[ryannielsen]

Shoddy at best? iPad 2 ships on the 11th, with an enormous portfolio of apps. Do you think that's worth nothing?

I'm betting the average consumer cares about four things:

- How the product feels in the store. (Is it solid and how responsive is it?)

- What they can do with it. (What apps can I run?)

- Who's recommending the product. (What does the NYT say? What do my friends say?)

- Price. (Can I afford this?)

On which of those things does Xoom beat iPad or iPad 2? Who will walk into a store and see the Xoom next to an iPad or iPad 2 and say: I'm gonna buy the Xoom, even though it costs more, doesn't run the apps my friends are talking about, and isn't recommended by anyone I know! Hell, I'll go out on a limb and just guess, since I've held neither a Xoom or iPad 2, that the iPad 2 feels better in my hands. Past performance being a future predictor, I bet Apple nailed that experience.

So, given that, is the argument that there's only 16 apps shoddy? By your post, it's an argument that there's no unique content for Honeycomb for the next 6 months – that there's no unique content vs. iPad or iPad 2 for the next 6 months. And don't forget that those 6 months are not a vacuum of development for either Apple or 3rd party devs. Apple's likely to announce a new iOS release, and there will be tens of thousands of new, unique apps posted to the iOS App Store.

I think that's a pretty solid argument against Xoom, especially since Xoom loses on every other factor (I think consumers care about) right off the bat.

[mhw]

I agree with your list, but I think the 'What can I do with it?' question is more like 'What's the potential for me being able to do new things with this in the future?' - apps, and the likelihood of more of them being available in the future, translate into people valuing the device for more than just what it will do when they first get it out of the box.

With iOS there's a reasonable expectation that the consumer will be able to choose from a growing selection of applications in the future, based on the past performance of the App Store and Apple's marketing around it. This translates into extra value, in that the device has the potential to increase in capability over time.

I think you could argue the case that the Android platform could also be perceived this way by consumers, although I suspect the mainstream consumer is maybe less certain of the future availability of applications on Android. (That's based on the limited marketing of Android, and specifically of it as a platform for apps, that I've seen in the UK, so may be different in other markets.)

But I do think it places the other platforms (HP's WebOS, RIM's QNX) at a distinct disadvantage. I think many consumers will consider them to be worse value purely because they don't expect they'll be able to choose from a growing selection of applications in the future.