The Teckki Says

In reading that HP folded its tablet after one month, I was shocked that a serious and well-funded competitor faltered so badly. This comes with other fumbles: Samsung misjudged the market. Motorola shot itself in the foot with its' pricing, and Verizons’ decision to charge for initial Wifi access. RIM’s Playbook was reviewed so poorly that recommendations basically said leave it on the shelf. The iPad, which had a year's lead, seems to be getting another. I knew that Apple would continue to lead the pack. What I didn't expect that competitors would be so inept as to yield it so willingly. Despite the fact that these tablets have some things that iPads don't, namely the ability to play Flash videos, USB ports, or SD card slots, by the time competitors come up with a viable and worthy tablet to challenge Apple, it won't matter. Cloud connectivity and storage will make USB and SD cards figure less, and many more websites will convert to HTML5 video to accommodate iPads. Those features currently masquerading as "benefits" will no longer matter.

Why did these other tablets fail so miserably? One reason was the geek factor. Tablets were so much trying to be mini-computers that they missed being what they are - tablets. Tablets were meant to be e-readers, web browsers, photo galleries and video viewers. When Apple first introduced its tablet, it was criticized as not having more "computer-like" features. Apple stood its ground. When Motorola introduced its Xoom, Apple brought out dual cameras and a faster processor. Still no USB or SD Card slot. And definitely no Flash. Apple was roundly criticized by many pundits for not including these features on its second generation device, but Apple couldn't keep the product in stock. Wait times for online orders were over a month, and customers camped overnight outside of stores. Xooms, Playbooks, Galaxy's and Touch Pads were always in stock. If SD slots, USB and Flash mattered, you couldn't tell by the demand of this crop of tablets.

Another reason was the price factor. This showed up in two ways. First, competitor tablets were priced same as iPad pricing. Reviewers howled at this, as Apple products were deemed worthy of premium pricing, while other tablets were thought of as PC-like, and the expectation of commensurate pricing. If the plan to overcome this was to convince purchasers they were getting more features, like SD card slots, USB connectivity and Flash for the same price, it can now be considered a failed strategy. Also, tablet pricing was interspersed with laptop pricing. This brings the obvious comparison of should one purchase a tablet or a laptop, and leads to cannibalization within product lines. Apple suffered no such cannibalization, because its PC's and laptops are generally priced above their tablets. Apple's biggest pricing strategy, however, was forcing competitors into a pricing box in the first place. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE, thought that the first Apple tablets would be around $1000 or more. When Apple announced pricing at half of that for its entry level model, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE was stunned! Since consumers had anticipated a higher price, they didn't need to make choices, they could have their iPad, and money left over.

It remains to be seen when other manufacturers will catch up. In some cases, it doesn’t even seem that they have studied an iPad at all. However, that might be due to patent wars that are going on in technology. But to get it so wrong after a year? I’m not putting a lot of confidence that next year will be any better.