101–110 of 128 posts
is 7" really big enough for a tablet for most people? That's only slightly larger than my phone :/
It's not slight, area grows as a square. It has over twice the screen area of a 4.6" phone. So it's half the size of a 10" tablet, and twice the size of the largest phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The revenue is more users. Users are the air inside the Google zeppelin. Long-term users against a tablet "at cost"? A great deal for Google!
That is definitely a very valid argument in case of Search/Advertising. And to a certain extent, in case of Android, too. But is that a good enough reason to sell hardware at cost? Why not give it away for free, then? That will attract a lot more users. I guess my point is, when you are selling hardware, maybe you need to have a tangible revenue stream rather than just potential ad revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best $200 tablet you can buy is a refurb iPad 1.
The cheapest officially refurbished iPad 1 is $379, and you'd be buying a product with no further major software updates (and possible future app incompatibility).
Four years on we're buying better laptops than ever before and, with the netbook class now more or less dead I still cannot get over the second part of that sentence. It's true though, but I could cry bitter tears over it: when netbooks first arrived on the scene I felt happy like a little elf: small, light, cheap computers made to run Linux? That was exactly what I had been waiting for all these years. And a netbook…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why is one quantum more important than the other? I've owned both. Long story short, things like comics, magazines, non-mobile web, etc are terrible on a 7". Consuming this media often involves lots of tapping and zooming. Its annoying. Two people can sit together and watch a TV show or movie comfortable with a 10" tablet. With a 7" its almost like crowding around someone's phone. Oh, and the 10" opens up this world…
Right: taste dependent. I see what you're saying on some of that, but others just sound ridiculous (e.g. Watching a movie on 10" is bad enough, but sharing the screen? Not in my lifestyle, sorry.) And some of your points (non-mobile web, remote desktop) mostly just amount to "10 inches is closer to a laptop", which prompts the question of why bother with the tablet when you already have a laptop? And the rest just so…
My use case: A4 documents.
I've read arguments claiming fullsize pages can be read from 7" (or that the reflow of pdfs works well). I've never seen anyone do that regularly in real life and don't really expect to.
But sure, if you're rich, retired and only read literature -- not documentation, documents, code, etc... :-)
Four years on we're buying better laptops than ever before and, with the netbook class now more or less dead I still cannot get over the second part of that sentence. It's true though, but I could cry bitter tears over it: when netbooks first arrived on the scene I felt happy like a little elf: small, light, cheap computers made to run Linux? That was exactly what I had been waiting for all these years. And a netbook…
You do realize that you can still get Netbooks, right? They are actually better than they used to be, and if you look you can find the ones sold to schools to run Linux (ie, with great Linux support)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is definitely a very valid argument in case of Search/Advertising. And to a certain extent, in case of Android, too. But is that a good enough reason to sell hardware at cost? Why not give it away for free, then? That will attract a lot more users. I guess my point is, when you are selling hardware, maybe you need to have a tangible revenue stream rather than just potential ad revenue.
I guess it's an economic calculation. Moreover, it would be foolish to assume that consumers are rational agents: I expect that the perceived value and user's attachment to a free tablet would be much lower (again, another study would find the "sweet price". Maybe they found it?).
Just trying to understand what economic reasoning led Google to decide to sell Nexus 7 at cost. I don't get it from where I stand.
Four years on we're buying better laptops than ever before and, with the netbook class now more or less dead I still cannot get over the second part of that sentence. It's true though, but I could cry bitter tears over it: when netbooks first arrived on the scene I felt happy like a little elf: small, light, cheap computers made to run Linux? That was exactly what I had been waiting for all these years. And a netbook…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cheapest officially refurbished iPad 1 is $379, and you'd be buying a product with no further major software updates (and possible future app incompatibility).
So, like most new Android tablets? ;)
And the Android tablets are still cheaper. :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's an economic calculation. Moreover, it would be foolish to assume that consumers are rational agents: I expect that the perceived value and user's attachment to a free tablet would be much lower (again, another study would find the "sweet price". Maybe they found it?).
I'm sure there is a reason; Google doesn't seem to be selling all hardware at cost. Nexus Q at $299 suggests so. Just trying to understand what economic reasoning led Google to decide to sell Nexus 7 at cost. I don't get it from where I stand.
So somewhere Google has a stat that says "A regular user is worth $22 a year to us" or something (more sophisticated) but like that. If those users buy an Apple device it's less and less clear they'll have a path to Google services now.
If they can acquire that consumer "for free" (sell them a device that hooks them into the platform at a wash) then it's a good deal. If they gave it away for free then it would take x number of years to break even on that person. So that $200 or whatever does matter. And Google has a very good idea about what an Android/Google services tablet user is worth to them.