Is anyone really surprised that the iPad is crushing all these things-that-are-obviously-trying-to-be-just-like-the-iPad? Customers aren't actually as stupid as birds: You can put a newborn cuckoo in a bird's nest and the bird will feed it -- it doesn't actually know what its own offspring are supposed to look like -- but you can't just build a thing with a screen that looks superficially like an iPad and expect folks to mindlessly buy it. Especially when you're selling to the early-adopter crowd that buys devices from two-year-old categories.
But, really, the lesson of articles like this one is that tech business analysts are prisoners of their own categories. The iPod Touch is not a "tablet" because it is too small; obviously all those smartphones are not "tablets" because they can make phone calls, which clearly makes them completely different, because... hey, when analysts were growing up the telephone was a completely different thing than the computer, instead of just one application that runs on your computer and that gets less use with each passing year.
And the Kindle is somehow not a tablet, because... uh, it doesn't have pretty colors? And the B&N Nook is not a tablet, because... uh, I guess you can't view animations on it? (Okay, seriously, it's probably the absence of touch that defines a non-"tablet". But does anyone want to bet that the new touch-enabled Kindle will get to be called a "tablet"? I somehow doubt it. It's just not iPad enough.)
Obviously, netbooks -- the hot category of yesteryear -- are not "tablets" and therefore don't appear on these charts, even though the most obvious reason I can see to buy an iPad alternative is to get a keyboard and/or the ability to run PC apps. And, of course, the eleven-inch Macbook Air isn't a tablet either.
If you allow the iPad to define a category and then draw the boundaries so narrowly that only the iPad fits, surprise! It dominates the category!
What would be more interesting to look at is the iPad's share of "things with similar screen size and weight", or "things that can play portable games", or "things that can read Kindle books", or "things with half-decent web browsers and 3G support".
The Kindle Fire is pretty widely described as a tablet and it's looking likely that it'll clean up nicely on the low-end of the market. Kindle Touch is an e-reader - calling it a tablet would be like calling a magazine a book because it's made of paper.
It seems to me while complaining that "tablet" is too narrow a definition you're drawing too broad of one. My impression of the term is that it describes a computing device that doesn't have a keyboard and would function as a netbook/laptop replacement for average users.
I assume you're talking about the e-ink versions of Kindle and Nook. The Kindle Fire and Nook Color are widely considered tablets. E-ink devices usually have the same form factor as a tablet, but their intended usage is specific enough to warrant placing them in a category separate from tablets.
It's really not as difficult or controversial as you make it sound. They're called tablets because they resemble stone writing tablets: they're flat, rectangular, have minimal moving parts, and are controlled by "drawing" (at first with a stylus and now with a finger). E-ink readers generally aren't controlled by touch, and even the new Nook and Kindle e-readers seem to use very minimal touch controls.
Are you really arguing that the iPod Touch, smartphones, e-ink readers, netbooks, and iPad-like devices should all be lumped into one category by tech analysts? Has anyone ever been in the market for a new gadget, but been unsure if they want an iPhone or an e-ink Kindle? That's madness. I can certainly see why someone would want a smartphone, a netbook, an iPad, and an e-ink reader, all at the same time for different purposes. But aside from developers or reviewers, I can't imagine why anyone would want two smartphones, or two netbooks, or two iPad-like tablets, or two e-ink readers. It's not tech writers that determine these categories, it's a combination of consumers' purchase patterns and the device manufacturers' marketing teams.
Are you really arguing that the iPod Touch, smartphones, e-ink readers, netbooks, and iPad-like devices should all be lumped into one category by tech analysts?
No, I'm arguing for categories that lead to enlightening analyses.
Perhaps the industry-standard categorization is perfect: iPad really is unlike all other devices on earth. Well, fine, but then this article is a banal exercise in circular logic: Of course the iPad is the leader of the iPad market. Unenlightening.
Let's hypothesize. Perhaps it would be more interesting to try breaking up the market by end-user goals. What is the iPad's share of the portable music player market? The portable video player market? The non-portable video player market? The web-surfing market? The digital sketchpad market? The digital mixing-console market? The e-reader market? The communications device (SMS, Twitter, voice) market? The GPS navigation market? The casual gaming market? The hardcore gaming market?
Is this the way customers decide what to buy? Is this the way designers approach the problem of making gadgets better? If so, maybe this is a better categorization scheme. If not, we could try something else.
Perhaps it would be more fruitful to ignore the "tablet" nature of the iPad completely. Everyone is focused on the Pad part, but perhaps a real key of the iPad's success is the design of the ecosystem: Minimal variations in hardware to improve reliability, and to make it easier to shop for and easier to support. A brand-new software ecosystem with no need for back-compatibility. A sole-source software installation system that provides leverage for excluding malware and offers generally-seamless automatic upgrades. Categorize systems in this fashion, and suddenly the iPad belongs in a category with the iPhone, a gaming console, the Kindle, and the TiVo, among other things.
Obviously, you can slice the universe into categories in more than one way. You can even slice it in several ways during the same essay.
But the touchstone of a categorization scheme is: Does it lead somewhere? Does it help you discover something interesting or actionable?
Digging into how tablets are impacting specific established product categories would be interesting, as it would help understand the impact that tablets are having beyond old-school computing use-cases to this point, and what other use-cases tablets might see success in the future. The obvious example is physical books, as well as medical. I am sure companies that are threatened by the encroachment of tablets into their markets are paying close attention.
However, as many are assuming (possibly incorrect) that the tablet is the future of mass-market information consumption, I think it is important to understand why Apple has (so far) dominated the tablet market, and whether competitors can respond successfully.
Despite all the hooplah and endless praise, analysts still manage to under-credit Apple for the iPad. They do it by describing the iPad as a "tablet" PC, as if it somehow lives in the same category as all the tablet PCs that came before it.
In a physical sense, sure, it does and it is. But to consumers, it's not a tablet; it's an iPad. That's a crucial distinction. Consumers just weren't buying tablet PCs before the iPad came out. They didn't grok the tablet category, full stop. They didn't see a need for a PC-like device that wasn't a PC. Apple changed all of that. It breathed new life into a stillborn category by tearing down that category and reinventing it. That's a monumental accomplishment.
So, while it may be technically correct to lump all of the pre- and post-iPad tablets into one category, such analysis misses the spirit of the matter. And that's what Apple understands that its competitors do not. Apple doesn't market its products as part of existing categories; it markets them as categories unto themselves. An iPhone isn't a "smartphone;" it's an iPhone. An iPod isn't an "mp3 player;" it's an iPod. And so on and so forth. As for Apple's competitors? They see themselves in the "mp3 player" category, or the "smartphone" category, or the "tablet" category. They've lost the battle by misunderstanding the battlefield.
i agree with the concept of your post, but i think that the market can change. the iPad is definitely a market unto itself, and the iPhone used to be. but not anymore. the iPhone basically cracked the doors open to the smartphone market, and while it used to be the only real choice, it isn't anymore. plenty of normal people are buying android phones, because android phones have gotten good enough to compete with the iPhone on an even footing. in the same way, i have faith that mass-market tablets will eventually catch up to the iPad. it might be win8 instead of android that prompts this change, but apple will eventually have a competitor.
I think that's a fair critique, and I agree with your assessment over the long run. The iPad, like the iPhone, can't stay uniquely compelling forever. Sooner or later, the market moves toward saturation, and from there, commoditization. Even the most diehard fanboy, of which I fully confess to being, would be negligent in dismissing the Mac vs. Wintel Clones battles of the 80s and 90s.
People don't want a tablet, they want an iPad. It's that simple.
Does anybody seriously believe that the average consumer walks into Best Buy (or any other store) and say "Hello, I'm shopping for a tablet, what selection do you offer?".
And then proceed to compare side by side an iPad and a Xoom (or any non-iPad) to, ultimately, decide on the iPad?
As of today, this is the fantasy world those non-iPad tablet makers are living in, thinking they can compete on specs (but apparently not on looks or price).
OTOH, this will change with the Kindle Fire that will swoop the entry level tier.
I think this is accurate. Once the KF sweeps the low end, the tablet/iPad identity will start to break. I think there was a similar dynamic in mobile phones: there were phones and Blackberries, then iPhones along and finally most people started thinking about "smartphones" as a category.
With the recommended configuration, the Honeycomb browser on my Android tablet (Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet) identifies itself as Chrome running on Windows XP. I don't know if this is the case for other Android tablets but, if so, that would certainly skew these traffic stats.
If you find yourself responding to family IT requests on a constant basis, the iPad will make all of that go away. Matter of fact, you may never hear from them again.
Just set up the printer and ensure there's enough paper and ink to go for awhile. Check back in six months.
Oh, you'll hear from them again once they discover FaceTime and how it costs nothing to call you. :( or :)
On a more serious note, I am looking into the exact workflow that would be needed to use iPads for students so that assignments (receive / turn in) would be seamless to normal students. Might still be a few years, but I can feel which way the wind is blowing.
That's kind of the last resort. I would prefer something a bit, uhm, integrated. I am not really talking about 1 class, I am talking about all classes. I just want to get something that is simpler than e-mail.
Are you taking direct advantage of the iOS Developer Library for the iPad? If you're not, then maybe all you need is a fancy HTML5 app. It's not as sexy as an app store app, but you control all of the content without worrying about having future releases rejected.
On your serious note, you'd have to build an app with enough of a forward-packed pipeline that would unlock timely student assignments on a regular basis, yet be updatable through the App Store without much fear of rejection, adjusting the content as the class progresses +/-. Just like the Angry Birds franchises do. They ability to synchronize all of that may be difficult at first, but the platform is here.
I'd hardly take the analytics numbers from mobile web browsers on an Apple-focused blog as substantial evidence in any way, shape, or form.
Here's the numbers I come up with. According to Google, 1.8% of current Android devices that are activated and have accessed the Android Market in the last 2 weeks are running Honeycomb (their tablet OS). In July they were up to 130 million total activations, with 550,000 new ones every day. Assuming that number hasn't grown at all (which is being extremely conservative considering that number shot up from 400,000 only 2 months prior), that would put the number of active Android devices around 180,000,000. That puts the current number of Android tablets that are sold and active on the Android Market at over 3 million. Apple's numbers look to be about 30 million iPads.
Assuming that Apple and Google are the only players in this market (hint: they're not), then that puts Android at around 10% of the tablet market. Still dominated by the iPad, yes, but at least these numbers have weight to them. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out over the next 8-12 months. The iPhone having real competition served to improve the entire smartphone market all around. Hopefully we've only begun to see what tablets can do.
This is what I don't understand. Based on published sales figures the iPad is ~85% of tablets, which I simply don't believe. There can be no explanation for this other than the non-iPad manufacturers are basically lying, which typically means "in channel == sold". It may also mean they don't count returns.
The iPad having 97% of tablet Web traffic is intuitively a far more accurate number. Just think about how many tablets you see in the wild and how many of them are iPads.
As for why: I think the answer comes down to the ecosystem being far more important on tablets than on phones. Any smartphone can send and receive calls, send and receive text messages, send and receive emails and use some variety of maps. IMHO that covers the vast majority of most people's usage.
But on tablets? Games matter. Apps matter. Far more than on phones (IMHO), hence Apple's unrelenting dominance of the space (so far) and also why people expecting a repeat of Android's rapid growth in the phone space just don't seem to understand the difference. But I guess that's the danger of analogies.
Android's Kindle Fire is (IMHO) the first serious iPad competitor to emerge and the first non-iPad that will get remotely serious (>1M units) marketshare.
"I think the answer comes down to the ecosystem being far more important on tablets than on phones."
from what i've seen in my friends and customers usage (and my own experience) you couldn't be more wrong. on a phone, a mobile app often provides significant usability improvements over a website. on a tablet, all anybody cares about is having the web. games are nice, but ultimately not that big of a deal, and the iPad doesn't have a significantly better ecosystem as far as games go. the app advantage on iPad is apps that are clones of a website.
the reason that android tablets are failing is because they are an inferior product to the iPad in terms of style functionality and raw specs, and yet they cost the same or more than the market leader.
I'll just add a second, conflicting, anecdote. Most of the iPad owners I know use them heavily for games. If you took away the games I have no doubt the my girlfriend, for example, would sell her iPad instantly.
Also the difference in the quality of games between the iPad and Android is huge, probably far bigger than any other app categories. Lost of big name studios like EA and 2K games and getting behind the iPad and producing games of a quality you don't even approach on Android.
Now I'll admit I have no idea how important games are, really. But if I was to go purely on personal observations I'd say it's highly significant.
There is a large (and growing) number of people using the iPad to play and record music. It's a great alternative to expensive and specific hardware instruments and controllers for many purposes.
Apple actually generally reports channel numbers as well, as far as I know (except for their own retail operation, which is substantial). For tablets, these numbers are likely to be closer to real sales simply because the iPad tends to sell quickly. If this wasn't the case, we'd see dropping-off of iPad 'sales' numbers as the channel backed up.
There are probably some people who buy Android tablets and just don't use them much but don't end up returning them (e.g. they don't want to admit to themselves that they wasted their money, or they just buy a lot of gadgets and don't use them).
I m using the galaxy tab 10.1, together with 5 friend I know, widgets are cool, ipad is too heavy, lack widgets etc, the driver and the secretary of our company bought ipad, which makes me think they are in search of prestige rather than use. I see them show off everywhere, however the tech savvy and upper management use android.
I have to ask - what is your issue? You are all over this thread, bashing Apple and talking about the G10.1 like it is the best thing since sliced bread. However, you have not given any evidence of this anywhere. You are arguing against respected names (both the OP to your comments and the poster) who have experience and data backing them up.For instance, if I went up to someone on the street, and told them that a tech journalist and analyst says the iPad is amazing, and hold 97% of the web browsing share, and then showed them your story, who would they believe?
Please, back up your posts. Your anecdotes do not really hold water against even the weakest of data. For instance, I am tech savvy, have spent time in management, and love my iPad, as do TONS of people I know. However, most of my friends who have used Android tablets hate them - especially if they have spent time with an iPad. I did not buy my iPad for prestige - I bought it because it is the best tablet on the market, bar none. Bashing Apple and having no proof is not something that goes over well on HN (as far as I can see)
if you are serious just read all type of baseless arguments written in this post and in similar "I love my I-whatever" posts. All I said is correct but most of the sibling threads contain vague, baseless guesses stemming from emotional connection to some gadget. That pollutes a sane discussion.
Just an example is your claim your friends hate their androids, and love their ipad. No my friends, which I now count as 6 love their android tablets.
You see your claim is weak, and my -same type of weak argument- falsified it.
According to the specs of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 [1] and the iPad 2 [2] the Tab weighs in at 565g and the iPad 2 is 601g. Are you seriously trying to tell me that an extra 36g (being just over an ounce) was a major motivation in deciding what to purchase?
There may be reasons you bought the Tab but (IMHO) 36g wasn't an important consideration (or even a consideration at all).
You and five friends own them? How many of you purchased them as opposed to, say, getting them for free from Google IO this year?
SGS 8.9 is better in this regard, 36 grams help a bit though to hold it in my left hand. Ipad lacks widgets, and requires too many user unfriendly button touches. my dad enjoys seeing the emails, twitter and weather all open at once on galaxy tab.
My point is; good androids alternatives came mainly in last few weeks. I suggest you all ipad lovers take a look at objectively to new tablets from sony, samsung...
I kind of doubt the iPad being 97% of tablet traffic. I doubt that figure includes my gf's Dell Inspiron Duo.
Seriously, would they only count it when it is in tablet mode? Doubtful. Does someone maintain a list of all tablets ever released and filter user-agents based on that? Doubtful.
I think the problem is that people are looking at this backwards.
The vast majority of people buy the iPad not because they want a tablet, they buy it because they want a really big iPhone. HP, RIM and most of the others seemed to not understand this and attempted to build a really big iPhone... without the iPhone ecosystem. Surprise, surprise they failed miserably.
Apple did a very smart thing, they took a product that was selling like hotcakes, and they introduced a product that was identical save for the form factor. Every iPhone user (which is a whole lot of people) was suddenly an expert iPad user! They felt at home, they felt safe, they got what they wanted: a really big iPhone.
The iPad isn't just a "really big iPhone". Have you spent much time using one? It's familiar because it runs the same OS, but the experience is unique to the iPad. I agree with your statement that the ecosystem has a lot to do with the success of the iPad, however, it's definitely not "a really big iPhone".
It sounds like you think I'm belittling the iPad. I really don't know what's bad about being a really big iPhone. A different form factor of an excellent product can still be excellent. Apple made a great piece of hardware with some pretty crazy hardware wizardry, but non-techies don't care about that because they expect it from Apple.
I'm merely trying to describe what I've heard my non-techie friends praise about the iPad. They like that the user experience is almost wholly translated to the iPad. They like that they can get all the apps they have on their phone on their iPad. They like that it's bigger.
I've never heard a non-techie say "I really like this new dual-core processor," or "I really like the 4:3 aspect ratio as opposed to the 1.5:1 on the iPhone!" We (royal HN we) may love to obsess about all the little nuances that make the iPad different from the iPhone, but the fact of the matter is that most people just don't care.
The dominance of the iPad has always been about the walled garden and iTunes.
Amazon will clean up in the lower end of this market because they also get the importance of content and to some degree walled garden.
To stretch an analogy somewhat:
We geeks are the cowboys who want to roam in wolf-infested
hills, looking for gold. Normal people want to play in a
beautiful, safe garden filled with lovely shiny toys.
Who can blame people, after years of viruses, malware, stupid UIs and techno-babble, to want to sit on a sofa and noodle on the internet while watching TV.
> The dominance of the iPad has always been about the walled garden and iTunes.
I really can't agree. I believe the dominance of the iPad stems from an operating system designed for touch input instead of having it shoehorned in like Windows did for years.
Android tablets will do just fine for the same reason. They've been struggling thus far because it's currently hard to match Apple on price - they've done a hell of a job in supply chain management.
It's a brave new world where Apple are the ones who are too cheap :)
I see your point but I disagree, in part (I was assuming the shiny touch UI was a given factor in both). It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
The reason I think that iPads vs a-iPad-a-likes are different from iPhones vs Android Phones is the way they are sold. Phone shops often push Android phones for other in-shop reasons.
As I said, we will see. My guess is that at some point someone will make a store to rival iTunes and Amazon. Whether it is Google, Microsoft, Facebook or someone else will be the interesting bit. Who knows, there maybe room for a Spotify-like startup in this space that Android can really get behind.
Most Android tablets are the same price as the iPad or a little cheaper (with the exception of the hilariously expensive 3G/4G Xoom). Honeycomb, however, is rather buggy still, and the app ecosystem really isn't there.
No they are cool. Apple just sold a brand people show in cafes for prestige, android is just starting in tablets, when stats start to change, I will see you are wrong in few quarters. , written from my samsung galaxy tab.
But, really, the lesson of articles like this one is that tech business analysts are prisoners of their own categories. The iPod Touch is not a "tablet" because it is too small; obviously all those smartphones are not "tablets" because they can make phone calls, which clearly makes them completely different, because... hey, when analysts were growing up the telephone was a completely different thing than the computer, instead of just one application that runs on your computer and that gets less use with each passing year.
And the Kindle is somehow not a tablet, because... uh, it doesn't have pretty colors? And the B&N Nook is not a tablet, because... uh, I guess you can't view animations on it? (Okay, seriously, it's probably the absence of touch that defines a non-"tablet". But does anyone want to bet that the new touch-enabled Kindle will get to be called a "tablet"? I somehow doubt it. It's just not iPad enough.)
Obviously, netbooks -- the hot category of yesteryear -- are not "tablets" and therefore don't appear on these charts, even though the most obvious reason I can see to buy an iPad alternative is to get a keyboard and/or the ability to run PC apps. And, of course, the eleven-inch Macbook Air isn't a tablet either.
If you allow the iPad to define a category and then draw the boundaries so narrowly that only the iPad fits, surprise! It dominates the category!
What would be more interesting to look at is the iPad's share of "things with similar screen size and weight", or "things that can play portable games", or "things that can read Kindle books", or "things with half-decent web browsers and 3G support".