Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best Buy Seeing HP TouchPad Sell-Through Rate of Under 10%
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I signed up as an HP WebOS developer and HP expects developers to pony up too many dollars up front. Many of us are small one or two developer businesses and I personally don't have the money to throw at something just to try it. If I am going to spend the time to learn the API, they could offer a better deal on hardware. HP expects you to already have multiple apps developed before they give any significant break on hardware price.
Of course, Apple offers no hardware discount and charges to be a developer. That's the difference between a successful device in the marketplace with customers vs. something that has little marketshare and few customers (e.g. WebOS devices). Hello... HP?
They're not going to get any worthy competition from HP. If you've owned an HP product and had issues with it like me, you'd understand.
Their customer service is a joke, even at the highest levels. After the VERY rigid 14-day return window, you can't walk into an HP Store and have someone take care of you and ship it away for repair... No, your first point of contact is a person at a call center in Bangalore reading from a card. Once they're done wasting your time on hold, you get to ship the product in ON YOUR OWN DIME. They at least send you a box.. Golly how nice of them!
My "warranty repair" was embarrassing: It came back in a dirty bag with scratches all over the surface and stripped screws on the inside. Three rungs up the customer service ladder had me in San Jose with a man who was literally yelling at ME (and thus me yelling right back) before I had heard enough, said "go **** yourself" and hung up the phone.
Just one more complaint for the BBB, and one less customer for HP products.
I give Apple a lot of crap, but those jokers at HP don't stand a chance at "competing" with them. Their only hope is to sucker in a handful of customers who are new to them to make a quick buck off a new product.
...And judging by sales numbers... Mission Accomplished!
Hmm, this seems almost like the exact reverse from my experience and I have worked with technical support for both Apple and HP (the same company provides the phone support for them in my country)
Support eligibility:
HP: No official limit on how long support is provided for a product.
Apple: 30 days or three years with the expensive AppleCare. A very expensive per-case fee is also available.
Warranty and service options:
HP: Free pick-up, service and return of in-warranty products
Apple: No Apple Stores in my country, you have to bring the product to an AASP yourself. How you get it to the AASP is your problem (and there are remote locations in my country that are 70+ km from the nearest AASP). The only exception is for desktop products with AppleCare, they get pick-up and return.
My country also has three years consumer law, which means that a product that had defects from the start that manifests themselves within three years has to be repaired or replaced for free.
At HP we basically granted this no questions asked instead of arguing with the customer (side note: I once called Acer on behalf of my mother and they even recommended me to claim this for an out-of-warranty failed HARD DRIVE without me even mentioning it first) while Apple demands that the product is inspected by one of their own AASP's and their word is the final word on the matter.
And those AASP, bah, way to often are they unaware of Apple's policies, give customers incorrect information, blabb to customers about internal, confidential procedures, set expectations way to high, don't even know how to repair the products etc. And they're supposed to be authorized by Apple...
Sorry to just pick up your post - so tell me now: How do you feel about the news, that Apple's EU-wide injunction is NOT VALID. Yeah - it's not posted here, as it may dry out the RDF:
Check here
Oh - and look at this shameless UI copy called Honeycomb. Face it - iPad is a fashion victim stuff. As are tablets in general. There is no post PC era.
Face it - iPhone5 has to be a blast, or Apple will be loosing customers big style. In my household there will be a iPhone5 for my not so tech savy wife. I'll go with whatever Nokia presents on WP7 or the Optimus 3D within the next months.
I'm no tablet guy - but if I'd ever get a tablet you can rest assured that it will not be an iPad - as Honeycomb runs circles around it. And that's why Apple has to pull all these dirty legal tricks - to keep your RDF up.
Go educate yourself and play with a GalaxyTab, Acer Iconia or LG OptimusPad. And then start again how the iPad will be the be-all-end-all of tablets. It won't. Get over it!
On topic: I just believe that this extremely shows how little market there is for tablets. Most people don't need it - and those who do rather get that fashionable, magical iPad.
Well, here I go again,
I've said it before,any tablet without the APP Store= FAIL, NO ONE will ever come close.
ITunes was the foreshadower of the App Store, soon, IOS and OSX, as well as iTunes and the App Store will be one,no one will have anything close. Apple is poised to take over the Computer market,leaving everyone in the dust, including Microsoft. Their stock is poised for 500, and beyond.
I've said it before,any tablet without the APP Store= FAIL, NO ONE will ever come close.
ITunes was the foreshadower of the App Store, soon, IOS and OSX, as well as iTunes and the App Store will be one,no one will have anything close. Apple is poised to take over the Computer market,leaving everyone in the dust, including Microsoft. Their stock is poised for 500, and beyond.
Thankfully, theres a to-do list for that...
To Do List
1. Apple needs an LCD/E-ink dual screen for future ipads
2. apple needs to release a cheaper ipad (299.99-329.99) about the size of a BN nook color
3. amass an e-book collection comparable to amazon... or flat out buy amazon.com
4. gain textbook support of all major publishers
5. competitors die off
Last edited:
Riddle me this:
Exactly which competition "forced" Apple to come up with the first iPhone way back in 2007?
Exactly which competition made Apple shift its focus from Macs/computers to phones and tablets?
Again, I have to ask: which competition convinced Steve Jobs that Apple HAD to enter the phone market and Apple HAD to create the tablet market?
Microsoft and its OEM partners.
Microsoft and its OEM partners.
Microsoft and its OEM partners.
Proof ? There you go :
I've said it before,any tablet without the APP Store= FAIL, NO ONE will ever come close.
ITunes was the foreshadower of the App Store, soon, IOS and OSX, as well as iTunes and the App Store will be one,no one will have anything close. Apple is poised to take over the Computer market,leaving everyone in the dust, including Microsoft. Their stock is poised for 500, and beyond.
I agree. It's more about the ecosystem than anything else.
If I was Samsung or HP and wanted to compete with the iPad, I'd spend most of the money on getting exclusive high quality apps developed for my tablet. Port popular 3rd party software brands, push software with way more functionality than Pages or Garageband, get games on it that aren't $1 flash ripoffs, create apps that seamlessly integrate it into the corporate workflow. Basically do all the things Apple is neglecting because they're content to push volume when it comes to apps.
Then again, Samsung and HP have little experience creating software so whatever
Is Google the new IBM, is Ice Cream Sandwich the new OS/2?
I fear Google will find themselves in a very difficult position with this one. By open-sourcing Android, effectively they no longer control 2.x. They can not stop it from being available and they can not stop it from being used. Furthermore, as it is open source, anybody can develop it in their own direction (i.e. fork it).
Consider the following examples from PC history:
In the early '80s there were dozens of incompatible PCs out there. None was made by IBM, which was a major player in the mainframe market, and wanted a slice of the PC market. They brought out a PC at a low price point after a short development time and achieved a dominant market share. They achieved this by using overwhelmingly off the shelf hardware and 3rd party software (MS DOS in particular). This dominant position and weakly controlled architecture allowed any number of clones into the market. Companies like Compaq reverse engineered the small number of non-standard components, bought everything else off the shelf, including the OS, and marketed a 100% IBM compatible computer, at a lower price. Realising they were losing market share, IBM decided to switch to a new OS, namely OS/2, effectively shutting out the cheap clones and regaining market share. Instead what happened was the large installed user base of old IBM machines and clones remained dominant, and OS/2 failed to gain any market share. IBM is now no longer even in the PC business (sold to Lenovo).
In the second half of the '90s, apart from a few Mac hold outs, pretty much every PC sold ran Windows. We all knew that Windows was a load of rubbish ('95, '98 and particularly ME), so when newer versions came out, everyone upgraded to the new version. When a well established, stable, usable version was finally achieved with XP, development slowed, and it became dominant. When MS tried to get everyone to move on to the next version, Vista, and now Windows 7, a very large number of people had no desire to move on, and because of the large installed user base of XP, it remains the dominant OS. If a software developer wants to sell their software, they have to make it work with XP.
So what does this have to do with Android? At present, Google is in a position like IBM was at the beginning of the 1990s. They do not control the hardware (the standard Android phone is not a concept controlled by Google), and they do not control the OS (because it's open source, anybody can do whatever they want with 2.x). OEMs like 2.x because they can control and customise the OS in ways that suit them. Even if a large number of new phones come out with 4.x on them, the user base will still be dominated by 2.x users (the Windows XP problem, exacerbated by the fact that a significant number of current handsets can not be upgraded without the users rooting them). Developers will therefore need to continue to support 2.x in their apps if they want to reach the bulk of the user base.
The problem is this: Google can not force an upgrade from 2.3, in the same way that IBM could not force an upgrade to OS/2. Because it is open source, OEMs can continue to install 2.3 (and modify it as much as they like, effectively forking Android), and there is nothing Google can do to prevent this. More importantly, the talk of adding restrictions to how OEMs and networks are allowed to implement 4.x provides a positive disincentive to the OEMs adopting it. Old users won't (in many cases can't) upgrade, so developers continue to support the old standard. OEMs lose commercial freedom by upgrading, and the need to support the existing user base severely limits the uptake of new functionality by developers (diluting the "pull" factors for users to upgrade).
The net result here is either further fragmentation (several forks of Android), stagnation (everyone sticks with 2.3 or 100% compatibles) or Google backs down on its attempts to enforce user experience (by open sourcing new versions). None of these is particularly good for the end user, IMO.
I fear Google will find themselves in a very difficult position with this one. By open-sourcing Android, effectively they no longer control 2.x. They can not stop it from being available and they can not stop it from being used. Furthermore, as it is open source, anybody can develop it in their own direction (i.e. fork it).
Consider the following examples from PC history:
In the early '80s there were dozens of incompatible PCs out there. None was made by IBM, which was a major player in the mainframe market, and wanted a slice of the PC market. They brought out a PC at a low price point after a short development time and achieved a dominant market share. They achieved this by using overwhelmingly off the shelf hardware and 3rd party software (MS DOS in particular). This dominant position and weakly controlled architecture allowed any number of clones into the market. Companies like Compaq reverse engineered the small number of non-standard components, bought everything else off the shelf, including the OS, and marketed a 100% IBM compatible computer, at a lower price. Realising they were losing market share, IBM decided to switch to a new OS, namely OS/2, effectively shutting out the cheap clones and regaining market share. Instead what happened was the large installed user base of old IBM machines and clones remained dominant, and OS/2 failed to gain any market share. IBM is now no longer even in the PC business (sold to Lenovo).
In the second half of the '90s, apart from a few Mac hold outs, pretty much every PC sold ran Windows. We all knew that Windows was a load of rubbish ('95, '98 and particularly ME), so when newer versions came out, everyone upgraded to the new version. When a well established, stable, usable version was finally achieved with XP, development slowed, and it became dominant. When MS tried to get everyone to move on to the next version, Vista, and now Windows 7, a very large number of people had no desire to move on, and because of the large installed user base of XP, it remains the dominant OS. If a software developer wants to sell their software, they have to make it work with XP.
So what does this have to do with Android? At present, Google is in a position like IBM was at the beginning of the 1990s. They do not control the hardware (the standard Android phone is not a concept controlled by Google), and they do not control the OS (because it's open source, anybody can do whatever they want with 2.x). OEMs like 2.x because they can control and customise the OS in ways that suit them. Even if a large number of new phones come out with 4.x on them, the user base will still be dominated by 2.x users (the Windows XP problem, exacerbated by the fact that a significant number of current handsets can not be upgraded without the users rooting them). Developers will therefore need to continue to support 2.x in their apps if they want to reach the bulk of the user base.
The problem is this: Google can not force an upgrade from 2.3, in the same way that IBM could not force an upgrade to OS/2. Because it is open source, OEMs can continue to install 2.3 (and modify it as much as they like, effectively forking Android), and there is nothing Google can do to prevent this. More importantly, the talk of adding restrictions to how OEMs and networks are allowed to implement 4.x provides a positive disincentive to the OEMs adopting it. Old users won't (in many cases can't) upgrade, so developers continue to support the old standard. OEMs lose commercial freedom by upgrading, and the need to support the existing user base severely limits the uptake of new functionality by developers (diluting the "pull" factors for users to upgrade).
The net result here is either further fragmentation (several forks of Android), stagnation (everyone sticks with 2.3 or 100% compatibles) or Google backs down on its attempts to enforce user experience (by open sourcing new versions). None of these is particularly good for the end user, IMO.
Last edited:
i think one of the problems is that if people are going to spend 500 they might as well get an iPad.... thats how my spending goes..... if i am going to spend 500 on a tablet I'm going to get an iPad.... if I'm going to spen 200 on a phone I'm going to get an iPhone. if i am going to spend 1k on a computer I'm going to get a mac.
For example... for people who buy the cheaper laptops 200-400 they get what they want for that price... but it makes no sense to pay top dollar for a phone and not get a iPhone.....and it makes no sense to pay top dollar and not get an iPad i think this is where apple trumps... with the iphone and iPad... the competition feels like it has to make there product the same price of the iPad or iPhone.. which is the downfall of the product itself....lol...
For example... for people who buy the cheaper laptops 200-400 they get what they want for that price... but it makes no sense to pay top dollar for a phone and not get a iPhone.....and it makes no sense to pay top dollar and not get an iPad i think this is where apple trumps... with the iphone and iPad... the competition feels like it has to make there product the same price of the iPad or iPhone.. which is the downfall of the product itself....lol...
You think and you do, but others don't. Not for phones or computers at least. Sony sells Vaios for as much or more than Apple does Macbooks. Motorola, Samsung, HTC, LG, RIM all have phones priced the same if not more than Apple's, yet all these devices sell pretty well.
The problem with WebOS/Android tablets is marketing/eco-system. The iPad is just well established, these newcomers aren't as well known and establish and thus are facing difficulty in the market. This could very well end up in a big exit for all players except Apple in the tablet market.
But what you miss is that, historically, that turned out to be the first "War" and we are currently in the 2nd "World War" if you will. Microsoft hung its hat on making software for everyone else's hardware, and offering no substantial hardware of their own. Now, people are making hardware that can run Linux, Google, or Apple products (and plenty more). Microsoft won round one a decade ago, but now it is wallowing in failed products like former Vista, the Zune and more. XBox has been their only real success (despite the embarrassing RROD), and that faces increasing pressure from Nintendo and Sony as well as the growing capabilities of hand-held gaming. Who sells more phones, Apple or MS, . . . . more laptops, more tablets, more desktops, more music players? Ask Steve that same question today, his answer may be different then the one you drag up from 15 years ago. That's like the dinosaur age in the world of electronics.
Correction, how little market there is for tablets that are not iPads. It *is* however more a market of "want" then "need", which could be said about most consumer tech (or at least a large % of the features on most tech).
Still waiting to see these "circles" Honeycomb runs around anything, though.
I'm not missing anything. Apple has milked the Mac for all its worth over the last 10 years, and the 2nd War you refer to is exactly what Steve Jobs meant : "The next great thing". The Post-PC era. IE, the PC wars are done, Microsoft has won, let them have the PC platform and the "desktop/laptop" market.
So my reply is very apt. Microsoft and its OEM partners are those that forced Apple to move into a new market, the tablet and phone market as it stands. The guy wanted to know which competition did it, I provided him with his answers, and the proof for it.
I think you're the one that's missing the whole point behind that quote.
Ummm, actually they don't. Apple still has 90% market share of all Premium PC's ($1,000 or greater) sold in the US. They are literally trouncing all competition in the "Vaio" market/price range. You can find multiple sources reporting this number.
Profit share, not market share. Quite the difference there lad.
That article is just wrong in how it interprets the numbers.Make it $200 and I'll pick one up. It'll give my daughter something to play with so she'll leave my iPad alone.
I agree. Not all of them, probably, but if sales are this weak then I expect a lot of the competitors to give up.
Profit share, not market share. Quite the difference there lad.
I thought it was revenue share that was widely reported, not profits.
Do you have a link that indicates profit?
B
It could only be missed if Apple had left the PC market. Have you been to an Apple Store lately? As in my recent post, 90% of all PC's valued over $1,000 are sold by Apple. So arguing MS has won a market for which they don't even make a product is my point. But we can disagree, that's cool.
----------
Profit share, not market share. Quite the difference there lad.
You are simply incorrect on that point. Multiple sources: 90% of the market of all US PC's sold in the US over $1,000.
I think the non iPad tablet manufacturers have been too greedy with pricing from the start. People expect an Apple device to be priced at the upper end of a market. But when people see the likes of Acer, Motorola, RIM, HP and Asus charging pretty much the same as apple, model for model, then all that happens is they make the iPad look good value. And that's down to Apple's aggressive pricing of iPads IMO, they knew the others would struggle to make a profitable tablet for the same retail price, especially with their tiny revenue from content purchase. Hell they could sell iPads at half the price and still make a huge wedge from the app store.
I mean we have the Sony S1 and S2 launching next month, and they are one of the few brands that normally price themselves in same ballpark as Apple, I personally think if any of the android tablets can make a dent at the same pricepoint it will be the S1, well more of a scratch than a dent.
I mean we have the Sony S1 and S2 launching next month, and they are one of the few brands that normally price themselves in same ballpark as Apple, I personally think if any of the android tablets can make a dent at the same pricepoint it will be the S1, well more of a scratch than a dent.
Agreed. I'm puzzled by those that still claim the tablet is a fad. Apple has sold tens of millions of these things worldwide, soon to be hundreds of millions. That's not a fad or something cool, that's an evolution.
Want vs need? Ok, I'll buy that but I can't believe how much the iPad has suited, even changed my lifestyle. I rarely watch television anymore, I'm reading more than I ever have now from scads of different books to my fill of world news. I can keep in constant touch with the night shift I manage, all on the same device.
I still prefer to do spreadsheets, etc on my iMac but the iPad can do pretty much everything else and I'm sure it will continue to grow in usability.
No, this is not a fad or just a cool thing, this is progress.