Once Fusion Garage announced the JooJoo tablet the race was on. Race? Yes, the race to compare a non-existent Apple tablet with a non-existent $499 tablet that you can’t buy. Who’s first to disparage Apple’s non-product? Our old friend, Rob Enderle, principal analyst, Enderle Group. Let the punditry begin:
Apple has recently done more with the tablet format with the iPod Touch and iPhone then any other vendor but the jury is still largely out on this format with challenging devices from RIM, Palm, and Google often showcasing that keyboards are necessary.
Are we talking smart phones or tablets? If tablets, Apple’s iPod touch is probably in the lead, sales wise. Who else has a pocket tablet device of similar ilk?
This is Apple’s secret sauce, the ability to present a product in a unique and compelling way so that people view it in the best light and are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
In other words, Apple innovates by improving a product through better features and benefits. Lets get back to the tablets that nobody can buy.
The JooJoo is therefore problematic because it approaches the market using what should be an unsuccessful path and its messy birth may effectively sour the well for the Apple tablet turning the market against it before Apple can act to set a better impression.
And yet, Rob—may I call you Rob? Idiot seems too formal (technology court jester is too long)—all sorts of really terrible, useless, smelly smart phones existed before the iPhone was introduced, and yet the iPhone managed to overcome all the comparisons to become a hit product loved by tens of millions. So, what about the CrunchPad cum JooJoo tablet?
In short it was initially positioned as the first of what was likely to be a series of successful tablet products based around web media services likely capped by the Apple tablet that, even before announcement, many thought would be the most successful of all. But the first of the series would set the tone for those that followed.
What you’re saying is that the JooJoo, which is widely panned, unfinished, and which you can’t buy yet, sets a bad tone for Apple’s potential tablet, thereby spoiling any chance for success (of said Apple product)? Is that it? Is that the problem?
It would likely be OK if we said that the JooJoo would fail because of bad naming or because of the CrunchGear divorce but once we go negative we tend to get creative and pick on other limitations of the device. These limitations which include the lack of a keyboard, the size of the device, and the price will be shared by every other device in the class including Apple. It will be nearly impossible for someone saying that $500 is too much, a large screen device is too big, and a laptop is better for this use to suddenly reverse themselves for a nearly identical device with an Apple brand.
Oh, I get it. You think Apple’s non-existent tablet, when it finally exists, will be an identical device to JooJoo but with an Apple brand. Honestly, I cannot be the only person who follows Apple who sees the lack of logic or sense or gray matter in that conclusion.
I think this class of product has a lot of potential and I truly hope these bone headed moves by Fusion Garage don’t prematurely kill this market. However hopes don’t pay the bills and the reality is that JooJoo may have substantially damaged the market potential for the Apple Tablet. This will be heavy lifting for Apple and we should all suspend out disbelief until we see a well orchestrated launch, for Apple this means they will need to do the impossible.
This, dear readers, is an example of technology punditry and the ability to sit on both sides of the fence (in this case with a fence post up his butt). If the tablets of the future fail, Rob can say, ‘I told you so.’ If they become successful, he can say that Apple did the impossible. Again.
Apple is capable of doing the impossible but I’ve never seen anyone overcome this kind of problem without a lot of time between the failed product (so we forget) and the new, successful offering. I don’t think Apple has that time and that means that the Apple Tablet will be historic for two new reasons, either it will be the first major failure Apple has had this decade or Apple will have accomplished the impossible.
The problem with Rob’s thinking process is that reality rears an ugly head. Where is an example of a bad product spoiling the market for a good product? The history of technology is full of bad products, most of which were overshadowed and succeeded by better products. To imply that the non-existent JooJoo tablet will spoil the tablet market for Apple’s non-existent tablet is to fail to understand history.
The long and short of Rob’s analysis, is, as I understand it: the former—the soon-to-fail JooJoo tablet—may be overcome by the latter—Apple’s soon-to-be-announced tablet. But if it doesn’t, well, ‘I told you so.’
I hope, for the good of the market, it is the latter, the pragmatic side of me worries it will be the former and that Fusion Garage will go down infamously as the firm that destroyed what could have been a very lucrative market.
What a crock of crapola. Good products replace bad products. Good products do not fail because bad products preceded them. That’s complete and utter nonsense. Again, this is Rob Enderle. As TG Daily says:
Rob Enderle is one of the last Inquiry Analysts. Inquiry Analysts are paid to stay up to date on current events and identify trends and either explain the trends or make suggestions, tactical and strategic, on how to best take advantage of them. Currently he provides his services to most of the major technology and media companies.
May I humbly suggest to major technology and media companies that one way to stay up to date on current events and identify trends and explain trends is to not listen to anything Rob Enderle says.
Kate's Comment Policy: Keep your comment on topic, relevant, worthy, and funny. Or, pick any three. Be pleasant, helpful, and only use your real name. Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.