4 ms·

Is anyone really surprised that the iPad is crushing all these things-that-are-obviously-trying-to-be-just-like-the-iPad? Customers aren't actually as stupid as

Is anyone really surprised that the iPad is crushing all these things-that-are-obviously-trying-to-be-just-like-the-iPad? Customers aren't actually as stupid as birds: You can put a newborn cuckoo in a bird's nest and the bird will feed it -- it doesn't actually know what its own offspring are supposed to look like -- but you can't just build a thing with a screen that looks superficially like an iPad and expect folks to mindlessly buy it. Especially when you're selling to the early-adopter crowd that buys devices from two-year-old categories. But, really, the lesson of articles like this one is that tech business analysts are prisoners of their own categories. The iPod Touch is not a "tablet" because it is too small; obviously all those smartphones are not "tablets" because they can make phone calls, which clearly makes them completely different, because... hey, when analysts were growing up the telephone was a completely different thing than the computer, instead of just one application that runs on your computer and that gets less use with each passing year. And the Kindle is somehow not a tablet, because... uh, it doesn't have pretty colors? And the B&N Nook is not a tablet, because... uh, I guess you can't view animations on it? (Okay, seriously, it's probably the absence of touch that defines a non-"tablet". But does anyone want to bet that the new touch-enabled Kindle will get to be called a "tablet"? I somehow doubt it. It's just not iPad enough.) Obviously, netbooks -- the hot category of yesteryear -- are not "tablets" and therefore don't appear on these charts, even though the most obvious reason I can see to buy an iPad alternative is to get a keyboard and/or the ability to run PC apps. And, of course, the eleven-inch Macbook Air isn't a tablet either. If you allow the iPad to define a category and then draw the boundaries so narrowly that only the iPad fits, surprise! It dominates the category! What would be more interesting to look at is the iPad's share of "things with similar screen size and weight", or "things that can play portable games", or "things that can read Kindle books", or "things with half-decent web browsers and 3G support".

ryanhuff 15y ago
Digging into how tablets are impacting specific established product categories would be interesting, as it would help understand the impact that tablets are having beyond old-school computing use-cases to this point, and what other use-cases tablets might see success in the future. The obvious example is physical books, as well as medical. I am sure companies that are threatened by the encroachment of tablets into their markets are paying close attention. However, as many are assuming (possibly incorrect) that the tablet is the future of mass-market information consumption, I think it is important to understand why Apple has (so far) dominated the tablet market, and whether competitors can respond successfully.
- alperakgun 15y ago
  The stats are wrong. Android tablet's just launched in acceptable configurations, sony, samsung and amazon.. Soon android will dominate.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
ceejayoz 15y ago
The Kindle Fire is pretty widely described as a tablet and it's looking likely that it'll clean up nicely on the low-end of the market. Kindle Touch is an e-reader - calling it a tablet would be like calling a magazine a book because it's made of paper. It seems to me while complaining that "tablet" is too narrow a definition you're drawing too broad of one. My impression of the term is that it describes a computing device that doesn't have a keyboard and would function as a netbook/laptop replacement for average users.
- chugger 15y ago
  When the iPad 3 is introduced, the iPad 1 will cost $200 (or less) and will compete with the Kindle Fire on the low end of the market.
baddox 15y ago
I assume you're talking about the e-ink versions of Kindle and Nook. The Kindle Fire and Nook Color are widely considered tablets. E-ink devices usually have the same form factor as a tablet, but their intended usage is specific enough to warrant placing them in a category separate from tablets. It's really not as difficult or controversial as you make it sound. They're called tablets because they resemble stone writing tablets: they're flat, rectangular, have minimal moving parts, and are controlled by "drawing" (at first with a stylus and now with a finger). E-ink readers generally aren't controlled by touch, and even the new Nook and Kindle e-readers seem to use very minimal touch controls. Are you really arguing that the iPod Touch, smartphones, e-ink readers, netbooks, and iPad-like devices should all be lumped into one category by tech analysts? Has anyone ever been in the market for a new gadget, but been unsure if they want an iPhone or an e-ink Kindle? That's madness. I can certainly see why someone would want a smartphone, a netbook, an iPad, and an e-ink reader, all at the same time for different purposes. But aside from developers or reviewers, I can't imagine why anyone would want two smartphones, or two netbooks, or two iPad-like tablets, or two e-ink readers. It's not tech writers that determine these categories, it's a combination of consumers' purchase patterns and the device manufacturers' marketing teams.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  Are you really arguing that the iPod Touch, smartphones, e-ink readers, netbooks, and iPad-like devices should all be lumped into one category by tech analysts? No, I'm arguing for categories that lead to enlightening analyses. Perhaps the industry-standard categorization is perfect: iPad really is unlike all other devices on earth. Well, fine, but then this article is a banal exercise in circular logic: Of course the iPad is the leader of the iPad market. Unenlightening. Let's hypothesize. Perhaps it would be more interesting to try breaking up the market by end-user goals. What is the iPad's share of the portable music player market? The portable video player market? The non-portable video player market? The web-surfing market? The digital sketchpad market? The digital mixing-console market? The e-reader market? The communications device (SMS, Twitter, voice) market? The GPS navigation market? The casual gaming market? The hardcore gaming market? Is this the way customers decide what to buy? Is this the way designers approach the problem of making gadgets better? If so, maybe this is a better categorization scheme. If not, we could try something else. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to ignore the "tablet" nature of the iPad completely. Everyone is focused on the Pad part, but perhaps a real key of the iPad's success is the design of the ecosystem: Minimal variations in hardware to improve reliability, and to make it easier to shop for and easier to support. A brand-new software ecosystem with no need for back-compatibility. A sole-source software installation system that provides leverage for excluding malware and offers generally-seamless automatic upgrades. Categorize systems in this fashion, and suddenly the iPad belongs in a category with the iPhone, a gaming console, the Kindle, and the TiVo, among other things. Obviously, you can slice the universe into categories in more than one way. You can even slice it in several ways during the same essay. But the touchstone of a categorization scheme is: Does it lead somewhere? Does it help you discover something interesting or actionable?

ryanhuff 15y ago

Digging into how tablets are impacting specific established product categories would be interesting, as it would help understand the impact that tablets are having beyond old-school computing use-cases to this point, and what other use-cases tablets might see success in the future. The obvious example is physical books, as well as medical. I am sure companies that are threatened by the encroachment of tablets into their markets are paying close attention. However, as many are assuming (possibly incorrect) that the tablet is the future of mass-market information consumption, I think it is important to understand why Apple has (so far) dominated the tablet market, and whether competitors can respond successfully.

alperakgun 15y ago
The stats are wrong. Android tablet's just launched in acceptable configurations, sony, samsung and amazon.. Soon android will dominate.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

ceejayoz 15y ago

The Kindle Fire is pretty widely described as a tablet and it's looking likely that it'll clean up nicely on the low-end of the market. Kindle Touch is an e-reader - calling it a tablet would be like calling a magazine a book because it's made of paper. It seems to me while complaining that "tablet" is too narrow a definition you're drawing too broad of one. My impression of the term is that it describes a computing device that doesn't have a keyboard and would function as a netbook/laptop replacement for average users.

chugger 15y ago
When the iPad 3 is introduced, the iPad 1 will cost $200 (or less) and will compete with the Kindle Fire on the low end of the market.

baddox 15y ago

I assume you're talking about the e-ink versions of Kindle and Nook. The Kindle Fire and Nook Color are widely considered tablets. E-ink devices usually have the same form factor as a tablet, but their intended usage is specific enough to warrant placing them in a category separate from tablets. It's really not as difficult or controversial as you make it sound. They're called tablets because they resemble stone writing tablets: they're flat, rectangular, have minimal moving parts, and are controlled by "drawing" (at first with a stylus and now with a finger). E-ink readers generally aren't controlled by touch, and even the new Nook and Kindle e-readers seem to use very minimal touch controls. Are you really arguing that the iPod Touch, smartphones, e-ink readers, netbooks, and iPad-like devices should all be lumped into one category by tech analysts? Has anyone ever been in the market for a new gadget, but been unsure if they want an iPhone or an e-ink Kindle? That's madness. I can certainly see why someone would want a smartphone, a netbook, an iPad, and an e-ink reader, all at the same time for different purposes. But aside from developers or reviewers, I can't imagine why anyone would want two smartphones, or two netbooks, or two iPad-like tablets, or two e-ink readers. It's not tech writers that determine these categories, it's a combination of consumers' purchase patterns and the device manufacturers' marketing teams.

mechanical_fish 15y ago
Are you really arguing that the iPod Touch, smartphones, e-ink readers, netbooks, and iPad-like devices should all be lumped into one category by tech analysts? No, I'm arguing for categories that lead to enlightening analyses. Perhaps the industry-standard categorization is perfect: iPad really is unlike all other devices on earth. Well, fine, but then this article is a banal exercise in circular logic: Of course the iPad is the leader of the iPad market. Unenlightening. Let's hypothesize. Perhaps it would be more interesting to try breaking up the market by end-user goals. What is the iPad's share of the portable music player market? The portable video player market? The non-portable video player market? The web-surfing market? The digital sketchpad market? The digital mixing-console market? The e-reader market? The communications device (SMS, Twitter, voice) market? The GPS navigation market? The casual gaming market? The hardcore gaming market? Is this the way customers decide what to buy? Is this the way designers approach the problem of making gadgets better? If so, maybe this is a better categorization scheme. If not, we could try something else. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to ignore the "tablet" nature of the iPad completely. Everyone is focused on the Pad part, but perhaps a real key of the iPad's success is the design of the ecosystem: Minimal variations in hardware to improve reliability, and to make it easier to shop for and easier to support. A brand-new software ecosystem with no need for back-compatibility. A sole-source software installation system that provides leverage for excluding malware and offers generally-seamless automatic upgrades. Categorize systems in this fashion, and suddenly the iPad belongs in a category with the iPhone, a gaming console, the Kindle, and the TiVo, among other things. Obviously, you can slice the universe into categories in more than one way. You can even slice it in several ways during the same essay. But the touchstone of a categorization scheme is: Does it lead somewhere? Does it help you discover something interesting or actionable?