The Android tablet problem - Marco Arment | Hacker News Reader

The Android tablet problem - Marco Arment

marco.org

22 pointsmovingahead35 comments

What will cause enough people to buy this that developers will beat down the door to make great apps for it?

Simple. Price. The new Vizio 3.1 tablet is $350. If they can hit $299 by the holidays, these may well fly.

But the app ecosystem you say? Not important. What?! How can that be? Most users won't care about apps they don't know about, and most ppl don't know about iPad apps.

If I can demo the following to you:

1) HD video playback w/ some key apps like Netflix and Hulu

2) Kindle/Nook eReader

3) Music player

4) Web browser

5) Office suite

6) Some games

7) Nice scrolling and responsive UI

8) GMail/Maps

9) The price is $150 cheaper than the iPad.

I'm done. You're sold. The long tail I just don't think matters as much as ppl in the industry think it does. It's the exact same reason why OS X is viable now for most ppl despite the fact that the Windows app ecosystem is still much larger. The web neutralized that difference though. The web isn't quite as important on mobile devices (surprisingly), but the ecosystem gap isn't as important as it was in 1990 on the desktop.

The big problem with Honeycomb (Android Tablet) is that Google treats it like they do everything -- they shipped a beta quality product. They did that with Android for phones, but its pretty baked now. They did it with Google TV and with Chrome Books. But with Honeycomb and Google TV (especially) they didn't update them the way they do the Chrome browser. The problem with Honeycomb up to this point is that it was crap. It sounds like this is beginning to change.

I can't get past this: "...most ppl don't know about iPad apps." You say that, then you list 9 items, many of which are apps on the iPad platform. Maybe what you're saying is that people don't care so much about "apps" (as in download and install, e.g., Apple App Store) as they do the "thing" they want to do. If that's the case, I'd agree to an extent.

I'm one of those geeks who loves to teach, and I used to run a local tech consultancy, so I have a sizable network of people who come to me for advice. These days, I pick and choose who I work with, but I still help a fair number of people set up their iOS devices. I sit with around one person a month on average. During these sessions, I like to take a back-seat approach to teaching them. Rather than pro-actively tell them what to do, I let them set the direction. I'm constantly surprised by what these new users know, and don't know.

One of my observations is that almost every one of them asks "how do I download 'apps'" within the first 5 minutes. I put quotes around apps because when the user says "apps", they say it as if it's some technical term. They annunciate it and give it emphasis within the sentence. This tells me that Apple's advertising is doing a good job, because they're reaching people about this whole "app" thing; not to mention the impact of the iPhone. Users who already have iPhones ask in a very straight forward way, "Where's the App Store." Sometimes they'll say, "Can I get 'X' for this," where "X" is their favorite iPhone app (usually Facebook or a game).

The other thing I observe is that every single person I've worked with prefers apps over websites. The distinction is pretty clear for users who already own an iOS device (iPhone or iPod Touch). They want to know where the Facebook app is. When I tell them there isn't an "official" one, they look at me with a face that says, "That can't be right, Facebook is huge and I have a Facebook app for my iPhone." Many straight up tell me I must be wrong.

I've taken some insight away from these experiences:

* Users identify the responsiveness of native apps with the term "apps" and look for it whenever they can * Even though the data in an app like Facebook for iPhone takes a while to refresh, the simple fact that the interface renders quickly and allows the user to move in and out of screens quickly (without redrawing) gives them the perception that the app is "better"

I can't stress this enough. The #1 factor I observe driving users toward "apps" is responsiveness; the speed with which the screen renders something that is recognizable as an app, rather than parts of an app, or a jumbled mess.

There's nothing inherent about a native app that makes this happen. If a user downloads a poorly written app that isn't responsive, they're just as unhappy. Friendly, for example, is my "go to" app for Facebook on the iPad. Users consistently remark that is "isn't as good" as the Facebook app on the iPhone. If you've ever used Friendly, you'll know why. It's just not as responsive.

A web app that solves this responsiveness problem will be equivalent in the user's eyes. They have no concept of why apps they get through the Apple App Store are better, they just know what they experience. If someone built a web app framework that used local caching and data stores to effectively replicate the responsiveness of native apps, users won't care. Build a web-based "app store" where they can get these responsive apps and they'll flock to it.

It's all about the experience.

I don't think it's as simple as price. If that is the case then why did the iPod become such a dominant device back in the early 2000s when it cost $400-500? My guess is that there is a limit to where the customer is willing to pay for a quality product.

Marco seems to go a little overboard but it is legitimate to ask why reviewers seem to pull their punches with any iPad competitors. Whether it's to create a storyline of Apple vs whomever or there is a distaste for Apple products, these reviews aren't helping anyone make a purchasing decision.

With the iPod there was no competitively sized device for a while. And the iPod actually did develop an ecosystem that did matter -- HW ecosystem. The iPod could plug into anything.

In contrast the iPads ecosystem is a lot less important. And the HW/SW advantage the iPad has is dwindling quickly (the HW advantage is basically gone -- but it is still better SW, even ecosystem aside).

Also the iPod, with the white headphones, became a fashion statement. That's why Apple spent so much time on the iPad2 cover. They wanted to create the same visual fashion statement, but I don't think the iconic look has been created.

For these reasons I think price will play a major role. Not yet. i still don't think the core Android platform is good enough. But by the holidays, it might be.

I will say though that if Android misses the holidays, then Windows will likely be the one to really take on the iPad and Android on tablets will probably go the way of Linux on netbooks.

I don't think this game is going to be decided in a year. I suspect people mostly use tablets for web browsing, checking email + Facebook, and watching the occasional video. None of these applications are particularly "sticky" and I don't think dominance today is going to guarantee you dominance two years down the road at all.

    why did the iPod become such a dominant device 
    back in the early 2000s when it cost $400-500?

I don't know why you say the iPod is a "dominant" device.

Sure it is successful, but it created a new market - tablets before it weren't really counting. It's easy to be "dominant" in a market that you created, but I'm also pretty sure that if you compare the number of iPad owners to the number of PC-owners, well, those numbers won't look so great.

What I'm trying to say here is that a LOT of people that would be interested in something like the iPad haven't bought one yet, and those people are much more in number than the current iPad users.

The pie is currently very small. It can be much bigger and everyone can have a slice ;)

iPod != iPad.

The iPod marketshare was really high for a premium priced product (on specs at least)

Oh, sorry, yeah, I misread.

The iPod really is dominating :)

I agree with you. Price will be the biggest advantage for every other ecosystem. Android's success has largely been possible because of the huge price-range in which you can buy Android devices. Today, you can get an Android phone (unlocked, no contract) for as low as $120. Low price smartphones make a sizable portion of Android sales, (atleast, here in India).

So you basically say: costumers are stupid sheep that always buy the cheapest stuff, as long as you can show them that it somehow does what the competitor does?

Sorry, I think its a little bit more complex then that.

I heard a lot of these arguments before. 3-4 years ago when the early Android phones came out and being compared to the IPhone.

From the post:

========

Developers will rush to Android tablets once a lot of people are buying Android tablets. But hardly anyone will buy them if there’s too little compelling software available.

So there must be a very good reason why someone would choose any given Android tablet over an iPad, and that reason can’t be the available apps.

This, not how closely a manufacturer can mimic the iPad’s hardware, is what reviewers should be asking about each new tablet: Why would a significant number of buyers choose this instead of an iPad?

Or, more generally: What will cause enough people to buy this that developers will beat down the door to make great apps for it?

========

Replace "Android tablet" with "Android phone" and "IPad" with "IPhone" and it's almost exactly like what Android naysayers were saying years ago.

While I disagree with Marco, I think you can't make this comparison.

Android (for phones) came up in a different world. It competed against the iPhone when the iPhone was on one US carrier and Android went to the other three. Android on phones had a captive market. That doesn't exist for tablets.

On tablets Android must win marketshare by taking sales from the iPad ... not by saying, "if you're on Verizon, there is no iPhone".

I agree that there are no carriers involved which makes it different. However, there are still elements similar to the smartphone that exist.

One is form factor. There will be Android tablets with different sizes, with dual screen, with slide-out keyboard. This would widen its appeal which would translate to more sales.

Another is price. Like with the phones, there will be several manufacturers building Android tablets. With the competition, prices will much more attractive compared to the IPad.

Also, this would be fully integrated with Google services. This is the main reason why I picked an Android phone in the first place because I use Gmail, Google Calendar, etc. The IPad cannot give the same integrated experience.

On a sidenote, I actually wonder how brand affiliation would impact tablet sales.

I have an Android phone which is why I picked an Android tablet. If this is true for most people, Android tablets will sell really well since Android's market share is now bigger than the IPhone's.

There were people who didn't buy iPhone even when it was available on their carrier. The world is big. The potential of the tablet market is pretty huge. Android tablets don't have to steal from iPad, because there are already a lot of Androi fans out there where an Android tablet is a default choice for them, though some may think twice about it and choose an iPad anyway, but the point is iPad won't be their first choice.

The review seems a bit biased. Sure, Apple may have a head start in many aspects but this is just generalizing and reading between the lines of a different review with assumptions and speculation peppered throughout. The Android platform may not be the perfect developer ecosystem when compared to itunes and iOS apps, but there's plenty of gems and the developers behind them will eventually crawl onto larger screens when they figure it out and have the time. There's plenty of applications already in the marketplace for legitimately getting media onto the device which Marco either overlooked or dismissed. The Android marketplace even has a movie rental section which isn't hard to miss either.

The good reason for picking an Android tablet over an iPad? Easy, no stupid lock-ins.

The only real Android tablet problem is that the Honeycomb emulator performance blows goats and you need to have a physical device to do any sort of meaningful development. Google is working on it though, just not fast enough for us devs. :(

http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/01/27/android-team-acknowl...

>“The Tab is a reasonable choice for people who watch a lot of video, as long as it’s all pirated, because there’s almost no legal content available.”

Ha, the only thing that proves is that Marco lives in a nationalistic bubble. Outside the US, there is no video content on the iTunes store. Nothing, not even a public domain propaganda movie or some old public domain stuff.

Yet the iPad is popular here, as well.

He's also ignoring the existence of youtube, which is an incredibly popular platform for watching video on. In the UK we have several platforms for watching on demand TV, which are available in any web browser. The author clearly hasn't done the most basic research.

I think he underestimates how many Android early adopters are there. I'm sure there are at least a few million out there who would buy an Android tablet this year if given the chance for a good looking, high performance an well priced one.

The Xoom was too expensive. Asus Transformer has been hard to get so far. And Galaxy Tab may be arriving a little too late because a lot of people are already expecting Tegra 3 tablets, but I'm sure it will sell quite well, too.

However, I don't think Android tablets will make a big impact until the second wave starts, late this year - all the Tegra 3 tablets arriving, and Amazon is launching 2 tablets as well, and they'll push those heavily.

And ultimately, the price will help the most, probably. Once the big name manufacturers start making "mid-end" tablets under $300, I think marketshare for Android tablets will quickly rise.

For me (I don't claim to represent a viable market share though) it's simple enough:

I have no use for a tablet so far.

I played around with an iPad, and frankly I couldn't care less. Yes, it's nice and "shiny", my inner gadget collector wants to keep it. But I know that I wouldn't use it. I want _my_ selection of software available, I want decent tinkering ability (can I easily create software for this? Can I change things to suit me, whatever the industry defines as 'best' right now?) and - power. A smartphone with a larger screen (which is more or less the impression these things leave on me) is nothing I long for.

I'll wait, look at each new candidate - and see if anyone of them might appeal here. The iPad, while beautiful, probably never will. Touchpad maybe? But I doubt that as well.

I think the biggest problem that Android (Honeycomb) is having is that Google totally rebuilt the OS for the tablet. Where as apple did not make many changes to there iOS and the developers had to make very few changes to their apps code to make it run on the iPad. Android (Honeycomb) will be fine it is just taking developers longer to fix the code to run with all the new features that Honeycomb has to offer.

The really good iPad apps have interfaces that were designed for the iPad. Rethinking an interface for a completely different form factor is a lot more work that twiddling with enough APIs to get your code running. Just ask the people complaining now about Android phone apps stretched to fit a tablet screen.

     Google totally rebuilt the OS for the tablet

No they didn't.

And about compatibility, Android 3.x does have new features (as one would expect from a new version, you know), but some of those features got backported in what they call the Android Compatibility package.

If device thickness wouldn't matter, people would still be buying iPad 1s.

A lot of devlopers already have Android apps that only need to be ported to Honeycomb.

I am not going to install 400000 apps on my tablet.

I don't like Apple's lock in and politics.

You can only infer that if the iPad 2 were released simultaneously with the iPad 1 and with otherwise identical specs.

The iPad2 is the /next/ product Apple released: of course it will sell more. Apple are exceptionally good at getting people to buy into their annual refresh.

But the iPad 1 is cheaper.

And broadly discontinued.

I will not be buying an iPad. Or any other tablet that ties me to a single store (especially one vetted for "decency").

That leaves me, at the moment, with Android if I want a tablet.

Marco's post makes it clear why traditional review sites don't work for the normal consumer. On a different level, this post also raises a big question - how can someone compete with a well established app platform like Apple's ? Android managed to do it on phones because it was the lone competitor to Apple in the touch phone segment, but I feel the same success will be tough to repeat with tablets.

Build, license or buy their way into an ecosystem. Apple's current formidable strength is its ecosystem of content (app+media) and peripheral of hardware devices (iPhone + iPod touch + iPad + Mac).

Let's make a bold assumption that a Mac counterpart isn't needed. Let's make it even simpler, we'll just need an iPhone+iPad combination of hardware.

Start with a partnership, say HTC with Amazon. So you can have decent hardware for a phone and tablet from HTC, along with content (app+media) from Amazon.

Maybe it's hard to forge such a partnership, maybe there's a dozen of reasons why this isn't possible, maybe HTC like it's current way of business, maybe Amazon is building it's own hardware, but I know I'd want to do this to win.

When you can't win by yourself, partner with someone else so you can win together.

Agree, partnerships can help them compete. But, the problem is that whoever has a good ecosystem is trying to go for the bigger pie. Amazon is building its own Android ecosystem - has an app store and will most probably come up with a tablet. HTC has its own movie and music services on its Sense devices. Even if a partnership happens, I am not sure it will be enough of an attraction for consumers to leave the iOS platform.

The rumors all point to major ecosystem builders cutting the middleman and in-housing hardware dev, though.

cough

Yup, software is why the iPhone is enjoying so much success and Android is struggling to gain traction in the smartphone market. The Xoom has been out for a couple of months, the 10.1 hasn't even been released yet.

Is it possible that we could wait a bit longer and reflect back on Android v. iOS Tablet-edition (or at the very least the 10.1) rather than espouse these completely inferred blog posts that only lead to fanboyism and (literally, seriously) useless conversations.

Android is struggling to gain traction in the smartphone market? Since when? Last I checked it grew from 4% to 30% market share in 12 months.

sigh

I know sarcasm is discouraged here. I just have such a hard time resisting it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com