HP Planning to Beat Apple in Tablet Pricing War

I am not really sure that a full feature OS will be much of an advantage. Manufacturers seem to keep trying to adapt devices to operating systems that are not meant for that form factor and input/output methods. I would say it is a sane time to ask, do we want just a smaller type of computer to run a generic OS, or do we need devices that are optimized to preform certain tasks in their own way. Instead of bending a OS to suit the limitations of and advantages of a certain type of device, manufacturers in my opinion should seek a closer relationship between software and hardware, and through that convergence give products more purpose and make them stand out as unique devices.

Just my 2 cents.

Sarcasm mode/ Beating Apple at pricing, now there's a challenge... /sarcasm mode

Seriously, Jane, more articles on Apple and yet no information on this:
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortun [...] -supplier/

While windows 7 isn't designed for tablet, but with the touch pack it is perfectly usable with a touch screen device (maybe not as professional work but that is what third party apps are for).

I have a acer aspire 5738PG that has a fixed screen with touch input, and it works great when I'm in bed and just use it to browse the internet or to annotate notes in class, but I will not use the virtual keyboard when the real full sized one is just under it.

And IMO multi-tasking will kill ipad, If I can't listen to music, download a new app, read and annotate a pdf, while the device is doing background tasks like updates, I don't the the touch gimmick will work that much.

A fully featured OS is VERY much an advantage. Anything I can do with my computer at home I'm going to be able to do on my Slate... With Apple Ipad you won't even be able to multitask.

Tablet PCs have been around for years and have gone largely unnoticed. It seems that it takes Apples Hype machine to create renewed interest in them. If only the "Crunchpad" hadn't fallen through. Oh well.

I don't think the competition between iPad and HPpad will be on price alone. I think it will be based on "cool factor", apps, who already has and likes the iPhone, etc. It's almost like these devices will be aimed at different markets. OTOH I already have a small portable laptop so I don't need a touch-screen PCpad, they would do basically the same thing. I might find an interest in the iPad because it is a different device with different functionality.

They announced it first but it's still not released? Only that it will be sometime in 2010. And they're announcing a 2nd version too. Come on. Show us the honey before you talk about the money.

Everyone in the world has beaten Apple in the price war. It's stupid to keep trying that tactic. You really just need to develop a sense of snotty superiority that your products magically endow on your customers. At that point they'll buy anything. This won't work, just like it doesn't work for computers. Thankfully Apple's market share doesn't match up with their popularity.

Is anyone actually interested in these tablets? Any particular reason why? If so, what warrants the high price tag that you can't do on an Ipod Touch, netbook, notebook, or desktop?

That's what I was going to say. You beat me to it.

If HP is running Windows, it;s no comparison. There's no way they're going to get a machine out that can do 720P/1080P video, over wireless, for 10 hours, running Windows, but far more importantly, even if they could, the device form apple is NOT a tablet computer, it;s an instant gratification, always on, media and communication platform. Windows doens't do shit when it's hibernating, the iPad is till communicating, with 30 days of standby time... and it comes on instantly, which Windows also clearly does not do. THAT is what makes the iPad valuable. Further, and HP tables is going to need antivirus, patching, maintenance, and expensive windows application licenses, where the iPad apps can be used on 5 devices and cost an average of a couple dollars.

to undercut the app and manitenanve value position, and offset the lack of convenience and gratification of the iPad, the HP tablet would have to be faster at the same tasks (not a faster CPU, but MUCH faster, as windows is a resource hog), and is going to have to have all the GPU performance as well. It would have to be under $300 to be areal value to me, without contract or subsidy, and still offer $29 contract-free pre-paid unlimited network access...

...and Apple has already made public that their price is easily flexible.

Keep this quote from Abraham Lincoln in mind next time you feel like commenting in any public forum:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

only if you provide the greenbacks

Will not be buying. A pc at work and a pc at home is more than enough.

HP Slate looks promising but it has to have enough functionality for me to do some regular computing on.

Based on the breakdown of the cost for making the iPad vs the price Apple is asking for it, it's not exactly going to be difficult to beat Apple in price, performance, and usability.

lol of corse HP will beat apple in a pricing war. HP only uses the cheapest crap PC parts in there computers. i would buy an apple PC for the extra money than deal with the headaches of owning a HP PC

Hehe, price war against apple? hm didn't you mean price war against apple+apple tax?

My motto is
"Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
I am watching a few episodes of my fav TV show and friend asks my to drop it onto a USB drive, or even burn it onto a USB DVD.
Maybe someone emails me an Excel spreadsheet and wants me to amend a few figures, perhaps proof and edit a Word file as well before sending it back.
I will need fully functional USB ports as well as a copy of MS Office, Nero (or other DVD writer program).
For this I will need a real OS, not a kids toy.
If I can get this cheaper than the Apple product, all the better.
In the retail world, more for less ALWAYS wins.

If i find myself with a couple hundred dollars of extra cash that i can't invest better elsewhere i would buy one of these, but for now, i think that the money would be much better spent pay my car off early or put into savings for a new house.

If the iPad CPU is so much faster, how come it can't multitask?
Plus I have timed a Win7 come out of hibernate from an SSD at under 30 seconds, maybe not instant but totally acceptable seing as booting cold I can also do in about 45 seconds on an SSD.
Dont forget those Apple Apps may only be a couple of dollars but you have no other option and are forced to pay, whilst with a single install of Win7 I have access to millions of bits of legitimate freeware as well as all the dodgy cracked software that is available too.
Oh, and I wil be able to play Vector TD on Candystand before watching "lolcats" videos on Youtube seeing as it will be able to run Flash. As far as having always on internet access, even if it isn't built in i'm sure that the contract or the pay-as-you-go USB 3G dongles will serve up internet exactly the same way, without the trouble of being forced to use the 3G carrier the Apple make you use I can go for a 3G carrier to suit my budget.

Are you sure it took that long? My Windows 7 machine comes out of hibernate in less than 5 seconds and boots from POST in about 30 seconds. I'm not running a crazy fast system. Just a Core 2 Duo E8600 with 4GB of RAM and a WD Caviar 7200rpm hard drive.

Tablets suck. They're all underpowered and overpriced. HP or iPad, they're both garbage.

I wish people would stop referencing 500 dollars as the price for the iPad. Lets be real, no one is going to get the base 16GB version with no 3G or docking accessories. I think the real price of the iPad will be around the 1,000 dollars people expected, because anyone who gets it will get the 64GB, 3G, and all the docking accessories they can so that they can prove they are true Apple loyalists.

You can't do a full OS tablet PC that can compete with the iPad. It's undoable. Now I have some doubts about how deeply many poster here really consider things,.. But a full blown tablet PC is not a particularly good idea. It will be heavy, slow, and run out of batteries immediately. And if you try to have it in your lap or the couch, it's going to overheat because you block something. I don't want some shit like that. That would be unusable. To be useful, it has to be really lightweight so I can bring it around. It has to have a real 'on'-switch, not windows boot. It has to start immediately when I want to check something. And it has to have very long battery life, so I can actually use it in practice.

Now all this comes from a guy that tries to live with carrying a notebook PC for long periods of time, and depends on batteries. And one who foolishly bought a powerful (C2D + discrete graphics) notebook at first. After having learned to hate that one with a passion, I made a much better choice next time (singlecore + good integrated graphics), much lighter to carry around, much better real battery time, allowing amongst other things a much brighter and better display on battery. It even has as good performance, because it draws less power. What I'm getting at, is real user comfort, real usability.

This thread sound like no one else have ever tried this experience? You all dream about fullblown, portable, handy computers, and seem to have no idea of how annoying and painful it is, to actually get some real practical use, from a machine that attempts to be all that.
No, the iPad is perfect. For anything it can't do, I'll want to use one of my desktops anyway. ...Or even my notebook laptop.
That doesn't mean there won't be other 'perfect' tablets from others. But it won't be those trying to be replacement computers.

It is a laptop and my BIOS is really rubbish, so i'm comparing against what I expect from a mobile platform like a tablet. If the Slate is faster than that I will be impressed as those times are more than acceptable to me. Let's see shall we, let's face it if Sony can make a superslim laptop with Quad-SSD in RAID then all you have to do is remove the keyboard and stick the screen there instead and that's the kind of machine that no-one could argue with. Even Vista would run peachy on something like that and from the last year's worth of using Windows 7 in either Beta, RC, RTM and finally Retail it is a force to be reckoned with in terms of speed and usability.

OS and hardware obviously have a symbiotic relationship. MS don't make PCs and PC makers need an OS to make their machine work. Tablets have been around for many years but the hardware was rubbish even though XP Tablet was (at the time) revolutionary. Now that tablet hardware has finally grown up it needed a good OS and Tablet XP would have not ben up to the job. Now that Win 7 has been released all the tablet tech that has been sitting in R&D for the PC makers is now flooding the market. Even Linux and Android versions are jumping in because no-one wants to miss the boat.

Apple made a serious mistake however, by try to create a separate product that doesn't work in the same arena as the other tablets they will alienate people who want it to replace their aging laptops or netbooks.

They should have taken a page from Nintendo's book of marketing and product innovation. They had the world leader in the Gameboy and when they made the DS it cannibalised their existing customer base. Sure people stopped buying Gameboys but the DS was intended to replace it, not supplement it. In the process they also took marketshare away from other previous rival handheld users and the total number of users in what was also a more competative market. The original Gameboy sold 118 million units to date, the DS has only been around 6 years and it has shifted 125 million units and more version are sold every day. It is a tried and tested marketing strategy that should not be deviated from, if you have a product with strong uptake and recognition, make another that is better and when the original buyer comes to replace it, he brings his friend too.

If Apple wanted to make a tablet they should have made one with OSX, it would have partly cannibalised the MacBook market, but would also have drawn customers away from rival netbooks, laptops and tablets. The iPad does none of this, it supplements only and offers nothing extra to tempt away users of rival products.

If I have the money in my student budget by the time this thing comes out and it proves to be something that would make a great photoshop/painter digi-painting tablet along with running a full fledged (multitasking) OS, I could definitely see myself getting one for school and personal purposes. I'm not even considering the iPad.

Good one! Everybody knows that Apple products are overpriced D:

The professors here at my university use these 14in Fujitsu tablets (running Win7) and they work brilliantly. My proff will come in, plug it into the projector via VGA and begin writing. Very rarely are their hiccups or the computer not registering his writing. I can see how Apple might be at a disadvantage with it not running a full OS, that's very limiting and quite Disappointing. It's as if they left it open for a company to compete with them.

IMO tablets are a waste of time and money...

You can hook up a micro projector to a decent laptop and attain the same outcome at a much cheaper price... No hiccups whatsoever...

ipad = gigantic overpriced ipod, nothing more....