Look, that's because non-iPad tablets with a real (touchscreen, tablet-sized) OS didn't exist until 3 months ago. Give Android a year and a half to let the Android Market populate with some great tablet-sized software, and who among us doubts that the tablet market will look just like the phone market does now?
EDIT: The commenters responding to me made a really good distinction -- phones are near-necessity devices that are subsidized by carriers, whereas right now, tablets are more or less a luxury purchase. I agree that this might have an effect on how things play out.
The phone market is not the same as the tablet market...unless Verizon/ATT/etc start giving away/heavily subsidizing Android tablets en masse. If that happens - eg, Great $100 Android tablet that requires a two year data contract from Verizon, then perhaps it will look the same.
Right now you can get Galaxy Tab from verizon with a 2 year data contract for 199. So the idea exists..but do people want 2 year contracts for a 2nd device with their carrier?
Even then - you need a phone. You don't need a tablet. I think aside from the operating systems, you're really looking at two entirely different situations
> who among us doubts that the tablet market will look just like the phone market does now?
I do.
For one thing, building tablet software is hard. I mean, extremely hard work from a UI perspective. It makes stuff for the phone look like a cakewalk (I'll share a blog post sometime). So if Android Market continues sucking ass in terms of rewarding developers versus what they can make on the App Store, you'll get a bunch of turd apps and not much magic because what's the point of all that sweat?
Secondly, Android is inflated by the fact that if you want a cell phone you will be given an Android device for free if you start new service.
There is no magic free Android tablet tree – the economics are completely different. There's the argument that you might see a halo effect from all those phones... but people don't tend to value what's free and the carriers are doing whatever they can to cram these phones with junk anyway.
Not enough software and non-competitive prices are exactly where Android on phones was three years ago. And both are those easily, almost inevitably, fixable. We are talking about a moving target, a target that pulled off the same basic trick once already. The apps will come and the prices will drop. I still haven't seen a compelling reason why the iPad is any different than the iPhone in this regard. Apple is betting against an entire industry, and you very, very rarely win betting the house (disclaimer: I am sure Apple will still profit handsomely and own a decent percentage of the market).
> There is no magic free Android tablet tree – the economics are completely different.
There's not the same "magic free Android tree" - but there are some analogous patterns. With Android the carriers needed Android to succeed. So they made it succeed. No carriers for tablets (well, that's not quite true, but as an approximation). So who needs Android tablets to succeed? Well, every major hardware vendor and every major retail outlet. The hardware manufacturers are obvious - without a counterpoint to iOS they are screwed in potentially a huge strategic category. But even retail outlets need this. Some of them are lucky enough to be allowed to resell Apple equipment - but they know they are at Apple's mercy. After the warm glow of selling some iPads wears off they will know that they have to foster an alternative or have Apple dictate terms to them and take their margin and eventually even screw them by establishing Apple stores nearby. But that's not even talking about retailers not privileged to sell Apple gear. Those guys are absolutely going to stock Android tablets and advertise and market them heavily.
So we may not see "free" tablets but we absolutely are going to see the same vacuum effect that caused a giant glut of Android phones to hit the market and the same "coalition" of interests rises to compete with the iPad and create publicity, awareness, brand image, and they will eventually compete heavily on price and features - things consumers will respond to.
I know you said you're working on a blog post, but I'd be really interested in if you could elaborate on the challenges inherent to building tablet software -- I build big enterprise-y software that is on Windows Mobile phones and Windows tablets, and I find the tablet part to be much easier in terms of designing a usable interface for the form factor.
Are there particular things you have in mind that are much easier to design for a phone than for a tablet?
It's a focus thing, really. I suppose it depends on perspective.
With a phone, right, you have this 3-4ish inch screen to work with. You absolutely have to focus. You've got a gun to your head requiring focus, commanding the basic flow of the application fit tidily within the confines of this small space, this teensy viewport the user has into what they're working on. Now, it's still possible to make crap (definitely) but the kinds of mistakes you're able to make are limited by both space and what the user can realistically accomplish with the limited time and tools inherent to the phone form factor.
Now. You get to tablet land. Holy shit! Look at all this room. I can put things here, and over here, and this place is nice – and then you have this jumbled, unfocussed mess. For me, the tablet gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself. Since the form factor isn't compelling focus and clarity, now you have to do it yourself.
I love the luxury of creative constraints. Tablets just have fewer constraints. A blessing and a curse, to be certain. Lots of great stuff you can only do on a tablet, too.
Not hard/easy, constrained/unconstrained. For decades now constraints have been recognized as drivers of greatness and innovation. By relaxing the constraint, you make greatness harder to achieve, because the developer has to make more choices, and precision/accuracy/focus suffer.
It's like a laser. If you put lots and lots of light in a very small (constrained) pinhead-sized surface, you can cut steel like it was butter. If you put as much light in a surface the size of a plate, you might barely heat the surface.
We've been developing for desktop/laptop computers for years now. They also give developer plenty of space to play with. From your comment I conclude that developing for desktop must be the hardest thing ever, not talking about the 27' iMacs.
Well, the quality of the "typical website" (aimed at desktop browsers) certainly seems to support that conclusion...
There's certainly a very different mindset you adopt when developing for a phone sized screen, and the constraints require super tight focus on the site goals and processes that is often missing from the planning and requirements stage of less-constrained web development.
Google the "mobile first" movement, and pay particular attention for the writing of Luke Wroblewski - while not fully subscribing to "mobile first" myself, I'm seeing some _strong_ benefits from at least considering it at the very early planning stages of any new web project.
> developing for desktop must be the hardest thing ever
Among the hardest challenges you could ask for UX-wise, definitely. That's why so much desktop software has been shit since the 80's. As a guy who specializes in mobile, desktop stuff is horrifying. You have to consider all kinds of screen resolutions, interactions with other apps, huge variations in system performance, printing... On and on. No constraints to speak of.
I mean, Office only recently (last five years) emerged from mediocrity into something decent. And even then, it's not awesome. Though I'll always have a place in my heart for Excel. What a great product.
Meanwhile, look at Skype. The latest Skype for Mac is utter shit. This is not easy work.
The prices are reversed in Japan: Softbank gives away the iPhone and charges less for iPhone data plans at about US$56/mo whereas Android phones will cost you $500+ for the device and $75/mo for the data plan.
Not only is there no free magic Android tablet, customers don't have to worry about carrier lock-in. I would guess some non-trivial portion of the Android customers on T-Mobile/Sprint would have rather have an iPhone, but they can't because they are part of some family plan/etc.
I was responding to this comment in the OP: "Secondly, Android is inflated by the fact that if you want a cell phone you will be given an Android device for free if you start new service."
People like analogies. Sometimes they're appropriate. Sometimes they're not. Take iOS and Android as an allegory for Mac and Windows. It might be superficially similar but that's as far as it goes.
IMHO tablets are similar. Android is, without question, a stunning success in the phone world. As is iOS, which singlehandededly transformed the mobile phone industry. People expect the same pattern to repeat in the tablet world.
I disagree. There are several fundamental differences:
1. Phones have a specific purpose, which for most people is the ability to make phone calls, send and receive text messages and use maps. I would guess that these are the three biggest uses of smartphones (but it is only a guess).
What's more, I think these account for the majority of actual usage. Apps are of course important but they are an add-on. Some people will use their smartphones almost completely app free (seriously). People I think forget this too.
Tablets are a different beast. There is much less inbuilt and obvious functionality. Apple has a vision of what the use case for this. I don't think anyone else really does (yet).
The ecosystem then becomes far more important and it's Apple with the music, movies/TV and, to a lesser extent, books (mainly due to Kindle, which is cross-platform). Android simply doesn't have this ecosystem so the use case for Android tablets for most people is a much tougher and less obvious sell.
I just don't see Android tablets (or any non-iPad tablets for that matter) gaining serious mass market traction for years to come.
>1. Phones have a specific purpose, which for most people is the ability to make phone calls, send and receive text messages and use maps. I would guess that these are the three biggest uses of smartphones (but it is only a guess).
People who buy phones with a specific purpose buy dumbphones. The average iOS user has 50 apps on them nowadays. You've narrowed the use case too much.
That's also the appeal of the Apple brand to consumers: Buy it today, who knows what else you'll be using it for tomorrow?
With iMessage, a lot of people paying AT&T for unlimited texting are going to be dropping those plans. In theory, if all your friends have iPhones and will only have iPhones, you never need to pay for a text message plan on top of your data plan.
>Tablets are a different beast. There is much less inbuilt and obvious functionality. Apple has a vision of what the use case for this. I don't think anyone else really does (yet).
They really don't, and they're not marketing tablets to consumers intelligently at all. Regular consumers don't care about Flash. Heck, that holy war is pointless even among geeks. What consumers want is an easy way to view the view on the web: be it native apps or a flash plug in. They don't care about HOW. They just care that they can' Most consumers don't see the iPad as "crippled without Flash" because something like 80% of the video on the web is accessible through Apps. (Whereas I don't believe any of the Android Tablets have Netflix).
Netflix is trying hard to replace cable for consumers. For me, a device not having a netflix tie in is a dealbreaker.
In my experience, a tablet has a much more specific purpose than a phone: to view web pages. I'm willing to bet that 99% of iPad usage is for web pages, apps that are essentially just iPad optimized web pages, and games that could have been done in a properly touch-enabled Flash (which may not exist yet, but will come eventually).
2. Ultimate Mortal Combat 3 for iPad (3D Fighting)
3. Splashtop Remote Desktop for iPad (Remote Desktop)
4. Angry Bird Rio HD
5. Pages
6. Angry Bird HD
7. Words with Friends HD
8. GarageBand
9. Gangstar: Miami Vindication HD (3D ACT)
10. Real Racing 2 HD (3D Racing)
Only 4,6,7 fit your discription and for now the Chrome Store port of Angry Bird performs rather poorly on a duo core Atom system. And the facebook version of Scrabble doesn't compare to the iPad version.
My reply was more targeted at this part of his comment:"apps that are essentially just iPad optimized web pages, and games that could have been done in a properly touch-enabled Flash (which may not exist yet, but will come eventually)."
But if you want evidence for people not spending majority time using browser on iPad, here is Flurry's analytic data:
1) apps that could be web pages are generally free so don't show up on the "top ten paid apps" list. The cooking apps I used are a prime example here.
2) flashy games are often purchased but forgotten, it's the apps with good gameplay but not necessarily as flashy graphics that get replayed and replayed and replayed. canonical example: angry birds.
3) Flash can do 3D too.
4) in your top ten list, only #3 and #8 would not be possible as a web site.
Most apps could be web sites, so any stats that say most time is spent in apps is meaningless.
No they could not. There could be and in some cases already are Web based similar services out there. But they are inferior, unpopular among iPad users. Connected Application can not necessarily translate into a web application and remain the same attraction or even feature parity.
Angry Bird/Tiny Wings/Fruit Ninja etc are not as graphically demanding as say Infinite Blade, but they are still very well done games with impressive art work. As a matter of fact all the Zynga games and Gameloft titles in the top 10 are not flashy by any means, to be honest Gameloft's 3D engine is so out of date it's laughable.
I'm sure given enough motivation Adobe can make Flash do anything, it could do your dishes and make your coffee. But it doesn't mean you should let Flash take over.
IMHO your wishful thinking is as meaningless if not more, especially when you don't even have stats.
I think it's more accurate to say that the iPhone and iPad are game platforms that happen to have very good web browsers and email clients. Games utterly dominate the top 25 app lists on both sides.
If you put aside anti-virus stuff and Microsoft Adobe's flagship products (namely Office and PS), you'll see all games on paid PC software chart too, if there was a chart. * In consumer space.
I own one. I'm surprised you haven't noticed the lag when trying javascript intense sites (like games). Here are the iPad Nitro Sunspider results: 2121ms vs. Chrome 11: 248ms. That would make Mobile Safari javascript 8x slower than desktop Chrome (other desktop browsers have similar speeds).
Well, ot in my experience. Native apps still have an edge. For example: twitter web interface is nice, but twitter the iOS app is WAY better on iPad. Also, I don't see something of the quality of Flipboard coming as web app (and clipboard get content from web, after all). May be this will change, but we are still not here.
I don't get the appeal of Flipboard at all. It's pretty, but the reason that good books are pleasant to read is that someone has carefully laid out all the content on each page. Splashing a bunch of random news items with truncated headings on a virtualized book doesn't get you there.
I suspect we'll look back on this early period of tablet software design with a laugh. All these clones of real-world objects (iBooks) will seem quaint and naive and conservative.
web surfing (is that phrase even in wide use anymore?) is the sole reason I bought a NOOKcolor... which is incidentally exactly what I'm writing this on. It is of course rooted.
Just my two cents: I think the ideal functionality of tablets is relatively obvious. It's "how I use my laptop when I'm not in work mode". "Work mode" is when I'm at my desk and creating documents, spreadsheets and writing code. Non-work mode is when I'm on the couch, watching television and I want some electronic entertainment for 3-4 minutes while the television displays advertisements. I'm in non-work mode while at a coffee shop too. What I do there is email, instant messaging and web surfing. My assertion is that tablets just replace the non-work activities on your laptop. At least that's how it's played out for me. In the past I've watching flash videos and read news on my laptop. Now that I have an iPad I just do all the entertainment stuff there.
While I agree that the ecosystem for tablets is more important than for phones, I'm not so sure this will automatically lead to a Windows/Mac situation. Windows benefited a lot from lock-in and network effects. These are becoming less relevant as more services are online. Obviously this is true for web apps, but even native apps usually have a large online component, think Facebook app or Kindle. Because of this, it's much easier to switch to a different platform.
That said, Apple is of course trying to create that lock-in by creating an ecosystem with content (music, movies, etc.) that only works on Apple devices. So you might very well be right that Android tablets won't get any real traction, but I think the forces are less strong than they were for Windows and Mac in the 90s.
To me this article boils down to one main point: Apple is a premium brand that's decided to sell its product for a less than premium price.
People almost always prefer the premium brands. It's a rare person who would pick a Honda Civic over a BMW 5 Series if both were the same price. The difference here is Apple's selling the low end iPad for a price companies like Samsung can barely match. You're constantly hearing stories of how Apple has an unbeatable advantage because they're already selling in such bulk.
So that's the problem. Other companies can't undercut Apple on price and lack Apple's brand prestige.
It's also Apple's direct and retail sales infrastructure hurting non-iPad prices.
It'd be like Honda trying to sell their cars through a bunch of third-party car dealers like "Bob's Auto Mart" while BMW sold all of theirs through their own BMW-owned dealerships.
Why, ultimately, did Windows initially achieve market dominance? Because it evolved from MS-DOS.
Why did MS-DOS have market dominance? Because it ran on PC compatibles.
Why did PC compatibles have market dominance? Because they were drop-in replacements for the IBM PC.
And why, despite being relatively late to the market, despite having a relatively high price tag and a really ugly grey boxy look, did the IBM PC have market dominance? Because IBM put their product into the hands of their well-established and reputable corporate sales network dedicated to selling IBM hardware, and they sold it all over.
Of course, this argument is incomplete and flawed because I haven't used the words Lotus 1-2-3 yet. Unfortunately, the fact that killer apps also sell hardware comes as little relief for Android. The closest thing to a killer app that Android has come up with so far is Flash support. Unfortunately, with mobile Flash it's still not clear who is doing the killing and who is doing the dying.
So Windows and MS-DOS which ran on third party "dealer" imitations beat IBM originals sold through an in-house sales network. I don't see how you are refuting my argument.
Didn't Apple have stores a long time ago too? I vaguely recall going to one 25 or so years ago. It wasn't like the beautiful ones we see now, but more just like a typical strip mall computer store, but all Apple stuff.
There have always been third-party Apple-centric stores. SmallDog in VT, TekServe in NYC -- they still exist. Could it have just been an Apple authorized retailer?
Before Apple stores, you could go to CompUSA, and there was an Apple section staffed with Apple employees -- they even existed before the Apple stores became more ubiquitous.
Mark this attitude well: it is the difference between success and failure in consumerland.
It's an easy trap to fall into: Well, gosh, the specs are the same. It's shaped basically the same. Huh. But they don't like it. Fuck, it must just be some ineffable brand thing.
Which it is. But it has absolutely nothing to do with "luxury."
Instead, the brand signals something important that other tablet competitors aren't strategically configured to match:
It works really well.
The screen size, carefully balanced against the needs of the tasks performed, along with the fingers necessary to perform them, comes in a specifically determined size. Not a size determined for differentiation, or a size necessitated by commodity supply constraints.
The size that works best.
There is a processor with an integrated GPU. Nothing special. But what does that processor do? It drives a mature collection of software libaries that are well calibrated for performance, visual appeal and flexible use. Making it easy to build software that solves problems while being transparent, even enjoyable, to the user.
It's software that works really well.
There is a retail network that makes it very easy not only to experiment with the device, but also get questions answered. And if something goes wrong, they can repair or replace it. Often for free. Even if it's your own fault.
There is an ongoing software development effort, incentivized by ongoing hardware sales, that ensures the continued maintenance, improvement and evolution of both the underlying developer-facing software platform and the outward user experience of the device.
There is a content delivery and monetization ecosystem that rewards users with ease of use and content developers with boatloads of money.
I can go on and on.
But the point here is this: the brand has nothing to do with luxury. It's about shitty – and not being shitty. About mediocrity – and higher aspiration. About short-term thinking – and long-term vision. Incentives based on owning the experience as a whole, versus owning a small subset that's cut off from the rest.
Apple's goal, as a business, is the same as any other: make a shitload of money. They go about it differently than almost everyone else. I'd love it if it were possible for another company to take a similar approach. But, for whatever reason, this attitude is very difficult to replicate. Apple isn't preferred because they're Apple. Apple is preferred because they're the only ones who are.
And that's how they get so many consumers who prefer their stuff, especially when the prices are equal.
>But it has absolutely nothing to do with "luxury."
And then you proceed to describe exactly what I'd expect from a "luxury" device. Polished experience and excellent customer service. Heck, that's precisely what luxury is - not-crap and others standing by to meet your desires.
>About mediocrity – and higher aspiration.
And not mediocrity - and luxury? Seriously, what's the difference? Any smart phone / supplemental computer is very strictly a "luxury", because it's not necessary. Or does it need to be made of gold to be luxury?
>Apple is preferred because they're the only ones who are.
Does it need competition to be luxury? If I make a fromjab, spend billions developing it, sell it for millions of dollars, and polish the heck out of it, is it somehow not a luxury item if I'm the only fromjab maker in the world? What does this say about Picasso artwork? There's only one producer there.
Aaah, you're claiming luxury requires artificial value inflation, especially due to being under-produced. I can see that, and it's a usable definition. Apologies for not catching it earlier.
How many people subscribe to either of our uses of the term, I have no idea. But under that (or a similar) definition, you're entirely correct, Apple isn't luxury. Different only in the lack of (significant?) artificial inflation, and therefore less social prestige?
That's true today but may not be for long. Compared to things like the new Honeycomb task switcher and the resizable widgets iOS is starting to look stale. iOS 5 is in many ways just catching up to where Android was a year ago.
Bernstein Research surveyed consumers to ask whether they would prefer a 7" screen or a 10" screen? That does not have anything to do with iPad branding. Would you prefer a 70" TV, or a 100" TV? You say 100"? Well, since Sony manufactures the only popular 100" TV, I will infer that you prefer Sony brand TVs.
The second half of the Bernstein release states that "Fifty percent of respondents preferred Apple over all other brands." That is EXACTLY HALF, so feel free to spin it the other way: "Fifty percent of respondents would not choose Apple over another brand."
Except consumers aren't choosing between Apple and not-Apple. The second-strongest brand in the survey is Dell, preferred by 12% of respondents. You really think that focussing on Apple, with a brand 4x stronger than its nearest competitor, is just spin?
Here's another quote from the article: "Apple has more than double the brand appeal of BlackBerry, HTC, Motorola, Nokia and Samsung combined." Care to spin that another way?
But for Android consumers, hardware manufacturer is usually a secondary choice. I won't contest that Apple's ahead, but all this survey really points out is that Apple has more control over their branding - consumers have no need to distinguish between Apple, iPad, and iOS. Sure it's not beneficial for manufacturers (in terms of market share) to be competing within a single brand, against a company that controls its brand entirely - that's pretty obvious. It doesn't support a conclusion that "customers want iPads, not Tablets", however, since customers mostly aren't framing their purchasing decisions around hardware manufacturers.
Again, I'm not saying Apple isn't dominating, but it does seem like the question was written with the conclusion already in mind.
Well, except that it doesn't matter for average consumers. If you read the article closely, what the consumers want is to get a tablet and use it comfortably. Why should they bother if they want 7" or 10"? Heck, why should they even bother to think about that?
This is different from a TV screen size, you don't have to hold the TV but you definitely need to hold the tablet, too small and you can't get your things done, too big it would be annoying to hold on to it as well. It does prove that Apple had done research and a lot of testing to get the correct size. Once this correct size is being pushed out, I don't see why consumers would want to prefer other sizes.
Note: When I say consumers I refer to average consumers, geeks like options and customizations, but average consumers don't want to be bothered by these.
I don't have access to original Bernstein materials; does anybody know how they define "brand appeal"? Apparently Apple has over 66% of whatever that is (such that their fraction is "more than double" the remainder), and yet only half of the respondents "preferred Apple over all other brands".
As AllThingsD certainly doesn't pass along a definition of "brand appeal", in the context of the article that 66% claim is neither fact nor spin. It is nothing at all.
Sure, Apple has half the market... Of a market they created and had a headstart on.
Seems to me the others are catching up nicely, especially since most of them are using the same OS series.
I just got an Asus Transformer and it is NICE. Especially now that I found some software to let me remote into my desktop and have the tablet act as a dumb terminal. My tabletpc (which I used mainly as a laptop) sits unused now because the tablet is smaller, lighter, snappier, and produces no heat. I can do all my Android-y games and little apps, as well as access the big stuff from my PC in the other room, all from the couch.
And reading comics on it? Awesome.
I considered an iPad. Seriously considered it. What finally decided it was open source software and creating my own apps. (And I have written 1 so far, but not published... Need to polish it.)
So you're really looking for a netbook and you decided (wisely) not to choose the iPad?
The real slam here is that there is any such thing as the "tablet" market. There's an iPad market, the netbook market, smartphone market, and PC market. Trying to make something that addresses all of these poorly is a bad idea.
Windows TabletPCs never really caught on, and as you mention, an ARM-based android "netbook" kills it for the target market.
Android tablets suffer from an app deficiency and still-maturing OS, not to mention, they are addressing the iPad's native market (if they switched gears, took netbooks head-on like the Asus Transformer they would probably have better results).
Actually, what I wanted was an extremely lightweight netbook that could run Android apps, but Bluestack hasn't taken off yet. The fact that the keyboard is removeable is a huge bonus because it drops half the weight and size.
There will probably be something in the future that does more of what I want, but this is good enough to get me by for a few years.
As far as I know, the iPad can't do what I want, even if I replace 'android apps' with 'ipad/iphone apps'.
As an Android fan, I'm actually encouraged by this.
Look, when you're buying a tablet, you're buying into an OS/software ecosystem. Yes, people are buying Apple because it's Apple. But they're also buying Apple because of the App Store and because of a proven track record of apps they enjoy and find useful (assuming some previous iPhone/iPod Touch ownership).
But Android doesn't really have the brand thing so much with regard to the individual manufacturers. I have an HTC phone right now, but I don't feel much loyalty to HTC. My next phone might be made by Samsung or Motorola. I don't much care, because I'm loyal to Android, not to the particular manufacturer.
So in that light, the US numbers for next tablet purchase are 50% iOS, 33% Android, 9% RIM, and 8% don't care. And that's not bad, considering that Apple has a good year's head start on Android wrt tablets.
To me, this sounds very close to the Idea vs Execution we are all so familiar with here at HN. People who know can't really claim that it's because Apple came first - Windows had tablet devices before. People also can't claim it'd because Apple learned from earlier tablets, because others have come after that aren't as good. It's a result of Apple producing a good tablet.
I have a PlayBook I use for day-to-day in my day job, and it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be different from Apple. However, it leads to an overall inferior experience for me, that I'm close to giving up on the device. I can't see myself recommending it to anyone, except for the fact that it plays Flash. However, even that issue isn't as big as it was before.
I'm still hoping someone else produces a compelling product to challenge Apple, whether it be Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. It would not be good for all inovations in this product category to only come from one company.
Yes, and not just anybody producing a good tablet, but Apple producing a good tablet.
> it sometimes feels as if some design decisions were made to deliberately be different from Apple
It is tough to follow without being labeled a follower. If you do things the same way, you are branded a copycat; if you do things differently, people will say you are trying too hard to appear original even though in reality you are no different from others (this was Apple in the early 2000s -- remember how some people criticized them for trying too hard with fruity-looking iMacs, etc.?) Being different works, but you have to do it consistently as well as strengthen your image with positive real-life outcomes.
I'm also interested in seeing how quickly iPads start to penetrate other verticals beyond the traditional consumer market. Education, Health, are two of the commonly cited areas where a lot of growth is expected, but I'll be interested in seeing how quickly they penetrate low-end retail as well.
I was in Santa Barbara this weekend, at "La Tour Wine Merchants" - Purchased every thing there through an iPad + Square.
One thing important to note - the transaction took under 5 seconds for him to process, + 3-4 for me to sign. Receipt was then automatically filled out with my email address (I'd used square somewhere else) - and, from the time I handed him my credit card to the time I was done was under 10 seconds. It felt a lot faster than normal credit card transactions.
So - every single person who comes into that Wine Merchant is going to have the iPad marketed as hyper efficient (and low cost transaction fee) credit card processing platform to boot.
Not to say that the Droid Tablet's won't get square soon (if they don't already) - but the solution is certainly going to be well regressed on the iPad more quickly.
Popularity sometimes results in a network-effect of quality improvements resulting in further popularity - I think that's what we're going to see with the iPad.
There IS one kind of tablet people want besides an iPad, as proved by sales numbers:
The Color Nook
According to various recent reports, Apple has about 10% share in ebook sales, Barnes and Noble 25%, and Kindle over 60%.
Don't know the latest sales figures, but as of March 28, 2011, 3 million Color Nooks were shipped, according to Digitimes:
Barnes & Noble already takes delivery of 3 million Nook Color e-book readers, say sources
Yenting Chen, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES [Monday 28 March 2011]
Barnes & Noble has taken delivery of close to three million Nook Color e-book readers from its production partner, according to an estimate by sources from the Nook Color supply chain.
With a clear differentiation to Apple's iPads in display size, targeted market and pricing, the Nook Color, priced at US$249, has actually taken up over 50% of the iPad-like market in the North America market, indicated the sources.
Sales of the Nook Color topped one million units in the North America in the fourth quarter of 2010 and reached 600,000-700,000 units a month during the January-February period of 2011, the sources noted.
Barnes & Noble outsources the production of the Nook Color e-book readers to Inventec, noted the sources, adding that Inventec has landed tablet PC orders from Hewlett-Packard (HP).
So you're calling the Nook Color a tablet?
I'm not sure that's a fair representation of the device... it's cheap, a decent e-reader, and hackable to run at least Froyo (from last I checked).
In comparing the e-reader to the tablet, the Nook does indeed blur the lines, but it's resistive touch and e-ink display combined with hackery to run a full touch OS means it's really in a league all it's own.
Perhaps this is the recipe to success for the upstarts. Ignore the "X market" as that means X is commoditized. Differentiate by seeing the pricing and/or vision gap and dive into it deftly.
A footnote: comparing "shipped" vs. "sold" numbers is a bit facile. Lots of difference there. It'd be nice to see definitive "sold" B&N details, but they're not sharing.
Agreed on shipped vs. sold (Though I DID have a conversation 2 months ago with a B&N employee - says they went out of stock a couple times).
Agree also about the recipe for success: Find a niche and optimize for it.
If even Apple doesn't yet know what their tablet is for, how are we supposed to know what their inferior knock-offs are for? But it sure is obvious what a Color Nook is for. It does have an app store but the apps are for the most part related to reading, as you'd expect.
The fact that the Color Nook can be converted into the least expensive half-decent Android tablet is just an interesting aside.
The conventional wisdom was exactly the same 2 years ago concerning android phones vrs the iPhone. Android has since moved to match the iPhone for market share. The same will probably happen for tablets. It'll just take a few years. I think the android tablets aren't very good right now, but I felt the same way about the android phones when they first came out.
>The conventional wisdom was exactly the same 2 years ago concerning android phones vrs the iPhone.
The difference is that the iPad doesn't have the same constraints (namely available only on AT&T) that the iPhone had. Would Android really have had the same success it had if the iPhone was available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile (and assuming Apple could keep up with the volume) from the start?
Anecdote: everyone I know who has an Android phone really wanted an iPhone but didn't want to leave Verizon. Now that the iPhone is on Verizon, most of those folks intend to switch to an iPhone once their contract is up.
(FTR I don't own an iPhone, iPad or an Android device)
> Would Android really have had the same success it had if the iPhone was available on Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile (and assuming Apple could keep up with the volume) from the start?
Good question, what are the Android/iPhone market numbers outside the U.S.? I suspect that Android might have a lead in undeveloped countries since there are lower cost models available. I'd love to see the data.
According to some numbers I can find for Sweden (which probably doesn't classify as an undeveloped country), Android caught up with iPhone during Q1 of this year (1), and is currently growing faster than iPhone.
Not sure how relevant a question that is. Apple explicitly chose to be on AT&T and no-one else. I'm sure Verizon would have put their phone on the network, just not on terms Apple wanted.
Being exclusive to AT&T was as much Apple's choice as Android's was to be on them all.
Yes I'm sure it impacts adoption rates, but we didn't see a huge rush to the Verizon iPhone. But, as you say, the real test won't come until people's contracts end over the next 2 years.
I would argue that the headline isn't necessarily true. The Asus Transformer just came out, and they can't get them to store shelves fast enough. It took me a month to get one, and I almost missed my chance(again). The Transformer is really the first non-iPad tablet to get it right, IMO. It's fast, stable, the screen is beautiful, and everything works.
The Xoom had a shot, but too many features were not working when the tablet was shipped. Now that they are working, it's kind of too late, since Motorola has already put a bad taste in consumers' mouths.
The other side is effective marketing. Apple is the first tech company to put together appealing commercials that make people(non-geek) want their products, without really knowing why they want them. The iPad is decent (I own one of those as well), but it doesn't really offer much more than a well-made Android tablet. Apple has done well in making their product look cool.
The Android tablet market is still in its early life, and the problem is the initial manufacturers screwed up on pricing, but overspeccing the tablets, and then charging more than $500, without even a Wi-Fi only version.
But I think people will be surprised that Android tablets will take off in the second wave of Android tablets, when the Tegra 3 chip shows up in them, and Amazon takes the market by storm, too. That should push iPad's market to under 50% by the time iPad 3 is released. And that will be just the beginning.
And I know there have been stories how competitors can't build a tablet for a low price, but that has been already disproven by Asus, which has pretty much identical specs with iPad, yet it's $100 cheaper.
The Amazon quad core Tegra 3 tablet is rumored to be priced at $450.
I agree that the pricing of the Xoom was a huge mistake but I still wonder whether Android will enjoy as much success with tablets. Asus cut their shipment of tablets for the year by 60% even though it was cheaper than the iPad. Amazon at this point would be the most serious competitor to Apple.
If no OS has been able to make a serious dent in iPad market share by next year then the iPad will go the way of the iPod dominance. You can't give Apple three years with no competitve threat to the iPad.
The iPad competitors seem to be shoved out into the light a bit early. I came across a an Android tablet on demo in a department store the other day. Hey, nice, let's see how it works. Hmm, the camera app came up with a black screen - nothing to see, no interface. OK restart, try a game - oops this game needs to download more data to start and no internet connection existed. Ok, browser - same thing, no surprise there. Sliding over into the next page of apps to find something, anything, that worked the slide animation starts to stutter. So for the same price as an iPad, I could get this? Why the rush to release when it's this unfinished? You're only going to be digging yourself out of a negative initial impression like this.
This is interesting. I'd argue that while vaguely true, this is somewhat irrelevant. If you look at the "rival brands" you'll see that most of them produce Android tablets. So while the hardware guys will all have a very difficult time "dominating" the tablet market, together they all build basically the same ecosystem together, with Apple in a different world. Since the Samsung tablets run the same OS and applications as the HTC and Motorola tablets, I think the more informative information about consumers desires would be a graph of OS mindshare: do you want an Apple OS or a Google OS?
Actually, both matter. These charts almost always show 1 side or the other, but it does matter both ways.
On the Apple side, there's no decisions to make, and upgrade paths are very clear.
On the Android side, there's plenty of options and it's a very competitive market. If you don't like the current offerings, 3 months will see a bunch of new devices.
Upon HP's release, the top three brands known to consumers in the US in the tablet market will not be running Android. Samsung is the best known of the Android unless Sony decides to show up.
I think that, at this point in time, the question's moot-- much like iOS vs. non-iOS phones, the market is based almost entirely on the availability of 3rd-party applications for a piece of software. I'd like to have an Android tablet. However, for the time being, I have a 1st-gen iPad because that's where all of the applications are. Maybe in a year or two the market will have shifted somewhat, but without the 3rd-party base to back it up, non-Apple tablets have a distinctly uphill battle.
The iPad didn't validate the market for tablets, it validated the market for iPads.
And if over 50% of people prefer a 10" tablet to a 7" one, why in the world would Samsung, RIM and others think they could sell one at a smaller size? Did they do any market research at all?
Well... if that means 40% (or whatever the number is) of people would prefer a 7" to a 10" one... that's still a ridiculous amount of people. I think that -is- market research.
Exactly. If the iPad is cleaning up the 10" market and you know that even 15% strongly prefer 7", and there is no iPad in that market, it would make sense to do a 7" version and clean up the 7" market.
The problem is you're not attacking the market of people who prefer 7" tablets, you're attacking the market of people who prefer a 7" tablet SO MUCH they're willing to not get an iPad because of it. Who are these people? Probably geeks. Regardless, it's a much smaller slice of the overall pie.
If you had asked me before I got an iPad, I would have been a bit agnostic on the 7"/10" question. After I got an iPad and read documents on it, I'll never get a 7" pad.
There are certainly use cases (and clothing styles!) that creates niches for 7", but I doubt they are anywhere close to 40% of users. IMHO, this is a case of inexperienced consumers.
On the other hand I've got a 7" nook colour and my girlfriend has an iPad, and while I admit the iPad is better in many many ways (and the Android is better in a few ways), I still prefer the 7" form factor over the 10". So while I'm certainly tempted by the iPad, I'm not getting one until they release a 7" version.
Sigh... Please make an argument showing I am wrong, not just a personal anecdote.
Don't you need to read pdfs and browse full size web pages? Or you do it so little, it isn't a problem? Then the interesting part: Why would that be a large set of customers these days?
Or do you just have young eyes and can see smaller points -- and old farts which need 10" should just die?
I'm not arguing that you are wrong. I'm just saying that I, like you, have actually used both 10" and 7" tablets side by side, and came to the exact opposite conclusion you did.
As for what I use it for, reading pdf's and ebooks probably make up 80% of my usage. As for my eyesight, it's OK, but nothing remarkable, very slightly shortsighted, but not so bad that I need glasses. And anyway I'm certainly not arguing against the existence of 10" tablets, but for the co-existence of both sizes and that one is not inherently better than the other.
My original argument was that document sizes (pdf, web page layout, 80 char code, et al) generally don't translate well to 7". I am sorry if I was unclear.
But sure, I don't have references so call it an anecdote. :-)
That was why I asked if 'dagw' had good eyesight, or something. Maybe he doesn't want to read a page at a time? Never mind, I'll wait until I meet someone that has those unusual tablets...
I have a 7" Galaxy Tab (1024*600 px, 170 PPI). PDFs are fine, although I like to read them fitted-to-width with tablet horizontal, not fit to page. No problems with web pages using Opera. SSH client fits 85 characters wide by 37 tall (tablet vertical, with onscreen keyboard) at font size I find comfortable. My eyesight is nerd-average, corrected with lenses. Unless you have some studies about this, I'm afraid it's going to be personal experience vs personal experience.
In short, you're using a 7" as I use my 13" laptop. It strains my eyesight to use a 10" as my laptop. I assume this is an age thing; I'm over 40. It influences the eyes badly, sigh.
The nice thing about the 7" is that I can hold it in one hand close to my eyes when sitting back or lying down (it's more comfortable than I can make it sound). It works without my contacts in, which is my yardstick for good enough. I'm sure my eyes don't love me for the close work, but my back wouldn't love awkwardly using a laptop more, so it's all a tradeoff.
Interesting how defensive people are getting in the comments. I think the headline says it all- tablets have been around for over a decade and never caught on. In fact they still haven't caught on, just the iPad has caught on.
Apple is succeeding in the category because it reinvented it.
Prior to iPad, how many consumers had spent a moment of time considering what a tablet computer would be like? How many had a chance to hold one and interact with it at a local store? Most people use iPad as a reference point because it was their first experience with a tablet. It was first and it worked. People want iPads because, for now at least, it's the definitive product for the category.
I just bought a capacitive screen multi touch android tablet for less than $200 from dealextreme for some prototype work I'm doing. There's no reason to assume that the iPad will continue to be comparatively cheaper a year or two out.
When everyone has the production ironed out, android tablets will drop, and apple will keep selling iPads for a premium price.
I love apple, but the tablet will never spread effectively if it costs $500 or more.
I agree, there just hasn't been a killer Android tablet yet. I was suprised at how laggy the Moto Xoom was. I've had hopes for Playbook but even that killer hardware has flopped on the software front.
i can summarize this pretty easily. competitors that see the argument like "apple is giving 1GB RAM for 500$, i'll give 2GB RAM for 500$!" are really missing the whole point. when you buy an apple phone / mp3 player / tablet / computer you're probably well aware that with the same price you can get a more powerful/feature rich device elsewhere, but you decide, instead, to invest in a brand you trust because has given you other reliable, innovative products that you already own and you know the new device will integrate seamlessly with whatever you already have, or you're buying "the iPhone", not a generic smartphone, the iPad, not a table, an iPod, not a mp3 player, so there's really no choice because apple is the only one doing it.
The article defines "the tablet market" narrowly and ignores important competition for the iPad in terms of sales (if not mindshare). The iPad competes with devices such as the Kindle which have significant adoption and handle the killer slate app - reading very well at very competitive price points. This class of competitor also often provides better performance in important areas, e.g. battery life.
I also suspect that if people were asked their preference regarding wide screen format vs. 4:3 the iPad would not fare quite so well as it does in questions regarding screen size.
I haven't seen a tablet yet that is as good for less than an apple. They all seem to be a mix of worse and/or more expensive (or with ridiculous multi-year carrier lockins). Until this happens, this is a non-issue. If consumers are snubbing cheaper better products to have fruit on the front, that's a story, but until then, shrug.
The tablet market just doesn't have its IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad yet.
I want a tablet that has Wacom and stylus along with capacitive touch screen. Heck, throw in Windows 7 and I'll be happy. (W7 has great handwriting recognition.) W7 + OneNote would make a very nice (and expensive) electronic notebook if the tablet was thin and had decent battery life. I like to write instead of touch typing on a screen.
> W7 + OneNote would make a very nice (and expensive) electronic notebook if the tablet was thin and had decent battery life.
Hasn't this existed for years (TabletPC) running Windows (well except the thin and decent battery life part)? Why haven't you gotten one already?
Not surprising really. Apple got the iPad "right" from the get go and tweaked that success on the iPad2. The other tablets struggled right out of the gate and continue to do so.
I've been saying this from the start. Normal people just don't need tablets. What can you do on it?
Music - Have an ipod or other music device
Movie - Have a big tv
Movie in bedroom - Have a big tv in bedroom
Internet? - have smartphone/netbook/laptop
Games? - Xbox/PS3/smartphone.
At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, there's just no use case for tablets.
I don't think consumers WANT tablets or iPads. They have been told that's what they WANT by marketing.
WANT is a disease in this society. NEED is the great leveller.
The following is from experience dealing with hundreds of people:
They NEED a cheap, flexible computer that just works, doesn't poke you in the eye, doesn't try to upsell everything to you every 5 mins (like apps and virus scanners), lasts a good number of years without spectacular failures, doesn't pick up diseases like a cheap whore and doesn't set fire to your house.
EDIT: The commenters responding to me made a really good distinction -- phones are near-necessity devices that are subsidized by carriers, whereas right now, tablets are more or less a luxury purchase. I agree that this might have an effect on how things play out.