them. This is for a site that often sells out goofy tech widgets in hours. When the TouchPad was gearing up for release, there seemed to be a fair amount of interest among geeks. Is it just that it hasn't resonated the same way with the general public, or have people just been disappointed once they've put their hands on one?
Thread beginning with comment 485563
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:12 UTC
Member since:

And Apple has a long history of getting too greedy, controlling, and complacent, which will eventually give competitors an opening.

once upon a time Apple used PowerPC processor (had SIMD 3 years before Intel) = more expansive.
once upon a time Apple used NuBus (had PnP 5 years before PCI) = more expensive.
once upon a time Apple used SCSI (15 years before SATA) = more expensive.
... Apple always used high end technology for its products.

today Apple use same components as rest of PC industry (but always BEFORE rest of PC industry like Gigabit Ethernet, 802.11n, Thunderbolt...) and todays Apples prices are so low because of this that rest of PC industry can hardly compete!

first sign of this, long before TABLET market, was Dell XPS One: All-In-one, iMac like PC. If you had compare this Dell to Apple iMac in ~2008.(Dell discontinued XPS One series coz could not compete) you will see that Apple offer more for less $! That was first sign that PC industry can not compete at same level of quality and price with Apple. Dell can only compete in segments of market where Apple is not present.

UNFORTUNATELY, Apple is today only company that control both: software and hardware; and no other company can achieve same level of quality or price for their products. ;) I will say again: UNFORTUNATELY!

(we should all thanks to Microsoft for this.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kovacm
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:23 in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
MOS6510 Member since:

Well, in this case HP controls both the hardware and the os (WebOS).

So does Google now (Android & Motorola Mobile) and in a way Nokia/Microsoft.

But in the tablet space Apple does have an enormous lead and advantage. And other companies are indeed rushing whereas Apple had years to prepare for their product.

So it strange a lot of people on this site claim Apple just copies stuff, while it's the entire industry that's trying to catch up. Their iPad copies don't sell very well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Their iPad copies don't sell very well.

It's remarkable how similar all this sounds to the earlier days of Android on phones. Back then, I was ridiculed by Apple fanatics for even *suggesting* the idea that Android could grab even 10% market share, let alone dominate the industry the way it does now.

Let me assure you - the same will happen to tablet. You'll be surprised to see what the tablet landscape looks like 12 months from now.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by kovacm
by galvanash on Wed 17th Aug 2011 19:00 in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
galvanash Member since:

Its more than that though. The key thing I think is that they simply don't have a whole lot of products - they only really sell 3 computers:

1. Air, Macbook, Mini, iMac - These are fundamentally all the same computer... In the same generation they share virtually all of the same major components, they only differ in PCB design (if that) and packaging. Same processors, same graphics, same chipsets, same everything. Its just a few different options here and there.

2. Mac Pro - Low Volume, High end, high margin - they can afford to splurge on components here and they do. They are also very expensive so this product is excluded from my argument.

3. iPhone, iPad, iPod, AppleTV - Again, same physical product, just different packaging.

They have the advantage of being able to amortizes their R&D and manufacturing for each of these 3 "systems" across the entire lineup. They control manufacturing from top to bottom, so they can buy components at low prices because they get the volume discounts for the entire lineup combined.

So in reality, Apple makes 3 things. They make a consumer computer, a professional computer, and a mobile computer. But the R&D and manufacturing for these is spread across a small number of very distinct skus that target very different markets, so they get the benefit of wide market penetration with minimal investment. No other computer maker has been so successful at doing this.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE: Comment by kovacm
by Neolander on Wed 17th Aug 2011 20:53 in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
Neolander Member since:

Believing that hardware is so important is precisely what killed IBM and turned Apple into a niche in the early days of the desktop/laptop.

Computer hardware is a generic heap of electronic components, that is trivially cloned and replaced every few years. Software is the only thing that lasts, the only thing which can trap people on a platform also. Which is why controlling the software stack that runs on the greatest amount of future hardware is what counts.

And this conflicts with integrated HW/SW ecosystems, in my opinion, as unless you have the sheer manpower in R&D it takes to produce lots of different devices (like Apple with iPods), it mean less hardware on the market.

Well, we'll see what the future will be like... Frankly, I'd rather see a stable equilibrium between several big players, just like we had before in the feature phone world, than watch Windows' history repeat itself all over again. I just think it's probably not going to happen, unless players other than Android don't get a clue about how huge of an asset hardware diversity truly is.

Edited 2011-08-17 21:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kovacm
by joe_tester on Thu 18th Aug 2011 14:42 in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
joe_tester Member since:

I compared XPS all-in-one and imac few years ago. Dell for the same guts was about 50-100 dollars cheaper and they were giving wireless mouse and keyboard for the price.

And it wasn't white! ;)

I think it was very competitive.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by kovacm
by aliquis on Sat 20th Aug 2011 08:58 in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
aliquis Member since:

and todays Apples prices are so low because of this that rest of PC industry can hardly compete!
That's why an Apple laptop cost twice as much as a comparable generic laptop?

Reply Parent Score: 2