Honeycomb Has A Fighting Chance Against The iPad(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Honeycomb Has A Fighting Chance Against The iPad
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/15/honeycomb-has-a-fighting-chance-against-the-ipad/
7 comments
I don't know why this should come as a surprise. All the arguments that I've seen that somehow the iPad will avoid the same fate as the (still highly successful but not market leader in OS) iPhone have been weak, pushed mostly by people who have a stake in its success. It is extremely hard to beat a competent and good platform so willing to allow any company to succeed and do what they will with the platform. It comes down to the simple fact it is essentially Apple vs. the rest of industry (minus a few outliers). Not even Apple can do that. They came close with MP3 players, but tablets are much more dangerous; they are a PC market disruptor, not a Walkman disruptor. So far it seems all of those companies are willing to bet on Android. And considering Android is lead by a software team willing to iterate furiously and have some sort of quality, I have little doubt they will take the lead in the tablet space.
Don't forget that carriers will always push anything non-Apple simply because they make more money that way. I've heard several people now say that they chose an Android device because they "don't have an Apple computer, so in that case it's better to go Android." I think that's becoming the standard way salesmen are going right now.
What information is here that would even possibly be a surprise? The author says current Android tablets suck, have started to stuck a tiny bit less, and he hopes that in a month they won't suck. Nothing here demonstrates either a quality product or market traction, just a whole lot of wishful thinking. Maybe Android tablets will be successful one day, but the article certainly does nothing to demonstrate that.
I disagree, but I respect your opinion. I think the tablet market will ultimately look more like the mp3 player market: Apple has a head start, it's a better platform for developers (in terms of tools and profits/revenue) in general, iTunes lock-in keeps customers loyal to Apple, iPhone/iPad universal apps and app compatibility makes iPhone users even more likely to purchase iPads, many exclusive apps being cross promoted (Infinity Blade, Final Fantasy, HBO GO), and pricing--iPads are still cheaper than comparable tablets.
But I think the most important thing is that Apple has retail stores, whereas phones are sold by the carriers.
But I think the most important thing is that Apple has retail stores, whereas phones are sold by the carriers.
The litmus test for a tablet to me is, "Why would I buy one of these when I could just buy an iPad?". As of yet, there is not a single competing tablet with a good answer to this question, and Mr. Kincaid is unable to provide one in this article, in spite of his desperate attempt. In fact, he pretty much just reiterates the problems that all of the reviews for non-iPad tablets have already presented: performance problems, "buggy as hell", not enough apps optimized for the form factor. Why do these guys think that out of the blue, Android tablets are going to just miraculously going to start being great?
> Why do these guys think that out of the blue, Android tablets are going to just miraculously going to start being great?
Possibly because that's exactly what happened with Android phones? Some of the early Android phones (G1, Hero, etc) were pretty buggy, slow, and kind of wonky. The original Droid was decent, then the N1 came out and was seriously competitive. And there's been basically a string of steadily improving models since then.
It seems reasonable to assume the Android tablet market will proceed similarly.
Possibly because that's exactly what happened with Android phones? Some of the early Android phones (G1, Hero, etc) were pretty buggy, slow, and kind of wonky. The original Droid was decent, then the N1 came out and was seriously competitive. And there's been basically a string of steadily improving models since then.
It seems reasonable to assume the Android tablet market will proceed similarly.
Android, including the N1, never stopped being buggy as hell, though.
Froyo made wifi flaky, 2.3.4.2 made Gmail flaky, Cisco VPN support never got implemented, etc.
Using Android requires a continuous effort to search for workarounds
Using Android requires a continuous effort to search for workarounds
That's a lode of horse shit.
My N1 and my wife's have both been rock solid.
And by Cisco VPN, do you mean IPSEC? Or Cisco's proprietary SSL VPN?
My N1 and my wife's have both been rock solid.
And by Cisco VPN, do you mean IPSEC? Or Cisco's proprietary SSL VPN?
The smartphone market and the tablet market are two different beasts though. Sure, they both have iOS and Android, but that's where the similarity stops. Android has 3 significant advantages with smartphones that it doesn't have with tablets: more manufacturers making tons of Android phones, more carriers, and the fact that carriers offer Android phones for cheap (or even free) with their contracts. I just don't see the parallel. And (I'm no expert here, so forgive me if I'm wrong) I don't think any of the Android handset makers are pulling in anywhere near the profits that Apple is with the iPhone.
At any rate, when it comes time to drop $500+ on a tablet, why would anyone choose the one with lots of bugs, performance issues, and few apps?
At any rate, when it comes time to drop $500+ on a tablet, why would anyone choose the one with lots of bugs, performance issues, and few apps?
If you're a PC or phone manufacturer and want to get in on the tablet market, it's Android or nothing. You can already see the beginnings of this market with the Xoom, Galaxy Tab and Asus Transformer, but the combined effect will be that potential customers will soon have unparalleled choice at every price point, something the iPad will never be able to offer.
Your question "When it comes time to drop 500+ on a tablet" is itself rather meaningless. A year from now you'll have Ice Cream Sandwich (or Jello or whatever) on $200 netbooks with detachable keyboards, 7" slates, 8.5" tablets with pop-under keyboards, and even iPad 3-like 10" tablets. And maybe a few other products we can't yet see.
Your question "When it comes time to drop 500+ on a tablet" is itself rather meaningless. A year from now you'll have Ice Cream Sandwich (or Jello or whatever) on $200 netbooks with detachable keyboards, 7" slates, 8.5" tablets with pop-under keyboards, and even iPad 3-like 10" tablets. And maybe a few other products we can't yet see.
This comment is additional to my previous one, because Android's browser's textarea input breaks once it contains as much text as my previous comment.
> "Why would I buy one of these when I could just buy an iPad?" . As of yet, there is not a single competing tablet with a good answer to this question
Perhaps what you're missing (and what the whole Apple philosophy misses) is that there may never be a "single" iPad competitor that is better than the iPad in every respect and yet Android may "win" all the same, because each different model offers something different to someone who values that.
Perhaps you like having an SD card slot. Perhaps you like to plug in a (real) keyboard with a trackpad. Perhaps ultra light weight is your thing. Perhaps you just have to have a real HDMI port. Perhaps you're a 3D junky. Perhaps 9.7inches is just too big - or too small, for you. Perhaps a stylus does it for you. Whatever it is, if there is a segment of consumers who lust after it, there will an Android tablet featuring that. If everyone's killer feature is different then Apple's single-model, uniform approach will never be able to win. In this sense I strongly suspect that Apple is quite happy not winning and knows that they're far better off maximizing profit on 25% of the market that really does all want the same thing rather than trying to cater to the long tail of consumer desires. Let's face it, when it's a choice between profit and market share, Apple always picks profit.
Perhaps what you're missing (and what the whole Apple philosophy misses) is that there may never be a "single" iPad competitor that is better than the iPad in every respect and yet Android may "win" all the same, because each different model offers something different to someone who values that.
Perhaps you like having an SD card slot. Perhaps you like to plug in a (real) keyboard with a trackpad. Perhaps ultra light weight is your thing. Perhaps you just have to have a real HDMI port. Perhaps you're a 3D junky. Perhaps 9.7inches is just too big - or too small, for you. Perhaps a stylus does it for you. Whatever it is, if there is a segment of consumers who lust after it, there will an Android tablet featuring that. If everyone's killer feature is different then Apple's single-model, uniform approach will never be able to win. In this sense I strongly suspect that Apple is quite happy not winning and knows that they're far better off maximizing profit on 25% of the market that really does all want the same thing rather than trying to cater to the long tail of consumer desires. Let's face it, when it's a choice between profit and market share, Apple always picks profit.
I got an iPad 2. It isn't "buggy as hell," but I think I'd accept 10 other bad bugs instead of the wifi connection bug the iPad has (and has apparently had for a year, reading the forums).
If you switch to Android, you will instantly feel at home, since Android has similar wifi connection issues. (It has a habit of losing the ability to get an IP address from wifi, until the phone is not just rebooted but the battery is completely drained as well.)
I strongly feel that just like the iPhone, the iPad will be the gold standard for tablets. And just like the iPhone, it will have competition from an open challenger.
However, in the case of tablet, I strongly feel that the challenger is NOT android. Android works well on a phone, but a tablet is a different experience and it needs certain design elements which, frankly, Google has not proven capable of doing.
I have no doubt the challenger will be linux based, but it seems more likely that the it will be someone with a design and usability bent rather than technical-only acumen.
However, all of the challengers could be undone if they cannot play well with quality apps. Getting developers to your platform is absolutely key.
However, in the case of tablet, I strongly feel that the challenger is NOT android. Android works well on a phone, but a tablet is a different experience and it needs certain design elements which, frankly, Google has not proven capable of doing.
I have no doubt the challenger will be linux based, but it seems more likely that the it will be someone with a design and usability bent rather than technical-only acumen.
However, all of the challengers could be undone if they cannot play well with quality apps. Getting developers to your platform is absolutely key.
You don't actually provide any examples of what you're talking about, so it's hard to say what you're actually saying, making your post mostly useless fluff.
You are raising some very interesting points that I have not heard before. Could you give more specific examples of what Android lacks and how Google does not get it? Not to challenge you but I am curious to understand a new thought process.
I recently bought Xoom and I can tell you, that UI is much better and convenient than iOS. Widgets, convenient app switching, awesome browser controls (you slide your finger from the side of the screen and the menu appears), awesome tab switching in browser, voice input, sync with google account, great Gmail app and, last, but not least, I don't have to worry Kindle may be removed from my device.
Not to be shackled to iTunes is more than enough reasons for me to get a Honeycomb tablet.
i like the android tablets more than ipad for the same reason i like android devices more than the iphone: customization. android gives the user credit for being smart and recognizes we don't all want our phones to look and act exactly the same. what a boring world it would be if we all had apple devices. android is my little buddy that can be setup and function in the way that is best for me...not steve jobs.
I am not an android user so do not know. What kind of customization is possible with Android? I am assuming you are not talking about apps as the apps available for Android are also available for the iPhone.
just think of all the stuff you wish you could do with your ipad, and that's pretty much what android tablets can do.
widgets & hardware support via USB come to mind immediately, but there is much more.
widgets & hardware support via USB come to mind immediately, but there is much more.
Could you please elaborate? I am curious. I do not even follow your widgets and hardware support point.
that's exactly my point. you dont know what these things are because you use an ipad. there is a whole other world out there. if you don't know what widgets or usb hardware support is, google it.
You did not make any point. You also assumed I am an iPhone user. Anyway I was not trying to grill you, I was genuinely curious. Nice to know you are enjoying your android phone.
I'm not sure why the gp is avoiding the issue.
Live widgets on home screens are great. They give you interactivity and live updates without having to enter an app. So things like weather, news, calendars, etc.
The home screen in general is a lot more accessible to developers. E.g. I can add a shortcut to a contact on my homescreen that, when I tap it, opens up a small modal dialogue with quick access to phone calls, texts, emails, etc. I can alternatively add a shortcut that directly dials the contact with the first tap.
Another thing that I really like about Android over iOS is that developers have a lot more access to the settings of the phone than in iOS. This allows apps like Locale, which lets you set different contexts depending on different parameters such as location, time, battery level, orientation, etc. This allows me to set my phone to vibrate and turn off wifi when I leave the house for example. I no longer have to remember to set my phone to silent or any other such nonsense.
I fully acknowledge that there are many things iOS does better than Android, but these are the reasons that some people prefer Android, and they're for the most part just as true about tablets as phones.
Live widgets on home screens are great. They give you interactivity and live updates without having to enter an app. So things like weather, news, calendars, etc.
The home screen in general is a lot more accessible to developers. E.g. I can add a shortcut to a contact on my homescreen that, when I tap it, opens up a small modal dialogue with quick access to phone calls, texts, emails, etc. I can alternatively add a shortcut that directly dials the contact with the first tap.
Another thing that I really like about Android over iOS is that developers have a lot more access to the settings of the phone than in iOS. This allows apps like Locale, which lets you set different contexts depending on different parameters such as location, time, battery level, orientation, etc. This allows me to set my phone to vibrate and turn off wifi when I leave the house for example. I no longer have to remember to set my phone to silent or any other such nonsense.
I fully acknowledge that there are many things iOS does better than Android, but these are the reasons that some people prefer Android, and they're for the most part just as true about tablets as phones.
Thanks! I did not know the widgets on the home screen can be modified by developers. That could be really useful. Very good to know.
[deleted]
Once again, VHS beats Betamax?