the tablet marketplace
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 01:04:56 +0000
http://www.aakashtablet.com/ubisurfer/index.html
UbiSurfer: "You only need to pay for the device, not the usage, since 1,800 minutes of web access for a full year ... is included in the cost of the device."
If you do the math, that's less than 5 minutes a day.
http://www.aakashtablet.com/aakash/index.html
http://qz.com/26244/how-a-20-tablet-from-india-could-finish-off-pc-makers-educate-billions-and-transform-computing-as-we-know-it/#
http://www.aakashtablet.com/ubislate/index.html
I was interested in the Aakash 2, a $20 tablet from India. It's really about $40, but subsidized by the Indian government for (domestic) sales to students and teachers. It costs the government $13/year to provide textbooks to students, so if the tablet lasts 3 years and they load in digital textbooks, they break even and open up a lot more possibilities. The commercial version, the UbiSlate, might find its way to the US for $50.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/PersonalTech-Updates/The-Aakash-is-back-and-shines-in-sneak-peeks/SP-Article1-932630.aspx
The WiFi-only version will cost the government $41, and will be sold to students at a subsidised $35.
A version with a SIM slot, called UbiSlate, will be available commercially for around $63. DataWind has already been able to line up 3.5 million bookings.
The current order-book is 100,000 units. Eventually, the government plans to buy 5 million units, which could drive prices down to sub-$20 levels, Tuli said.
About cheap tablets in China:http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/15/hardware-is-dead/
the first thing I thought was, "I thought the screen alone would cost more than $45." My next thought was, "This is really bad news for anyone who makes computing hardware."
At these levels there is almost no profit margin left in the hardware business. A $45 tablet is cheap enough to be an impulse purchase at the check-out line in Best Buy. A $45 price puts tablets within reach of a whole host of other activities not traditionally associated with computers. Tablets could be used by waiters in restaurants. By mechanics in auto body shops. By every nurse in a hospital. By pretty much any category of work that today needs a computer but where PCs are too expensive to be deployed. These are also devices built entirely for commercial reasons, no government backing, no academic sponsor, no proof-of-concept.
When I show this tablet to people in the industry, they have universally shared my shock. And then they always ask "Who made it?." My stock answer is "Who cares?" But the truth of it is that I do not know. There was no brand on the box or on the device. I have combed some of the internal documentation and cannot find an answer. This is how far the Shenzhen electronics complex has evolved. The hardware maker literally does not matter. Contract manufacturers can download a reference design from the chip maker and build to suit customer orders. If I had 20,000 friends and an easy way to import these into the US, I would put my own name on it and hand them out as a business cards or Chanukah gifts.
....
I think this leads to an important conclusion: No one can make money selling hardware anymore. The only way to make money with hardware is to sell something else and get consumers to pay for the whole device and experience.
Obviously, Apple sells more than just hardware. It sells iOS. It sells the Apple Brand. It sells the ability to give someone over 60 an iPad and not require nightly IT support calls from that person. It sells a bit of magic. And people will pay $400+ for that.
Amazon is also clearly way ahead on this model. At the Kindle launch event last week, Jeff Bezos highlighted that Amazon does not make money on the Kindle, it makes money on the content it sells on top of the Kindle. There is a growing awareness of this model in the web. For instance, I think Jon Gruber hit the nail on the head in this post on Apple's business model versus Amazon's. Consultancy Vision Mobile also wrote recently about this trend.
[This entry was originally posted as http://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/585997.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]
http://www.aakashtablet.com/ubisurfer/index.html
UbiSurfer: "You only need to pay for the device, not the usage, since 1,800 minutes of web access for a full year ... is included in the cost of the device."
If you do the math, that's less than 5 minutes a day.
http://www.aakashtablet.com/aakash/index.html
http://qz.com/26244/how-a-20-tablet-from-india-could-finish-off-pc-makers-educate-billions-and-transform-computing-as-we-know-it/#
http://www.aakashtablet.com/ubislate/index.html
I was interested in the Aakash 2, a $20 tablet from India. It's really about $40, but subsidized by the Indian government for (domestic) sales to students and teachers. It costs the government $13/year to provide textbooks to students, so if the tablet lasts 3 years and they load in digital textbooks, they break even and open up a lot more possibilities. The commercial version, the UbiSlate, might find its way to the US for $50.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/PersonalTech-Updates/The-Aakash-is-back-and-shines-in-sneak-peeks/SP-Article1-932630.aspx
The WiFi-only version will cost the government $41, and will be sold to students at a subsidised $35.
A version with a SIM slot, called UbiSlate, will be available commercially for around $63. DataWind has already been able to line up 3.5 million bookings.
The current order-book is 100,000 units. Eventually, the government plans to buy 5 million units, which could drive prices down to sub-$20 levels, Tuli said.
About cheap tablets in China:http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/15/hardware-is-dead/
the first thing I thought was, "I thought the screen alone would cost more than $45." My next thought was, "This is really bad news for anyone who makes computing hardware."
At these levels there is almost no profit margin left in the hardware business. A $45 tablet is cheap enough to be an impulse purchase at the check-out line in Best Buy. A $45 price puts tablets within reach of a whole host of other activities not traditionally associated with computers. Tablets could be used by waiters in restaurants. By mechanics in auto body shops. By every nurse in a hospital. By pretty much any category of work that today needs a computer but where PCs are too expensive to be deployed. These are also devices built entirely for commercial reasons, no government backing, no academic sponsor, no proof-of-concept.
When I show this tablet to people in the industry, they have universally shared my shock. And then they always ask "Who made it?." My stock answer is "Who cares?" But the truth of it is that I do not know. There was no brand on the box or on the device. I have combed some of the internal documentation and cannot find an answer. This is how far the Shenzhen electronics complex has evolved. The hardware maker literally does not matter. Contract manufacturers can download a reference design from the chip maker and build to suit customer orders. If I had 20,000 friends and an easy way to import these into the US, I would put my own name on it and hand them out as a business cards or Chanukah gifts.
....
I think this leads to an important conclusion: No one can make money selling hardware anymore. The only way to make money with hardware is to sell something else and get consumers to pay for the whole device and experience.
Obviously, Apple sells more than just hardware. It sells iOS. It sells the Apple Brand. It sells the ability to give someone over 60 an iPad and not require nightly IT support calls from that person. It sells a bit of magic. And people will pay $400+ for that.
Amazon is also clearly way ahead on this model. At the Kindle launch event last week, Jeff Bezos highlighted that Amazon does not make money on the Kindle, it makes money on the content it sells on top of the Kindle. There is a growing awareness of this model in the web. For instance, I think Jon Gruber hit the nail on the head in this post on Apple's business model versus Amazon's. Consultancy Vision Mobile also wrote recently about this trend.
[This entry was originally posted as http://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/585997.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]