Hacker News Reader

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.

Now. You get to tablet land. Holy shit! Look at all this room.

So instead of hard, you're saying it's too easy for its own good.

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.

> 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.

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.

I think the GP is saying it's hard to do well. Interfaces for big screens generally waste a lot of space or become really cluttered.

He/She is arguing that the prevelance of good UIs will win the tablet battle, rather than simply the presence of apps.

I'm not sure how I feel about that aspect, but I agree that tablet uis are harder to do RIGHT than phone UIs.

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.

Yet Android has overtaken the iPhone there too.

This is largely inaccurate. You can buy unsubsidized android and subsidized android phones and there are tons of plan options on every carrier.

See this for one example of buying an android phone in Japan: http://www.withinjapan.com/htc-desire-x06htii-buying-a-smart...

The flat 4,410yen/mo data plan is gone for all smartphones except iPhone.

There are sometimes discounts on Android handsets, but they don't reach Softbank's discount of just completely giving away the iPhone.

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.

For a US-centric view, this may be true. You know the stats for the rest of the world?

IPhone is not locked-in to a specific carrier unlike in the US and Android has the largest smartphone market share worldwide.

cough I can go out right now and sign up for a new service plan and get a "free" iPhone4. On any carrier I want.

But Android is still growing pretty damn fast.

Compare with iPad, not iPhone 4.

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."