GottaBeMobile - Is TechCrunch For Real About the Web Tablet? I Don't Think So and Here's Why : Tablet PC & Mobile PC News & Video Reviews, and Tablet PC Forums

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

« SanDisk: Vista and SSD's Don't Mix | Main | What Does the TechCrunch Tablet Mean? »

Is TechCrunch For Real About the Web Tablet? I Don't Think So and Here's Why

- Rob Bushway

The blogosphere and tabletscape is all crazy about Mike Arrington's "Web Tablet for under $200". I think it is a great idea and I hope they are serious, but I don't think that they are. What I do believe, and this is mere speculation, is that Mike is telling everyone that Apple is indeed releasing a web tablet: a larger iPhone or iPod Touch, better known as the Mac Tablet.

Here's why I think the TechCrunch Tablet isn't real:

Mike doesn't tell anyone why he wants one. He just says that he wants an ultra-thin device like the MacBook Air. He also wants it to have a touch screen like the iPhone / iPod Touch. Mike, are you a secret tablet geek and have not told anyone? How would you use it?
Apple had their earnings conference call yesterday, in which they laid out a mystery device. The New York Times speculates it is their Mac Tablet - smaller than a laptop, but larger than an iPhone. ( thanks for the link, Mickey)
The timing of Apple's conference call and TechCrunch's piece is quite ironic
TechCrunch is a news network and conference company. Heading up an effort on open sourcing the development of a web tablet seems totally out of place.
I could be totally wrong here, but in all of Mike's writings, I can't recall seeing him talk about tablets. The sudden need to create a cheap web tablet, again, seems strange.
I believe the $200 price point is Mike's way of saying the Mac Tablet will be cheap and consumer accessible.
He wants a trim OS that turns on instantly. That is there already with the iPhone OS X.
He wants full browser support. Again, it is there with Safari. It is interesting to note that in his main piece, he talks about using FireFox. However, in the comments, Mike also mentions using WebKit as an alternative browser, which is the Mac OS X system framework that is used by Safari.
Many folks I talk to about the iPhone and iPod Touch tell me they would love a bigger version - almost the size of 8 1/2 x 11 or the size of a Kindle.

Again, mere speculation. I'd love to chat with you about your tablet idea, Mike - got time for a podcast?

Technorati Tags: Mac Tablet,Web Tablet,TechCrunch

7/22/2008 9:12 AM MST

Is TechCrunch For Real About the Web Tablet? I Don't Think So and Here's Why Comments [5] | Digg This | del.icio.us | Citations

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:28:16 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)

Interesting concept. Except Arrington is an entrepreneur, so it is not out of the ordinary that he'd start such a project. Or going in the other direction, perhaps he's telling us Nokia is readying a larger Internet tablet. Aside from the size and the price, their tablets are exactly what Arrington describes (and Nokia also has a Webkit-based mobile browser). Plus, I doubt Arrington has any insight into Apple's future, while a sneak peek at Nokia's lineup is more plausible.

Sumocat

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:29:35 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)

bah, call it by its real name, the newton 2.0...

oh wait, his jobesness excommunicated 1.0 as heretical...

turn_self_off

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:57:57 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)

Since Apple charges $200 for the iPhone, I'd imagine they would charge more for the iSlate. However, the real cost of the iPhone is about $1000 per year in use charges, so the sticker price is not of real significance and Apple might sell an iSlate for $200 and just charge $1100 per year in use charges.

It would be terrific if Apple is really doing this. Better iSlate than never.

Mickey Segal

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:38:22 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)

I think Mickey's on to something.

Imagine a current slate (Motion, TabletKiosk, Fujitsu, etc.) where the revenue model sells the device for $200, but each time you fire it up you're locked into "their" software/internet/cell service which charge on a per-use basis. If you end up paying $1000 to $1500 per year for those services on the device and the services only cost the company pennies on the dollar, they've made their profit -- especially if the consumer keeps the device for more than 2 (or 3) years!

I guess I'm weird however; I'd rather pay up front for my hardware, own my software (no fees), and buy my services from a variety of sources.

I just dislike the fee-per-use revenue model. I guess that's why I don't want an iPhone and fail to use all the power of my current cell phone.

Now, if they sold the device for $200 and carged $1000 to $1500 per year for *unlimited* use...yeah, I'd be more likely to buy it.

Scottygu3

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:09:37 AM (Mountain Daylight Time, UTC-06:00)

@Scotty:
I guess you are not the only weird guy out there. I too prefer to pay the full (reasonable) price for a device and then use it at my leisure.
As for "unlimited use" (data/phone) contracts:
1. I would like to have the freedom to use it with the device of my liking. So a contract that I can only use with a dedicated device is not for me - that includes special iPhone plans ...
2. Call me cheap, but $1000 to $1500 seems too expensive for me for even an "unlimited" plan - even if it includes the subsidy for a device - and definitely if I pay full price for the device in the first place.

mw65719

Comments are closed.