CES 2011: I'm the first to admit that I fall victim to shiny objects at trade shows, and I regularly call every new tablet an iPad Killer. But now, really, I've found it.
OK, it may sound like I'm the boy who cried wolf - but Motorola's new XOOM tablet is poised to become THE best non iPad tablet on the market when it ships later this year.
Why? Well first, it's the first tablet to run on the Honeycomb variant of Android, which offers a variety of cool new capabilities. But the Motorola software load is what makes the real difference. It intelligently anticipates its position, rearranges the interface, and has a quality of finish that you just don't see in most other Android tablets.
The hardware's pretty advanced as well. It'll start out as 3G, but will be software upgradable to 4G, which means you can add faster wireless for free. The 16x10 display shows movies off with ease, and the forward facing 5 megahertz camera means video conferencing will be easy and cool as well.
But don't take my word for it. Check out our video of the XOOM, and then decide for yourself!
BRWatch Video of the Hottest Tablet at CES
We'll have much more from CES as the show progresses. For all the updates, bookmark our CES 2011 special report!
Follow Jim Louderback on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jlouderb
It has a plethora of interesting features such as a swivel camera, rubberized hand grips, replaceable batteries and many more.
It doesn't matter whether something better than an iPad comes out, because your average buyer does not care about the specs. They care about the status the product provides them, and being an Apple buyer makes you a cool kid. I have no doubt that iPads are indeed cool and useful, but I think Apple's 'in' status has a lot to do with the iPad's success.
A lot of people still care what goes on inside a computer, too. A can point to a couple comments on this board that points to that fact, and I know of quite a few computer geeks and technicians who prefer PC's because it's a more open platform.
Apple is just as guilty as any other company of using materials produced via what is practically slave labor in pretty horrible conditions, also. Apple does an excellent job of marketing themselves as producing "sophisticated industrial" products, and there products look cool and futuristic, but it's just that: a marketing approach to make Apple products seem like the way of the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#Labor_practices
Apple products may be more intuitive to use at first, but honestly that is not worth the huge premium that one pays for their products, in my eyes. Sure, iPods look flashy and are easy to use, but is that really worth paying three times the price of a Sansa Sandisk mp3, which functions just as well? I don't think so.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
One device I have no interest in is the iPad. Having been an Apple person for about 20 years there's something about the company and quality of product that's really starting to irk me. It's not about ubiquity and being that "special" person that uses an Apple product. It's an accumulation of small to moderate nuisances over the past several years with my iPhone and MacBook that have colored what was previously a satisfying user experience. Guess I'm just tired of being penned into a box and told by slick designers and boilerplate launchings that "no, really, THIS device is going to change everything. Seriously, we mean it this time." Only to find that I still get the same crashing, freezing, dropping, and general malfunction as before only with a few more pixels with which to play Angry Birds.
I have a speaker stand for my IPad and listen to my music while watching a blazing fire from a free app. When you live in Central NY the idea of a fire helps.
This device could have also been the first replacement for the College Textbook, with features I have described previously. Next step? Internet-based Syllabus leading to independent study and multiple degrees in same time as one now takes. It's coming! On an E-pad near you.
In fact, I'd bet that we wind up with just two devices in our pocket and briefcase. both operating off the same wireless universe, at home or on a place. One, a pad-type device that does everything, and a smaller, Mobile that does everything, at the same time
Convergence AAA (AnyThing, AnyTime, AnyWhere) is just over the horizon. Now, if the FCC and FTC would do their jobs and open the spectrum, reacquire and re-license lower priorty and value spectrum (broadvast T.V. just doesn't need ANY spectrum) force separation of Content and Pipeline(s) force complete transparancy and reasonable Access, we might get what consumers and business deserve; a world leading Internet, at reasonable cost. Win-win for everyone.
When you realize that the spectrum now licensed (and I use that word on purpose) to T.V. networks may still be available to the wireless portion of the spectrum devoted to over-the-air Internet receivable on the myriad of wireless devices (remember that T.V. receiver?) that consumers will have to buy?
The point is that Internet and Digital are "higher value" use of the spectrum, and will be available to every consumer, probably offering more for less cost, and in no way lessen the availability of entertainment and information, in fact increase it.
However, and this is a big one, the FCC and FTC MUST, I say again, MUST force the separation of Content and Broadband pipeline, if market "transparency and competitive access at reasonable cost are going to open up the market to the applications that will make life immesuarably better for those very folks ylou are concerned about. If you want to help, make sure you write/call/email your elected representative(s) to tell them your vote depends on opening up the maketplace. Competition breeds improvement and availablility at less cost; monopolies, like today,reduce service availability and Content choices.
I know which universe I'd rather have.
But now there is a whole range of cool Android phones with a whole range of screen sizes, keyboard formats, features and accessorites. Maybe I think that the Zoom is the coolest one now. But in two years if the latest Motorola isn't the greatest one and I would rather switch to the Samsung or the Toshiba or the HP or thw Dell....I can! And I can keep all my favorite apps and data.
The Apple 2 could have dominated the PC market if they had only licensed the design...but they wouldn't. The Mac could have dominated if they had only licensed the design...but they wouldn't. (And they only managed to come back from obsucurity by adopting Intel architecture and Windows dual booting) Apple could have licensed the iPhone system and Google most likely never would have bothered creating Android in the first place!
As for "Apple's loyal base" what will they do when they have sold their devices to all the yuppies and gay men? Who will be left?
Mind you, it IS easy to use - so I'm happy to get one for my Mom or Aunt. Me, though? I've got the Archos 70 Internet Tablet running Froyo - which does everything the iPad does (except iTunes, which could be either a blessing or a curse), has a 7" touchscreen so it's even more portable than the iPad - and cost $270.
The commenters on this thread are nearly unanimous-- the technology may be superior to the iPad, but without that incomparable slick product design and marketing backbone that Apple enjoys, it reeks of copycat and failure. There's not a marketing team on this planet that could create that branding in the time before this product goes to market.
One reason Apple's products are usually hits is, other manufacturers spend a lot of time and engineering effort trying to make sure their products tick off as many "features" boxes as possible. Apple envisions what it wants its products to do well, and spends all their time and effort making sure they deliver.
Not that I'm not lusting over some of the new Honeycomb tablets. Didja see the Asus EeePad Memo? Android Honeycomb, plus a pressure-sensitive stylus for jotting notes...