lilly:

I picked up a phrase some time ago that I think applies: “The next big thing is always beneath contempt.” Implication being that it is, of course, until it isn’t. Until it’s too big to ignore. This has happened over and over again in our society. In the middle ages, people assumed that no serious discussion could happen in anything but Latin — the so-called “vulgar” languages had no merit. And writers assumed that nothing interesting or lasting would come from this new medium of television. And, I think, people assume right now that nothing important will be created from a 10” touch screen without a keyboard (let alone a tiny 3.5” screen)….

Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep.

Google planned to take 33% of the total tablet market in 2011. Yet they barely have 33% of just the Android tablet market.

Speaking of Amazon and Kindle sales, the latest comScore numbers say that the Kindle Fire now controls 54% of the Android tablet market. Far more than any Google-branded tablet.

That’s a big win for Amazon, so it must finally be time to announce actual sales of the device, right? 

Wrong.

Amazon:

Kindle Fire remains the #1 bestselling, most gifted, and most wished for product across the millions of items available on Amazon.com since launch.

Got it.

Which is of course what you have to say when you’re selling basically no tablets. Yet…

Instead, I’ll link to Marco Arment’s tweet ripping Consumer Reports for — wait for it — recommending the new iPad as the top tablet on the market. 

Yes, just a couple weeks after “WarmGate” failed to light a fire under consumers, Consumer Reports has decided it will probably look better if they recommend what will become the best-selling tablet of all time. As we saw with the iPhone 4, it doesn’t really matter what they say anymore.

I’m going to give myself a large pat on the back for this one following their initial report on March 20:

We will absolutely have a follow-up story from them tomorrow. And probably another one the next day. Then one contradicting what was previous said (which they’ve already done, of course).

The cycle is complete.

chipotle:

Bryan Bishop, The Verge:

The Wall Street Journal reports that Google will open up its own online store, where it will market and sell tablet devices directly to consumers. In an interesting twist, it’s said that the company won’t actually manufacture any of the offered hardware itself, instead leaving that duty to partners (Samsung and Asus are both named). The tablets will reportedly feature official Google co-branding, however. Google is even said to be considering subsidizing the cost of the tablets, in order to make them price-competitive with the Amazon Kindle Fire.

I’m somewhat bemused by this. On the one hand, the “Nexus” brand tends to effectively mean “reference implementation” in the Android world, and that’s good. And a great Android tablet that was priced like a Kindle Fire would certainly make inroads against the iPad.

But subsidizing the tablets to get to that point is boggling. This isn’t like a game console, where you expect to make all your money on the ongoing purchases. Apple makes most of their money on the hardware, and Google makes nearly all of their money on advertisements. If Google spends $100 to get a Nexus tablet into your hands, they’re going to need to serve you a lot of ads to make that up.

A lot of ads.

Watts Martin has this exactly right. If Google does intend to release even a halfway decent tablet for under $200, the still-just-hinted-at implication is that they may subsidize it. A tablet sold for under $200 and not sold at a loss is going to be a piece of shit, pure and simple. 

So let’s assume that Google does sell it at a loss (subsidizes it). They only way they make their money back is if people click on Google ads. More than they do now. A lot more than they do now. Or the product is going to be a black hole of money. Sort of like Microsoft’s entire online services division. 

David Streitfeld and Nick Bilton:

Google’s long-awaited tablet might finally be on the way to becoming a reality. For at least two years, there have been reports that the search giant was working on something that could compete with Apple’s iPad. A Google employee briefed on the project now says it will be out later this year.

That makes it sound like Google hasn’t really been trying to compete with the iPad for the past two years. Of course they have — they’ve just failed. Miserably. 

The sole purpose of Honeycomb was to invigorate the Android tablet market. It was an OS built for tablets. It was supposed to make Android tablets competitive with the iPad. It crashed and burned. 

What they mean, of course, without specifically saying it, is a “Nexus” tablet. Not built by Google, but with Google branding. Maybe that competes better, maybe it doesn’t. At sub-$200, I fail to see how it can possibly compete with the iPad. We’ll see.

But it’s nonsense to imply that Google hasn’t been trying to compete with the iPad until now.

Good luck with that.

The problem isn’t that Android tablets are hard to find, it’s that they suck. Google selling them directly won’t change that. The focus needs to be on the product, not the distribution method.

Given all the talk about how cheaply Google will sell these tablets (sub-$200), I’m not holding my breath for any semblance of non-suckage. 

Kevin C. Tofel of GigaOm:

Priced at $199 to $299, the Kindle and Nook don’t likely compete against the iPad when it comes to a purchase decision. Meaning: sales of these aren’t hurting the iPad much, if at all. The same can’t be said of the true Android tablets, which are still struggling to find an audience.

You don’t say…

John Gruber on the ridiculous assertions that Apple should be worried about Microsoft’s upcoming Windows 8 strategy for tablets and Amazon’s strategy for the Kindle Fire:

This is a recurring theme. Someone does something different than Apple, has some success with it, and pundits like Kingsley-Hughes start arguing that Apple needs to change course and do what the other guys are doing. Exhibit A: the Kindle Fire. It’s selling well — nowhere near as well as the iPad, mind you, but it’s not collecting dust in warehouses like most other tablets are — prompting some to argue that Apple “must” release a $250 7-inch tablet too.

See also: netbooks. Remember, Apple absolutely had to make a netbook or they would be toast.

Apple didn’t, the market for netbooks collapsed, and Apple looked like geniuses for not doing what the pundits said they needed to do just months earlier.