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 485570
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

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[3]: Comment by kovacm
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, when the iPhone was announced Steve Jobs was aiming for 1% of the market, but even that would be huge. Right now any Android phone maker would happily trade places with Apple.

The situation now is different.

The iPhone entered a market that had some big players that have been around for years. It had to fight its way to the top and probably won't capture the biggest share as long as Android is around, unless Android implodes following the Motorola Mobile acquisition by Google.

Now the iPad entered a market that didn't really exist. Most people didn't know what a tablet was and the few that did wish they didn't. Right now the iPad is the tablet market. It doesn't matter what specs or price another product has (like VHS vs Betamax and V2000), you'd be a fool to buy anything else than an iPad because each non-iPad tablet could be pulled of the market any time (Dell Streak for example). The iPad has by far the most apps, accessories, support, etc...

However 12 months is a long time, certainly in tech, so anything can happen. I just don't think it's very likely Apple will loose much market share to any other tablet, Android, WebOS or other. Did they ever lose their iPod dominance? They even keep selling more and more Macs while the PC market is shrinking, during a financial crisis!

If the iPad 3 arrives and it sells like the iPad 1 and 2 did it may be game over for the rest for a long time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by leos on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Did they ever lose their iPod dominance?


This is a good point. There are dozens of different MP3 players out there, but basically the iPod won out permanently there.

However it is a much more limited device where the iPod can basically perfect the task. Less so for a complex device like a tablet. There is more room for different approaches here, but the big missing factor on all the other devices is continuity. You invest $700 in a tablet you want some assurance that apps, accessories, and support will continue to be available for the forseeable future. None of the other tablet manufacturers have that kind of commitment.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by aldo on Wed 17th Aug 2011 22:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
aldo Member since:
2010-02-17

Now the iPad entered a market that didn't really exist.


Apple's true creative genius with the iPad has been convincing the world that, screen size aside, the iPad is actually any different from the iPhone and iPod Touch. It's not a new market, it's just an extension of the iTunes ecosystem.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by r_a_trip on Thu 18th Aug 2011 07:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't matter what specs or price another product has (like VHS vs Betamax and V2000), you'd be a fool to buy anything else than an iPad because each non-iPad tablet could be pulled of the market any time (Dell Streak for example).

Say hello to the fool. I wouldn't want to be caught dead with an iPad. The whole Apple culture, both corporate and user, just rubs me the wrong way.

That's why I'm very happy with my "inferior" Acer Iconia A500. I'm pretty sure that Android will still run very well on it even if Acer discontinues the A500 and the Android Market will still provide me with apps.

Besides, iPad 1 is obsoleted by iPad 2 and iPad 2 will be obsolete on release of the iPad 3. The only significant continuous factor in this succession is iOS and the App Store (apart from the periferal connectors). Would this be a reason not to buy an iPad?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by leos on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

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.


Dominate the industry? How exactly? The iPhone is still by far the most popular smartphone. It's true that all the hundreds of different models of Android devices that can be roughly categorized as "smart" phones sell more than the iPhone, but a huge chunk of those aren't even in the same category.
The iPhone does not compete in the sub $50 subsidized cost market. Most android devices are competing with Symbian, Windows Mobile, lower spec blackberries, and dumb phones. They are certainly not dominating the high end smartphone segment by any means.

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.


I think it is you that will be surprised. I have yet to see a tablet that competes with the iPad 1, despite it's limitations. Impossible to predict further than a year out, but I don't think anything is going to change significantly. The cheap Android tablets are junk, and the somewhat decent ones are expensive. Not to say they don't have a market, there are plenty of people with blind apple hatred or a niche need that is not addressed by the iPad that are buying Android tablets, but they aren't anywhere close to making a product that is at the same level.

PS. I don't own an iPad.. Too expensive for the marginal utility it would give me over my phone, but playing with other tablets makes me realize how far behind they are.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

We'll see. Bookmark the comment, and we'll revisit this topic next year.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by _txf_ on Wed 17th Aug 2011 21:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


Dominate the industry? How exactly? The iPhone is still by far the most popular smartphone. It's true that all the hundreds of different models of Android devices that can be roughly categorized as "smart" phones sell more than the iPhone, but a huge chunk of those aren't even in the same category.


What do you mean by "roughly"? Android phones ARE smart phones. Yeah, they span the breadth from shitty to excellent but even the rubbish ones are smartphones.


The iPhone does not compete in the sub $50 subsidized cost market. Most android devices are competing with Symbian, Windows Mobile, lower spec blackberries, and dumb phones. They are certainly not dominating the high end smartphone segment by any means.


No, they aren't dominating the high end. But still are doing pretty darned well.

Edited 2011-08-17 21:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Neolander on Wed 17th Aug 2011 21:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

High-end only ? You mean like Mac hardware, I assume. This approach has failed in the past, I'm not sure reproducing it is such a good idea.

Apple would never have the place they currently have in the DAP market if they hadn't learned to manufacture low-end devices. Things like the iPod Nano and the iPod Shuffle. Stuff that normal people are massively interested in, because it's cheap and good enough, even if it's objectively a good ol' piece of junk.

Edited 2011-08-17 21:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Moredhas on Wed 17th Aug 2011 21:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

I have yet to see a tablet that competes with the iPad 1, despite it's limitations.


Two words: Asus Transformer.

I've commented to this effect in other threads, so I'll keep this brief. I had an iPad, I got tired of it's limitations, it's not adequate for replacing a computer for any of my portable needs. I sold it, bought an Asus Transformer (For about $200 AU less than I spent on the iPad, including shipping from the US, AND the optional keyboard dock), and honestly there's no contest. The only good thing to come of me buying an iPad is the legitimacy it lends my opinion: nobody needs a giant iPod Touch, Android tablets, at least Honeycomb ones, are very usuable tablets; there is no functional difference between an iPad or an iPod.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Laurence on Thu 18th Aug 2011 08:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Dominate the industry? How exactly? The iPhone is still by far the most popular smartphone. It's true that all the hundreds of different models of Android devices that can be roughly categorized as "smart" phones sell more than the iPhone, but a huge chunk of those aren't even in the same category.
The iPhone does not compete in the sub $50 subsidized cost market. Most android devices are competing with Symbian, Windows Mobile, lower spec blackberries, and dumb phones. They are certainly not dominating the high end smartphone segment by any means.

I love how people (and even Job himself) continually move the goal posts when boasting about market share.

As much as you might try to convince yourself otherwise, Windows Mobile, Blackberries and Symbian are not dumb phones - they /are/ smart phones. In some cases they might not always be aimed at exactly the same target audience as the iPhone is but that change what they are.


You're whole argument sounds like the time Jobs was lumping MacBooks and iPods into the same category as the iPhone when boasting about sales just prior to the launch of the original iPad.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by Adurbe on Wed 17th Aug 2011 18:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

to be fair, the last time Apple truly invented a market wasnt the iPhone, it was the iPod. This was the last time their brand became the ubiquitous name for the product;

People buy a phone (not an iPhone)
People buy an iPod (not an MP3 player)
People buy an iPad (not a tablet PC)

this is general vernacular in the UK, I would be interested if its the same in other countries

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by MOS6510 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 19:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I was just thinking of this. Sony managed this too with the walkman, every portable cassette player was called a walkman.

If have come across one person who claims her Android phone is an iPhone. And I see a number of non-iPads for sale on the used market being called iPad.

And indeed, people using non-iPods call it iPods. But I don't think they invented this market, MP3 players were already being sold and the first iPods were Mac-only. iPods took off when PC users could use them too. The revolutionized it by raising the bar and setting the standard, like the did with the iPhone. The iPod never got challenged, while the iPhone did by Android.

All tablets are really iPad challengers. They all aim to be better or cheaper, but they only manage to sell less, far less. It makes you wonder why anyone still bothers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Dryhte on Thu 18th Aug 2011 08:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

Belgium: phone, iPod, tablet ;) (well, translated of course)

Actually, I don't know anyone who owns any kind of tablet, and most people I know have either an Android phone (HTC mostly) or a dumbphone/feature phone.

And while hardly anyone I know owns an actual iPod (as in: Apple's mp3 player) most people say iPod when they refer to mp3 players in general.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Laurence on Thu 18th Aug 2011 08:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

to be fair, the last time Apple truly invented a market wasnt the iPhone, it was the iPod.


Apple didn't invent that market either. In fact I have an MP3 player that predates the iPod by a few years.

What Apple did was make an existing market sexy enough to gain mainstream appeal (which is still impressive, but it's still not inventing said market)

This was the last time their brand became the ubiquitous name for the product

That is a pretty meaningless comparison really. Catchy brand names often become house-hold terms with non-techies because it's simply easier to remember. It doesn't mean that said brand was the 1st to market nor the best selling product on the market.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by spiderman on Thu 18th Aug 2011 10:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

In France, you buy a phone, an ipod and a tablet.
I believe that because Archos tablets were somewhat popular before the ipad.
I just went to my mobile operator and they are subsidizing the galaxy tab. If the carriers start subsidizing Android tablets, I am positive the writing is on the wall for the ipad here, unless they get their subsidies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

There was a rich vibrant mobile mp3 player market long before St Steve blessed it with a casual brush of hiw turtleneck. Apple "invented" the mp3 player market with the Ipod? Not even a little bit close to how it went down.

What Apple did do was a fantastic job at marketing though. Your own comment demonstrates that success.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by Windows Sucks on Wed 17th Aug 2011 20:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Big difference is people need phones, they don't need tablets. So people if they are going to spend a "grip" on a good tablet they might as well get the best.

And yes Android is outselling the iPhone by sheer numbers cause there are like 350 different phones on the market to the 1 iPhone. And After all those sales Apple makes 70% of profits! So as is fact lots of sales but in reality only HTC and Sammy make profits and the two of them together do not outsell the iPhone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th Aug 2011 20:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And yes Android is outselling the iPhone by sheer numbers cause there are like 350 different phones on the market to the 1 iPhone.


"So, in order to make a level playing field, let's disregard one of the core strengths of Android, so that Apple has at least one thing left going for it."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by Sabon on Wed 17th Aug 2011 20:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually the difference between smart phones (Apple and Google) is VERY different than tablets.

The main difference is that tablets are not subsidized like phones are. Android phones have been given away while Apple phones haven't.

Most people will take something that is free if they THINK it is close to be as good as something that costs money.

If you look at surveys where people are asked how much they like their phones, the iPhone easily comes out on top.

Another way to look at this is that people buy a lot more games, paid games, not just free ones, on iPhones than on Adroids.

Part of the reason for this is that when people get a free Android phone, more often than not, based on stats that are put on sites just like this, most of those people do not use the Android phone to buy anything on them. They use them to make phone calls and search the internet and apparently not much else.

Meanwhile, Apple is currently raking in over 50% of NET profits in the mobile industry.

Again, tablets aren't subsidized. It's all over the place lately how other companies are not able to compete against Apple on price and they don't have as good of hardware and they definitely don't have as good of an on-line store with anywhere near as many apps as there are with idevices.

Summing it up, I don't think Android tablets are going to take over very quickly. Not unless someone can figure out how to drastically drop the price of Android tablets without reducing what they can do and at the same time with drastically improving the on-line store, meaning a lot more good apps need to be in the store and easy to find and buy and compatible with all devices.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by ccraig13 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 21:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
ccraig13 Member since:
2011-05-31

Let's not forget that the iPhone's acceptance has been held back by only being officially allowed to run on one US carrier ( which was their own doing ) up until this year. I imagine we'll see growth in the iPhone market once more carriers are allowed to offer it. I personally don't care who has more market share, as long as I get the phone I want. Did you take into account the market share of the car you drive? Unfortunately, there are too many who think only one company can win and the rest have to go out of business.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th Aug 2011 21:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let's not forget that the iPhone's acceptance has been held back by only being officially allowed to run on one US carrier ( which was their own doing ) up until this year.


Nonsense argument. Not only has the arrival of the iPhone on Verizon done zero-nada to stop Android's insane growth in the US, Android is growing just as fast in countries where the iPhone has always been available on all carriers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by Tony Swash on Thu 18th Aug 2011 09:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"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.
"

If I remember rightly people were predicting this time last year that this time this year the non-iPad tablet sales would be surging. It didn't happen. Why it didn't happen is a very interesting and complex question but it seems as if the tablet market is not behaving like the phone market and why should it as it has a completely different structure.

I get the feeling that the tablet market may be much more like the mp3 player market where the early iPod success was greeted by endless declarations that it's dominance would soon come to an end and that this or that new iPod competitor would be the 'iPod killer' - the one that never arrived.

Maybe the Android adventure is the anomaly brought about by the conjunction of the post-iPhone incumbents panic and the offer of an apparently free OS. That adventure has now also utterly changed with the Google acquisition of Motorola and in a year it may be that it is the phone market that looks completely different rather than the tablet market.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by Joy_Division_Lives! on Thu 18th Aug 2011 12:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
Joy_Division_Lives! Member since:
2011-07-29

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.


Oh...boy. The old "just wait in 12 months..." chestnut that you guys have been touting for the last TWO YEARS! And Android dominates the smartphone industry? Do you even know the difference between market-share and profit-share?

Keep reading. http://www.asymco.com

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by spiderman on Thu 18th Aug 2011 13:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

oh boy! You have your head in the sand. Of course Android currently dominates the industry. Look around you! I can count 10 Android phones for 1 iPhone here.
You confuse Google's advertizing profits with Android success. Of course Apple does more profits from phones than Google. But then Apple does more profits than Dell and nobody ever argued that Apple dominated the PC industry.

Reply Parent Score: 5