[tewks]

He's not crazy and that conclusion is not unique to gruber. The screen area of the iPad is nearly 2x that of the fire. Resolution is 1.3x but pixel density will increase on iPad3.

They are about as competitive as a 15" laptop is to a netbook: not very as they are physically quite different. The price difference reflects this.

[jeffreymcmanus]

Consumers are funny, though. They don't really care about stats; that kind of data is for geeks, who are not the target audience for this at all.

And don't forget Christensen's adage that the truly disruptive technology is typically a little bit worse and a whole lot cheaper than the incumbent technology.

One way or another, there are some big advantages to a smaller screen.

[ugh]

Consumes don’t care about stuff they can’t (easily) see. Pixel density, probably. 10" and 7" tablets are, however, sufficiently different.

[alex_c]

No one buys tablets by the square yard, though. Lots of people seem to say that a 10" tablet is inherently better than a 7" tablet, but I think the market is still far too young to really know the winning form factor.

[tewks]

Actually, people do in fact choose tablets and laptops based on size. I'm not suggesting that either size is superior. They are clearly different.

Anecdotally, I find that the iPad size is great for a table/lap, but less great for holding, while I love the size/shape/weight of the Kindle2 for reading. I don't think any particular size will win out.

[rbanffy]

Let me quote something that was said about the iPod on its launch:

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."