By
CHRISTOPHER LIM
CORRESPONDENT
APPLE'S new iPad 2 went on sale in the US last week, prompting even more comparisons between the company's most successful product and every other tablet competitor.
But, all these product showdowns aren't comparing like and like. Apple's tussle with everyone else for market share is really a battle of starkly-contrasting philosophies rather than a straightforward melee between similar products.
Much of the criticism levelled against the original iPad model centred on its Spartan lack of common computer features, such as memory card slots, USB ports and cameras. The iPad 2's dual cameras only address one of these beefs.
The iPad 2's competitors, which all seek to differentiate themselves based on features and how much more laptop-like they are, risk confusing customers by crossing over into PC territory. Apple, in contrast, clearly doesn't want iPads to be laptops. iPads are auxiliary products within Apple's system that encourage additional purchases within the ecosystem.
If you want more features, processing power or a physical keyboard, Apple wants you to buy one of its many Mac models. In fact, Apple's ideal would be for people to own an iPhone, iPad 2 and a Mac or two. That's why the iPad 2's design is so basic. It's elementary product segmentation. You don't have to like the tactic, but you have to acknowledge the elegance of Apple's ecosystem.
I'm not saying that the iPad and iPad 2's numerous limitations aren't often infuriating. For example, the lack of memory card slots imposes artificial scarcity on storage space, allowing Apple to tier iPad pricing by memory capacity, which is almost scandalous in this age of cheap removable storage.
But, many people criticise the iPad simply for not being more laptop-like, ignoring the fact that Apple obviously wants the iPad to be little more than a battery-powered portable touchscreen. It's an interface for running apps and nothing more.
That's why the only iPad 2 hardware specifications that truly matter are its slimness and light weight that doesn't sacrifice battery life. These are the only features that directly relate to touchscreen usage, and hence are the aspects that define the iPad's single-minded mission.
Of course, the very reason Apple can target the iPad 2 so sharply is its privileged position as the creator of today's tablet market. Apple makes it a point to only compete in markets it has created or re-invented. This approach has had some unfortunate ramifications, such as the lamentable absence of Blu-ray disc drives on Macs. In the mobile space, however, it has served Apple well. Until rival tablet makers get one step ahead of Apple instead of merely reactively playing by its rules, it's hard to see how they are going to beat the market leader.
This is nicely illustrated by the wave of iPad competitors launched at the International Consumer Electronics Show in January and Mobile World Congress last month. They were launched before the iPad 2 was unveiled this month, which means they were all designed to try and anticipate Apple's next move. They consequently try to cover all the bases instead of being clearly differentiated.
The only key player that's been aggressively innovating is Google, whose Android software powers all of the iPad competitors except RIM's BlackBerry PlayBook, Lenovo's Le Pad and a smattering of Windows 7 tablets.
Android 3.0, also known as Honeycomb, is the first tablet operating system to seriously attempt to move ahead of Apple and try to play to Google's strengths instead of Apple's.
What Google needs to do now is to leverage its advantages in cloud storage to differentiate Honeycomb tablets from the iPad 2. There are already signs that extensive cloud functionality is embedded in Honeycomb, but Google needs to make them official and to push for widespread adoption.
Apple's trump card is its iTunes App Store, which is still significantly ahead of Google's Android Market in terms of size. But, its most glaring weakness arguably lies in the cloud. An often overlooked example is the unspoken dongle required for all Apple mobile devices. If you want to transfer music or movies to your phone that haven't been bought from the iTunes store, you still need to plug them into a Mac or a Windows PC.
The advantage of this approach is ease of app management and a safe backup of your Apple iOS gadget. The downside is that it isn't practical to use, say, an iPad 2 for extended periods with no access to a PC. Apple's paid MobileMe addresses some of these issues, but does far worse a job than Google's free cloud services such as Gmail and Google Calendar. If Google adds an online music locker to this equation such that you could synchronise your music library across multiple devices over the air, it would have an extremely compelling offering that Apple would be hard-pressed to match.
