Not only is iPad popular, it also has an incredible amount of market penetration in a large variety of industries. You have airlines talking about giving their pilots iPads, you have schools giving their teachers and even students iPads for classroom learning, you have car manufacturers designing iPad docks for their cars with integrated controls... it is extremely unlikely that a competitor is going to be able to dislodge Apple from their leadership position anytime soon.
If I were an Apple competitor, I'd forget about tablets and smartphones and invest all my resources into developing the next "big thing". The reason is simple: Apple cannot be beat in its own game. So the smart thing to do is to innovate a new revolutionary device, something that will create its own category.
I'd say that the only tech company who has the potential for a feat of this magnitude is Google. However, even they seem to lack focus. That's one huge advantage that Apple had: Steve Jobs' extraordinary focus and vision. If you look at Google, you see that they are working on cool projects like self-driving cars and Google Glass, but what they need is a technology that converges these inventions in one physical device. And that's possible only with a visionary who will set a clear and ambitious direction for all the various product teams at Google.
I think there's a ton of room at the bottom. There was a time when DVD players and home computers were out of the reach of the poor or lower middle class. Most (responsible) people can't afford a $500+ tablet, but the promise of tablet computing still applies to them. It's a lie to say that the promise of tablet computing can only be accomplished in a $500+ package. There's tons of room for tablets that are $250 or less - see all the "low end" phone providers that now have Android offerings.
There's room at the bottom in terms of market share, but not in terms of profits. Android has captured a bigger chunk of the market, but Apple is reaping most of the profits (since their devices are high margin) and is therefore in a much better position to innovate or leap on opportunities that come up. I mean, who wouldn't want to sit on a $120+ billion warchest?
What's going to be really interesting is when (if) the "iPad Mini" comes out. There was an article on Ars Technica last month where a reputable analyst claimed Apple found a way to manufacture iPad Minis with the last generation iPad's components. What that means is that even at $250, the device would be extremely high margin. Not only would it allow Apple to lock down the lower market segment, but also result in a huge increase in profits. From a business standpoint it seems like a no-brainer, because a cheap and yet high margin device is not something that other manufacturers can imitate.
Not really. As a consumer, I am perfectly fine with Apple making a lot of money as long as I get a high quality product with superior user experience. The way I look at it is that I am paying a premium for a much better product.
> Google, you see that they are working on cool projects like self-driving cars and Google Glass, but what they need is a technology that converges these inventions in one physical device.
One physical device is unnecessary and seems unwieldy. One unified product offering is what Google needs. Such would be device agnostic.
If I were an Apple competitor, I'd forget about tablets and smartphones and invest all my resources into developing the next "big thing". The reason is simple: Apple cannot be beat in its own game.
With this line of thinking we'd have iPhones and Nokia clones.
With the recent upshot in Android tablet-marketshare, I say you dissmiss too easily.
If I were an Apple competitor, I'd forget about tablets and smartphones and invest all my resources into developing the next "big thing". The reason is simple: Apple cannot be beat in its own game. So the smart thing to do is to innovate a new revolutionary device, something that will create its own category.
I'd say that the only tech company who has the potential for a feat of this magnitude is Google. However, even they seem to lack focus. That's one huge advantage that Apple had: Steve Jobs' extraordinary focus and vision. If you look at Google, you see that they are working on cool projects like self-driving cars and Google Glass, but what they need is a technology that converges these inventions in one physical device. And that's possible only with a visionary who will set a clear and ambitious direction for all the various product teams at Google.