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"?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
iPad sales will eat into sales of both desktop computers and laptops. Not all people need a desktop computer to check e-mail and browse the web. An iPad is cheaper than many desktops and very mobile, which may be a bonus. A lot of people also demand similarly simple uses with mobility. If all you'll do is to check your e-mail and browse the web, the iPad may be the notebook for you.
I think he meant it's a real competitor for developers and geeks who are looking to buy a tablet. Mainstream buyers aren't going to respond to a sales pitch of "no rooting is necessary! All that’s involved is installing a different device driver and then a new Home launcher!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
2) It’s not a very bright screen, like the iPad.
But if you intend to do a lot of reading, this is a plus.
No, it's not. On the iPad you can adjust the brightness of the screen directly in the iBooks app if you want. But when you want a brighter screen for anything else, you can have it.
Do you have any evidence that the brightness of a fully-on iPad screen “hurts eyes”?
* * *
The human visual system adapts to the level of illumination it is looking at, so the times when eyes “hurt” are basically only when going from being dark-adapted to suddenly looking at something bright: for example, going from a darkened movie theater out into a sunny day. If you turn an iPad on in a completely darkened room, it might seem bright when first looked at (even this is not going to do any lasting damage, and is just a temporary annoyance), but if you spend more than a few minutes reading, your eyes will adapt to whatever its brightness is, and it shouldn't really be a problem.
> The human visual system adapts to the level of illumination it is looking at
Anecdotally false. On really bright summer days (and on sunny days in the winter with a lot of snow), outdoors are too bright for my visual system. I have to squint or my eyes will hurt, no matter how long I stay outside to adapt.
Anecdotally this is true for at least some of the people I know as well.
The fact that bright light can still annoy you just shows that there is an upper limit (and there is a lower one too, obviously) -- not that it doesn't work.
You’re absolutely right. I didn’t intend to imply that excessively bright stimuli (such as when the ground is snow or concrete or sand and the sun is directly overhead), couldn’t be too bright even when adapted as far as possible.
What I meant (and should have stated more precisely/clearly, not using the word “only”) was rather that, at the intensity of an iPad screen, adaptation should make any hurting stop. The iPad screen is several orders of magnitude dimmer than the brightest sunny days. Light adaptation takes us pretty darn far.
What the fuck? You're reading this on a screen right now. You and everyone else reading this thread likely read text from LCD screens for at least half of your waking hours!
What about a tablet formfactor suddenly makes backlit LCD screens completely unbearable?
I find reading on LCDs really quite unpleasant. I tolerate them because I have to for working, but I would never choose to read a book or other lengthy static content on them.
What about a tablet formfactor suddenly makes backlit LCD screens completely unbearable?
we're talking iPad here. I haven't used one in direct sunlight, only in a bar one evening, but I do have an iPod touch and new Macbook Pro with glass (or mirror) display. Few downsides to Steve's obsession with glass:
- as I said, no matter how bright is backlight glass becomes mirror in sunlight (M̦̆̆BP is mirror even in low light)
- thus backlight has to be driven at very high power, regardless of conditions
- baclights' low setting is still much higher than on similar non-glass devices which makes said devices painful on the eye in the dark (same applies to my HTC EVO, especially for you Apple fanboys)
The iPad (and iPhone 4) use a new type of screen with IPS technology. [1] I find it to be much nicer on the eyes than a regular display. It also works really well in direct sunlight, as long as you don't reflect the sun directly into your eyes. Sort of like reading a glossy magazine outdoors.
Well I'll be getting a cheap Android tablet eventually for stuff that the iPad simply is too expensive for. For example to make a kind of dashboard out of it, or sticking it to the fridge.
Not every tablet needs to compete on all the same aspects as the iPad.
This argument is getting lost in semantics. What does "compete" mean in this instance? Does Kia compete with Lexus? They both make cars, but I doubt anyone looking at an RX350 ever ended up in a Sportage.
I'd argue "compete" should mean that someone looking for an iPad might end up buying the competing device instead.
True enough, but not everyone needs (pr wants, considering price) a Lexus, some people only need and want a Kia, as long as it meets certain requirements.
However, in the market today, for all practical purposes, almost all you can get in the tablet space is the Lexus (iPad), when a lot of people actually want a Kia (in this case the Pandigital Novel).
So as time goes on, this is definitely relevant to Apple. I wouldn't classify it as a "threat" quite yet, but over time products like this will at the very least remove a great deal of their pricing power.
And, of course, Apple relies on the image of a refined taste, so its customers will have the illusion that by having an iPad, they are on the same league as those who get driven around in Maybachs.
That's the difference between a mature and a young market.
In the earlier days of motoring, the Kia equivalent would have competed with Lexus. No one would have known, for example, whether Lexus is luxury, Kia is budget or both.
The fact that you've heard of an iPad makes it significantly more likely you would choose it over the competitors even in a Best Buy. There have been mp3 players that were better than the iPod throughout pretty much it's entire existence, and they sat right next to the iPods at Best Buy and Wal-mart. They didn't put a dent in iPod sales at all. The only one that was wildly successful was the Sandisk Sansa, and the price/feature differential was such that saying it competes with the iPod is like saying Kia competes with Ferrari.
It'll be the same with these two tablets. People may buy the $200 thing because it's cheaper. Some (maybe even myself) might buy it because it's hackable. But nobody who wants an iPad will buy this instead, therefore they don't really "compete" by any meaningful usage of the word.
The first thing my dad says when I bought an iPad into my house was "hey was that that Apple thing? Pad something?" It surprised me that he even heard of it, given we're living in Thailand.
I take it you've never worked at a major electronics retailer. People will drop several thousand dollars on impulse if a slick sales person does a catchy demo.
Why is the onus on me to prove it is one way or another?
The information is available online. Do you really think people walk into Best Buys before they do their research? Perhaps if money is no object. But for most people, it is, and therefore research is pretty imperative.
I do most of my 'research' by browsing in shops. I often go into places like Best Buys, Frys, looking for 'stuff I probably want'.
Also most people have credit cards. Most people often don't worry about money when purchasing things. They worry later when they're in debt.
The threshold is different for everyone, but I would say that $200 is below the threshold it makes sense to bother researching all that much if it looks like it might be useful. No point spending a couple of hours, extra petrol etc to "save" a few $.
Totally agreed. When I was shopping for a netbook I often saw people in stores who wanted a netbook, asked the store employee what they should buy, and then bought one. The same goes for camera's. Why should this be different for tablets?
Looking at the top free/paid apps is a pretty good strategy, search, or word of mouth. The App Store promotes exploration by having good descriptions/screenshots, categorizations, colorful icons, clean text, etc. It's almost automatic for me to pop into the App Store to see what's new almost every time I pickup my iPad.
Ok, so supposedly this is a "real competitor" for the iPad, but the author lists the following downsides:
1) It’s a resistive screen.
2) It’s not a very bright screen, like the iPad.
3) It’s not a blazing fast CPU.
4) It’s limited for video.
5) It will be heavier than most eInk devices.
6) There’s no 3G, it’s WiFi-only.
Here's why these matter.
1) There is a very good reason no one uses resistive touch for devices intended to be used with your finger. The experience is horrible. You're better off trying to use your fingernail than you are your finger, and that's just awkward.
2) From the photos (and they might just be bad photos) the screen looks find for black & white, but muddy and washed out in color.
3) So responsiveness will suffer when running the full version of Android
4) TILT
5) This hasn't really been a problem for the iPad, but the iPad doesn't suffer from the cumulative negative effects listed here.
6) Not a big problem, IMO. A lot of people bought the WiFi iPad, and for good reason. If you're going to have a 3G data connection, it should probably be in the form of a MiFi or something similar.
Here's the biggest problem of all, items one, two, three, four add up to a lousy experience, and experience is everything. Sure, people might buy it once, but they won't use it if the experience sucks, and they won't buy another. The shame of the matter is that they may condemn tablets in general, rather than understand the attribution as I've listed it above.
With regard to point 1, my N900 has a resistive screen, and it feels almost exactly like an iphone (except I can use a stylus to click on tiny links on web pages instead of having to zoom).
You're crazy. I've used an N900 and it is nothing like an iPhone. Responsiveness is terrible- clicks sometimes take 2 or 3 attempts to register, and even when they do register the software takes half a second to respond, so you end up with this awkward use that goes something like "did I click it? I think I clicked it, let me click it again."
The iPhone is instantly responsive to any touch, and when you get used to using a multi-touch device, you really can't go back to using a resistive screen. I felt like it was 1995 and I was using an original Palm Pilot.
Hobbyists/tinkerers probably wouldn't consider an iPad because of who they are. That puts this device in a different market segment. Despite the fact that this device has similar features and form factor to the iPad, this device and the iPad aren't really competing for the same customers.
The CPU isn't that fast, and the screen is resistive. User experience is going to suck so, so hard on this thing, even if you ignore the fact that it isn't a "real" Android tablet until, y'know, the installed OS is hacked upon.
I love the line "All that’s involved is installing a different device driver and then a new Home launcher!" 99% of the population will respond with, "huh?" and then stop considering it.
I hope they sell enough to stay in business and make a bit of money, but really, this is a niche product compared to the iPad. And that's saying something.
7" is such a ridiculous screen size. It's too big to fit in your pocket, too small to be a compelling tablet.
You'd be much better off with an iPod Touch than this thing. It's faster, runs the latest software, has a proper touch screen, fits in your pocket, and is overall is a much higher quality of software and hardware.
I really wish there was an iPod Touch equivalent Android device, but so far there isn't. And there won't be an iPad equivalent until Google develops a proper tablet OS, with its own tablet UI guidelines and SDKs to make it happen (rumored to be Android 3.0). But that obviously won't prevent manufacturers from rushing out devices before the OS is ready. Buyer beware.
(spit take) Heh... resistive screen and slow CPU. The year 2005 called and wants its N800 back.
Until the competitors really start to care about excellence, Apple will continue to dominate. I say this not as a particular Apple fan, but out of frustration with "open" alternatives I'd like to use that just f*cking blow compared to the benchmark Apple has set.
I mean you're trying to sell me a super-smartphone (HTC Evo) with shitty battery life? In 2010? what the hell?
I talked to a Pandigital rep back in May about whether this platform was open and got this response:
Future versions of this product will be able to take advantage of Android applications. At this time w/ the ifirmware version at launch, the first Pandigital Novel eReaders are not designed to support additional Android applications.
Get back to us once it's actually on sale and we can buy one. It seems everyone other than Apple is keen to announce products but then aren't so great at ever releasing them.
You can discount this one if you like because it is a home-brew fix up.
But when the first 10"+ screened Android tablets come out from quality manufacturers, they will give Apple a run for their money. I hear there are a number of such devices being held back for a Fall launch for the Christmas purchasing season.
If I could buy a similarly speced + quality finished tablet to my iPad that ran Android I'd switch in an instant.
Actually, although I don't think it's a real competitor, the Bed, Bath & Beyond ad had it listed for $169 with a $20 mail in rebate. Use one of the many 20% off any single item coupons that they mail you, and you can buy this for $135.20, plus the mail in rebate you end up with it for only around $115.20.
When the price is under $100, which should be soon, it might be a fun little hacker toy to put in interesting places, like glued to the front of the fridge, in the back of the headrest in your car, etc.
Pandigital stuff also tends to end up at Kohl's, which always has double or triple discounts in play at certain times, especially if you have their charge card.
ok, if I understand well this is a competitor, smaller, slower with an inferior screen and touch technology and you have to (easily but still...) change its software to support those features given it's not build for it.
The only advantages being cheaper (I would hope so given the specs!), running Android (debatable) and using an SD card for storage.
2) It’s Android — which you can now make your own apps for.
I'm guessing my five year old niece, who enjoys playing games on the iPad, won't be purchasing this tablet to drop her own game on the Android market. Or, the grandmothers who own iPads - I don't think they've been clamoring to develop some bomb ass apps, if only they didn't have to learn that pesky Obj C.
Not saying that all grandmothers or five year olds can't code - just that Apple is selling an experience, one that many people enjoy. Give a person an iPad and this, and see which one they enjoy using more. Resistive screens? A huge impact on experience...
"User testing has been done mainly in schools with groups that included sixth graders, high school girls, nursing students and university undergraduates who are not computer science majors."
The 6-inch, 800x600 e-ink readers are now at 150 USD (Borders, Amazon, etc.). Some with SD and Bluetooth included. A bit more for touch screens (Sony?).
So, battery life and readability versus color and Wi-Fi.
Come on, this is from a manufacturer of digital photo frames. It's target market has some overlap with that of the iPad, so it's definitely a competitor, but the headline makes it sounds like it's gonna be a major alternative.
Having said that, this looks like a pretty cool device. I've been thinking about rooting my nook, but this would be an even better target. If it's fast enough for PDF display, it would a nice reference tool, and in my opinion the only way to get a decent book reader is for some third party to make one. I haven't seen a single one that has a decent text layout algorithm.
The "problem" with the iPad is that at this size and resolution, the web pages themselves look pretty astonishing, so there's less need to get a reformatted version as an app. And the iPhone 4 and its technological advances almost make me want to wait for a 2G device. So a gadget like this would be the perfect stop-gap solution for me. No iPad killer, but an iPad postponer…
What's the criteria for something being a "real" competitor?
This device provides functionality which is broadly comparable with the iPad, in the same way as many netbooks, the Kindle, the Nook other eBook readers and a whole bunch of other devices.
How comparable they are is debatable but are they competitors, in as much as is it possible that people will buy one of them instead of an iPad to fulfil one or more needs an iPad could have fulfilled.
But how come this is a "real" competitor when the others aren't? If anything I'd suggest that the "real" competitors are the ones I can go out and buy and use now and where people are doing just that, rather than an unlaunched device I'd need to mod.
Sounds more like a competitor to the other eink readers. All I want is a good eink reader anyway. I don't care about videos, touch-screen, internet, 3G...just give me an eink reader with ample memory. I think the Nook wins in that case...
Was there really the need for all those exclamation marks throughout this article?
"...three of them!", "Android tablet!", "No rooting is involved!", "...no rooting is necessary!", "But does that really matter?!", "Where are you going to match that?!" (etc)
Seriously, this article would have sounded a lot more convincing without them.
Aside from this, it would be interesting to know what the user-experience would be. I can see that the specs aren't as high-end as the iPad, but that might be a first-phase thing.
I give it the ultimate libertarian venture: Good luck with your startup, dawg.
The biggest obstacle to tablet computing doesn't seem to be the price, it's convincing the market that your product us worthwhile. Tablet PCs have existed for years now with a variety of price points. The price is not the main selling point.
However one very useful thing this tablet can do that the iPad cannot is serve as a notebook (because it has a resistive and not a capacitive screen). I'm a student and I would love to have a cheap portable device for taking electronic notes in class; this tablet looks excellent for that.
That looks disgusting. Just the green-gray(?!) gradient made me squirm. And after that list of cons... really, what's left? The price? You get what you pay for.
In any case, my bullshit detector comes on full force whenever it encounters so many exclamation marks.
why do people keep saying an LCD screen is an 'e-reader'. Completely missing the point. Calling e-ink 'crappy' and then telling me to read books on the same type of screen as the monitors sitting in front of me is stupid. You wouldn't read on a computer screen, and you won't seriously read on an LCD monitor no matter how small it is.
If your use case is to read books, e-ink is for you, all these e-readers with superfluous extra features remind me of the first GPS I got, it had SD card support to play MP3's and Movies but sucked at navigation and had a crap GPS signal. I never used the extra features, and always got lost.
I don't know whether this is it quite yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to everyone else's tablets coming out soon. I love my MacBook but I'm not interested in the closedness and restrictions of the iOS systems.
To me, it's not a real competitor. Just looking at the photographs solidifies that I am not in the market that these guys are targeting. I'm willing to bet that a lot of iPad users would agree.
One thing I haven't been able to do on the iPad yet is overclock (speed up without making the audio sqeaky) video lectures. Might come to Android tablets first if VLC does a port to Android.
I wouldn't call it a "real" competitor until the device launches. Until then it's in the same realm has the HP Slate and the other forthcoming Android tablets.
it is the OS that makes the device... a super-responsive touch screen also helps.
of the the many touch devices i have come across, nothing compares to the responsiveness of an iPad or iPhone/iPodTouch.
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"?