Why a $35 Tablet Would Never Succeed in the U.S.

[beayn]

This estimate of the population with broadband internet access does not include those who have access to it at work. All the call centers surely have broadband.. that's gotta increase the percentage!

 

[Guest]

its very simple , ITs an Indian tablet, Made in india ... thats why they fool not going to buy it ...

 

[eddieroolz]

I'm trying to understand why a $35 tablet for India's poor has to succeed in the US?

 

[zodiacfml]

i agree about the negative criticism on the article. reading it was like an article being done by a teen. it's not the hardware or tech, price, or operating system that immediately determines failure of the device but the experience. we could do that on existing devices where we could base a prediction.

get the device. use it then you'll be able to explain why it will fail, also in what way it will fail, in terms of volume? profit? satisfaction? in addition, predict which customers will find value to this device.

 

[Guest]

Two words sum up the Author's attitude towards this tablet: SOUR GRAPES.
The author's analysis is incorrect on incomes and purchasing power.

Instead of comparing it to some arbitrary 'per capita' number lets look at street costs.

The cost of this tablet is under a tankful of gas (indian prices) and believe me, there are people filling up their car gas tanks EVERY DAY. Another calculation - it is approximately the cost of 4 Pizza Hut Supreme pizzas (and Pizza Hut hasn't shut down in India yet).

Also, BTW, the iPad costs MORE in India than in the US.

So much for 'poor' Indians. (OK, a majority are poor, but even if 10% of the population is your targeted market, that is still 115 Million people)

 

[nottheking]

I can see where the article's coming from, to be honest. Would a tablet like this priced at $60US sell at least some units? I'm sure it would; people will buy ANYTHING. Would it be an "iPad killer," or even become a major force in the tablet market on a par with like the Galaxy Tab or Kindle Fire stand to become? I'm pretty sure the answer we'd see from the market is a resounding "no."

Sure, at first the IDEA of a hyper-cheap tablet sounds novel, and I'm sure would sell a good number of units. But the truth is, it's much like the "envisioned reviews" would state: people would find that, with such a low-resolution display and anemic processor, there really wasn't all that much that Americans/Europeans like doing on touchscreen machines that they could accomplish on the Aakash.

To put this more into perspective, we should remember that most people, even NON-enthusiasts, and even non-enthusiasts who aren't rich, now have smartphones: thanks to the iPhone-initiated land-grab, smartphones are the only phones that are agressively-marketted, and as a result, are the only ones that are truly selling in droves; you can even get smartphones available with cheap pre-paid services. And even the supposedly non-smart phones still in circulation boast a variety of smartphone features, including cameras, bluetooth, 3G connectivity, a web browser, and support for downloaded aps. If we don't have that, then we may have our MP3 player.

In reality, a lot of us don't specifically need a tablet PC to ACCOMPLISH many of the tasks at all; merely so that they can be more convenient. It tends to be the larger screen that's the draw, hence why there's so many questions on the utility of a 7-inch (or smaller) tablet. After all, in many of these cases, why would we buy something that doesn't offer significant ENOUGH gains over what most of us already get from our phones?

maigo pretty much got it right; when we look at a portable tech device, we have our own expectations that don't match up with what users in India would have. Those of us who went for an iPad or Galaxy Tab, or are pining for a Kindle Fire, are expecting that when we buy it, we'll be watching YouTube videos on it, play Angry Birds or similar games, listen to our music, watch our shows, etc. And unfortunately, a 366 MHz CPU isn't going to be doing any of those things; even 240p YouTube is well beyond its reach. (for what it's worth, the iPad's YouTube ap appears to be limited to 480p, even for a dual-core A5)

For $60US, few of us westerners are likely not going to be willing to splash out for a device that checks our email and browses basic webpages without rich content; that's what our phones are for. Without the ability for video or other rich content, the larger screen loses most of its meaning.

[citation][nom]anony2004[/nom]here an 'average' smartphone will cost you around $250-$300 not $600. Six hundred dollars here can fetch you a 32GB iPhone 4 and that certainly isn't average...[/citation]
This is (more or less) close to identical to prices in the USA. I'm not sure where Mr. Gruener got his figures... Or maybe he just forgot that there's smartphones OTHER than the iPhone, Galaxy, and other high-end pieces.

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]The freaking Kindle is less powerful and sells like hotcakes and cost a ton more.[/citation]
Um, the Kindle packs a 532 MHz ARM-11, (vs. a 366 MHz CPU, which, at best, would likely equal an ARM-11 clock-for-clock) and current models are definitely more potent, and possess a higher-resolution display. It also doesn't really cost "a ton more;" the thing's available for $109US right now, vs. an "estimated" $60US.

[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]37 percent is too high. I had DSL in Alsaka which ran at around 14.4kb speed. The government uses the same funny numbers here that they use for unemployment.[/citation]
No, I'd say that 37% isn't too high a number to state. Sure, in ALASKA that may seem high if you're out in the middle of nowhere... But remember that most people live closer to at least minor cities, and most of Alaksa's residents reside around Anchorage anyway. Contrast this to elsewhere, where seemingly EVERYONE has broadband.

[citation][nom]nezzymighty[/nom]You can sell used clothing (underwear) on eBay in the US for that much. Many eat out at lunch at $10-15 per shot per day. Many rack up extra $50-60 on their cell phone per month because they went over their allotted plan time. And you think this product won't sell in the US?[/citation]
Your argument was well-thought and written. (I couldn't vote it up because it was already at +20) However, this, along with some other points, bear looking at more deeply to understand...

With something like eating it, it's largely a "mindless consumption" expenditure; people think nothing of spending $6US to buy a cappucino they'll throw out half-finished 15 minutes later. This isn't because $5US is seen as an insignificant expenditure; it's because they're so USED to the idea of spending this money on coffee; they don't think about it. This goes even moreso for things like overage charges on their cell phone bills: they literally aren't forking over the money when they're using those extra megabytes.

Were these consumers actively, conciously thinking about these expenditures around the time that they incurred them, and actually thinking about them in perspective, they almost certainly wouldn't be as willing to incur these charges. However, it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees, so few actually take to heart the idea that all these expenses add up.

Buying an electronics device, though, isn't something you're doing every single day; it's a unique, exceptional purchase. As a result, it DOES get subjected to the usual, thoughtful scrutiny that many of us here are applying to various things we see online. This may be sad, but it's really true. It's why we see cases like this PennyArcade. (warning: language)

Furthermore, while some logic would suggest that "poorer families" might purchase the device, there's also pretty sound logic to suggest that they wouldn't even really be consumers of even inexpensive electronic gadgets; that below a certain threshold such families would simply not commonly purchase such devices at all.

 

[HolyCrusader]

The quality of this article is very poor, and reflects very badly on both the writer and this website.

The topic of this article is, "Why a $35 Tablet Would Never Succeed in the U.S."., and at first glance, there's a significant amount of research in the article. However once you actually start reading, the flaws become quickly apparent. First, all of the supporting research and data helps support why the Tablet may succeed in India, but that is not the title of this article, and is ultimately a smokescreen to hide the author's presumptuous reasons.

While the author may or may not be correct in his argument, the way this was presented only makes me think that this was written on behest of more established tablet makers that fear what such a low-cost tablet would do to their market share.

 

[shishir]

Agree totally with nezzymighty!
Toms guide, stop crying like babies! Do you mind surfing wireless internet at such a paltry price?

 

[rajaawad23]

that is too cheap, the company will not make enough money out of them to pay apple for when they get sued by them for being a device with a screen or something which makes it identical to the ipad.

 

[Guest]

Someone said that the name Aakash sounds funny, like a nonsense made-up name. Actually, it means the sky in various Indian languages.