I suspect that for Apple to do well out of iPads, it actually needs those competitors to do well too.

“Do well out of iPads.” Huh. Typo, poorly constructed sentence or Britishism? YOU MAKE THE CALL.

The Macalope’s going to assume it’s a Britishism. He’d call Nessie to try to confirm but it’s such a pain getting a hold of her. The Macalope can never remember how to dial internationally and have you ever tried to get a reclusive mythical beast on the phone? It’s not easy. He’ll just be further charitable and assume what Arthur means here is that competition spurs innovation.

There’s nothing worse for a company than to try to create a market, only to find yourself the only one in it.

Really? Why? If they’re selling a crapload of units, why do they care? It might not be good for the consumer, but it’s not a bad thing for the company.

My own feeling? This is going to turn into an iPod-like rout of rivals if they don’t do something better than the 7″in models on offer.

Wait, are you saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing? Because that rout was pretty darn excellent for Apple. What Arthur’s probably trying to say is that if the market doesn’t attract competition, it’s probably not a good market to be in. But what if it just attracts a lot of bad competition? It’s up to the other tablet makers to execute. Just because they suck so bad doesn’t mean the market isn’t there.

It’s a cute ad but the metaphor reminded the Macalope of nothing more than the point Marco Arment makes here. The “adult” handset manufacturers were churning out pieces of crap and then along came the iPhone. Apple just walked in and started a dance that everyone else has spent the last three and a half years trying to move to.

That probably wasn’t the image they were going for.

The brown and furry one hasn’t laid a hoof on the new nano yet, but he’s only slightly more amenable to the device he called a “red-headed stepchild” in his column last week after reading Dalrymple’s paean.

The place where Dalyrmple and the equally hirsute one agree the most is probably what category it fills. The Macalope said it’s “less of a multitouch nano than it is a multitouch shuffle” and Dalrymple’s piece seems to back that up.

The difference is, Dalrymple thinks that’s a good thing while the Macalope thinks multitouch alone doesn’t warrant the $100 price difference. The 8 GB iPod touch is just $80 more than the 8 GB nano. Now think about the difference in utility between the nano and the touch that you get for $80 versus the difference in utility between the shuffle and nano that you get for $100.

Personally he thinks the old nano provided more utility, but reasonable people can disagree.

Samsung in an update [sub. required] on the Galaxy Tab said the tablet’s price would be below Apple’s iPad when attached to a carrier. Samsung in an update [sub. required] on the Galaxy Tab said the tablet’s price would be below Apple’s iPad when attached to a carrier. Although the full price may be significantly more expensive than the iPad — $900or more — executive Hankil Yoon told the WSJ that the price would be no higher than $300 but likely above $200.

Got that? The full price will be significantly higher, but the price will be lower.

Uh-huh.

You know, when the iPhone came out, most buyers already had a cell contract of some kind, so you could discount part of the iPhone’s contract because they were already paying it. But how many people already have a cellular contract for their tablet?