Fusion Garage Going After Lower-Price Tablet Market 196
nk497 writes "Fusion Garage has dropped the price of its follow-up to the JooJoo tablet, cutting the Grid10's price by $200 to $299 in the US and £259 in the UK. Outspoken CEO Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan has clearly been following the HP TouchPad fire sale, and noticed the importance of price when it comes to taking on Apple's iPad. He said there's no point in buying 'a poor carbon copy' of the Apple tablet for the same price. 'At $499, why would you buy — it's like going to China and buying a [fake] Louis Vuitton bag, at the same price as the real Louis Vuitton bags. It doesn't make sense, when you know it's a rip-off product,' he said."
A new JooJoo (Score:3)
Isn't this the same guy and company that ripped off the CrunchPad from Michael Arrington?
I think the court case is proceeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo [wikipedia.org]
After that sold only a few hundred units, they ditched the name and came out with a new tablet. The UI seems interesting, but I don't think this is going to sell many units.
Re: (Score:2)
They had to drop the name when they screwed Arrington.
I am not surprised that the thing failed to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not interested in the Joojoo, in any incarnation.
I have said from the beginning. EVERYONE wants a tablet, but NOONE can afford it.
HP's fire-sale should have been an obvious eye-opener to everyone. I find any attempt to double your price per item like what HP had tried to do as a rip-off of the consumer. Yeah, the $99 and $149 tablet fire-sale did catch my eye, but their original pricing was gouging.
Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
...Did he just say *his* product was a "poor carbon copy" and a "rip-off"?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! Truth in advertising! I like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the idea of trying to make a BETTER product never occurred to him.
Cheaper is better.
Re: (Score:2)
I have two identical (or sufficiently similar) items. One is cheaper than the other. All other things being equal, cheaper is better.
The GP is making a valid point that the manufacturer _is_ attempting to make the product better by differentiating from competitors on price. One feature of many and arguably one of the more dominant.
Re: (Score:2)
The oriigianl OP fucking obviously didn't mean that a basic studio apartment was "better" than a luxurious ten bedroom mansion with swimming pool and helipad (or whatever), or that a basic Ford was "better" than a million dollar Bugatti.
If you can get a tablet for a third of the price of an iPad, then other things being equal the cheaper tablet is better, in the sense of being a better, more rational choice.
You can pay h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they all do. For cars and everything else you listed. The thing is, you seem just a tad lacking in sophistication to realise the implied qualifier, "... that meets their needs."
You're remarkably insightful. (implied qualifier "... for a mentally handicapped douchebag").
Re: (Score:2)
His premise is that cheaper is not always better, as indicated by opposing your "cheaper is better" claim, which, by lack of any qualifier (and none implied), indicated a rule that should always apply. which is not saying cheaper is never better.
"not always" != "never".
You see... not quite black and white (always vs. never) but something inbetween (not always).
Re: (Score:2)
You literally said "Cheaper is better". Nothing else.
Since you specified no qualifiers, contexts or limitations otherwise, this can only be interpreted as applying to any and all situations.
"Dog is animal" does not mean that sometimes a dog is an animal and other times it isn't, it means a dog is always an animal, without exception.
Have fun twisting your own and everybody elses' words to try and fit THAT counterargument, as you've been doing with most of the reactions in this entire tread. It's been fun rea
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I was thinking this whole conversation yesterday in my head
gawd help us (elec/cmptr engrs) when the public no longer 'needs' our little trinkets
there is an awful bunch of crap (3D TV, 4K projectors, etc) that really have no REAL use
I just hope we all don't go back to burlap sacks and huts for homes
I really like getting wifi internet in my jacuzzi while watching my 60" flat screen
ok
go back to flaming each other
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do people *need* power windows and power locks?
The problem with pedantic little shits is they think their current favorite definition of a word is the only definition. What are you, six?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, and now we see the real you. You got called on your poor argument and rather than man up and accept it, your response is to go for the ad hominem. It says a lot.
It's hardly pedantry to point out that you didn't qualify your original statement at all, and instead try to make it everyone else's fault that they didn't infer "what you really meant".
If you're going to debate, own your statements.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) You don't seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. It didn't just call him a vulgar word, I justified the vulgarity with an explanation as to exactly why it was deserving in this context.
2) A dishonest argument is just as disrespectful as a vulgarity if not more so because not only is it rude, it is also intended to draw someone into wasting time.
Re: (Score:3)
At no point did you seek to address any of his post -
When I told him that his definition of the word "needs" wasn't the relevant definition and that he was a pedantic little shit for insisting that it was, that addressed his entire point.
Yep, ad hominem.
You really don't get this ad hominem thing do you?
Here's a simple rule just for you:
Your argument is wrong because you suck - ad hominem.
You suck because your argument is wrong - not ad hominem.
Got it?
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly get it; it's you who seem to be attempting to furiously back pedal.
Your entire argument was an attack on the OP's intelligence and an attempt to dismiss his (accurate) argument by trying to claim that he had only just learned the word "pedantic" and thus was attempting to apply it erroneously (he wasn't).
The best you could do was call him an immature little shit; in fact all but the immature part of that descriptor appeared before any attempt at an argument (which was tissue thin at best anyway)
Re: (Score:2)
Give up- you lost already.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks man. Really convinced me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WWhere's the pedantry? In noting the difference between "need" and "want" or "nice to have" or "worth paying extra for"? Because that's rather fundamental, and by no means splitting hairs over strict definitions.
Merriam Webster definition of need: [merriam-webster.com]
2a) a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
meanwhile YOUR definition is the last of 4 definitions.
So yes you are acting like a six year old pedant and you got back the level of argument you gave.
Re: (Score:2)
When people talk about buying the "cheapest thing that meets their needs", that naturally excludes niceties and extras. It refers to basics.
Lol. Keep on spinning those wheels. You were out-pedanted with the dictionary definition. Even if your "basics" were the only valid definition of "needs" - rather than the least common definition, we wouldn't be having this conversation about fucking ipads, we'd be talking about food and shelter.
Re: (Score:2)
To use the traditional slashdot car analogy, you would hope that a GBP30K BMW 520 was better than a GBP10K Ford Fiesta, it's just that most people wouldn't care enough to spend the extra money on the BMW, as the Ford will still get them to work and carry their children/shopping around in reasonable safety and comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the idea of trying to make a BETTER product never occurred to him.
Innovation costs resources and money.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not always. What almost always does, though, is implementation. The new idea may cost you nothing but calories, but ramping up a specialized factory to make widgets will definitely cost you. Just ask Charles Babbage! His revolutionary ideas were free, but the implementation cost him dearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All they'd have to do is add a USB port, Android, and flash support. Voila! A better product.
Wait, what? (Score:3)
Did he just claim that every tablet in the world, his own included, is "a rip-off product", to quote the quote?
Has Apple so completely won the mind-share fight that every tablet product, no matter how technically distinctive, is an iPad clone?
The RDF is strong with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I fear you may be right, but I find it nauseating. It's as if the entire world has gone blind and addle-brained.
I have a tablet coputer. It says "CRAIG" right on the front, is a 7" tablet, is shaped nothing like the iPad and bears no fruit logo. And people still ask me how i like my iPad. It's as if the entire world were collectively kicked in the head by a horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have a grand tradition of ignoring trademarks in colloquial speech.
iPad is a concise way to say "non-stylus based tablet computer". Just like saying Xerox was a nice concise way to differentiate a "new" photo copier.
In Atlanta you buy a "Coke", no matter what kind of soda it is. One of the other posters already mentioned Kleenex. People "photoshop" a picture. You "google" someone. We went "rollerblading".
Re: (Score:2)
For the record-- what is the market share of each vendor of honest-to-goodness tablets?
Now narrow it down to tablets produced in the last 3 years, what percentage are iPads, versus Motorola Xooms? Might that have something to do with it?
Re: (Score:2)
I fear you may be right, but I find it nauseating. It's as if the entire world has gone blind and addle-brained.
I have a tablet coputer. It says "CRAIG" right on the front, is a 7" tablet, is shaped nothing like the iPad and bears no fruit logo. And people still ask me how i like my iPad. It's as if the entire world were collectively kicked in the head by a horse.
People like to associate canonical brands with generic items. Back in the day (say the 90s), a copy was a "xerox" (even for some folks today). Being computer proficient meant you had to know "windows" and "office". People wouldn't login to the Internet, they would login to AOL (now Facebook).
The examples are legion.
Re: (Score:2)
Tissue.
Only Americans (maybe Canadians too?) call it a Kleenex in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
People used to ask me what iPhone I had about 3 years ago or so. Now everyone asks me what kind of phone it is and when I mention Android they understand. So, no, the battle is never over.
Regardless, the retail world of tablets is bigger than what the ill-informed lowest common denominator think. I mean, these are the people who call our Canon "the xerox machine" and when they want to know your email address ask for your "aol." They're not the cutting edge trendsetters you think they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Then they putty you ;)
phones and other stuff too! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did he just claim that every tablet in the world, his own included, is "a rip-off product", to quote the quote?
Yes he did. In the same way a fake Luis Vuitton is trying to copy on the success of a Luis Vuitton design, which is currently perfectly legal as long as it doesn't have Luis' name on it, the rest of the tablet market is trying to copy the success of the iPad by building something similar, which is itself also totally legal.
Has Apple so completely won the mind-share fight that every tablet product,
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way a fake Luis Vuitton is trying to copy on the success of a Luis Vuitton design, which is currently perfectly legal as long as it doesn't have Luis' name on it, the rest of the tablet market is trying to copy the success of the iPad by building something similar, which is itself also totally legal.
Except in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... I got it! It's the SUV of electronic gadgets!! ^^
I'd say it's the Smart Car of electronic gadgets.
No sale (Score:4, Insightful)
A no-name company with a skeevy CEO, a custom OS instead of Android or something more well-supported? Maybe at $100, or possibly even $200. But once you get into the $300 range, you've moved beyond the impulse buy and well into the realm where I want a name-brand reputable company backing it--and an OS that I know is and will be supported.
Re: (Score:2)
... where I want a name-brand reputable company backing it--and an OS that I know is and will be supported.
What, like HP?
Re: (Score:2)
What, like HP?
When I said "reputable," perhaps I should have specified a good reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fear your expectations for a $100 tablet [arstechnica.com] may be a bit high.
LV bags (Score:2)
For what it's worth, it's now easier in China to buy real Louis Vuitton bags than fakes. Several years ago, the fake markets were wide open and real LV stores were nonexistent. However, since the Great Cleanup of 2008 (Olympic year), the fake markets have been largely shut down. Real LV stores have opened legitimate operations. There's one within two miles of my house, and believe me, it's real. After being in factory business for a while, you can tell a real from a fake by the quality of materials, th
Re: (Score:2)
1) WTF does atheism have to do with cracking down on knockoff handbags?
2) The problem with China's governing "no-bullshit-style atheists" is that if you disagree with them, you disappear off the face of the earth. [nytimes.com] You may not have a problem with that, since you agree with what they're doing today. But it'll probably seem a lot less appealing if you find yourself disagreeing with them tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
God likes originals. God is very brand-oriented.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I much rather prefer this sentiment expressed in the original German.
Literacy tests (Score:2)
We need an intelligence test before allowing voting
The United States tried that once [wikipedia.org]. It was outlawed after it was discovered that southern states were giving out more difficult tests to black people than to white people [crmvet.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If this time, we give more difficult tests to religionists than atheists
Then you'd have people of faith filing lawsuits on grounds that the state is interfering with their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
How old is the Earth (1) 6000 years old (2) 6 billion years old. Anyone who answers (1) is a freaking moron and can't vote. What's wrong with that?
Anyone who answers (1) ignores that Biblical "days" are metaphorical, per 2 Peter 3:8 [watchtower.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you want people with whom you disagree to not be able to vote? How do you feel when someone on the other end of the political spectrum doesn't want you to be able to vote? Most people believe that voting is a fundamental right, not something we remove simply because someone has beliefs we think are crazy.
Just imagine how much better our society would be if religionists were disenfranchised. The Tea Party would disappear overnight, and who among the following would disagree with that: Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Dan Savage, Paul Krugman, Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken, Barack Obama, Micheal Moore, Evo Morales, Hillary Clinton.Can you seriously say you are on the opposite end of the agreement of these intellectual heavyweights?
First of all, I'm pretty sure that most of the people on that list aren't in favor of removal of peoples right to vote even if it would mean that the Tea Party would disappear. Second of all, most of t
Re: (Score:2)
Most people believe that voting is a fundamental right, not something we remove simply because someone has beliefs we think are crazy.
What, like cannabis cures cancer, so I want to spread it far and wide? And therefore get a felony drug charge, and lose my enfranchisement? Yeah, right, crazy beliefs. (I agree with the relative-intelligence-versus-agreement argument.)
Re: (Score:2)
Im not sure if youre aware of this, but:
* China still has a very large, very thriving "piracy" sector. Im sure I could source fakes of just about whatever you want
* Its kind of a stretch to call Obama a "nutso religion-monger"
* Denying people the right to vote might just maybe conflict with some of the primary reasons people came over here to begin with, or with the founding principles of this country
* Theres an 80-90% chance you are a troll, and
I bought my Galaxy Tab because it can do more... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I feel bad these suckers who are lining up to buy "a cheap carbon copy".
Makes no sense (Score:2)
'At $499, why would you buy — it's like going to China and buying a [fake] Louis Vuitton bag, at the same price as the real Louis Vuitton bags. It doesn't make sense, when you know it's a rip-off product,' he said."
This statement makes no sense.
The ONLY reason to buy a louis vuitton bag for $500 is to show off to other people (especially possible dating partners) that you have the money to buy one, or you're romantically involved with someone who can afford it. On the scale of trashiness, its a bit above simply waving cash around, but not much above it. Humorously, it used to mean you had the money, but for a couple decades now it merely means you're willing to go into debt, which is not quite the same level of sex
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, you appear to have missed the point somewhere...
He wasn't talking about the "status" of the purchaser of a LV bag. He is comparing it to spending the same amount for a fake knockoff vs paying for the "real thing", regardless of what the "real thing" actually is.
To compare it to cars:
You go into a Ford dealership, and see a Pinto on sale for $10,000. You go the Frod dealership (yes, I meant the misspelling) behind the iHop next to the dumpster, and the guy there is selling the Frod Pinte for $10,000.
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY reason to buy a louis vuitton bag for $500 is to show off to other people (especially possible dating partners) that you have the money to buy one, or you're romantically involved with someone who can afford it.
So, the exact same reason people buy iPads, then?
In other news... (Score:3)
In other news, I'm going to sell my entire stock of pink unicorns for fifty cents each.
And I have as many pink unicorns as FusionGarage has $200 tablets that don't 100% suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone actually have "shipped" numbers for the original JooJoo? The only numbers I could find indicated "70" preorders. Color me impressed, Im sure their second try will be equally impressive.
There's really been no innovation since iOS? (Score:2)
I can appreciate what Apple has created, but there have been a couple things created outside of Cupertino.
Also of note, I was wondering how a CEO can get away with talking down his products and then I saw that Fusion Garage
Speaking as an iPad owner. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really was a bizarre comment. It is honest but stupid. He may have been able to say something that did not compromise his integrity and not be really, really stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
And this CEO literally just said "The iPad 2 is better than our product!" Which is even stupider than Motorola overpricing the Xoom.
Why is it stupid? A Lexus is better than a Toyota, and it costs more. Toyota still sells lots of cars.
Given Apple's mindshare, either you compete on quality/features or you compete on price. These guys are competing on price.
Bad analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would the rip off Louis Vuitton bag be any worse that the real thing? There are good knock offs and bad ones. Some of those rip off items come off the same assembly line as the real ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the rip off Louis Vuitton bag be any worse that the real thing? There are good knock offs and bad ones. Some of those rip off items come off the same assembly line as the real ones.
In short, because of the decrease in cost of production of consumer goods, most all consumer goods have roughly similar quality, so what differentiates high-end goods from cheap stuff is the name because it can be copyrighted and protected. This is most obvious in t-shirts, where they all cost between about $3-$7USD in reasonably large quantities, but you can find people willing to pay $50 for a $7 t-shirt that says DKNY on it. So when you buy a Vuitton bag what you're buying is the name, so you can show
Re: (Score:2)
However, while the increase in quality going from "cheap" to "normal" is generally worth it, the increase in quality going from "normal" to "designer" isn't worth the increase in price. (IMHO of course, it clearly is to some people)
Make it cheap enough to buy multiples (Score:2)
The iPad is great but costly. Androids in general have been sluggish in UI response and are somehow always behind the curve of the latest Android OS because the tablet makers don't want to bother with building an update for it. Too many tablet makers jumped on the ship of building an imitation iPad, few actually built a worthwhile tablet.
What I do want to use such knock-off tablets for is for home control - mount the thing against the wall or in your shower for intermediate touch screen access. Can't justif
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that it's time to break Apple up as it now has a monopoly on a product type. I mean, if Android has no chance at penetration, clearly we must make sure the market performs properly, and forcing Apple to spin off a chunk of its tablet division is the only solution.
Unless, of course, you're just another fucking useless fanboy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you just finished saying they have an unbreakable hold on the tablet market. Clearly this is unhealthy and Apple needs to be smashed to pieces to prevent it from permanently cornering said market, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he thinks they will have a monopoly, but since no one can predict the future, he wouldn't advocate breaking up Apple before they actually violate the law in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be one of the most brain-dead comments I've ever seen.
Just because another product fails to penetrate the market does NOT make it an illegal and anti-competitive monopoly that the DoJ would ever get involved in (re: "forcing Apple to spin off a chunk of its tablet division").
If my product is better than your product - perception or reality - so that nobody buys your shit...then YOU suck. YOU are still welcome to try and compete and bring a product to market that can bring my product down, just
Re: (Score:2)
You were just bragging a couple of posts up that Apple had this impenetrable hold on the market. Now suddenly you seem to be saying it doesn't. Was your first post just fanboyish bravado, or do you actually think Apple has an unbreakable hold on the tablet market? And if it is unbreakable, do you presume that to be a healthy position for consumers?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't brag shit a couple of posts up.
And lets say, for the sake of argument, that Apple really does have an "impenetrable hold on the market" (which is a pile of flaming turd, since any other company can try to bring a better/cheaper product to market & dethrone Apple, but hey, lets say that nobody else has a fucking chance)...
It STILL isn't a fucking illegal monopoly, because Apple isn't the one's preventing the competition's success. The CONSUMER is handing Apple the monoploy, NOT Apple.
That's the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like trying to use dubious patents to maintain a perpetual cycle of litigation?
Re: (Score:2)
Not anti-competitive. At least per the law.
Let me put it to you this way. You invent something. You get a patent. You start manufacturing said product. I try to license the patent from you. You tell me to go fuck myself.
If I need your patent to bring a competing product, I'm completely fucked.
But that's what a fucking patent is - a legal monopoly that you have the right to x idea for y period of time. You are under no obligation to share your patent...and why fucking would you, because you're making
Re: (Score:2)
They're using their flimsy patents to prevent anyone with a product that could damage their market penetration. Now I'll admit it isn't an illegal monopoly yet, but at what point does such anti-competitive behavior cross the line? I think the market wouldn't be very healthy if Apple was the only game in town and was able to use its patents to prevent anyone from producing a reasonable competing product, would you? Do you think that Apple's current penetration and willingness to use its portfolio for expl
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand US monopoly legislation. You don't break up a company for gaining a monopoly, you break them up for USING a monopoly to gain a monopoly unfairly in a new market. And you don't spin off "a chunk of" a division, you break the company up into different companies that serve each market.
Re: (Score:2)
If that makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
anyone who can afford it is going to buy the real thing
This is verifiable false. Even suggesting it is absurd.
We are also not in the AtariST/Amiga/PC phase of the tablet war. We are in the Ti99-4a/Vic20 phase. You can tell this by the fact that most people don't have a tablet, and most people don't even see a real need for a tablet. There reason most people don't have any tablet at all is that the current crop of tablets doesn't meet the needs of most of the public. Just as the Vic-20 didn't meet the computing needs of most people. When even 50% of the
Re:real vs fake (Score:4, Interesting)
The only people buying non-iPad tablets are those who can't afford the iPad.
I was just in my boss' office about an hour an ago and he had an iPad box on his desk that we bought for research for a new project. He took the box off his desk and called it a "piece of crap" or something, and went on to wonder why anyone would buy an iPad when you can buy a Galaxy and have things like USB connectivity and the freedom to use it how you want to. This is from a guy in his 50s who runs a company creating online training courses. There are plenty of people who see the iPad for what it actually is who don't buy into Apple's marketing BS. Meanwhile, the lady who works here who actually does own an iPad primarily uses it to play Angry Birds, so there's your shrewd Apple consumer.
all you can do is attempt to sell a much lower end product without the compelling advantages that draw people to buy iPads.
What exactly are those compelling advantages? I don't own an iPad and I don't see anything compelling about it, so maybe you can fill me in.
Re: (Score:3)
"have things like USB connectivity"
The first thing I do with any tablet is plug as many usb cords as I can into it and never move it from that spot since it'd take too much work to plug all those wires back in and it's a pain to move with that jungle of cords attached.
Re:real vs fake (Score:4, Insightful)
I know! That's exactly the same as occasionally plugging in a flash drive!
I'm so glad I never have to do that with my iPap!
Re: (Score:2)
The App Store, which android does not support.
Various Android devices support plenty of places from which to buy applications. You'll need to point out why Apple's store is better than your options on Android, because I don't see anything compelling about Apple's store relative to any other offering. The integration with iTunes might be desirable if you use iTunes a lot, but I personally don't like that program.
Relative lack of malware. And no, just because you can name ONE iPad malware doesn't mean the situation is the same as Android's wild-west free for all.
"Wild west free for all?" You want to know how many pieces of malware my Android device has? Zero. The score is zero to zero. That's not
Re: (Score:2)
I can afford an ipad but I bought an android 3.1 tablet on purpose because its better, most people I know now prefer android over ios. you can;t even download thinsg and save them to the ipad using the native browser its a piece of junk.
No, he is implying what others will think (Score:2)
he is simply saying it.
Far too many pick up an iPad competitor and immediately start thinking, if it costs the same why not just buy the iPad. I agree his choice of words isn't the greatest.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has the brand recognition in the tablet market that the iPad has. That is fact. If you told somebody you bought a transformer or a zoom, they wouldn't know what you were talking about. More and more people know Android, but still a much smaller set than iPad.
For the uneducated masses, the iPad is the real thing and the others and knockoffs. Your product might be just as good, or even better, but this doesn't matter because the perception is the iPad is better. If you can convince people that you
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what did he just say about his product? That's it's a fake iPad and/or a rip-off?
Shouldn't you say more neutral or positive things about your own products?
It's interesting how we are so used to being bullshitted that when someone is honest enough about his product, even if he says nothing that everyone haven't already perceived, we find it strange. It is an iPad rip-off. It is cheaper. We all know it. And, regardless, there's a huge market for that exact kind of product, so why should he restrain his words?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the price quoted in GBP includes VAT and all import Taxes.
The US price is without any sales Tax.
Still, even taking those factors into consideration, the price is still rather high. I guess the $1 == £1 rule still applies. rather than £1.60 == £1.00approx