There is no tablet market: Why consumer experiences matter

“Buried deep in the language on Apple’s website for the iPad 2 you’ll find this phrase: ‘It’s not a tablet, it’s iPad 2,'” Ben Bajarin writes for TIME’s Techland.

“I would also challenge you to find Apple publically calling the iPad a tablet,” Bajarin writes. “The fact of the matter is they don’t, and there is a specific reason for that.”

Advertisement: Limited Time: Students, Parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac.

Bajarin writes, “Companies making what we call tablets are not creating experiences. They are just creating products. This is what needs to change if they hope to compete with the iPad.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Scratch tablets. Let’s call it what it really is: The iPad market.MacDailyNews Take, July 21, 2011


Related articles:
There is no tablet market, only an iPad market – August 24, 2011
People don’t want fake iPads, they want real Apple iPads – August 12, 2011
People don’t want prototypes, they want iPads – April 27, 2011


  1. Even Keenex needs to add “tissues” after their tradename. Apple needs the generic “tablet” noun to protect the iPad name. If they allow iPad to become a generic reference for any flat, slate-like tablet, post-pc device, then they run the risk of anyone using “iPad” as the style designation of their device. I’ve looked at the Apple site, and see that they never even us a ™ or © mark anywhere. I’d say Apple is playing a bit loose with their tradename, which I find odd.

    1. Using a ™ or ® after a name isn’t necessary to protect a trademark, it’s just there to tell people you’re using the name as a trademark and willing to defend your rights to it.

      I’m pretty sure everyone is clear that Apple’s product names are trademarks, and that they’re willing to defend them.

      Ironically adding that kind of “product category name” too early to a trademark with a monopoly position brewing could hurt more than it helps. It’s essentially admitting that it’s slipping into generic usage. I think Apple would have to wait for the public to go there before they start calling it an “Apple iPad brand music player”.

      They haven’t even gone there for the iPod.

    2. No rationale would justify another company stealing “iPad” from Apple. Apple’s competitors are tarnishing the term “tablet” on their own accord with the crap they’re selling, and Apple doesn’t want any part in it.

    3. Wrong. Apple doesn’t need to refer to the iPad as a “tablet.” In fact, Apple specifically DOESN’T want you to call an iPad a “tablet” – Apple wants you to call it what it is: an iPad.

      Apple isn’t creating a tablet market. Apple is creating an iPad market, and henceforth no “tablet” computer will ever be able to be known as a “tablet,” it will be known as “that thing that’s like an iPad.”

      Why? Because people don’t want tablets, they want iPads.

  2. Exactly. Apple wants people to think one thing when you say ‘tablet’, and another when you say ‘iPad’, and to make sure they never confuse the two.

    There are many parts of the world where the word ‘iPod’ means ‘portable media player’, as in: “Do you have an iPod?” “Yes.” “What brand is it?” “My iPod is a SanDisk Sansa”. So far, this is only the case in a developing world. In the developed countries, there is no confusion (yet).

    There is no reason for Apple to take any action in order to clarify the usage of any of their trademarks..

  3. Sorry, but you all are missing the point. I was talking about treating a trade name as noun, such as iPad does this, iPad does that. Apple’s current use of the iPad name opens the door to potential infringement (whether any company is crazy or ballsy enough to try it).

    Read this excerpt from a article to see what I mean:

    “Protecting Your Trademark: Beware the Escalator Fate

    Many aspiring entrepreneurs dream of turning their brand into a household word. But watch what you wish for—if your trademark becomes the generic word for a kind of product, you could lose your ownership of it.

    That was the fate of words like “escalator” (originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Co.), “zipper” (B.F. Goodrich), “aspirin,” and even “heroin” (both Bayer AG). Today companies like Kleenex and Xerox struggle to avoid such a fate through marketing campaigns aimed at reminding the public that they are a brand, not a product category.

    “The company most notorious for making sure you don’t genericize their mark is Xerox, which insists that people use a Xerox copy machine, they don’t ‘make a Xerox,'” says Albert.

    This kind of “household word” problem isn’t likely to become an issue for most small businesses. But you can forestall the possibility of trouble down the line by using your trademark as an adjective rather than a noun.

    “You don’t want to say ‘Buy Rollerblades,'” Abrahamson said. “Instead, say ‘Buy Rollerblade in-line skates.'”


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.