The 4 Biggest Tablet Blunders Besides HP Touchpad
HP's TouchPad is just the latest casualty in the tablet business. Here are four others that came before it.
When the HP TouchPad went on a $99 fire sale late last week, selling an estimated 350,000 units within a few hours, some members of the media speculated that the tablet's price could have been an issue. That argument was a bit silly since HP had already incurred an estimated bill of materials well above $200 per unit. A high per-unit cost and serious lack of sales combined to eventually lead the company to seek a means of simply getting rid of all its produced units before having to call 1-800-GOT-JUNK. If you were offered a genuine Armani suit for $99, you may very likely buy it, even if you didn't need it. Why? Because you'd know you were getting it a rock-bottom price. The same reasoning applies to the $99 TouchPad. (Though it could be argued which would actually see more use - the suit or the TouchPad?)
The recent high sales numbers alone are unlikely to change HP's mind about the TouchPad's eventual fate. The fact those sales numbers only came during an apparent fire sale does not mean that the TouchPad was simply a good tablet at the wrong price. What it does mean, however, is that it was an ill-conceived product missing critical features that could have made it a big success at its original price. One such critical feature is platform support, which by itself qualifies the TouchPad as one of the five biggest tablet blunders in my mind. Here are four other product ideas that suffered from buyer neglect and eventually ended up in the black hole of computer history.
Palm Foleo (2007)
The Palm Foleo had all the genes to make it a success, including the vision of Jeff Hawkins, the inventor of the Palm Pilot PDA. It was essentially the original idea for the netbook, but it was announced at a time when end-users had no idea why they might need a netbook. With some imagination, it carried some aspects found in the Blackberry Playbook as well, as it was meant to be a companion for Palm's Treo smartphones. However, when it was announced in 2007, the Foleo was a device no one could really explain. It was Palm’s idea to sell you a $500 device that would extend your smartphone to a compact, notebook-sized device featuring a keyboard and 10" screen.
The Foleo looked like a small laptop computer, but it didn’t act like one. Its functionality and usage were much closer to that of a smartphone, only you couldn’t actually use it to make any calls. As an extension for your Treo smartphone, you could have used the Foleo's keyboard and the 10” screen to view presentations or create documents instead of using your (smaller) Treo. The Foleo did have built-in Wi-Fi, so you could have also browsed the web. That is, if there were a hotspot available. (Hotspots were not nearly as common in 2007 as they are today.) The biggest problem was that you could not have used the smart phone as a modem, and the Foleo lacked a built-in cellular chip of its own. That killed the entire possibility of using it as an ultra-mobile device for business trips.
Palm pulled the plug on the Foleo days before the first devices would have shipped.
UMPC (2006)
The UMPC was supposed to be the device that would reshape mobile computing by placing an Internet-connected computer in your pocket. Whether in the subway or climbing Mount Everest, the Internet was always at arm's length. Well, that was the idea put forth by Microsoft's marketing department. Unfortunately, they forgot to ask UMPC engineers (especially Intel's engineers) whether that was even possible. It was not.
The UMPC ended up as an underpowered, heavy, expensive and clumsy computer no one outside the markets of vertical industries and field engineers really wanted. (Even some of those engineers are now replacing UMPCs with modern tablets.) They had funny keyboards, heavy hard drives, a rather useless version of Windows XP (a multimedia-only "AVS mode" ), and price tags which ranged from $1000 on the lower end (such as the Samsung Q1) to more than $2000 at the high-end (the OQO Model 01 or 01+ from [now defunct] OQO). The UMPC came to epitomize the classic example of marketing ignoring reality. While you can still buy UMPCs today, this segment is now irrelevant.
3Com Audrey (2001)
I have a secret love affair with Audrey. It was the first tablet I ever used (Apple's Newton/MessagePad and early PDAs aside). I still believe it was an idea that was somehow misguided by the dotcom boom and the (all too common at the time) belief that anything bearing an AOL label would sell for at least $500.
Audrey was a retro-designed, kitchen-white 5-inch tablet with an antenna (no wireless Internet access, though) that came accompanied by a small, matching kitchen-white wireless keyboard. With no battery, it required a wired power adapter, so it wasn't operationally portable. Portability (and flexibility) further suffered because it also required a phone line to establish a 56 Kbps dial-up Internet connection.
The Audrey was sold for only seven months, reportedly selling fewer than 500 units in the U.S. My antique-looking personal Audrey still looks appropriate when sitting next to my Kerbango Internet radio. (Kerbango was the first company to produce Internet radios not requiring a separate computer. Kerbango was acquired by 3Com in 2000, and later shut down.)
Be Webpad (2000)
Listing the Be Webpad as a failure is somewhat cruel as it was the only original tablet released during the dotcom boom that got everything right. (Right as far as technologies available at the time are concerned.) However, it missed the big opportunity Apple took advantage of with the iPad. How much more of a blunder can it be?
Personally, I believe that Apple considered failed webpads when creating the iPad by looking into the past at products that worked, and those that didn't. The Be pad may have be one particular product Apple examined very carefully. (Interestingly, Be's CEO at the time, Jean-Louis Gassee, was a former Apple executive.) The Be Webpad was lightweight, had Wi-Fi built-in, a battery, as well as a TFT touchscreen and even BeIA (Be Inc.'s multimedia operating system that was streamlined for use on Internet appliances). Unfortunately, Be had no financial backing and only months to find someone who would license BeIA in order to get the Be Webpad out into the market. Sony was their only customer, who did license BeIA for its eVilla Internet appliance. Sadly, eVilla Internet appliances never shipped in significant numbers.
If there is a predecessor of the modern tablet, then it surely is the Be Webpad.
- ZyXEL Intros $250 Dual-Band 450Mbps N Router
- Facebook Introduces Photo Tagging Approval Process
- Samsung: We're Going to be #1 in Phone Markets
- Sony Says Games Will Read Emotions in 10 Years
- Google Previews Google TV Add-on for the Android SDK
- Chrome Browser to Get a New Bookmark Manager
- Samsung Cites Sci-Fi Movies, TV in Apple Tablet Defence
- McAfee: Android Malware Surges 76 Percent in Q2
- Dutch Court Issues Europe-wide Ban on Galaxy S, S2
- Front Camera, Skype Confirmed for WP7.5 Mango
- 13-Year-Old Boy Improves Solar Panel Efficiency 50%
- This HP TouchPad Came With Android Already Installed
- Report: RIM's New BlackBerrys to Run Android Apps
- Someday, Charge Your Smartphone Simply By Walking
- EA Says PS Vita Has Better Chance Than Nintendo 3DS
- Sony Working on Special Subtitle Glasses for Movies
- United Airlines Invests in 11,000 iPads
- Next Anonymous Target is Wall Street, But Not Online
- Mozilla Seeking to Nuke Native APIs Using HTML5
As we can see here, dear iSheep, Apple did NOT invent the tablet
U mad?
I'll need to replace my old trusty Windows XP laptop soon, with another PC laptop. Sorry, but tablets for all their hype, are still just toys.
Of course Apple didn't invent tablets. They just stopped tablets from being useless.
Also, the Touchpad was a good start, could have been great, and had a huge developer push from HP before they canned it. So what else was it missing? A rear camera for the 2 times you might every take a picture with your tablet (probably within the first hour of using it).
This wolfgang idiot never ceases to amaze me.
As we can see here, dear iSheep, Apple did NOT invent the tablet U mad?
Maybe a friend in high school told you Apple invented the tablets.
Great article, aside from the UMPC, I haven't heard about the others.
Tablet is even older than that going back to the 70's.
Note to manufactures : You can TELL THE CUSTOMER THAT THE TABLET IS THEIR NEXT PC ALL YOU WANT...But the customer WILL NOT BUY INTO THAT FANTASY!
My next PC will be.........a PC.
Thought the UMPC were cool, didn't get one though of course but still. For the money you could probably get a better computer.
But of it though with ideas of smartphones, tablets, and the like they seem to have faded out unlike the rest. Still though more then not its always something.
But might be on the idea though. 2006 the performance of anything around what was out probably would be variant and have "format" issues probably at times.
Can say everything is made the same, but I dought it sometimes. Alot of interest these days and how something gets its interest.
My next PC will be another desktop - probably with an I5 or maybe Phenom II X4. It will have a nice video card for sure. I just never caught the laptop, tablet, and mobile fever. I have a Netbook and use it sparingly when I travel. And I still have not invested in mac products i.e. no mac book, no ipod, :-).
Excuse me, what the HELL are "vertical industries"??
Personally the best all the way around tablet was the compaq tc 1100. Not only does it come with a detachable keyboard and optical drive but can be used in pure slate like modern tablets but also was upgradable when it came to ram and storage.
Of course Apple didn't invent tablets. They just stopped tablets from being useless
I still find them useless.
an underpowered laptop with no keyboard, mouse, or power to do much more than what a laptop 5 years ago could do..and you pay MORE for it for these lack of input/function/power ability...I just cannot see a point in it.
sure its easier to update your facebook page from it letting people know what your doing while looking trendy and clueless carrying around a crippled laptop on the go, than to do so on a phone...
but beyond that, between my work PC time and personal PC time daily, I have YET to think "man this would be so much easier with a tablet."
Correction - Well, sort of...
Palm Foleo (2007)
UMPC (2006)
3Com Audrey (2001)
Be Webpad (2000)
Newton (1993) (official name was MessagePad) Considered Apple's biggest flop.
The Newton's main capabilities of the device was its communications and organizational features. It could fax messages, send e-mail, had applications to organize names, dates, phone numbers, etc, printing, wireless paging and perhaps the most important of all it could supposedly read and recognize handwritten words on the screen. The Newton's astronomical $ 1000 price tag, poor handwriting recognition, large size...pushed it towards failure.
Arguably, some may say the Newton wasn't technically a Tablet. Maybe not. But I feel its certainly worth mentioning.
As we can see here, dear iSheep, Apple did NOT invent the tablet U mad?
Of course they didn't. Everyone should know that.. However, they were the first to make it a finanical success, work for the masses, and give it a clear purpose. Mobile technology(due to various reasons) just isn't where it would need to be to make a real PC mobile yet.. Although man I wish they could/would.
So no.. We aren't mad. U bitter?
..sure its easier to update your facebook page..
There you go. You already see part of the reason. It's for content consumption. I'm sorry you just refuse to acknowledge it as a valid product. Other people can, and have. Nothing really wrong with that of course. For example, some people don't have smartphones because they don't need them. For them, the dumb phone is king.. Not to mention the battery life on those things, is incredible compared to smartphones. To each, their own. I don't have one yet, and the only purpose it will be filling, for me, will be with college work(notes, books, etc), as well as couch-based movie watching, and internet browsing.. For which, it will work much better than a bulky laptop(in my opinion at least)
Maybe: WebOS had no market penetration. So HP engineered a huge stunt to get WebOS into the hands of people who normally wouldn't try such a thing. Take a big loss on the sale of these things, but see it as an advertising expense when WebOS is suddenly popular.
(No, I'm not paranoid, and I'm not serious)
To each, their own. I don't have one yet, and the only purpose it will be filling, for me, will be with college work(notes, books, etc), as well as couch-based movie watching, and internet browsing.. For which, it will work much better than a bulky laptop(in my opinion at least)
so a small tiny screen that you can hold for a few hundred bucks, is better than a 30 something inch TV with wireless built in, with a wireless keyboard and mouse for the same price? to me, if im spending a few hundred bucks, I MUCH prefer to be able to kick back on the couch, wirelessly access my entire movie/documents/pdf files on my home network, and enjoy it on a 1080p large screen, than spend that cash on stating at a 9" screen in my hands.
if I need something mobile, I want something with more power than my wristwatch for the price it demands.
and its not "You already see part of the reason. It's for content consumption." I see no USE for it, as in paying a few hundred bucks to be able to do something on a smaller, less powerful, limited device as a "step backwards".
if that's the case, then I see "a reason" for owning a horse, as it has a 'use' in saving me gas prices, even though its more maintenance, less versatile, and less powerful in carrying than my truck.
you cannot claim a use for an item as viable, and making the cost justified, when there is other options with more versatility for the same price.
As we can see here, dear iSheep, Apple did NOT invent the tablet U mad?
No, they didnt make the first tablet ever.. Just the first truly successful tablet that actually created the entire market that is allowing others to start actually making money selling tablets..
so a small tiny screen that you can hold for a few hundred bucks, is better than a 30 something inch TV with wireless built in, with a wireless keyboard and mouse for the same price? to me, if im spending a few hundred bucks, I MUCH prefer to be able to kick back on the couch, wirelessly access my entire movie/documents/pdf files on my home network, and enjoy it on a 1080p large screen, than spend that cash on stating at a 9" screen in my hands. if I need something mobile, I want something with more power than my wristwatch for the price it demands.and its not "You already see part of the reason. It's for content consumption." I see no USE for it, as in paying a few hundred bucks to be able to do something on a smaller, less powerful, limited device as a "step backwards". if that's the case, then I see "a reason" for owning a horse, as it has a 'use' in saving me gas prices, even though its more maintenance, less versatile, and less powerful in carrying than my truck.you cannot claim a use for an item as viable, and making the cost justified, when there is other options with more versatility for the same price.
First off, yes, the tiny screen is better for my purposes, than a TV as I don't want to have to crank my neck to one side, or lay on one side, just to watch a movie. I can sit there all relaxed, over the whole couch, or lay on my back, and position that screen right in front of me, or in whatever position is the most comfortable for me at that exact moment in time. Sometimes, my TV is better, like when I have many people over.. but not when its just me.. And it's cheaper power wise(same thing compared to my PC.) which makes my wallet happy. Not to mention I don't want to deal with a remote, let alone a much bigger remote, and a mouse, in addition to the remote. I don't want all that crap. You might, but not me. Also, I could use it to display a recipe to me, while I am cooking something new.. And I sure as hell ain't gonna drag my tv into the room to do that, nor would I want to focus on a even smaller smartphone screen to read.
And as i would only use it for watching movies, and taking notes, and misc other things along the way.. Exactly how much power do I need exactly?!?! I don't need (OVER) 9000(!!!!!?!?!) megagigahertz to watch movies, read books, and take notes. A tablet, for me, fits those needs perfectly. I would need to adjust, or accept minor inconveniences for a TV with wireless, or a laptop, or any other form factor out to date that I can think of. I don't want to adjust to it, but it, to me. And remotes.. God I hate remotes.. Now you might not be bothered by such things, but I am, and that makes a tablet viable, for me. And for alot of people it seems. Now, there are some people that just want one for status, or just because, or for apparently no reason at all... And while it would be stupid of me to mimic their actions, with their reasoning(in my eyes).. I'm not, and that is their money, not mine.. They can spend it however they want
Unless you can come up with something better than your TV option(can you?)... I can actually justify a tablet. I'm waiting.
...if that's the case, then I see "a reason" for owning a horse, as it has a 'use' in saving me gas prices, even though its more maintenance, less versatile, and less powerful in carrying than my truck.
And as for this.. Try and convince me the experience of going horseback riding, is without value.. Or better yet, try to convince women to agree with you ;P Everything, absolutely, everything, has a place where it absolutely shines.. Tablets have theirs.. And Horses have that romance shit on lock-down, lol.
I did, $400for a $99 laptop with the bottom half ripped off, discreet video removed, and the sound quality of an alarm clock speaker..not sure how else I can express that "paying more for less" is a bad thing.
and for the argument "how much power do I need exactly" sure you don't need all that power, but if you can buy all that power for x amount, or spend that same amount of money for 1/10th of that power..how is the latter option a good call?
say Lowes had a 1/2 horse cordless drill for $99 bucks, and one that could barely screw in a drywall screw for $99 bucks. who in the right mind would go "I don't need the extra power, the less powerful one, is a better deal". just because its electronics doesn't mean the "value to power ratio" isn't applicable to it also.
not saying I wouldn't get one as a play toy...or that people FIND a use for them,but until the price comes into the "gadget toy' range of $100 bucks for one that doesn't slow to a crawl running more than 3 applications at once, its an overpriced, gimmicky gadget that has no real purpose other than "paying more money for the convenience of having less power on hand".
hell for 400 bucks I could hire a guy to hold a pdf and read it to me, or transcript whatever notes I want to take while I lay on the couch if that's all I needed a tablet for.
but to each their own, 400 bucks to save from walking 10 feet to the PC, or reaching for a smart phone to type something, or 400 bucks to do what a $50 portal DVD player can do seems a bit carefree on your purchasing ideas.
but as your said its thier own money, people still pay the extra cost at walmart for a crappy PC for the "convenience" of not having to put one together for the same price. doesn't mean I don't see them as wasting money also.
And as for this.. Try and convince me the experience of going horseback riding, is without value.. Or better yet, try to convince women to agree with you ;P Everything, absolutely, everything, has a place where it absolutely shines.. Tablets have theirs.. And Horses have that romance shit on lock-down, lol.
depends, my wife hates horses, or the bumpy, random shitting while its walking, ride they give. a decent car with AC, good suspension, and a nice sounding stereo to play her craptastic 80's music is much more of a turn on to her than a horse.
so in that view, different strokes, different folks. you keep the horse and tablet, Ill drive my gas hog of a car with my PC at home. we will both be content with what we have is best for our own interests at hand
As the owner of both the iPad and iPad 2, I just received my Fire sale Touchpad and I have applied the homebrew patches and such that have made this an awesome device - at least as fast as the iPads. HP just had it bloated with too much logging crap.
This is my first WebOS device and I am really enjoying it. The community have made it that much better.
For $100-$150, this is a no brainer. Even if you just wanted to use it as a digital photo frame, it's IPS screen is unmatched for that purpose alone. I may be selling the iPad depending on the next few days.
I did, $400for a $99 laptop with the bottom half ripped off, discreet video removed, and the sound quality of an alarm clock speaker..not sure how else I can express that "paying more for less" is a bad thing.and for the argument "how much power do I need exactly" sure you don't need all that power, but if you can buy all that power for x amount, or spend that same amount of money for 1/10th of that power..how is the latter option a good call? say Lowes had a 1/2 horse cordless drill for $99 bucks, and one that could barely screw in a drywall screw for $99 bucks. who in the right mind would go "I don't need the extra power, the less powerful one, is a better deal". just because its electronics doesn't mean the "value to power ratio" isn't applicable to it also.not saying I wouldn't get one as a play toy...or that people FIND a use for them,but until the price comes into the "gadget toy' range of $100 bucks for one that doesn't slow to a crawl running more than 3 applications at once, its an overpriced, gimmicky gadget that has no real purpose other than "paying more money for the convenience of having less power on hand".hell for 400 bucks I could hire a guy to hold a pdf and read it to me, or transcript whatever notes I want to take while I lay on the couch if that's all I needed a tablet for.but to each their own, 400 bucks to save from walking 10 feet to the PC, or reaching for a smart phone to type something, or 400 bucks to do what a $50 portal DVD player can do seems a bit carefree on your purchasing ideas.but as your said its thier own money, people still pay the extra cost at walmart for a crappy PC for the "convenience" of not having to put one together for the same price. doesn't mean I don't see them as wasting money also.
The 1/2 horse cordless drill example would be better if you weren't comparing a drill, to another drill. o.O Perhaps if you said a 1/2 horse drill, and one that was 1/6th horse, but it was finger mountable. The regular drill would work for most applications, but there are some scenarios where a tiny drill, would be amazing, as it could get into places where the normal drill wouldn't.. Like removing a screw from a crazy angle from inside an engine, or the like.
But I would agree with you on the walmart PC
depends, my wife hates horses, or the bumpy, random shitting while its walking, ride they give. a decent car with AC, good suspension, and a nice sounding stereo to play her craptastic 80's music is much more of a turn on to her than a horse.so in that view, different strokes, different folks. you keep the horse and tablet, Ill drive my gas hog of a car with my PC at home. we will both be content with what we have is best for our own interests at hand
Hahaha, random shitting everywhere.. Agreed agreed. Different strokes. That's all I was trying to say, but simpler.
Warlock, pointless arguing with as I was in the same frame of mind as you. Complete waste of money imho. Now I own a Xoom, and wife has a Galaxy. My PC only gets used when I game and my wifes laptop site idle most of the time since she has gotten her Galaxy.
Not to mention the educational stuff we are doing with the kids.
Why did I get it if I thought they were a waste of time and money. I'm a gadgety guy and had to have one. Now I see the benefits and the potential.
Tablets are not ready to replace a PC/laptop just yet, but in two or three more generations they will. Don't forget you can hook these up to monitor/tv and use wireless keyboard/mouse. Add in an full featured office suite with a little more power/storage and these will be a force to be reckon with. They're just about there now.
Throw in EA or other gaming company to take full advantage of a unified gaming platform, and the sky is the limit with theses things. Could say more, but I think it's pointless with you.
OEM's do need to work on pricing though.
Later
no not arguing that point sting. Im sure some people have found a use for them they didnt realize they had.
got one at work that other than booting it, seeing what it had on it, play with it a bit..I haven't found a real use for it (myself).
think its just a difference of what level a user needs a PC for.
none have a good dameware/rdp usage to use as a control for a real server, and most of what i do wont run on a tablet.
none of the game I like to play would even think about running on one above 1-2fps and if they did the screen size isn't viable for it. Photoshop on one isn't an option, cant use it to call people or talk on TS or such..other than reading mail, which I can do on my phone if I REALLY need to get an urgent mail that cant wait until I get to a PC. I really haven't had a reason to take the one we have at work out of the drawer after the "new gadget" smell wore off.
why I said 400 bucks for a device just to read mail and surf the web is a bit steep. they knock them down to around $100 or so, I might get 2 for my kids to pound around on to update their FB, or check their mail.
I see it as if you can replace your PC with a tablet, it wasn't that you need a tablet, its that you never need a PC really to start with
As we can see here, dear iSheep, Apple did NOT invent the tablet U mad?
Not not mad, just perplexed by the iGnorant people like you that keep posting this crap because you can stand the iPad is the best seller that it is and would rather gnaw off your arm than admit that Apple got it right.
AFAIK, the very first tablet was National semiconductors concept, the "WebPad", back in 1998
, they had the right idea,but the hardware wasn't ready yet - needed better integration (smaller ICs) for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Flash RAM
AFAIK, Natiomal Semiconductor developed the concept of the tablet with their "WebPad" back in 1997/98
Hardware wasn't ready yet - needed higher levels of integration to fit in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, enough FLASH RAM, etc.
ps - Apple was VERY interested, I suspect iPad is a direct descendent of the WebPad
Apple also discovered the fire and the wheel and they made life on Earth possible.
Reading this, it occurs to me that these failed predecessors to the iPad came at the wrong time. Technology just wasn't mature enough to produce something usable during the early 2000s.