4 ms·

The thing that makes my iPad great is its user experience, not its features. The fact that the app ecosystem is huge, has plenty of quality titles. I don't hav

The thing that makes my iPad great is its user experience, not its features. The fact that the app ecosystem is huge, has plenty of quality titles. I don't have to spend any time building apps to satisfy my needs, nor spend hours figuring out how it works. Yes, I could buy four of these devices for the price I spent on an iPad, but if they don't provide user experience parity to an iPad, how can it be considered a "real competitor"?

oiuhyjtgfhjkl 16y ago
>The experience is why I got an iPad I use it to read HN - with the iPad user experience (TM) mere troll posts are transformed into repartee of Swiftian brilliance by simply having 24bit colour in the icons and rounded edges to the buttons.
rbanffy 16y ago
It's a competitor even if it addresses a subset of the iPad functionality. This one has e-book reading, something many people buy the iPad for. Different people weight different features differently (sory - had to do it) and this thingie may end up with a better value than an iPad for a lot of people. Me included, BTW. I could buy one of these and a Nook for less than what an iPad costs. For me, it's a winner. It's a competitor, even if you prefer the iPad.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Do you really think people buy the iPad for reading ebooks? I find it to be not significantly better than reading on a monitor. The iPad is great for some things for sure (Plants vs Zombies being first and foremost in my experience) but I think if I wanted to read books I'd get a Kindle or some eink device.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    I read books on my iPad all the time.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > I find it to be not significantly better than reading on a monitor. Nielsen's tests very emphatically disagree http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html
    - mattmaroon 16y ago
      Neilsen tested only speed. It's eyestrain that bothers me and is why ebook readers typically use e-ink.
      - masklinn 16y ago
        > Neilsen tested only speed. Neilsen tested only speed if you read only the first half of the results. You might want to read the next one as well. It's called "User Satisfaction".
        mattmaroon 16y ago
        He doesn't say how long he asked people to read for. My suspicion is that the longer the timeframe, the more results between print and monitor (and Kindle and iPad) will diverge. You don't get eyestrain from even light reading on a monitor. Also, satisfaction can mean a number of things, and he didn't define it, as evidenced by comments about weight. A lot of people could have had higher reading satisfaction on an iPad because it's an iPad. Neilsen's results have no bearing one way or the other on my original statement, which is that people don't buy iPads to read books.
        NyxWulf 16y ago
        User satisfaction includes all of the relevant issues for a person, and in this test they were testing reading, so eye strain would matter to people. People absolutely buy the iPad to read books. It may not be the only thing they do with it-since it is a multi function device. However reading books is a very large component of the purchase for everyone that I know that has bought one. My graduate program just bought 65 iPads for the incoming class to read their books and PDFs. They bought those based on user feedback that people hate reading on the tablet and don't like hauling around forty seven pounds of dead trees. The majority user request was to load the reading on an iPad.
  - DrJokepu 16y ago
    Yes, I've bought an iPad for reading books. And I'm using it all the time as an e-book reader.
  - kristiandupont 16y ago
    I switched from the Sony eReader to iPad for reading books. And while I prefer looking at eink, I am much happier with the overall iPad experience.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      That's what I was trying to say. Maybe, for you, the iPad is a better value than a Sony eReader. A lot of people will agree with you and a lot of people will disagree.
  - rbreve 16y ago
    I also have an iPad and read books on it
  - jsz0 16y ago
    I'm more of an audiobook person myself but I have read 2 books on the iPad with good results. The only drawback is the temptation to hit the home button and do something else which isn't a real problem on current e-ink devices since they don't really do anything else. Which is also the same reason I wouldn't buy one. I don't read enough text to justify a standalone device.
    - chris11 16y ago
      That is one of the reasons I like my Sony Touch ebook reader. It basically is only good for reading, so I don't end up interrupting my reading to do something else on it.
  - pavel_lishin 16y ago
    Bring a monitor to bed with you, or on a bus, or on a plane, and then we'll talk.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  Yes, it is a competitor, but is it a "real competitor"? Real is the operative word. When you suggest that this product is a "real competitor", I expect it to have real potential to sell more than a million devices. The reason why I am dismissive of this device is that the headline of the OTA is a little bit linkbaitish considering that the device is made by a little known Asian manufacturer who is going to spend next to nothing on marketing and has a questionable pedigree when it comes to product quality. There will be real competitors from Android and WebOS, once the big players enter the market. But this thing? No way. I would say that none of the big players with plans for an Android slate would even consider this thing competition.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > I expect it to have real potential to sell more than a million devices Is the iPad a real competitor to netbooks? This specific product is not a huge risk for Apple - it's easily clonable by other manufacturers and, by itself, it will never have a huge market share. The combined power of just about every Chinese manufacturer is a very real threat to Apple. Steve must remember the Apple II. Hardware makers for this class of devices will not - and need not to - spend a ton of money on marketing. They will have this thingie sitting on aisles of major supermarkets. And that's a killer move in the lower-end. Nobody will remember their brand next week. But, in the meantime, they will sell lots of units.
    - slantyyz 16y ago
      By virtue of the iPad's capabilities, you could also argue that it's a competitor to PCs and laptops. I would argue that most of the people who are currently claiming that the iPad is a threat to computers and laptops are simply trying to draw eyeballs to their blogs with sensationalistic headlines. I see a lot of cheap keychain digital cameras being sold at supermarkets, but I highly doubt that anyone would seriously consider them to be competition for even a $100 digital camera from any major camera manufacturer. Competition isn't just about features or market share in the overall segment. Apple has a very specific set of customer personas it sells to, and it does well selling to them. That people outside of their defined persons buys their devices is -gravy-. I highly doubt any of their target customers are even interested in this Pandigital device, which makes it a device that is not real competition for the iPad.
illumin8 16y ago
- 7" LCD screen of questionable quality vs. 10" IPS LCD screen. Article even says "It’s not a very bright screen, like the iPad." - It’s a resistive screen - No multitouch... "It simply won’t be as responsive as an iPad." - Slow CPU - "It’s not a blazing fast CPU. The specs haven’t been published, but I suspect this is in the 400-600MHz range." - Limited software - is ANY Android developer going to write software that supports the custom resolution of an unsupported 7" tablet? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? This might sell a few hundred copies to hackers and other people that like rooting their devices. It will be 0.000000001% of the total tablet market, while iPad sells 2 million per month.

oiuhyjtgfhjkl 16y ago

>The experience is why I got an iPad I use it to read HN - with the iPad user experience (TM) mere troll posts are transformed into repartee of Swiftian brilliance by simply having 24bit colour in the icons and rounded edges to the buttons.

rbanffy 16y ago

It's a competitor even if it addresses a subset of the iPad functionality. This one has e-book reading, something many people buy the iPad for. Different people weight different features differently (sory - had to do it) and this thingie may end up with a better value than an iPad for a lot of people. Me included, BTW. I could buy one of these and a Nook for less than what an iPad costs. For me, it's a winner. It's a competitor, even if you prefer the iPad.

mattmaroon 16y ago
Do you really think people buy the iPad for reading ebooks? I find it to be not significantly better than reading on a monitor. The iPad is great for some things for sure (Plants vs Zombies being first and foremost in my experience) but I think if I wanted to read books I'd get a Kindle or some eink device.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I read books on my iPad all the time.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > I find it to be not significantly better than reading on a monitor. Nielsen's tests very emphatically disagree http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    Neilsen tested only speed. It's eyestrain that bothers me and is why ebook readers typically use e-ink.
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > Neilsen tested only speed. Neilsen tested only speed if you read only the first half of the results. You might want to read the next one as well. It's called "User Satisfaction".
      - mattmaroon 16y ago
        He doesn't say how long he asked people to read for. My suspicion is that the longer the timeframe, the more results between print and monitor (and Kindle and iPad) will diverge. You don't get eyestrain from even light reading on a monitor. Also, satisfaction can mean a number of things, and he didn't define it, as evidenced by comments about weight. A lot of people could have had higher reading satisfaction on an iPad because it's an iPad. Neilsen's results have no bearing one way or the other on my original statement, which is that people don't buy iPads to read books.
        NyxWulf 16y ago
        User satisfaction includes all of the relevant issues for a person, and in this test they were testing reading, so eye strain would matter to people. People absolutely buy the iPad to read books. It may not be the only thing they do with it-since it is a multi function device. However reading books is a very large component of the purchase for everyone that I know that has bought one. My graduate program just bought 65 iPads for the incoming class to read their books and PDFs. They bought those based on user feedback that people hate reading on the tablet and don't like hauling around forty seven pounds of dead trees. The majority user request was to load the reading on an iPad.
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  Yes, I've bought an iPad for reading books. And I'm using it all the time as an e-book reader.
- kristiandupont 16y ago
  I switched from the Sony eReader to iPad for reading books. And while I prefer looking at eink, I am much happier with the overall iPad experience.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    That's what I was trying to say. Maybe, for you, the iPad is a better value than a Sony eReader. A lot of people will agree with you and a lot of people will disagree.
- rbreve 16y ago
  I also have an iPad and read books on it
- jsz0 16y ago
  I'm more of an audiobook person myself but I have read 2 books on the iPad with good results. The only drawback is the temptation to hit the home button and do something else which isn't a real problem on current e-ink devices since they don't really do anything else. Which is also the same reason I wouldn't buy one. I don't read enough text to justify a standalone device.
  - chris11 16y ago
    That is one of the reasons I like my Sony Touch ebook reader. It basically is only good for reading, so I don't end up interrupting my reading to do something else on it.
- pavel_lishin 16y ago
  Bring a monitor to bed with you, or on a bus, or on a plane, and then we'll talk.
slantyyz 16y ago
Yes, it is a competitor, but is it a "real competitor"? Real is the operative word. When you suggest that this product is a "real competitor", I expect it to have real potential to sell more than a million devices. The reason why I am dismissive of this device is that the headline of the OTA is a little bit linkbaitish considering that the device is made by a little known Asian manufacturer who is going to spend next to nothing on marketing and has a questionable pedigree when it comes to product quality. There will be real competitors from Android and WebOS, once the big players enter the market. But this thing? No way. I would say that none of the big players with plans for an Android slate would even consider this thing competition.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > I expect it to have real potential to sell more than a million devices Is the iPad a real competitor to netbooks? This specific product is not a huge risk for Apple - it's easily clonable by other manufacturers and, by itself, it will never have a huge market share. The combined power of just about every Chinese manufacturer is a very real threat to Apple. Steve must remember the Apple II. Hardware makers for this class of devices will not - and need not to - spend a ton of money on marketing. They will have this thingie sitting on aisles of major supermarkets. And that's a killer move in the lower-end. Nobody will remember their brand next week. But, in the meantime, they will sell lots of units.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    By virtue of the iPad's capabilities, you could also argue that it's a competitor to PCs and laptops. I would argue that most of the people who are currently claiming that the iPad is a threat to computers and laptops are simply trying to draw eyeballs to their blogs with sensationalistic headlines. I see a lot of cheap keychain digital cameras being sold at supermarkets, but I highly doubt that anyone would seriously consider them to be competition for even a $100 digital camera from any major camera manufacturer. Competition isn't just about features or market share in the overall segment. Apple has a very specific set of customer personas it sells to, and it does well selling to them. That people outside of their defined persons buys their devices is -gravy-. I highly doubt any of their target customers are even interested in this Pandigital device, which makes it a device that is not real competition for the iPad.

illumin8 16y ago

- 7" LCD screen of questionable quality vs. 10" IPS LCD screen. Article even says "It’s not a very bright screen, like the iPad." - It’s a resistive screen - No multitouch... "It simply won’t be as responsive as an iPad." - Slow CPU - "It’s not a blazing fast CPU. The specs haven’t been published, but I suspect this is in the 400-600MHz range." - Limited software - is ANY Android developer going to write software that supports the custom resolution of an unsupported 7" tablet? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? This might sell a few hundred copies to hackers and other people that like rooting their devices. It will be 0.000000001% of the total tablet market, while iPad sells 2 million per month.