I love the movie “Searching for Bobby Fischer” and I think that most who’ve seen it would agree that the best scene in the movie is when young Josh offers his opponent a draw, saying: “You’ve already lost, you just don’t know it yet.”

When it comes to the tablet device game, this might as well be Apple’s slogan. The iPad already reigns supreme in early adoption and while other companies (Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc.) are rushing to get their own competing devices to market, I don’t know if they realize that they’ve already lost.

Sure, they might compete when it comes to specifications - the Xoom even has the current iPod outmatched with it’s dual-core processor, higher resolution screen, additional memory, better camera, and so-on.  That pretty much concludes the discussion of where current tablets best the iPad, though.

In the technological chess-match currently unfolding, here is where the competition has already lost.

Operating System - While Android has made great leaps and bounds in trying to catch up with iOS, it still isn’t there yet.  Even when it comes to cellphones, an area in which Android outnumbers iOS, it has taken a custom-modded ROM (Cyanogen) to deliver the performance and features and experience that I want from my phone. On paper at least, Android can match what the iPad can do, but the experience is far different.

Apps / Content - First of all, there are just more applications available in the iTunes app store right now.  Because of this, game creators, media outlets, and technology companies are going to create their apps for iOS first.  Second, love it or hate it, the fact that Apple maintains a stringent approval process for applications tends to weed out more of the crap than does Android.  Finally, not only does the iPad offer more applications it also provides seamless access to all sorts of content.  I don’t think that users are going to be satisfied with only hulu, youtube, and manually managing new media on competing devices.

Price - The iPad isn’t cheap, but the fact remains that the entry-level model comes in at $499.  Other options, such as the Samsung Tab, can be found for a lower price point, but not without a $30+ monthly data plan and a two-year commitment.  The Xoom might boast impressive specs, but at $800 I don’t see a compelling case for paying up for it at this point.

Apple has made a bit of noise over the past few months regarding their efforts to buy up supplies of components well in advance.  Not only does this allow them to get parts at a discount, but it means that competing devices are going to have to scramble to find suppliers and pay more for the same stuff when they do.

Availability - This may be the most important reason of all.  The Mororola Xoom or the RIM Playbook sound great and all… but you still can’t buy one!  What happens if Apple announces and releases it’s second generation iPad (which many rumors suggest could happen as early as next month) and the competition still hasn’t gotten their own products to market?  More people who have been waiting to get into the tablet game might go ahead and pull the trigger instead of waiting any longer.  For every person that goes with Apple, that’s one less from the pool of folks that have to be split up by all the rest.

At the end of the day I know that technology companies are going to try and capitalize on any new market, but throwing yourself headfirst into a losing battle just isn’t smart.  Learn a lesson from very recent history: when Apple brought the iPod to market the boom was on.  Companies like iRiver, Sansa, and even Microsoft with its ‘Zune’ tried to get in on the game, but did any of them come close to competing?  Did anyone even turn a profit?

Competition is essential, but rushing a half-baked product to market helps nobody.

Let us know!  What are your thoughts?  Who’s the ultimate winner in your book?

Someone is going to have to help me out with this one.  I’m guessing that this appeals to the same folks that are into digital photo frames (because, you see, it’s like having a digital photo frame on the front of your camera), but it doesn’t appeal to me.  I know that a fellow nerd would have a lot of trouble being subtle as he took pictures of unknowing passengers on the train, although I doubt that the manufacturers care much about that.

Samsung now has as many as six digital camera models that feature LCD screens on both the front and back.  I presume that this is so people can take self-portraits while on some great adventure instead of having to ask some random passerby for help.  Sure, maybe you’re out on a solo hike and want to take a picture of yourself with the sunset perfectly framed in the background.  Really though, does anyone find themselves in this type of position so often that they can justify buying a new camera in order to do so?

In their commercials they show the camera being used to project a picture of a clown to horribly frighten make their baby smile, but they could do the same thing with a rattle… or with another parent.  I have also seen it used to show a countdown which would prompt the subjects of the photo to all jump at the same time.  Again, I imagine that a verbal countdown could serve the same purpose.  Seriously?

So, I ask the fivenerds faithful for help here.  Is this a stupid idea?  Are you tempted to pick one up?  What do you think you would use a ‘DualView’ camera for?

I feel like I’m pretty hip to new technology - definitely not among the ‘laggers’ out there - I just don’t get the 3D TV movement though.  I’ve seen a couple of 3D movies on the big screen recently and while some aspects of ‘Avatar’ were impressive, I was underwhelmed by anything the technology may have added to ‘Toy Story 3.’

While questions of aesthetics are obviously subjective, I think there more than a couple problems with 3D television technology that I don’t really hear anyone talking about.

First off, combine the current expense associated with these new televisions and the lack of programming options and you end up with a television that costs as much as five times your current set (assuming that you’re already rocking an HD flat screen of some kind) with fewer than 1% of the available content being in 3D.  As far as I know, ESPN is the only cable network pushing out anything in 3D right now.  Wait though, before you settle in for that barrage of balls flying right out of your set, you’d better make sure that you have a compatible set-top box, and a pair of sweet looking 3D glasses… which brings me to my next point.

Sure, when you’re not watching television these glasses could definitely be used to score a date with any Megan Fox type, but what you’re going to save in profilictics is going to be nothing compared to the cost of these specs.  For example, a new pair of Samsung 3D shades is going to run you anywhere from $109 to $149 bucks.  As long as you don’t mind watching TV by yourself, then it isn’t a big deal, but if you want your family to share in the experience it could cost you another $400 to $600 dollars.  Having friends over for next year’s 3D Superbowl… well, forget about it.  Don’t think that your buddies can just bring their own pair of glasses from home, because unless you all have the same brand of televisions you’ll find that each manufacturer has it’s own technology, and it isn’t necessarily going to be compatible.  Even if you have enough glasses to go around you still might leave out folks who need a prescription, but can’t wear contacts.

Naturally, I don’t expect HD TV to be the end of the evolutionary process for home entertainment, but I don’t think that this iteration of 3D is really the answer.  First of all, there are already manufacturers experimenting with technology that will eliminate the need for glasses, therefore solving many of the aforementioned problems.  I think that we should strive for something more though.  Why settle for a 2D image that only appears to be in three dimensions?  From Star Wars to The Matrix we’ve seen more than a few examples of 3D display technology in which a holographic image appears in real space so that the viewer’s own perspective dictates the view that he or she experiences.

I imagine a day when your coffee table is actually your ‘television’ as well.  Imagine sitting on the couch while the movie played out on the table top in front of you as the images are projected upwards from the ‘screen.’  How awesome would it be if you were watching football and had the same experience as you might have if you were sitting in the stands?  What if you could move from the perspective of one endzone to the other at the end of a quarter?

While a vision like this might take more than a few years to come about, I think I’d rather wait than jump on the current half-assed bandwagon.