Rival Tablet PC Makers Worry About the iPad's $499 Price Point
Posted 01/30/10 at 11:44:01 PM by Justin Kerr
Comments
Print
Email
Love it or hate it, the $499 entry level iPad is much cheaper than anyone expected. Tablet PC makers which were hoping to ride the wave of enthusiasm Apple was bound to kick up, are now being forced to step back and really question if they have what it takes to compete. Unnamed sources from within Asus and MSI claim they were counting on an iPad that would debut at $1,000 or more, making room for a more powerful and open device for $200-$300 less. Now that the new price to beat is less than half of what they expected, they will need to determine how they will differentiate if they can't win on price.
Apple made a lot of questionable decisions in the design of its new tablet, but its difficult to argue with their business intuition. They clearly understand that in order to create and hold on to early adopters, they will need to lock as many people as possible into the iTunes application ecosystem, even if that means sacrificing their usual fat margins to do it. They are willing to risk making a small profit on the entry level device with the hope that they might convince you to upgrade to a more expensive model when you reach the store, and if all else fails, make up any lost revenue when you come back for accessories or hit up the iTunes store.
The iPad has some pretty serious limitations, sure, but can a $500 tablet PC running Windows 7 really take on Apple?
Still too blah
Submitted by Trooper_One on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:00pm
The $500 i(Maxi)Pad looks crippled. Like another poster said, it's an over sized iTouch.
They really need to shore up the PC side of the tablets; tablets running on Celery class processors just don't cut it.
Submitted by Sebie Kay on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 9:34am
Still not what I want. I'll take a multi tasking netbook anyday of the week over an iPad...
-=Do unto others... THEN RUN!!=-
Submitted by Walnut on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:23pm
Tablet PC makers don't need to be concerned about the iPad because it's not a tablet PC. It's an iPod Touch with a bigger screen and a faster processor. I'm really wanting a tablet to use as an ultra-portable, and no one is delivering anything close to workable. Companies need to get off their asses and innovate. There's a big market waiting to be exploited.
Submitted by super-hornet on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 7:46pm
I got myself a Gigabyte T1028M about last year (Sep 2009? Can't remember. Know it is before Win7 release).
It is a touch screen, convertible netbook...meaning you can turn the display 180 and flip over and become a tablet. There are a few more similar design by Asus and HP as well.
Yeah, it is heavier compare to i(Maxi)Pad. Weight is just like normal netbook. But at least I can run WinXP (that come with it), Win7 (free upgrade..which i using it) and also Linux (which I dual boot and now running openSUSE 11.2 and typing this comment). It can play Flash video and ALSO Java application (iPad by default cannot right?)
Battery usage is about 5hours on typical use.
If I can choose again between touchscreen netbook and this i(Maxi)Pad, I still choose netbook/notebook with touchscreen.
Taking on a Tablet?
Submitted by optionboy16 on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 6:40pm
I feel that Apple is taking on the netbook market, NOT future tablet PCs. $499 bucks seem to be a magical price for consumers, or, at least, Apple consumers, and I think Apple realized that. Regardless of everything else, netbooks are all the rage, and will continue to be for some time. Apple wants a piece of the pie. Some people have said..."I wish the iphone had a bigger screen...". There is a bigger screen for the iphone, it's called a Macbook. Other people have said "I want something between a desktop and a cellphone...". Those are called Laptops. Still others say..."This is the new ebook reader...". Ever tried to read off an LCD for hours? It sucks balls. I do not have a ebook reader, but Eink is very nice on the eyes, and provides excellent alternative reading to an actual book. The only advantange the iPad could have in that respects is ads, or pictures from magazines. Sweet. Ads. I love ads. The bottom line is....This product will sell, but how well? Compared to what? I personally will not buy one. I will say, I have an iPhone, and an iPod. I love both of those products because they are USEFUL. The only thing the iPad has over a netbook is I can use windex to clean the screen instead of worrying about stucky/sticky keyboard after.....wait, no flash support. Damn you Apple!
Submitted by Danthrax66 on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 5:13pm
*****Update....Danthrax66 will enjoy a 14 day temp ban for his comments here. Again, I apologize if anyone was offended. *****
Submitted by brian43ny on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 4:56pm
The ipad is an entertainment device and it looks like it does all
that pretty well. When the cheap ipad is compared to other e-readers
it looks very good and it does a lot more. I see people all day long
messing around with iphone apps so don't see why only being able to run
apps is a bad thing. Most likely there is more apps than programs on
Mac OS X and definitly more games apps than Mac OS X has games.10
hours of battery life makes it perfect for flying. Hate the name and
the lack of flash. You will be able to run itunes and run another app
just like an iPhone what other multi tasking do you need? Fulll OS would be overkill when most people just use email, web, music, video and games. What else are you going to us a 10 inch tablet for? Chances are there is already a app for what your thinking of anyways.To be honest I don't think I will get one at this time. Sure they will sell like hotcakes and many people will be happy not to have a full blown OS that they don't really need.
Submitted by thematejka on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 2:36pm
Yes cameras, pcs, mac, mp3 player, etc are computers but the point is that the ipad is basically an oversized itouch. It doesn't have the interface of osx or windows, nor is it as flexible. If I'm correct, the ipad is going to suck for web browsing. APPLE FAIL. I think other vendors have nothing to worry about with matching that $500. it is now fact that you can get much more from the windows/custom os tablets. After seeing what Asus and Foxconn is bringing, the ipad will only appeal to fanboys. Only a total pc illiterate person or apple fan would buy this. There is so much better to come. Plus with the $800 ipad, other vendors are given so much leeway to make make higher powered tablets. This is the 1gen ipad, so maybe apple will shape up a bit, but I'm confident other tablets will reign supreme. the ipad is nothing revolutionary or great. It's just an overpriced tablet, that is very constricted for customization and usability like all other apple mobile devices.
I am ready for a Tabglet
Submitted by Baer on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:12am
After years of watching tablet development I am ready for one. I build my own workstations and I use them to do serious work and gaming. My notebook I use for e mail and web while traveling and for giving presentations. My notebook is a 5 year old ThinkPad (ThinkPads seem to never die). Now that I have a good smartphone I can e mail and get to the web reliably while away from my office. As I will be replacing my Notebook I think a Tablet will fill the bill covering the gaps between my smartphone and my workstation for travel and general mobility. My tablet will however have to be a real computer, it will have to run PowerPoint, Excell and Word Etc.
The iPad is not a computer. I love my iPod but I love it for music, not for cutsie apps. The iPad seems to be a big iPod, slow, not very capabile and as noted here, not really a computer. It is not even a netbook.
Even Apple can not have a hit every time, sure the Apple fanboi's (prtess included) will get one but it is not something I am interested in.
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 4:07pm
Every reviewer who's touched one says its blazing fast. There is also some debate about HOW MANY CPU CORES the Apple A4 chip has. Did you catch that? The A4 chip is not a CPU its a SOC (system-on a-chip) which in this case can have up to 4x 1 Ghz cores with all other components such as the GPU integrated on the chip. This increases battery life and can increase speed by removing bottlenecks, being that the components are integrated together.
Do the math... or go play with one when it comes out...
ACTUAL HANDS ON REVIEWS:
"First off, what this thing can do is mind-boggling. Running an OS similar to the current iPhone operating system and powered by a custom-designed Apple 1-GHz processor, the A4, the iPad is lightning-fast."
- PC Magazine"It's substantial but surprisingly light. Easy to grip. Beautiful. Rigid. Starkly designed. The glass is a little rubbery but it could be my sweaty hands. And it's fasssstttt... Pinch, zoom, whatever—like we said, it's fast—the photo app is faster than iPhoto performs on an aging Core2Duo laptop."
- Gizmodo"Lastly, there’s the fact that the iPad is using a new CPU designed and made by Apple itself: the Apple A4. This is a huge deal. I got about 20 blessed minutes of time using the iPad demo units Apple had at the event today, and if I had to sum up the device with one word, that word would be “fast”. It is fast, fast, fast."
- Daring Fireball"Like John Gruber says, the iPad is a remarkably fast gadget."
- Technologizer.com"The performance of Apple’s silicon is wicked fast. I was pretty skeptical about running existing apps in a pixel-doubled full screen mode. Action games, I figured, would be pretty much out of the question and Apple came fully prepared to answer that question. Existing games ran ridiculously fast and titles optimized for the device make this the ultimate mobile game device. Personally, I’d buy it just for gaming alone."
- Slashgear"The speed of the CPU is something to be marveled at. It is blazingly fast from what we can tell. Webpages loaded up super fast, and scrolling was without a hiccup. Moving into and out of apps was a breeze. Everything flew."
- EndgadgetAnd you were saying something about it being slow?
Seriously...
Submitted by Mr_Histamine on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 9:34am
That's because it's running code optimized for the hardware; the chip itself probably comes with optimization built-in. If you were to run Windows CE (or whatever they call it now), with a closed market system, on a digital pad; I'm pretty sure you'd get the same (if not, better) performance.
My super-basic touch screen cell phone is pretty snappy; but it will more than likely burst into flames if I tried running the iPhone OS on it.
________________________________________________________________________________
Please deposit your pride, life, and other garbage in the receptacles at the back of the theater before you leave. Thanks!
Submitted by Neufeldt2002 on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 4:11pm
Sounds like you bit on the PR. The only person it has to impress is me, everything you just said is useless. I can go to any car dealer, and they will tell me all the cars go fast, no really, they do. I am sure it goes fast, do you really think apple would release something that went slow? But fast compared to what? an ipod touch? an iphone? another tablet that has yet to be released? a lawnmower? Etc, Etc.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I wanted a signature, but all I got was this ________
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 4:43pm
There talking about responsiveness, which almost everyone seems to compare to being "instant". Fast as in no waiting. Instantaneous.
and
Submitted by pepper_roni on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 6:35am
My old HP lappy with a AMD K6-2 cpu @ 475mhz can browse the web fast, at basic fuctions this ipad servers but so does any other device.
I think it would have been better for them to go a full OS route that didnt need itunes or aonther pc.... this way there person that just wants a slim device that is easy to use and can be used realaxingly on the couch can be ussed as there main computer, I think alot of people would want this.
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 3:59pm
Submitted by jameskatt on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:04am
Realize that Apple primarily is a HARDWARE company. Apple creates fantastic software and services to serve hardware sales.
Apple will be making between a 45% to 52% profit on the hardware sale of an iPad despite the price starting at only $499.
This does put a HUGE CEILING on how other products are going to be priced. For example, automatically, tablet ebook readers such as the Kindle DX are in trouble since their price is going to be close if not higher than $499, where one can get the full color ebook-reading iPad, which much more capability.
For Netbook and would-be Tablet PC makers, this also lowers their ceiling on price in order to compete against the iPad down to an unpalatable $499 and BELOW. Since they have to add USB Ports, SHDC card ports, and other accessories which Apple doesn't have to add, to satisfy the feature hunger of their potential geek users, they are going to be SQUEEZED for profits.
Apple, as a luxury brand, will walk off with huge fat profits, while everyone else will STARVE. Brouhahaha...
Go Apple!
Submitted by JoeDLP on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:51am
I think everyone agrees that the iPad isn't a computer so why keep comparing it to computers? I use my iPhone everywhere to do all the things that it's supposed to do. I always thought "I wish this thing had a bigger screen" and now we have the iPad. If I wanted a fully portable computer, I would get a macbook pro or maybe even a cheaper Win7 laptop. The iPad, as Steve clearly says, is not a laptop, nor is it a smartphone - it's something in between. You can't compare it to a laptop, it's like comparing a point-and-shoot camera with a DSLR.
Submitted by TheZomb on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 2:08pm
Everything from your digital watch to those giant early 90s cell phones are computers. Its is completely relevant since all of its competitors will be running windows and android. Who specifically agreed this was not a computer. It has a processor, RAM and a storage drive.
Submitted by JoeDLP on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 2:57pm
My microwave is a computer of sorts too, but i wouldn't compare it to a laptop. My car has a computer in it but i don't complain that it doesn't support Flash. Based on the comments of several posters, the iPad has been likened to just a large iPod Touch or iPhone. You don't pull that out and say, "check out my computer." Comparisons should be made with other devices that fill the same market and the iPad isn't meant to compete with laptops. Why are so many people upset about the iPad? I don't think the iPad is targeted towards power users that read "MaximumPC" or anyone else that is looking for a device that will act as a full computer.
Submitted by Danthrax66 on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 5:17pm
So it's aimed at 12 year olds with rich parents that only go on facebook? It's useless get an ipod touch or an iphone same damn thing. Or better yet get an archos media tablet or a droid or any of the other better products available.
Submitted by aviaggio on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:27am
The iPad has some pretty serious limitations, sure, but can a $500
tablet PC running Windows 7 really take on Apple?Depends, if you want a full-fledged computer without limitations, then yes. If all you want is a really large iPod, then no.
That's the big distinction. Sure the iTampon is only $500, but you can't do squat with it other than buy crap at various apple sites. If you actually want to do things other than buy apps, then you'll need a real tablet PC.
The TamPad is NOT a computer. It's an iPod with a 9" screen.
Submitted by MleB on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 6:50am
Sure it can, and quite easily, too.
Offer SD card and /or USB support for storage, printing and transfer capabilities (without requiring a sync thru another computer to do it), support Flash, access to all WinOS-supported software (including tablet-specific like note taking and handwriting recognition) and a swappable battery.
The iPad is, as already noted, just a large Touch - and that's little more than a content retrieval device for iTunes and a gaming machine. The ability to read the NY Times (as per all the press shots) does not add to it any more features than a basic eReader.
Submitted by Vegan on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:08am
Tell that to all the mp3 players that are technically more feature-rich than the iPod, yet Joe Sixpack thinks that iPod IS the only mp3 player in existence. Never underestimate the power of advertising. If competing products don't even have tv commercials, they might as well not exist.
Submitted by Mr_Histamine on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 9:19am
I think that's what's going to make or break the iPad; if other computer companies don't saturate consumers with counter-ads, then Apple's got this in the bag.
________________________________________________________________________________
Please deposit your pride, life, and other garbage in the receptacles at the back of the theater before you leave. Thanks!
I can't imagine what I would
Submitted by roninnder on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 5:50am
I can't imagine what I would do with this device. Screen's to bright to read books on, processor too slow for gaming, no flash, stop me if you've heard all this before...
Mind changed about the iPad
Submitted by M-ManLA on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 3:44am
At first I thought the iPad was good, me being mostly a windows fan. That was, until I heard of what the iPad does not have. I really think Apple needs to go back to the drawing boards on this one. And it's ARM, AHEM, I mean "A4" CPU might not be a killer of other products per se. I'll just wait to see what Asus has in store.
Electronically charged
Submitted by tehR0XX0Rz on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:27am
But it's not a tablet PC; it's just a giant iPod. The only people who don't know the difference are too stupid to own a computer, anyway.
Submitted by sybert on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:10pm
Why worry about the price tag when Apple screwed up THAT much?
A PC maker could make a tablet computer (not a big iPod) running Windows 7 and charge $599 with similar specs to the iPad and I would buy it. And I'm a Mac guy.
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:03pm
Enjoy you 3" thick, 5.5 pound brick with 4 hours of battery life. Don't lose the stylus and don't forget to bog it down with anti-virus software.
The iPad is not meant to be a full blown computer. It's a big iPod Touch that's blazing fast and does 90% of what people buy netbooks for; web, email, chat, reading, movies, music, light work.
Submitted by sybert on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 7:29pm
Stylus, no. Multi-touch, yes. Just so long as it's not running an Atom I wouldn't have a problem. I know that it's a big iPod touch, that's part of the reason I don't like it. Plus for movies and music you're pretty much limited to iTunes. Plus in a computer I'd have a bigger drive and I wouldn't be limited to the app store. Have fun syncing your iPad instead of it being stand alone.
This is the comparison: a large media player running a phone OS or a computer. I'd rather have a computer. You're right about the size and battery life of course.
No, I wouldn't buy any tablet running Android or what ever else some company comes up with. I'd want one with an actual computer OS.
My AV is very lightweight doesn't do anything to my laptop.
Orly?
Submitted by tri8gman on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:55pm
Maybe if the tablets were powered by Pentium 4s. AV is only a seatbelt's worth of protection from anything - and what if I wanted to run Linux on my tablet? Why would I need a stylus on a large screen? But even then, you realize that your finger is bigger than a pen point - meaning more real estate dedicated to buttons. And even then, it's not like styluses are proprietary (anymore).
I'm sure many computers would be blazing fast if they could only do 1 thing at a time, too.
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 4:51pm
The iPhone will allow you to browse the web, play music and answer phone calls. Apple only allows Apple apps to multitask, because I suspect their concerned about run-a-way apps built by other developers. Flash is a perfect example of an apps that consumes huge resources on the Mac because its so poorly written.
The iPhone OS is OSX. I suspect iPhone (OSX) version 4 will address this issue when the iPad come out.
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 4:17pm
The iPhone will allow you to browse the web, play music and answer phone calls. Apple only allows Apple apps to multitask, because I suspect their concerned about run-a-way apps built by other developers. Flash is a perfect example of an apps that consumes huge resources on the Mac because its so poorly written.
The iPhone OS is OSX. I suspect iPhone (OSX) version 4 will address this issue.
Submitted by pepper_roni on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 10:43pm
Im being charged 500 bucks for a deveice with a very small harddrive, no camera or webcam, a slow 1ghz cpu, and its only somthing that runs the damn iphone OS. Id much rather have OS not another deviece that is a slave to itunes. YAY MSI BRING ME A WIN 7 TABLET
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:04am
1) The hard drive doesn't have to be huge since its not running a traditional Desktop OS or Adobe Creative Suite which take up a lot of space. This also not meant as a primary computer, rather a portable electronics device for casual use.
2) The camera would be pointed up your nose.
3) The Apple A4 chip is not a CPU. It's a SOC (system-on-chip) which allows for better batter battery life and faster processing since all of the controllers and the GPU are on the same die. Being that Apple designed the chip it clearly was optimized to speed the iPad. If you know anything about chip design, you'd know that can make a big difference.
4) Every reviewer who had actually used the iPad, hands-on, has said it's lighting fast. Everything is instant. Plus the cold boot time is 15 seconds, which no netbook can match. It also has 30 day stand-by for instant on. Apps launch instantly.
5) A Win Tablet is a full blown computer. Won't get 10 hours of battery life. Won't boot in 15 seconds, nor 30 day stand-by with instant on. Will be twice as thick and 3 times as heavy. What is the point of that? The iPad makes sense because of it portability and speed, which makes using touch worthwhile.
6) There is a reason the PC tablet category has been a total failure. Windows requires too many resources to maintain portability, speed while making a touch interface difficult to use. Of yeah, you'll really need a stylus to use those tiny menus and an arm-brace to hold it for any meaningful length of time.
Submitted by pepper_roni on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 6:36am
1) Why would you not want a large harddrive? Saying that the device is limited and cant use real programs is a lame argument. I want my music and videos pictures and programs... not just some of it all of it.
2) lol?
3) Doesnt change the fact that its still a slow cpu, it seems fast because its running the iphone OS that uses little recources but that also means it cant run any real demanding programs, and its limited by space and battery which means no fans to cool and in that small space it realies completely on thermal cooling. To realate it to a pc A intel Pentium II is slow, just because it runs fast on Windows 3.1 doesnt make it a fast cpu, its just a low demnad OS
4) Again its using the limited Iphone OS
5) Nettops get close to 10 hours of life, they dont boot in 15 seconds, but its not a simplephone OS you can actaully do things that apple doesnt weant you to do, run your own programs etc. Who says it will be twice as thick and three times as heavy.
6) I havent seen any good windows tablets, shit I havent seen any tablets for windows, but its hell of alot better then owning an oversized phone that cant make calls or take pictures, but it still isnt a real computer.
Submitted by lien_meat on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 3:54pm
You are right on all these points, if you are talking about the platform that apple is delivering. However, that's the problem, it's just not a great platform in my opinion. You are stuck with whatever shows up on the iphone store for apps, almost all of the those apps' capability could be had for FREE on a traditional netbook...so literally 0 productivity compared to even a netbook for for MORE price.
What is the point of having something that is BIGGER than a netbook, more expensive than a netbook, with far less capability than a netbook(both multimedia and otherwise), even if it does have a 10 hour battery life. Yes, those apps may start up really fast, but you can't really be productive with iphone apps either...and I'd rather have a productive app like a word processor for example take a bit to start up than have no way to do decent word processing at all.
ALL that is needed, is a netbook with a touchscreen instead of keyboard. People interested in an iPad should be more than happy with that, especially since a netbook can run flash and java, have removable batteries, support usb devices, have decent multimedia capability, ect.. Oh...and I call bs on your 2x as thick 2x heavier comment. I don't have a netbook, but my friend paul does, and it is quite a bit smaller and the same weight or less than the ipad's specs...and it's one of the more high end netbooks from just a couple months ago (I don't remember the model number...sorry.)
I don't see the ipad as anything but an insane waste of money. It does nothing your iphone can't do, which is cheaper...and it is too big to carry like a phone. A traditional netbook has more capability, is cheaper, and while it doesn't have a 10 hour battery, I feel that the 4-6 hours that some of them get is probably sufficient. Oh...and the boot up time...for anyone who runs linux on a netbook, a 15-20 second boot is the norm on an ssd drive in any decent distro. This is not something revolutionary...
Basically, I see the platform as pointless. I'd much rather have a smartphone, OR a netbook. I don't see the use for an ipad at all especially for money i'd have to shell out only to run apple approved iphone software.
Submitted by tri8gman on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 1:17pm
1) Since when were huge hard drives meant for storing your OS and apps only?
2) Which is just a different kind of awkward from webchat anyway. What if people just want to take pictures?
3) Optimized to get that 1 thing at a time done.
4) Instant to get your one thing done. I'll gladly sacrifice boot time for multitasking/real functionality.
5) You haven't been using netbooks apparently - but even so, I'll gladly sacrifice for multitasking/functionality. For instance: what's the point of making a step back to thicker phones with the Droid? POWER. Your aesthtics are no replacement for it. And as mentioned - speed doing 1 thing at a time.
6) I was thinking PRICE/performance ratio was probably the limiting factor - not just performance. I know that's why I never jumped on those laptops with detachable top halves. What if I wanted to use Linux? And what's wrong with a stylus? Not aesthetically pleasing? I'm personally more bothered by fingerprints and the lack of precision with fingers.
Submitted by Spartacus on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 10:20pm
Then a tablet running Windows 7 will be over 9,000 times better. What I don't get is why all these prospective tablets will be running Tegra. I was hoping to see some ion-powered tablets hit the market. Those could be a potential iPad killer... but I'm still going with an M11x myself.
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:57am
Tablets running Windows have been around for years and guess what? Nobody cares. To big, too heavy, too short battery life and Windows sucks with a stylus. You can't touch your way around, you need to use a stylus because everything is so small.
What makes you think all the sudden they will get better, without copying the iPad.
Not again
Submitted by SPARTAN-501 on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 10:07pm
This is sad. Once again, the tablet function is confined to lesser computers, those without gaming capabilities. I thought with the advent of Alienware's m11x and Apple's iPad, we would finally get a gaming tablet, but I guess not...
Submitted by studentrights on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:50am
With its 1-GHz processor, the iPad is more powerful than the iPhone 3GS — but it’s still not exactly a gaming workhorse. The success of the relatively underpowered Wii console has shown that this doesn’t matter so much if the content is right.
Read More http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/01/apple-ipad-gaming/#ixzz0eDk5OuhO
I think people need to remember that the reason a PC requires so much horsepower, ram and storage is because it has the overhead of running a Desktop operating system. The iPhone OS is a light version of OSX so it requires less resources.
Plus every hands-on-reviewer has already said it's blazing fast. Nobody is sure if it has 2 or 4 CPU cores on the die. It's a system-on-a-chip not a CPU, so multi-cores give it more power.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE Build a Crazy-Fast $647 PCFEATURE Six Single-Band 802.11n Routers ReviewedHOW TOTweak BitTorrent and FirefoxFEATUREClose Look at ClarkdaleWHITE PAPERLCD Panel Technology
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2010 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.
