There really isn’t much of a “tablet” market

I remember almost exactly the same argument being made in 2009 about Android on phones.<p>Here's how it unfolded chronologically then:<p>1) "no one can complete with Apple because of the quality of design"<p>2) "no one can compete with Apple, only geeks buy Android phones"<p>3) "no one can compete with Apple, except if you are a geek or want a phone on a non AT&#38;T network"<p>4) "no one can compete with Apple, except if you want a non AT&#38;T phone or want a low end handset"<p>5) "Ok, Android is outselling Apple, but Apple is more profitable"<p>So... why, exactly will the tablet market be different?

Marco contradicts himself:<p><i>Neither Google nor Microsoft will ever be able to tailor their software to other manufacturers’ specific (and varied) hardware devices</i><p>...followed by...<p><i>Anyone can cobble together the same processors, DRAM, flash, and radios as Apple, put them into a plastic case</i><p>What is the iPad? It's a touch-sensitive screen. It has a border and a few buttons. What is every non-Apple tablet? The exact same thing. In terms of other hardware, tablets are <i>far</i> less varied than PCs.<p>Microsoft and Google don't have to tailor their operating systems to varied hardware -- in terms of interface, all tablets are the same. The problem is they're a few years behind Apple in the whole software ecosystem.<p>The big point, and here Macro and I would certainly agree, the iPad has a reasonable software ecosystem and everyone else doesn't. I don't see Android or Windows making a dent in this anytime soon but, assuming the tablet market has legs, it will happen eventually. But for now, it doesn't seem like a non-Apple tablet is a good buy.

The best way I would explain it is the following: In (way old skool) Eddie Murphy's "Raw" (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092948/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092948/</a>)... he talks about growing up wanting to eat a Big Mac at McDonalds. Yet, his mom refuses to take him there and keeps making him bologna sandwiches to save money. It's the same thing, she says! He cries and cries. He wants his McDonalds! It's just not the same as a homemade sandwich, he blurts back! His mom, of course, was optimizing on the wrong variable. She never get's the difference between the homemade sandwhich and McDonalds. You can tell that Eddie Murphy is quite bitter at the whole thing. Anyway, I never seemed to have forgotten that story when I think about good vs. bad marketing.

There isn't a tablet market because there isn't a need for them. The iPad is popular for reasons that the buyers can't give you (prior to purchase). They just know that they want one.<p>My girlfriend is the target audience for an iPad. She's not great at computers, she consumes media but doesn't create her own. She wanted an iPad and so I got her one for Christmas. She loved it, at least at first. But I rarely see her using it (and I don't use mine much either). When she wants to get on the internet quickly she pulls out her macbook. The iPad really is a device that you use for a specific purpose, it's not the low-level general purpose machine that it's made out to be. I would say ditto for the rest of the tablets as well.<p>I don't think it's because tablets are a bad idea, I just don't think they are very good at this point. They can't keep up with a desktop web browser (the reason most people use computers) and they aren't very easy to use.

I just drummed for a gig and the sound man walked up and set my monitor levels using an iPad standing beside me on the stage, no wires, no yelling, no pointing, no charades. It was unbelievable. For those who say that tablets are toys, not useful, not practical.... get ready.<p>Apple will enjoy for a while and Androids will crush in 2 years (unless Oracle wins it's lawsuit).

Seems to me the real killer would be the "$35 tablet" type devices, and they won't compete with with iPad or with laptops, but with paper (and that's a market Apple probably isn't even interested in)

&#62;&#62;These manufacturers aren’t software companies: they’re hardware companies that write software out of necessity. Apple is a software company that makes hardware out of necessity.<p>I like that, but I don't think it's true. Apple computers are (in my opinion) more reliable hardware; a lot of the appeal to Apple laptops are their simply designed hardware and their durability.<p>However, the opposite point is true: Apple's competitors are not in the software game.

I'm just about to buy a "tablet", its screen is 4.3 inches and it also makes phone calls.<p>People keep asking if the "tablet" market is going to be like the smartphone market or the iPod (i.e. PMP) market. I think it simply <i>is</i> the smartphone market. People like Marco don't want this to be true, because they think Apple has already lost this market. That's why there's so much effort expended trying to desperately to separate the two. It's like the old business school cliche of "what business are you in?". The trains thought they were in the train business, but really they were in the people moving business and got disrupted by aircraft. Tablets and smartphones are just two ways of accessing the web (in its widest sense). At some point we're either going to start calling tablets "phones" or phones "tablets" and the two will merge into a range of devices with no clear transition point.

&#62; But the market for non-iPad tablets is about as big today as it was before the iPad.<p>Citation needed. The original Galaxy Tab sold ~2 million in the first 3 months, the Playbook sold ~250k in the first 3 months. [1]. Were Windows tablets selling that well?<p>[1] - <a href="http://www.bgr.com/2011/05/18/250000-blackberry-playbook-tablets-sold-to-date-rbc-says/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bgr.com/2011/05/18/250000-blackberry-playbook-tab...</a>

self-fulfilling prophecy. These companies set out to be a better iPad, so they choose a few things they think apple got wrong or consumers will really appreciate. Then they make a 7" ipad with an sd slot. Except the UI isn't polished, the materials are cheaper, etc.<p>If you look at the way android started to win in the mobile OS market it's through the sheer number of offerings. Yes, there are some Android phones out there which are blazingly fast or have a great screen. At the end of the day, Android is winning because everyone accepted it as the one thing to use to go after iOS (except HP with the acquisition of Palm).<p>The true value Apple is offering, as many HN readers already understand, but the author of this article does not, is the integrated experience (on top of being the first to market). Apple's integrated experience may be lacking some of the features (for now) that make Android really awesome but the sheer perfection of the things that iOS _does_ do is outstanding. Now let me go back to my android phone...

I'd prefer an Android tablet to an iPad because I use an Android phone, not an iPhone, and I don't feel the need to learn the app ecosystems for two different OSs. There is no Android tablet right now that looks like a good buy, but that will change.

The best bet for an iPad competitor would be someone delivering a standard desktop OS in tablet form, somehow solving the input (keyboard/mouse) issue. At that point you'd be matching Apple's ecosystem with an even bigger one from OSX or Windows.

Two years ago: 'There really isn't much of a "smartphone" market'. See the difference?

Is that a Daring Fireball copycat thing? Trolling with Apple works every time, it seems.

Um Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Their revenue is based almost entirely on hardware sales. They create software and either give it away or sell it cheap in order to sell hardware.