Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by mkjj, Sep 15, 2010.
Price revealed by Amazon. £799
Good luck with that one!
Wow!?! if that sticks that's a pretty high price point at $799 plus I'm assuming you're going to have to be tied to a monthly contract because I haven't heard of just a Wi-Fi version..
It does look pretty cool.. I like the augmented reality app, that's pretty nifty.. and it looks like the video conferencing will work over 3g? I'm interested to see how that will work especially if it ends up on AT&T per the latest rumors..
Ah, I just did a quick google search, that 799 price tag is for no contract.. It'll be selling for $200-$400 with the carrier subsidizing..
I wonder where the monthly plan is going to fall? If it goes to AT&T they did away with the unlimited plan or will they still offer it on the galaxy.. hmmm
That's 799 GBP! or $1,168.00 ish (inc tax)
The £799 is in pounds. So, the US Dollar price is over $1200.
Subsidized Android Tablets sold primarily through telecoms will probably not gain much traction.
We posted at almost the same time. Either way, it is definitely not going to be an iPad killer. Also, the carrier subsidy option is also not going to hurt iPad sales. My wifi-only iPad is great. Even though $500 is not cheap, it's surely not $200-400 w/data charges ( and phone? Charges!)
WiFi only here also
That's high compared to other vendors. Expansys are selling at £679.99 (1050 USD).
Still expensive compared with the iPad, since it has a 7" screen (albeit at a slightly higher ppi that the iPad) and 16GB internal storage.
Plus its not even available yet so you can't count of any of these prices.
Depends if Samsung are using Apples $ to £ conversion rate. If they are it'll be around $900
Plus it's running a phone OS that is being shoehorned into a tablet device. Not good.
Price has come down to £679.99 on Amazon UK already!
Just another £200 to go to make it viable then!
I don't see anyone being able to compete too well with Apple in the tablet arena. These other manufacturers just cannot match Apple's economies of scale. Apple is able to offer a higher quality product at a lower price point than its competitors.
The Galaxy tab is smaller, not as high of quality and will probably (guessing here) be $299 subsidized and probably $600 or more unsubsidized, whereas the 16GB 3G iPad is $629. Taking into consideration all factors such as the OS, apps, etc, the iPad is just superior all around, even lacking USB or camera at this point.
I think the same thing is the reason we haven't seen the HP Slate as of yet, or any other serious iPad competitor. If these other companies were to put out a tablet with the same quality (materials and software) it would cost much more than a similar iPad and would almost instantly be a failure. I mean sure there are other tablets out but they don't compare in physical quality.
Totally agree. I think it's premature and potentially false to assume that since Android has been successful as a platform versus iOS in the phone area that it will be successful versus iOS in the tablet area.
I'm interested to see how consumers react to a proliferation of Android-based tablets that are going to be subsidized through data contracts. The fundamental question is whether or not consumers buy tablet-class devices like mobile phones or if they purchase them like computers or other consumer electronics.
If it's the former, Apple will have some serious competition. If it's the latter, which i suspect is true, it looks like it will be quite awhile for iPad to have legitimate competition.
I'm still waiting on Dell, Sony, Asus, Lenovo, Samsung, and Acer to deliver 10" multi-touch tablets running a Google OS priced between $399-$599.
A lot of people are waiting for a nice WiFi-only Android tablet. App access can be either official or unofficial, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd prefer the former.
A big Android draw for me is the Flash support, which works quite well on the Droid Incredible and is very handy to have available.
I'll likely swap out my Mother's iPad for an Android slate with Flash, as then she'll finally be able to see everything our family emails around, such as links to Flickr slideshows and Flip videos.
(She doesn't need a ton of kid apps. She needs to be able to see what all the rest of us can with laptops. E.g. the "real" Internet. So far the iPad has proved to be a disappointment in that respect. Always having to work around its lack of Flash, and its use of tiny icons because it lacks a key to popup menus with text as well.)
If its front camera works with video Skype, that'll be icing.
I don't care what anyone says about iPad or iPhone. Do they even know why iOs devices are so successful? Because...
1. Apple handles both software and hardware
2. APPS APPS APPS
What sells video game consoles? What makes a great brand? Good games and good products. That's why apple is kicking ass.
Samsung Tab comes with Froyo. Google just said froyo is not optimized for Tablets. That means no no no for me. I don't care what samsung says. If software company says no, it means no because they already did test on it.
Tab is going to fail.
Since Samsung appears to be unwilling to give any hint at pricing stateside, let alone be able to say "we are shipping wifi Galaxy Tabs in the United States by Christmas for the price of <$499" leads me to believe they wont. What specifically does "coming soon" mean?
Viewsonic's tablet looks ok if you really want Android and a camera, but still can't beat the $499 barrier:
To me it looks like the combination of the $499 price umbrella, lack of Gingerbread and Chrome right now, and unwillingness of serious OEMs to release really junky hardware or really expensive hardware with a less than optimal software is perpetually delaying this onslaught of Android tablets that has been expected for months now.
For people who just want a great browser, email client, and basic media functionalities, I really want would like to see them have the option of a $399 Android running device that has a super responsive and brilliant display and great battery.
I agree with you - sort of. If your family relies heavily on conveying information through Flash based media, sure, I could see the advantage. But then there's the downside - apart from movies, Flash sucks for touch input devices. It is purely designed to work with traditional input devices (i.e. keyboard and mouse). I think that your mum might be better served with a laptop than a tablet.
Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the internet needing Flash to be "real" or complete - no browser (IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Safari for iOS etc) will ever be able to reproduce the internet without flaw. I often have to switch between two or even three browser in order to have certain websites displayed properly. If anything, your reliance on Flash being enabled by another browser/OS would enhance your experience of the internet. But it would be far from the "real" internet which, until we reach a point of perfect technological congruence, is impossible to experience with any one tool alone.
And another nail in the coffin?
Can the iPad do these?
1) My pockets are for phones, not tablets.
2) Don't give a **** about Flash. Flash has crashed every single browser I've used on multiple platforms.
A "perfect technological congruence" is achieved when their are no competitors in the market place. If 100% of the internet users use one software, there wont be any incomplete webpages built in this world.
Do you want to live in a monopoly? Do you want to live in a totalitarian computer world?
Microsoft almost succeeded in making this "perfect technological congruence: they had 93% of the web browser market share. "Freedom" crying programmers destroyed the "perfect technological congruence".
1) But would'nt it be great if the iPad can do it? It can free up your hand. Hey, you can carry MORE iPads with your free hand!
2) Your using the wrong browser. Also, no need for foul languages. It just increases your blood pressure.