So here are my tips for a couple of devices which are worth keeping an eye on - not necessarily for purchasing reasons (on that issue I wouldn't stray too far from the aforementioned A's of Apple and Amazon for now) - but more from the point of view tracking tablet trends:

1.) Firstly there's the Ainovo Novo7, a 7-inch Chinese tablet which is noteworthy for 3 reasons, only 1 of which will concern me here. That reason is its $99 price tag, which could very easily see it become a significant in developing markets or at the more 'disposable' end of developed markets.

(For the other two reasons why it's interesting, you'll have to read the Techcrunch write-up on the device. One of them though is the tablet's MIPS architecture, which is one of the reasons why the price tag is so low - and one reason why more Chinese tabs in the future will also be able to compete so effectively on this front in the future).

The bottom line though, is simply the bottom line. The Ainovo Novo7 has a USP - its price - and therefore does what many of the aforementioned failed forays into tablet computing didn't do, which is offer the consumer a unique (or at least, different enough) vision of what tablet computing is and could be. In the case of Ainovo, their vision is that it can be very cheap and almost disposable bit of kit, rather than the consumer fetish that Apple offers.

2.) Secondly, there's the Eee Pad Transformer (and, it's upmarket brother, the Transformer Prime) from Asus, which is getting a mention simply for the fact that it is already having some small but genuine market success thus far and looks set to improve on this hugely in 2012 (which is a pretty rare feat - just ask Dell or HP if you don't believe me).

Anyway, Asus seems likely to surpass Samsung on tablet sales next year with a projected 3 million tablets shipped (up from 1.8 million this year) which would make them third (I don't have to tell you who occupies the first and second spot) by market share - although still miles behind the top two.

Regarding the devices themselves, there's not a million things to say other than they continue with the standard Asus approach - affordable, low-mid to mid-range pricing with impressive specs and design that gives top-end devices a close run for their money. All in all, the two word summary is Value (capital V) and reliability (they're widely available, support is decent, and construction standards are above average - though they're no Sony). They offer the consumer a no-frills but solid and reliable tablet device, which undercuts the iPad pretty significantly on price but not as much as you'd expect on spec or build quality.

So, there we have it, a couple of devices that actually look like they might also make some sort of impact in the tablet market, unlike the countless others who look doomed from the off. We'll see what happens but one thing is for sure, 2012 will be the year that market share really starts to move around in the tablet market after four years of Apple domination (and 1 year of decent success also for Amazon).

For me the interesting thing is that the Kindle Fire is the first real tablet success that isn't an iPad - in the true sense of the word. There have been loads of devices which also weren't iPads - but really wanted to be (i.e. clones/rip-offs) that spectacularly failed. The Kindle Fire presents a quite different idea of what a successful tablet device can be and how it can work from a business point of view. In short: it is cheap (Amazon sells the devices at a loss) and the money comes from later digital media sales (books, films, games etc).

Apple meanwhile has a different vision: the device is extremely attractive in terms of design making it a consumer object of desire, which in turn justifies a pretty huge asking price. It's not quite as simple as Apple taking the high-end of the market while Amazon takes the low end since the two devices have some quite different functionality features.

However, the bottom line from the point of view of tablet computing is pretty clear to me - in order to establish a foothold in the tablet market you need to have your own idea of what tablet computing should look like, not only as a device and user experience but also as a business. Looking back on it now, it's frankly ridiculous how many companies tried to get a piece of the action (and lost a ton of money) by simply imitating the market leader Apple and their iPad device.

It's been almost four years since that definitive device was launched but we can finally now say that there is genuine competition in the tablet market - which is also interesting for the fact that the dynamic is rather similar to what happened in the smartphone market after Apple launched the iPhone: everyone scrambled around like mad trying to respond for a few years while Apple raked it in, before one or two others eventually figured out something to offer consumers and also managed to get a reasonably respectable market share.

Although I somehow doubt we'll have to wait another four years for the next viable tablet device to come along, I also doubt that it will come anytime soon judging by what's currently slated by the wannabe iPad and Fire competitors. In any case, for my money at least, the tablet market is finally becoming an interesting arena of competition with rival companies offering different ideas and visions for where things might develop in the future.

Anyway here's the blurb from Gogobot for anyone new to the website:

'Whether it is a week's vacation, a business trip or a weekend getaway, we believe planning your trip should be almost as fun as the trip itself. We believe the best advice comes from people you trust - people like you - and not from anonymous strangers on the internet. We believe sharing your experiences should be as simple as touching the screen on your phone. We are passionate about technology and design and their power to reshape our world for the better.'

The way that Gogobot does these things is by offering three main services for the traveller:

1. Real-time info about the place you are visiting. Everything from hotels and restaurants, to events, attractions and maps. It basically offers almost all the standard types of info which you tend to seek when choosing a destination, planning a trip, and - with the aid of mobile apps - when you are actually there. Lots of sites offer information however, so what is so good about Gogobot? This brings me to the second point.

2. Trip planning and organisation. Gogobot users can create profiles so that trip info that they wish to retain for later can be organised and stored on their accounts (no more need for endless print-outs prior to embarking on a trip). This option of having personalised trip plans and the possibility to share them with travel companions and friends is only attractive because of the wealth of travel information that Gogobot initially offers (see above).

This aspect of Gogobot is one of its strongest features in my view, promising to make travel more fun simply by removing a vast chunk of the time wasted on the tedious side of organisation: for example, having 19 browser windows/tabs open trying to find a hotel which is in the right place, has good reviews while also trying to check late night public transport facilities and timetables for the area is annoying and time-consuming. These aspects of trip planing are not fun in my view but sometimes cannot be avoided. Gogobot however seems well placed to dispense with the frustrating aspect of such tasks, though not their useful products.

3. Social. Gogobot takes the social element of websites such as Tripadvisor (i.e. community reviews, recommendations, feedback) and takes it to another level. Users have more detailed profiles with some essentially acting as free, knowledgeable online tour guides whom you can ask individual questions. Otherwise you can address the entire community of people who have been to the place in question, as well as still consulting the opinion poll result type info which we now rely on.

You can also directly seek the advice of your friends who can recommend places and things which you would enjoy in a particular city or country. This is important as things like museums, attractions, hotels etc do not really work in the same way that say DVD's and books do in terms of a computer algorithm's ability to recommend effectively with relatively little data what you might like (just check Amazon to see it in action in the latter case).

For now it would require far too much data for an automated recommendation service to be capable of this: there's simply too many variables to consider and unless users were happy to spend a good few hours inputting trip data, it would be unlikely to suggest things to do/see/stay with any great success rate.

That's why friends are important - they don't need hours of data inputting to recommend a cafe or park that you might like because they've already got months, years, or even decades of experience of knowing and learning what you like, how you think and feel, and can probably do a much better job than any automated recommendation currently available.

Also, remember when I said Gogobot could reduce the annoying side of travel planning? Well it can also open up more ways to enjoy the fun side of it - through features such as real-time digital postcards which can be geo-tagged and customised in a few ways (making it a little more advanced than simply sharing a photo on Facebook).

Anyway, I'll be having my first Gogobot experience with the aid of their iPad app this coming November on a trip to Paris, so you can expect a more hands-on review of it around mid-November (although I've already used the site a little to find two decent looking vegetarian restaurants in about 3 mins - which normally takes a lot longer, especially outside the UK where veggie places tend to be harder to locate).

However, all that looks set about to change in what most are recognising as the beginning of a new chapter for tablet computing. Whereas previous non-iPad tablets have essentially tried to compete with Apple on their own terms (i.e. 'we're gonna make an iPad type thing even better than Apple's iPad thing') and therefore failed miserably, now finally there is a device which offers a fundamentally different approach to tablet computing than the iPad. That device is Amazon's Fire tablet.

The whole idea of the Fire tablet isn't that it is meant to be just as nice to look at and use as the iPad, since this is a game nobody can beat Apple at (if there's one thing they do head and shoulders better than everyone else, it is product design). True, it is pretty similar looking and feeling to the iPad, but that is not really the point - everyone should know by now that if you think product design is your selling point, and you're not Apple, then you can pretty much expect a few 'where we went wrong meetings' in the next six months...

No - Amazon (unlike HP, Blackberry, LG, Toshiba, Motorola et al) knew that the only way to establish a foothold in the tablet market was not to try and take customers directly off Apple, but instead to attract new customers; those who don't have an iPad already and aren't going to get one. The key to this, as an excellent analysis in the Guardian recently showed, is undercutting Apple in the only way possible - on price.

As is often the case, Apple's only major weakness is its extortionate pricing (profit margins on the iPad are reportedly 40%) though this is of course also what has helped make it the most valuable company in the world (on and off depending on how its only share-price rival, Exxon Mobil, is doing).

Amazon are therefore launching a tablet which is going to cost a fraction of what the iPad does (two-fifths precisely, at $199) safe in the knowledge that for them the tablet is simply the means to enable huge profits from content delivery, rather than the main profit-making aspect in the whole process. In other words, same as with the Kindle, Amazon is able to offer a super cut-price gadget (perhaps even selling at a loss), knowing that the additional profits from content will still ensure the viability of the entire revenue model.

We know that this works extremely well because we've seen the tremendous success of the Kindle over the past couple of years - especially since the huge price drop just over a year ago. And it is this track record of success with such a revenue model that makes Amazon's Fire tablet one to take seriously as a new device and as the one most likely to become only the second tablet computing success ever (assuming we count the iPad and iPad 2 as essentially one device).

Unlike in the smart-phone arena, where there are now a number of successful rivals to the iPhone (albeit many of which only arrived a good few years after Apple launched their first handset), at the moment only one tablet is selling well and we all know exactly which one that is...

Plus, it's not like others aren't trying, check out for example these recent reviews of the Motorola Xoom Android tablet at Engadget and Guardian technology; both indicate that there's not much deeply wrong with the Xoom - just that while, in terms of price, it is generally equal with the iPad - in terms of features and functionality, it isn't...

That, thus far, has been the tablet story. Since the iPad launch, many other rival items have been brought to market and very few offer any significant reason to buy them over the iPad. What needs to happen before that becomes the case is something like the breakthrough Amazon recently had with their Kindle e-reader; i.e. when one device emerges with a unique selling point and sweeps away the rest of the competition (or at least claims a decent market share) in a sector which has proven potential for huge revenues if you can get the right device to market in the right way.

For the Kindle it proved to be the huge price reduction which came into effect around a year ago (thus undercutting devices such as the iPad - with which it did not compete at a functional level, only at a monetary/price one) and also the massive brand potential of Amazon with their excellent expertise in cloud-based services (which make managing a Kindle an absolute pleasure).

So let's return to tablets. Stephen Elop, Nokia CEO, is determined that his company won't just build 'another tablet'. Meanwhile, Sony's highly anticipated entry to the tablet market is currently due for September this year for their S1 device - though this has already been pushed back a little bit so who knows if this latest date will stick. Sony will hope to capitalise on the might of the Playstation in the console gaming market to give them a USP for their device by means of excellent gaming capabilities. Nokia, on the other hand have yet to release even this much info though it seems likely judging from the aforementioned interview with Stephen Elop (check out the full thing over at Engadget), that the company is well aware of the need to enter the tablet market with a well-defined USP.

Thus far though, despite the fact there's now dozens of devices available to choose from, there's only one tablet that really works at a market level - and it is the one built by Apple. The next big success will come when someone else comes along with an alternative decent idea for what a tablet can do and how it could be made and sold. Unless it happens in the near future, the only big tablet hit I can see on the horizon is the iPad 3...

However, there is also one other significant detail about the Web Store, which is already worthy of some serious discussion - and that is Google's pricing and revenue models for the product. Initially a 70/30 developer-Google revenue split was expected (similar to Apple's app store model), though Google have since confirmed that their slice of the pie will now actually only be 5%. This is quite a considerable strategy decision which has clearly been made at some point during the development process.

I find this especially interesting in the context of some recent discussion and posts we had on this blog last month, about Google's emphasis on value-for-money in the mobile market, both for consumers and developers, which has arguably been one of the reasons why Android is continuing to grow very impressively in terms of its market share. In essence what we discussed back then was that Android boasted the highest proportion of free apps, as well as having a relatively competitive average price for its priced apps, unlike the app market leader, Apple, whose apps typically cost much more and were less likely to be free. This wasn't intended as a criticism of Apple (they have a splendid business strategy in the app market - tailored to work for them), but more as an observation of one key area in which Google has identified that it can distinguish itself and win users in such a dynamic and crowded market place - to which it arrived later than many rivals.

Well, it seems that the lessons of Android's success (fast growth and market penetration IS achievable by the deployment of serious financial incentives for users and developers) are now being applied to the Chrome Web Store. The folks at Google are clearly aware that in terms of corporate economies of scale, they are sitting at the helm of the super giant of the industry sector, and you don't need a business MBA to know that such companies often maintain their position by offering good value-for-money to customers, as they can afford to implement price cuts that squeeze out smaller competitors.

To return then to the Chrome Web Store, I expect that the considerable incentive offered to developers by the low 5% cut will yield impressively rapid growth in the number of apps available, and likewise in the number of users purchasing them (who will probably also feel the benefit of Google's low cut in the form of cheaper finished apps). In other words, I expect we will see some overlap with the way Apple's iPad app store works for example in terms of interface and app types etc, but also a considerably contrasting revenue model driving things behind-the-scenes. Anyway, that's about all we can say on this for now - more details and comment to follow as the launch approaches.

This seems pretty smart, since the Kindle could never win that battle (its screen is neither colour, nor touchscreen to name just a couple of inferior qualities compared with the iPad), but Amazon have wisely decided to capitalise on the one front where Apple's product is weak - price (i.e. the iPad is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination).

Moreover, Kindle's access to the larger e-book library (Amazon says that they offer ten times more books than the iPad can access), seems to provide it with a respectable chance of outmanoeuvring Apple's jack-of-all-trades device, by cornering the e-reading niche for itself.

Funnily enough, I can't help but feel that Amazon's otherwise not too successful product has benefited massively since the introduction of this bit of competition from Apple's iPad (and other such forthcoming devices). It just goes to show how the much-feared rival can sometimes actually benefit positively on a product, by forcing it to identify itself better - as is the case here. As a result of Apple's iPad launch, the Kindle has not only been much more adeptly targeted at a specific (and winnable) corner of the market, but will also potentially benefit from the popularisation of e-reading which the iPad might help to foster.

Dejan Levi

However, perhaps more intriguing is Forrester's breakdown of the market by 2015, which suggests that most of the tablet share will actually come at the expense of desktop pc - and not the other two portable devices (notebooks and netbooks) with which one might assume it was in direct competition with.

Whatever happens, I expect web developers will be following all these projections with interest and anticipation for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most relevant one however will be the fact that tablet computers such as the iPad utilise a completely different user interface in the touchscreen, and hence will demand a unique approach in terms of web design, which has so far only been a factor with regard to smartphones.

As a rather simple example, consider the fundamental difference between using a mouse pointer and a finger to navigate a website. The latter will surely demand bigger and more spread out buttons for a start, and will therefore have significant impact on the aesthetics of layout and design. Then there remains the question of whether different versions of sites will be designed for tablet computers (operating through an 'app style' feature as with iPhone Facebook for example) or if a one-size fits all method will be more popular.

Certain trends with regard to user interfaces in web design already suggest that the anticipation of tablet computing has been a consideration for some time - such as the current popularity of 3D style 'pushable' buttons. Nonetheless, one expects that if Forrester's predictions regarding tablet computers are right (and in a sense if they are wrong, it can only really be because they underestimated tablet popularity - judging by impressive iPad sales), then web developers will have considerable work to do in accommodating the widespread touchscreen interface into their design considerations.

Dejan Levi

Well, worry not ladies and gentlemen! To satiate your desires, at least for a few minutes, I now present a general round-up of what's going on in relation to this headline-hogging mega high-profile device, which somehow continues to entertain (even before anyone has one) simply by its endless ability to generate news items (some of which are rather bizarre).

Take for example the recent advert for Blendtec (which can be found on Youtube) in which an Apple iPad is rather cleverly employed for the task of boosting sales of the Blendtec's domestic use blender products (I don't want to spoil the surprise - check it out for yourself). All in all, quite a clever hijacking of the iPad media fuss and I don't doubt Blendtec will soon be able to look back on this as a very successful example of a viral video ad campaign.

Now let's turn our attention to more serious matters - namely, that the iPad has been banned (!) in Israel because it actually contravenes the legislation on the permitted potency of Wi-Fi emitters and is therefore a potential disruptor of existing networks in the country. Furthermore, the iPad contravenes similar laws in Europe on the same issue - but has not yet been (and is unlikely to be) banned here. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that either a) Apple didn't design the device to comply with existing laws in some of their most major markets and instead simply hoped they would 'let it slide' or b) that Apple is unaware of the relevant legislation - surely even more unlikely a scenario?

I don't expect that there's any chance this issue could escalate further for Apple - especially with European release dates pending very soon - but there's no doubt that it will damage profits somewhat (at least for the small-ish territory of Israel). Teething problems are of course inevitable with the release of such a high-profile product on a global scale, especially with Apple's decision to get the device out as soon as possible rather than spend years re-re-developing, but this one could surely have been avoided...

However, good news for Israeli gadget fans comes in the recently circulating rumours that Google is working on an android-based rival to the iPad (which hopefully won't also be banned in the territory). I imagine this will come as welcome news also to those who take issue with Apple's slightly 'unique' pricing policies (i.e. their stuff costs absolutely loads). Anyway, there's not much concrete information available on this yet but the current rumours seem highly plausible as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, back to the matter at hand with some practical information for UK iPad-curious readers: detailed pricing plans should be released on May 10th, with O2, Orange, and Vodafone all confirmed as carriers of the device (T-mobile is still in discussions with Apple, but should follow suite soon enough). Until then I hope the ever inflating volume of speculation and rumour in the blogosphere keeps you going...

Dejan Levi

Well I suppose it's only inevitable that the actual thing can't live up to such overblown fantastical expectations, and while many in the 'blogosphere' contemplate a 'failure' for Apple, I must say that I'm more inclined to side with Stephen Fry on this one when he highlights that a similar response has met most of Apple's recent launches (including the iPhone) - simply due to the extent of media coverage and hype beforehand.

And just like the iPhone, Fry reckons this really only represents an early version of the iPad - more of a testing ground before 2.0 and 3.0 come into play. It seems sheer folly to deny that Apple's track record suggests that once these later releases are reached, the market will not once more be dominated by a sleek shiny device with a small apple on it...

Currently for me the iPad seems to be based on a couple of very sound principles and assumptions, which place it on good stead to do well. Firstly, it seems hard to doubt that gesture based software interfaces are the future of computing. With touchscreen technology improving all the time, I doubt that we'll have much use for the old mouse and keyboard in another decades time.

Secondly, there remain many potential markets and functions which the iPhone looks unable to ever deliver - simply because of its size. Conquering the e-book market, which remains there for the taking after the Kindle's relative lack of success, is one such potential goal - and the iPad once again looks like it has the potential to do the trick.

Only time will tell, but even at this early stage past experience teaches us that Apple sometimes know a good bit more than they modestly let on - and that in all likelihood the iPad will be at least a decent success by this time next year, if not a roaring one already by then.

Dejan Levi