Motorola caught a fair amount of flak when pricing for its XOOM Android 3.0 tablet was announced a few weeks go. Off contract, the 10-inch tablet is $799; with a two-year Verizon Wireless service agreement, the price falls to $599. Given its feature set over and above the 1st Gen iPad, this price – while high – was at least justifiable.
But with this week’s iPad 2 release and its unchanged pricing model, I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before Motorola and Verizon are forced to lower the XOOM’s price to compete. Or if they’ll be smart and lower the price simply as a wise business practice.
The XOOM has a fast dual-core processor, 30GB of onboard flash storage, dual cameras, HD video recording, HDMI-out, a range of wireless technologies, and a sleek, slim design. Against the original iPad, this was impressive, and (arguably) worthy of a price bump over a comparable year-old Apple model. But the new iPad 2 offers all of these features, yet sells for less.
The XOOM goes for $799 unsubsidized. A comparable 32GB iPad 2 with built-in 3G can be yours (on March 11th) for $729 and without a service commitment.
Now, the XOOM is LTE ’4G’ upgradable, which counts for something, but most users won’t be able to access LTE where they live for some time, and Verizon isn’t selling non 4G XOOMs for less. Apple fanboys and Android lovers can argue point by point which model is better, but it’s an unwinnable argument and not really the point.
If Motorola and other competitors want to gain a meaningful share of the tablet market against the already-entrenched Apple, they have to do better than standing behind devotees’ talking points – they must appeal to the average consumer en masse and appeal to them boldly.
Why would an average consumer shopping at a Verizon Wireless store – or anywhere else -choose the XOOM over the iPad 2? Well, the 32GB 3G iPad 2 is $130 more than the subsidized XOOM, but $80 less than the off-contract Moto tablet. Some will want to pay less up-front for the subsidized XOOM ($599) even if they have to shell out more over a two-year contact period, but many will make the calculation that the extra price ($729) is worth the Apple app, media and accessories ecosystem alone, to say nothing of being contract free and having the chic-factor that comes with owning the latest, greatest Apple gizmo.
It’s difficult to imagine that the XOOM can compete meaningfully given these prices.
According to iSuppli, the XOOM costs about $360 to manufacture. If Motorola lowered the unsubsidized price to $499, they’d still make a respectable profit and position themselves at the same price point as the entry-model iPad 2 – with no 3G, no LTE support, and half the onboard storage. Subsidized by Verizon on contact, the price would fall to $399 or $299. That would change the game for many tablet buyers deciding between the two.
Each of these points can be argued, but I think companies shepherding would-be iPad killers have to be smart; and smart, particularly in this economy, means either 1) comparable and much more affordable or 2) much better and more affordable. The XOOM, compared to the iPad 2, just doesn’t seem to be much better, and certainly isn’t much more affordable.
As long as there’s no bold, blinding line separating competing tablets and the iPad 2 in price and/or features, they don’t stand a chance. And that’s bad for all of us.
Matthew Nichols, Products Editor