Discussion on:

Are $100 tablets a waste of money?

A $100 tablet may sound like a great deal. But, low-cost machines often have outdated software and underpowered hardware. Does price trump functionality?

Take the poll in the above post and let me know:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/itdojo/are-100-tablets-a-waste-of-money/2389

Isn't it possible that there are people that have specific needs that are completely met by a very low-end tablet? Just as it's possible there are users for whom none of the existing or announce models are sufficient. It's not like there's a single unified set of requirements that everyone needs, so how can you say these are not useful? Or that they aren't even worth $100? I can think of several uses for a low cost basic tablet. At $100 you could buy several for different purposes around the home, so you don't have to carry your "good" tablet around with you and your family can have access to them as needed.

Price doesn't trump anything. Like everything, it's a balance. Does this do all I need? vs Am I prepared to pay that price.

Myself, I work out exactly what functionality I need in anything I'm going to buy, the only question then is am I prepared to pay the price. Changing the specs is not negotiable.

I've sat in on some of those tables. Strategy is the same. The only difference is the color of the chips.

It's hard to say what the real practical requirements will be for a viable tablet machine, but I'm sure there must be a "middle ground" between the traditionally-overpriced apple offering, and a bottom-of-the-line, cheapest-of-the-cheap tablet.

With the tablet market still trying to define itself, jumping into the dregs is probably a bad move. But there will be ample reasonably-priced, cost-effective machines to fill a niche, if the concept proves itself viable.

This is a good point. The Coby M7015 has Android 2.1 and I am not sure it is upgradeable but it may not matter if the device serves my purpose. I have already been at this point in the mid 1990's when Linux was not readily defined. I have since given up on Linux for a home pc.

If you can't upgrade the old OS then they are useless. If you can get at least 2.2 on there they are fine.

I have read all the negative comments. For a media device meaning connect to the internet, read email, listen to music and carry some photographs my Coby Kryros M7015 bought at $140 from Kmart in Nov 2010 it was a good deal. As for working with Office Suites, Quicken, TurboTax and software for home, I use an Apple or Windows Desktop and tablet pc. Our work organization is still using Windows machines and if you get an exception to policy, you maybe able to use a custom device with no support.

the original cost of the hardware is only a small percentage of the total operating costs over the life of the system. Sure, you could go with a WiFi-only model and hope you can get a connection. But if you're buying something you want to use with a cellular connection, why skimp on the hardware? $350 or so is maybe 20% of a 2-year service contact; for some people even less if they're on a usage-based plan.

In the smartphone and tablet market, like the rest of the overall computer market, the hardware is outdated by the time you get it configured and learn how to use it. Then, the question becomes, would you rather buy outdated, EXTREMELY expensive hardware or outdated, inexpensive hardware?

If you are buying a toy, you have to have the most expensive item available, because bragging about how much it cost is part of the appeal. If you are buying a tool, you buy whatever is capable of doing whatever you need done and at the lowest cost possible.

... And you pay for what you get. I learned that phrase from a co-worker almost 30 years ago and it holds just as true today as it did then. You can go out there and buy the cheapest thing that can do the job, but can you be sure it's going to last long enough to meet your needs? You can buy the most expensive thing out there, but will you really get enough use out of it to make the cost worth it? Balance is the deciding factor, not "Mine is better than yours!" childishness. For me, mine IS better--it's proven itself many times. For you?

... Bucci's 2nd Law is "You get no MORE than you pay for; you frequently get less."

... than the LY-706 that you did a teardown on, Bill. FocalPrice, the site you mention, has 256M, 800MHz, Android 2.1 devices for $130. For $150, there's even a 2.2 device.

:By "better", i mean "better specs" ... no idea on build quality.

I have a Samsung WinCE netbook with the same basic hw as the LY-706 (not tablet form factor, obviously) ... for what it is, it's fine, and we got it at a CVS for $30. I can SSH, browse, etc. Is it going to rock the world? No, but hey, it's all about use cases. And finances.

As another comment pointed out, it depends on what you need the tablet for. I purchased an inexpensive tablet to use primarily as an ereader, but I also surf the web and check my e-mail on it. It also functions as a music player and photo viewer, which makes it great for travelling. If my financial resources were unlimited, I would have purchased a smart phone or iPad, but given what I spent on this device, I am very satisfied with what it can do.

It depends on what you are trying to do with your $100 investment. If you're looking to replace a $650 to $1200 laptop with a $100 tablet, then yes, it's a waste of money. If, however, you are a bleeding-edge technology advocate, then your $100 is an investment in moving the horizon of the bleeding edge.

As a practical matter, I don't care how droolworthy a piece of hardware is (eg, iPod, iPad, Android smartphone, etc.), on general principle I never buy any new device in its first generation. I always wait for at least revision 1 (version 2) -- which in hardware generally means attention has been refocused on design/problems rather than adding new bells and whistles.

Yes, a $100 tablet is a waste of money. I have yet to see one that isn't (and I have bought a couple). Still, you need not spend a fortune to get a good tablet. I have been very pleased with my Viewsonic G tablet, and for the brief time I owned one, the Archos 101 was also quite nice (I prefer the Viewsonic G, though).

Specs (at least the important/required ones) provide a binary go/no go decision. Either the device meets or exceeds the required specs or it is not worth considering. Once that hurdle is passed price is combined with specs to infer value which is the variable to be maximized. There is a very large range in subjective perception of value not to mention specific uses. Hence there will be a large range of price/specification combinations to satisfy those demands.

Passing moral judgement on a niche product because we perceive it to be of low value to us misses the point. It will survive if it serves a need. Ain't capitalism grand!

Cheers, Frowie

The positive thing about this is the fact that we are obviously right around the corner from $100 tablet devices that have decent operating systems and processing power. Wait a year and ask this question again, and I'll bet it will be 70% saying "yes" and 30% saying "no"

both in the poll as well with tablet reviews.
There is nothing wrong with "outdated" tehcnology, as long as it was designed well in the first place. Case in point, my wife uses a Acer laptop with a 1.3Ghz Celeron, for her surfing and document processing needs. As long as the inexpensive tablet was designed for all those outdated components to work together, then it may fullfill the needs of some people. I did laugh at the specs for the tablet in question, having WiFi a/b, rather than b/g or a/b/g, showing it is very dated (or aimed at old WiFi markets). So the poll needs cheap and outdated, outdated but functional, midrange quality, and high end. Hopefully someone will share a good source of inexpensive tablet reviews or tackle the tack of creating such a source of information.

I'd even buy a 1000 $ tablet if I had a use which is worth 1000 $