The Success Of Apple’s iPad Tablet Won’t Be Mirrored Anytime Soon
Posted on 16. Apr, 2011 by Paul in Tablets
As the Apple iPad line of tablets continues dominance in the modern tablet market, it makes me wonder when will another maker come up with a tablet as successful? There are three main reasons why I think it will be a long time before we see another tablet that comes close to the iPad in sales success.
A summary of my three main reasons follow along with a lengthy version:
- Lack of identity or differentiation
- Incompleteness and immaturity of the main three platforms (Android 3.0, BlackBerry Tablet OS, HP WebOS)
- Lots of time and effort is still required to get basic but necessary kinks worked out
Recent tablet makers haven’t given their products their own identities
When you go to Bestbuy.com and you try to visit their tablet section you should notice something. The Apple iPad is listed as a different device. To state it as the webpage shows “iPad & Tablets”. The iPad isn’t a tablet it’s a whole separate item.
That is excellent branding on Apple’s part it further differentiates themselves from other tablet makers without much effort. If you followed the mp3 player market you noticed that it was iPod & mp3 players. Apple in the music player business has branded their product as a totally different product from what everyone else is offering, even though iPod really wasn’t a different product.
Right now everywhere you look everyone is talking about a new tablet that is supposed to be an iPad killer. That type of thinking will not benefit tablet makers. Other music player makers tried to make an iPod killer for years but the only brand in that market that is still remembered is iPod.
Tablet makers must create a tablet that is unique and market it as so. At the moment most Android tablets have the same features and most makers market the same features like Adobe Flash support etc. etc.. The only way Android tablets can outdo iPad is out of sheer numbers no one maker is going to ever have anywhere near the success that Apple has had with the iPad.
No other platform is completely ready yet
With the recent news of how incomplete new tablets like the Motorola XOOM and RIM’s BlackBerry PlayBook are right before they launch something can be learned.
Tablet makers who want to succeed don’t ever launch an incomplete product. A company like Motorola or RIM launching an incomplete product should not happen ever, but specifically in a market like tablets.
However the makers can’t really be blamed for wanting to launch something, anything really. The platforms in which they are operating are not ready, no tablet platform outside of iOS is completely ready at the moment.
For Android 3.0 Honeycomb, not only are there not that many applications but the operating system itself is still quite buggy. All the reviews of the Motorola XOOM have mentioned that Android 3.0 crashes sporadically even when doing some of the most simple things like accessing settings for the Chrome web browser.
Now RIM’s QNX-based BlackBerry Tablet OS, this platform is nice and shows some promise but it too isn’t ready. The new PlayBook tablet that is set to launch on April 19th won’t have lots of key features like native e-mail and contacts management, and again very few PlayBook/tablet specific applications will be available at launch.
Another is HP’s forthcoming WebOS, Hewlett-Packard is keeping launch for their first WebOS tablet until later this Summer in June. HP is wise in doing so, WebOS in the forms that has been shown thus far has been encouraging. Recently beta desktop emulators for the version of WebOS (3.0) launching with the HP TouchPad were released, promise was shown but still needs work. And also the WebOS platform is new and doesn’t have any tablet applications but HP is aggressively moving to get that fixed.
The main three tablet platforms Android 3.0, BlackBerry Tablet OS and WebOS are all works in progress at this point.
It will likely take quite a bit of time before any other maker get’s everything right
Apple didn’t just waltz into the tablet market with nothing more than the iPad’s design. Apple had been involved in the phone business and the mp3 player business awhile before iPad was even rumored as coming.
The time taken by Apple to get things like iOS polished and ready for users, getting content partners infatuated with their products, building a strong rapport with buyers of their phones and mp3 players was all very important for Apple. Also getting all of those ducks in a row played a big part in the Apple iPad having such a strong launch.
Just by looking at the launch of the Motorola XOOM you can see the Motorola had planned it out for a very brief amount of time. Apple on the other hand had most of the key pieces necessary to the iPad’s success ready and going long before iPad was destined for store shelves.
Most of the upstarts in this new tablet market better be ready for a serious uphill battle if they are serious about creating a name for themselves in the tablet market. Apple has already put in their years other tablet makers like RIM, HP and all the Android tablet makers will have to do the same.
Check Out Other Stories
13 Responses to “The Success Of Apple’s iPad Tablet Won’t Be Mirrored Anytime Soon”
Leave a Reply
rtp
16. Apr, 2011
I think no one tablet will kill the iPad, but the “long tail” of competitor devices will add up to collectively beat it. This has happened with the iPhone (excellent piece in Wired on this here http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/mf_android/ ). Many say the iPad will be like the iPod rather than the iPhone, but i disagree. The iPod was as much about the iTunes digital music purchasing experience as it was about the device. It was about the convenience and novelty of buying music digitally that was cheaper than CDs. Itunes and the Ipod provided a seamless and novel way to do this that competitors didn’t really catch on to until it was far too late. The iPhone almost achieved this with the iPhone, but Android effectively prevented this from happening. The general public now knows that iPhone is not synonymous with smartphone.WIth the iPad, it is much more about the device than the ecosystem,. True, Apple’s app store is a superbly integrated experience when using i Devices but, thanks largely to Android and Amazon, people generally know that you can buy media from places other than the App store. And the App store and iTunes are more publicly criticized now than they were when the IPod was dominant. All of this makes me think we will see the same erosion in iPad dominance by Android primarily as more tablets get release, running equal to better specs than the iPad, with more features (USb outs, keyboards, etc) and at a cheaper price. This all assumes that the tablet market is here to stay, something I still am not sure about. Short term, Apple si a big winner, but I wonder what they will do next if the iPad is usurped like the iPhone was, especially with Jobs likely out of the equation.
bmovie
16. Apr, 2011
Your opinion might hold true if Apple just sat on their laurels and did nothing but count their cash, but if you watched any TV regularly, you would see how iPads and the Apple brand dominates the media. Show programs, publications, news, advertisers, music and movie trailers all suggest you get their free iPad apps at the iTunes store. Even Cable TV companies allow you to watch TV on iPads—not Android tablets. They all know that one iPad app has the potential to reach several millions of year old, affluent iPad owners—not a few thousand Android Tablet beta-testers. It is to their own advantage to maintain and grown this new base of affluent iPad users. Even Flash daddy, Adobe has shown off their Photoshop for iPad application and this week has made Flash iOS and HTML5 compatible so that Flash is now no longer an issue. Android’s Flash advantage is now a mute point.
If you are happy with the Android tablet, then by all means enjoy it. I remember how I used to utter the “Beta is better” mantra when Sony’s Betamax was competing with VHS during the “Videotape Wars”. Even though Beta was better on many fronts, the “Beta is better” mantra fell on deaf ears, as movies cost more than the VHS version, and then there were less movies being released on Beta, and then there were less machines, and then there were Sony VHS machines and tapes, and then there was none.
Craidon
17. Apr, 2011
rtp,
I think you are right that paid-for music content and the enormous investments that iPod users made in their iTunes libraries created an insurmountable competitive barrier to new mp3 entrants (e.g. Zune) once the iPod had established a dominant position.
I don’t agree, however, that the tablet market is therefore more like the smartphone market. The difference here is that the smartphone market existed long before Apple released the iPhone. The iPhone was a paradigm changer for sure which is why it was able to steal share from slow-responding incumbents like RIM, Palm, Windows mobile, and Nokia. Google read the same tea leaves as Apple, had Android in the market with a similar value proposition, and too stole share from these same, vulnerable incumbents. And Apple, locked into it’s exclusive with ATT, ceded the entire CDMA market to Android until this year.
So what is the appropriate comparison? I would analyze Android’s penetration into iPhone market share on ATT’s network in 2010. In 2010, the iPhone was the incumbent smartphone on ATT’s network (just as the iPad today is the (only) incumbent tablet) and Android was the entrant (just as Honeycomb today is one of several entrants in the tablet market). This comparison is not perfect: I am sure RIM, Windows, and Nokia all had significant market share on ATT that Android could draw from. But at least Android was in direct competition with Apple on ATT’s network.
in the tablet market, there is no iPad-free submarket like the iPhone-free Verizon and other CDMA networks to launch within. Every customer for an Android, RIM or WebOS tablet will have the iPad as a choice. Carving out market share significant enough and profitable enough to justify the costs of product development and marketing will not be as easy as it was in the smartphone market. In this regard, the tablet market resembles the mp3 player market more than the smartphone market.
Let’s get back then to what makes the mp3 player and tablet markets different: content. In the case of mp3 players, users made a non-transferable investment in their music libraries. Once committed to iTunes, unless Apple made it easy for me to port my iTunes library to another platform OR a rival platform offered me a value proposition so vastly superior to iTunes that I would be willing to abandon my iTunes library, then Apple has me locked in as a customer.
So, are apps like music? Well, for one, Apple doesn’t control app makers like they control iTunes content. Any app maker can make it easy and low cost for me to transfer my app license to a rival platform. Second, I’ve read some good analysis that suggest that, unlike music, apps produce diminishing returns the more apps one purchase. It seems likely that users will reach a natural limit in their investment in apps; this therefore limits the cost of switching from one platform to another.
I think Android fans who expect Honeycomb adoption to mirror the smartphone market have got it quite wrong. At the same time, I think Apple fans who expect the iPad to maintain iPod-like dominance may be missing some key differences.
rtp
17. Apr, 2011
Craidon,
I appreciate your insightful comments. I disagree, though ,that the I Device app culture is any different than the lock in that iPod users experienced with music. Apple is very interested in locking customers into their ecosystem…why else would they still insist on running everything through iTunes if they weren’t? Also, what are your thoughts on the app store subscription terms that will take effect in June? What if Amazon decides to not pay Apple a 30% cut of it’s already razor thin profit margins and is thus kicked out of the App store (a scenario I see as likely to happen)? What if others follow suit, existing on other platforms and the web? And then what happens if droves of competitor devices running Honeycomb, RIM, WebOS, hit the market at lower price points, with features that Apple refuses to include, like SD slots, USB ports, keyboards, etc. (e.g the Asus Transformer)? Apple can’t allow itself to be pulled into a race to the bottom. So then you have the iPad as one among many capable tablets, with no significant differentiating features other than being Apple. I just don;t see how they win in this scenario. What will the iPad have that will make the average consumer choose it if it is no longer culturally synonymous with tablet computing, is no longer seen as the cheapest option and is seen as restricting what other platforms embrace? I
AdamC
17. Apr, 2011
If Amazon doesn’t play to play in Apple’s backyard they can always pull out.
You are comparing an OS with the iPhone besides the iPhone are not given away free like your precious androids – is it because without this free premium no one will be interested.
Why don’t you compare the goog phone with the iPhone. Or with the other iOS devices.
The iPad has an advantage because of its first mover status, It will lead until someone comes up with a better mouse trap. Until then the iPad is leading.
Is market share everything or the company that makes the most profits and the best returns for their shareholder?
You decide.
craidon
17. Apr, 2011
rtp,
I agree that it is Apple’s INTENT to lock us into the iPad ecosystem; I just don’t think that the economics of buying apps and the economics of building a music library are directly comparable (although I admit that there are similarities).
How much have you spent on apps for your tablet? $50-100? I would guess that most people spend several times more on their music libraries each year than they do on apps. When I purchase a song, I add it to a digital music library that I hope to keep for decades. Choosing a standard is a big deal. Switching standards is just as big of a deal. Hence the lock in.
To me, apps seem much more like PC software, only cheaper and more and more often cloud-based. Because we expect to upgrade both software and apps, the lock-in is weaker than the lock-in for music (which we quasi expect to keep forever). If more functionality moves to the cloud and is made accessible to any mobile device regardless of OS this will degrade a mobile device’s lock on its users even further. In a similar fashion, device-agnostic, subscription-based content services (for movies, music, tv, magazines, books, etc.) will undermine mobile OS lock-in.
Regarding its controversial in-apps sale pricing policy, Apple recognizes that it is the gatekeeper to the consumer for an industry (publishing) that is desperately looking for a new digital paradigm. Apple was in a similar position with respect to the music industry when it deployed the iTunes/iPod solution. Apple set the pricing structure for the industry and then took its cut (from iTunes) as the new digital retailer. Apple wants to do the same thing for the publishing industry with the iPad. Apple’s in-app pricing policy its way of taking its cut as the new digital retailer for publishing.
Wil Apple get its way? Well you cite Apple’s biggest worry: content providers walk and sign up with a rival platform with more favorable pricing (read Android). The iPad is a media tablet and Apple NEEDS content providers to supply iPad owners with access to the best content available. At the same time, content providers (especially print publishers) desperately need a new, subscription-based digital/internet business model to replace the advertising-based print media model that was destroyed by Google and Craigslist. In the iPad, Apple has a solution and has announced its price. Content providers can leave the platform but the longer the iPad remains dominant, the harder it will be for them to stay out. In this way, every failed tablet launch by an iPad rival gives Apple more and more channel power over these content providers.
As the first mover, Apple gets to take a stab at negotiating a new industry pricing structure. New entrants like Android, RIM and WebOS then get to decide whether to compete on price or enjoy the same terms that Apple has set. Google has signaled that it will compete on price but to date, has no appreciable market share. Apple has done everything it can (from pre-emtively launching the iPad 2, to locking up the supply of key components) to delay the entry of viable competitors. In the mean time June looms.
My guess is that with no viable alternatives in sight, content providers will blink and Apple with get to set channel prices for the next year or so. Whether this new pricing structure sticks will depend upon how quickly rival platforms gain market share and whether they decide to compete with Apple on channel pricing.
Will
16. Apr, 2011
It is interesting to note that Apple is the only company that has strong offerings that span from small devices like IPHONE/IPOD Touch up to the Mac with tablets in between. The OS-X operating system for Mac is a close cousin of IOS of course, particularly with Lion coming along. I can’t see far in to the future but have to wonder what stands in the way in the next two years. Perhaps lack of a low end laptop is all that prevents the Windows demise. I work with a lot of small medical technology businesses and notice prevalent Apple products are becoming whether Macs, IPHONES, or IPADS. There are many Droid phones also of course but that is because the operating system is less important on a phone and Apple does not have full distribution in phones. I just don’t see it as a threat to the rest of the Apple line any time soon.
Simon
16. Apr, 2011
I really don’t think Apple cares if it gets overtaken in the tablet market. They’re fine with ending up with, say, 40% or even less, because the other 60% will be split between ten other makers and Apple will make more money than them all combined. Same with the IPhone and Mac computers: smaller market share and larger profit. Who wouldn’t want that?
AlfieJr
16. Apr, 2011
three good points. you left out the fourth, the ecosystems. not just apps, but inter-related hardware, accessories, services, and retail stores that Apple has and the rest do not.
sure, Sony and MS and others have some pieces and parts of their own. but none of them are as wide-ranging or as seamless and easy to use. and “easy” is clearly not easy to do.
so i expect the iPad to hold 50%+ of its market indefinitely.
tim
17. Apr, 2011
like a mac & pc? well the market share didn’t turn out that well for apple did it?
apple won’t dominate as once all the manufacturers in china/taiwan build up their factories they can lend out their capacity to other vendors (dell, hp, rim, cisco, etc). as of right now apple gobbled up all manufacturing capacity being first to market.
ipad/android will own the consumer market, but playbook will eat up enterprise share due to bes and the ease to integrate into bb shops.
jbelkin
17. Apr, 2011
The mobile market is NOT the PC market of 1988 where everyone made money and especially MS who could monetize the OS, MS Office, servers and maintance contracts. The mobile market offers ONLY hardware revenue that subsidizes the software OS. There is money in ad sales & app store sales but that’s just gravy. That’s why no one can overtake Apple because no one else makes money on hardware and without a robust OS, there is no hardware sales … plus the product and expectations are different. Early PC’s were expected to be a work in progress – that was the price eeryone will was willing to pay but with tablets, unless you have a robust OS, your competition is a fully operating OS stnadards in WIn, Linux, Unix, Macs and other IT choices … so why switch from WIN OS to a work in progress OS like even WIN MObile unless it’s as good as the desktop one? Youre not saving anyone money – it’s not 1988 anyone. Your choice is not spend money on a PC or buy more ledger books. You have to realize that one similiar situtation is not the same 30 years later … this is why the RIM playbook is already a fail (why buy a $500 tablet taht requires a phone to do even basic functions like email or surf the web – RIM thinks they can fool IT in buying more blackberry servers … uh, no), Android is a fine free phone OS (makes Google around $5 – versus Appl’es $700 per phone sold out – basically Apple is MS in 1988) but after 6 months, there are 17 tablet sized apps. HP & MS stand a chance in making enterprise sales down the line if they can get their act together (HP has only developed Unix like OSes) and of course, MS has never developed a mobile OS that wasn’t every code of x86 crammed in there so Apple will own 90% of the revenue of tablets for at least 2 years – maybe 5 … will Hp or MS wake up? (Google and RIm will never make it, you can write them off now – maybe in 10 years, Google can come up with ipad 3.0 OS in 10 years – maybe).
lrd
17. Apr, 2011
I think the iPAD is going to cause a reverse halo effect for the iPhone- especially in the enterprise.
First of all Android isn’t secure enough for the enterprise. Some 60+ apps have already been pulled for data mining. No CIO in their right mind will take this chance.
Android has another significant problem when it comes to tablets- the tablet version is a forked version of Android. Meaning we now have two Android operating systems- one for tablets and one for phones- fragmentation galore!
And just yesterday, there are now 80,000+ native apps for the iPAD. And many of the iPAD apps have been upgraded two or more times- making them “premium apps.”
And last but not least, I went into a Staple store today with my son and notice a Motorola Xoom display. When I went over to try the Xoom, it was dead. Couldn’t turn it on, just dead.
Have you ever been in Apple Store? Everything works! People even use the devices to send emails, texts, and make YouTube videos.
jbelkin
17. Apr, 2011
You’re aboslutely right in the ipad-ipod market analogy. There is an additional main point that served Apple in the ipod market that serves them in the ipad market. By staking out the position as the best AND by offering all the price points (ipod – from $49 to around $200 for most of the ipod life, they made it affordable for everyone to own ‘the best,’ if you couldn’t afford $150 for a nano, you could buy the shuffle but still be ‘savvy’ enough to own the best – that was what other mp3 sellers never got. they spent very little on marketing and made no distinction with their players so for $20 or $50 more, why not buy an Apple Mp3, the ipod – look when you buy a CE product, you need to explain why you bought it – when you buy an ipod, everyone recognizes that you hae the dsiposable income and YOU bought the ‘best.’ no need to explain verus saying something like I saved $20 by buying a rio … now 10 years later, the ipad. One difference is that there will be a larger corporate market – if Hp can get their act together and if MS can finally put WIN on a tablet that doesn’t suck battery life out but you’re right, Apple is the ONLY tablet that is one people are willing to pay full price for. Android tablets can sell if they are priced below a WIN netbook at @$299 – otherwise, too many compromises. (Android on phones is different – its an acceptable second choice for a $.01 phone but tablets are seen as wifi or mini laptops, no one wants a contract) … basically, ipads are running a 10 year OS, android is running an OS cribbed from Apple & possibly Oracle/java. HP’s is based on an open source OS and WIN is just too bloated … how many years before any of the also rans can come up with a robust OS? 2 years? 5 years or 10 years? If MS had come out with Zune 2 or 3 after the ipod, maybe they might’ve made a diff but 8 years later? Too late.