iPad Competitors: The Cost is Too Damn High

  • MORE

With the first-gen iPad now starting  at $399 and the new model just $100 more, you'd think that Apple's competitors would take notice and price their tablets accordingly. But you'd be wrong: Instead of listening to consumers, the bigwigs at companies such as Motorola have been channeling Gordon Gecko by not only pricing their products higher than the market leader, but also trying their best to chain customers to long-term, expensive data plans they don't need or want.

Reality check: No sane person wants to spend at least $1,100 over two years (the minimum cost of a subsidized Xoom) for a secondary device. Even selling users on a $600 to $800 one-time purchase is a challenge.

And let's face the facts: Tablets are still secondary devices that everybody wants, but nobody (except vertical industries that use business slates) needs one to make their mobile lives complete. Though some have tried, there's no way people are going to give up their PCs and phones any time soon. You need your notebook to do serious work because a slate alone—or even with a keyboard attachment—simply doesn't offer as robust an experience as what you get with a full OS, high-res screen, and comfy keyboard.

You need your smart phone because it fits easily in your pocket, makes calls, and lets you get the web and e-mail wherever you go. Sure, tablets can do a lot of the things smart phones can, but the larger form factor makes slates unlikely to displace handsets anytime soon. RIM won't even let you get e-mail on the BlackBerry PlayBook unless you tether it to a BlackBerry phone.

So why on earth would you want to pay separately for a data plan on your tablet when you're already paying for smart phone data? Considering that you probably have Wi-Fi access in your home and office and that you might be able to use your phone as a hotspot if you carry your tablet around town, the idea of paying separately for mobile broadband is ludicrous—but it's also a carrier's dream.

Just imagine the ideal Verizon Wireless customer's monthly bill, which includes $80 for 10GB of data on the tablet, $30 for 5GB of data on the phone, and $80 a for 10GB of LTE data on a laptop. That's a total of $190 a month before taxes, fees, and a minimum of $40 on voice service. And you still have your home Internet connection to worry about!

When the iPad came out in 2010, it created demand for a product category—media tablets—that didn't really exist before. You can credit Apple's ecosystem or its mystique for the iPad's success, but the company was smart enough to know that to make its slate anything more than an aspirational product that people drooled over but didn't buy, it would have to be affordable and free of long-term commitments.

Even if you buy an iPad with 3G built in, you can choose to turn the service on and off at your own discretion, making the added cost of the cellular modem a worthwhile add-on even if you only plan to use it on vacation. And with the iPad 2 arriving this week, first-gen iPad owners will have fewer qualms about giving Apple their money again, because they aren't bound by contract to the device they bought last year.

By contrast, Samsung rolled out its Galaxy Tab last fall without a Wi-Fi-only version, forcing users to commit to a carrier just for the privilege of ownership. While some carriers sold  it unsubsidized, I feel sorry for the people that bought this 3G, Android 2.2 device and signed on to use it for two years, knowing that dual-core slates with blazing LTE would be out before their Tabs were even six months old. Will they be carrying their 2010-era Galaxy Tabs with them in 2012 or 2013 when they're still under contract, or will those devices be sitting in a drawer while their owners pay $20 to $50 a month in data fees for a device they don't use anymore?

Fast forward to today and you still can't buy a Wi-Fi-only version of the Galaxy Tab, though T-Mobile is selling a prepaid version for a modest $450, $50 more than the first-gen iPad. Motorola's Xoom will allegedly cost $599 for the Wi-Fi-only version, but so far you can only buy it from Verizon at $599 with contract ($1,114 total over two years with the minimum plan) or $799 without. We don't have final pricing for other upcoming tablets such as the BlackBerry PlayBook, HP TouchPad, and HTC Flyer, but rumors peg at least some of these with starting prices in the $600 to $800 range.

The reason for the huge price difference between Apple and its rivals has been the source of much speculation, but nobody seems to know for sure why the iPad costs less. Some speculate that Apple has superior command of its supply chain and is able to buy components such as screens and flash memory cheaper. Others credit Apple's ability to distribute its products through its own stores for its ability to charge less, as well as negotiate favorable deals with other retailers. (No one wants to undercut Apple itself.)

Whatever the business reason, consumers don't care. They see the most hyped, highly touted device selling for less than $500 and they expect plucky upstart competitors to either offer more functionality for the same price or the same functionality for less money. You can talk to them about the advantages of Android's open ecosystem, the PlayBook's fantastic multitasking, or HP's webOS until you're blue in the face; they're going to see you as overpriced.

So if you're HTC, LG, Motorola, RIM, or Samsung, you have a choice. You can continue selling high-priced products to the few early adopters who will pay anything to get them, or you can find a way to cut prices to reasonable levels, either by reducing your margins or by developing efficiencies. Tying people to data contracts to make your tablet look less expensive simply isn't going to work.

Author Bio
Avram Piltch
Avram Piltch, LAPTOP Online Editorial Director
The official Geeks Geek, as his weekly column is titled, Avram Piltch has guided the editorial and production of Laptopmag.com since 2007. With his technical knowledge and passion for testing, Avram programmed several of LAPTOP's real-world benchmarks, including the LAPTOP Battery Test. He holds a master’s degree in English from NYU.
Avram Piltch, LAPTOP Online Editorial Director on
Add a comment
  • Steve Says:


  • Avram Piltch Says:

    @dstrauss, I think the Nook Color is really the model that should be followed. I get the sense B&N may be taking a loss on the hardware so they can make money on the book sales, but what a great piece of hardware for a reasonable price! I predict that someone who knows how to make things cheap like Acer will produce a $350 or cheaper Honeycomb tablet by the end of year, but will it be too late?

  • dstrauss Says:

    This article is dead on. There is only one Android device postioned to compete, and its manufacturer, Barnes & Noble, doesn't even realize it. I've owned both an iPad and a HP Slate 500, and the Nook Color, when upgraded to Android 2.2, is only competitve because I paid $200 for it (on sale) and did the upgrade myself ("rooting" the Nook and installing Android 2.2 took all of 20 minutes, then 2-3 hours of customizing and installing software). Don't get me wrong, it is no direct threat to iPad nor Slate 500 as it is lower powered and generally less capable to begin with, but it IS where the Android market should BE. Somewhere between $200-$300 for a WiFi only tablet (even if only 7").

    Face facts, Apple has sliced and diced this market. I guaranty that RIM and HP will come in only slightly below Moto and Samsung, and it will spell the death of the Android tablet market. You can extoll all the virtues of the Android OS: open, free, "real" multi-tasking, OR cards (WebOS), OR blackberry compatibility (RIM) - and you will not impact Joe consumer one iota. They can BARELY compete with iPad 1; cost as much or more; and now they are behind iPad 2. This truly has the smell of the MP3 player market all over again - iPad=iPod. Sorry folks...

  • JamesB Says:

    Agreed on tablet use and pricing, for some, albeit I do believe non-media consumption tablets, such as HP Slate and Asus Eee Slate could, potentially replace a laptop...Based on my non-hands-on reviews. My two cents. Nice article.

  • A-lo Says:

    I agree completely. I would love to understand the thinking going on behind the scenes at Samsung, RIM, and Motorola, as they release their products that will have to fight for market share, and yet the price them out of the competition. Since Samsung manufactures some of its own components, I'm hoping they will price their upcoming next gen Galaxy Tab to either match or undercut the iPad2. Now that will start some interesting competition.

  • Geese Says:

    David you make great points but sometimes people want variety though the pricing on most competitors stink. Oh, Shieldbreaker was destroyed by Woundhealer. Shattered into a thousand pieces.

  • filecat13 Says:

    RIM has maintained a lot of things, including clunky keyboards, goofy Web browsers, and obsolescent hardware. I had three Blackberries bite the big one before my two-year contract was up. RIM also maintains a vaporware position rivaling Microsoft's with regard to the PlayBook. It's easy to claim "they would match or better the iPad's pricing" (sorry I corrected your spelling) when the product doesn't exist in the channel yet. These are the same people who claimed the iPad's battery life was impossible. These are the same people who claimed that Android would not threaten their market position.

    As much as I (used to) try to love my Crackberry, it never fulfilled its promise, and both Android and iOS have eclipsed it: Android in sheer numbers, and iOS in sheer profit. To posit that RIM will finally get it right in thePlayBook is betting poor odds against past performance.

  • David Says:

    Considering that Rim has been talking much and delivering nothing, I would say stop with the rim job.

  • James Says:

    You hit it right on. I've been eagerly awaiting for other companies to come out with tablets believing that they'd do so by offering the "same" product for less, or offering a "better" product for the same price. Yet, I have not been able to find any company willing to even attempt to do so and instead are tying their products to ridiculous data plans that I do not need and will NOT buy.

    For that reason, the iPad will be the only tablet I'll buy unless things change drastically with other companies... and in a hurry. Otherwise, once I buy an iPad, I won't be in the market for another for at least a year, and why change to a company that was trying to screw me an other customers in the first place?

  • Dan Humphries Says:

    RIM has been maintaining all along that they would match or better the ipad's pricing. As you say, a lot of pricing info is still in the air as well. And yet you write an article about how high the competition's price is? Stop drinking Apple Juice.

  • David Says:

    "Whatever the business reason, consumers don’t care. They see the most hyped, highly touted device selling for less than $500 and they expect plucky upstart competitors to either offer more functionality for the same price or the same functionality for less money. You can talk to them about the advantages of Android’s open ecosystem, the PlayBook’s fantastic multitasking, or HP’s webOS until you’re blue in the face; they’re going to see you as overpriced."

    Here's your problem. Open ecosystem is not a selling point. WebOS is not a selling point. "Fantastic multitasking" is not a selling point.

    People want to play music and browse. If while browsing, email comes up, switch to that, return to browsing or the ebook and its at the same place. Very few people care if their video is still playing while the READ.

    What can I say about WebOS? Why use it? What does it do better than iOS? Cards? Notifications? You may as well try to sell a car because it has a better check engine light. Not thick enough.

    "Open"? iOS has more covers, docks, accessories and apps than anyone else. That's the consumer definition of open. Being able to run a different virtual keyboard is not a compelling selling point.

    None stands before Shieldbreaker.

Back to top