The Terrible Tablet Tantrum: Part 1

Anger

In the first quarter of 2014, Apple sold 16.4 million iPads, a 16% drop compared to the number of units sold in the same quarter one year ago. Apple CEO, Tim Cook, explained the news away, but the tech press was having none of it.

Flat

HangingSales of iPad were flat. Sales were less than flat. Sales were depressed. Sales were depressing. Sales were awful. Sales were catastrophic. The Tablet world was about to come to an end! The iPad was hanging on by its finger tips!

You think I’m exaggerating, right? Employing hyperbole? I’ll let you be the judge. Here are some typical headlines and comments that have been written about Tablets generally and the iPad specifically over the past two weeks — many of them by some of the finest and most respected names in tech.

Headlines

Apple’s iPad Business Is Collapsing ~ Jim Edwards

Are the iPad’s go-go years over? ~ Jean-Louis Gassée

Contention: people are discovering that tablets are not really a thing, and that in general, the gap between phone and PC barely exists. ~ Peter Bright (@DrPizza)

Giving Up On The iPad ~ Jared Sinclair

Have we already reached peak iPad? ~ Brad Reed

I can’t find a way out of an uncomfortable conclusion. In order for the iPad to fulfill its supposed Post-PC destiny, it has to either become more like an iPhone or more like a Mac. But it can’t do either without losing its raison d’être. ~ Jared Sinclair

There is, however, a growing perception that the iPad growth could continue to stall. ~ Ryan Faas

Tablet demand hits a wall ~ Jon Fingas

I don’t think tablets will ever disappear, but for mass-market use, they’re going to keep getting squeezed from both sides: larger-screened phones and smaller, lighter laptops. The percentage of people whose primary computing device is a tablet may have already peaked.

Over the next few years, I suspect an increasing number of people will choose not to replace old tablets, instead just choosing to use their phones for everything… ~ Marco Arment

As battery life gets better and screen sizes grow, it’s likely tablets and smartphones will eventually just converge into one device that can be simply slipped into a pocket, instead of two devices that overlap each other in many areas. ~ Owen Williams

Young people are growing up on the mobile phone as their primary computing device, which has fundamentally changed the way they use and think about the internet. Tablets are simply unnecessary for them… ~ Dustin Curtis

I think the future of the iPad is for it to disappear, absorbed at the low end by iPhones with large displays and at the high end by Macs running a more iOS-like flavor of OS X. Perhaps it won’t disappear completely. After all, for certain niche uses – especially those listed above – the iPad is great because it’s neither a phone nor a PC. But these are still niche uses and can’t possibly sustain the long, bountiful future that many hope the iPad has. ~ Jared Sinclair

The iPad is dead. ~ Steve Kovach (@stevekovach)

The iPad is so over, even Apple seems to be moving on. ~ Galen Gruman (@MobileGalen)

The iPad may already be past its prime. ~ Brad Reed

While good at some of the things and pretty to look at, iPad (and other tablets) aren’t particularly useful. ~ Javed Anwer

Why Apple’s iPad Is in Big Trouble ~ Adam Levine-Weinberg

Young people don’t use tablets because they don’t see them as necessary ~ Owen Williams

Get Real

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. ~ Mark Twain

I cannot agree with the tablet doomsayers and I would respectfully suggest the facts don’t agree with them either.

1) PREMATURE: Talk about resting your entire argument on a thin reed. We’re talking about a single down quarter in a non-holiday period that has already been explained away as a glitch in the supply chain. Much of this speculation rests on a foundation so fragile a single robust quarter of sales will blow it into the dustbin of history.

2) AGE: The iPad is only four years old — FOUR YEARS — and has sold 210 million units.

3) PCs MANUFACTURED: If you count the iPad as a personal computer (and you should) Apple is, even excluding the Macintosh, the largest manufacturer of PCs in the world. For those of us who remember the days of Windows domination, that statement is absolutely mindblowing.

In 2013 alone Apple sold nearly as many iPad’s as they did Mac’s between the years 1991-2010. ~ Ben Bajarin (@BenBajarin)

4) STANDALONE BUSINESS: Based on the last 12 months of revenue, the iPad would be in the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500. ~ via MG Siegler

AppleIncome
CAPTION: The iPad is only 17% of Apple’s revenues, but if it were split off, it would be a Fortune 100 company.

5) REVENUE:

In 2006 — the year before the iPhone — Apple had revenue of 19.32 billion.

In 2009 — the year before the iPad — Apple had revenue of 36.54 billion.

In the first 90 days of 2014 — the quarter that generated all of the angst-filled headlines — the iPad generated revenue of approximately 11.5 billion.

In other words, using back-of-the-envelope calculations, it appears that last quarter’s disappointing iPad revenues were twice as large as the revenues generated by all of pre-iPhone Apple and larger than the revenues generated by all of pre-iPad Apple. Most companies would kill for such disappointing results.

6) NEW USERS: Tim Cook reported over two-thirds of people registering an iPad in the past six months were new to the iPad.

Let me repeat — over two-thirds of the people buying iPads are NEW to the form factor.

Sounds like the opposite of stagnation to me.

7) EDUCATION AND ENTERPRISE: The iPad has captured an overwhelming 91% of the Education market and 95% of the Enterprise purchases. And yet we think the sales of the iPad are going to stagnate? With kids being handed iPads in their schools? With adults being handed iPads at their place of work? Seriously? Am I the only one who thinks that conclusion runs counter to all the evidence and is completely bonkers?

St. Paul schools dumps Dell after one year; students to get iPads

8) ANECDOTAL: A middle school teacher recently caught a student with this:

BookPad

If you think a product that inspires kids to hollow out their books so they can sneak it INTO class is generating no interest amongst the young and is on the verge of extinction, then you are mad, I tell you, STARK RAVING MAD!

Psychotic Woman
CAPTION: Picture of the typical analyst, trying to kill the iPad.

Adoption

Tablet naysayers are totally ignoring the existence of the adoption cycle.

A) The adoption rate of tablets has been extraordinary.

— The iPad is selling at nearly twice the rate the iPhone did during the iPhone’s first four years.

— The install base of tablets worldwide is almost as much as the install base of desktops. ~ Ben Bajarin (@BenBajarin)

— It took the PC approximately 15 years to reach one billion units sold. It will likely take the tablet 5-6 yrs. ~ Ben Bajarin (@BenBajarin)

— On its current trajectory, the iPad, by itself, will soon eclipse the entire PC market in terms of sales. The broader tablet market, of course, already did that some time ago. (Remember, this was all done in only four years.)

slide-7-1024

B) Rapid Adoption is highly predictive.

Historically, products which become ‘mainstream’ or widely adopted follow an S-curve during that adoption. The curve is remarkably predictable given a limited set of points….We are fortunate that data also exists for Tablets. ~ Horace Dediu

s-curve-adoption

It is highly improbable that tablet penetration would rise from 0 to 42%, in a mere four years and then suddenly come to a screeching halt (more or less reversing itself). Such a claim is so out of keeping with historical norms the proof required to sustain it would have to be extraordinarily strong.

Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. ~ Christopher Hitchens

C) Some tablet naysayers claim the tablet market is saturated. I’ll let Mary Meeker respond to them:

We think tablets can be nearly pervasive but only six percent of people have one today. ~ Mary Meeker

Tomorrow

I may not agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death my right to tell you to shut up. ~ Andy Borowitz

Tomorrow, I take a deep dive into the two questions that seem to be perplexing Tablet naysayers the most:

— Is the Tablet good enough to replace the PC?
— Is the Smartphone good enough to replace the Tablet?

Turns out, the logic used to explain why the tablet deserved to be a category separate from the PC is also the very same logic that can be used to explain why the tablet will remain a separate category from the smartphone. Join me tomorrow and I’ll explain why. (INSIDER ARTICLE, Subscription Required.)

Published by

John Kirk

John R. Kirk is a recovering attorney. He has also worked as a financial advisor and a business coach. His love affair with computing started with his purchase of the original Mac in 1985. His primary interest is the field of personal computing (which includes phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops) and his primary focus is on long-term business strategies: What makes a company unique; How do those unique qualities aid or inhibit the success of the company; and why don’t (or can’t) other companies adopt the successful attributes of their competitors?

114 thoughts on “The Terrible Tablet Tantrum: Part 1”

  1. A while ago you wrote a couple of excellent Aristotelian articles on the essence of things. The essence of a tablet is closely related to the PC, but it is distinct. The PC, whether it be a Mac, Wintel or Commodore 64 is more co-essential than any of them are with a tablet.

    -They are directly programmable, not requiring another computer to program them.
    -They are uncurated.
    -They can independently replicate the functional aspects of a tablet, except for mobility, which in the end is a non-compute property. Mobility impacts computing ability however.

    I look forward to the second shoe dropping.

    1. Win8 tablets can be used to develop apps just as well as any non-tablet Win8 PC.
      Androids can to, though that’s definitely not as easy.
      No clue about iOS

      Maybe it’s not so much the whole “tablet” category that’s not a self-programmable, but only a specific ecosystem ?

      1. To my knowledge there are no native compilers (on device) for WinRT. There might be n Android. Insofar as full Win8 tablets goes, I agree.

  2. “The iPad is dead” is likely part of the large amount of meaningless fluff constantly pumped out by Microsoft.

    Just kidding.

  3. It seems inevitable that both the iPad and iPhone will grow to take over most computing tasks. The key is the touch interface, it is so natural, the screen is the computer. We’ll need various accessories to expand capabilities, obviously, but touching the screen feels right, it feels like the future.

    1. Agreed. This is one of the keys to understanding modern computing. Touch input requires a totally different user interface than does a mouse/pen. Until this lesson is learned, companies like Microsoft will continue to create hybrids like the Surface and the vast majority of users will continue to eschew them.

  4. “– The iPad is selling at nearly twice the rate that the iPhone did during the iPhone’s first four years.”

    So?

    New tech devices tends to grow faster than similar historical tech devices. The world is becoming both more populated and more technological, and inflation adjusted pricing of technology is going down over time. So growing faster than X did historically is not much of an argument. Today we have more people, that are more accepting of technology and we can sell them at more affordable pricing. Also the iPhone was severely constrained by limited carrier partners initially. So beating that initial growth curve is no sign that iPad has bigger potential than iPhone, or anywhere close to it.

    The first graph with iPad vs iPhone is interesting. It show despite being in a much more mature market and still essentially relying on one model, the iPhone is still accelerating up in sales. iPads are at best languishing, and it isn’t just a 1 quarter thing, the iPad sales have been at similar levels for a while, iPhone looks to still be diverging up and away.

    I only expect them to diverge more if Apple releases bigger smartphones, especially if they go as far as having both a 4.7″ and 5.5″ as rumored. That will steal even more use-cases from iPad.

    That said. I am not with the sky is falling crowd. Most “Analysts” tend to over-react and assume the trend of the current moment will going on forever leading to exaggerated claims both up and down.

    Neither tablets nor PCs are dying. In the next few years, we will likely have a good idea how the market share realities of the modern ecosystem, that includes Desktops/Laptops/Convertibles/Tablets/Phablets/Smartphones really breaks down.

    IMO the only: “must have”, going forward is some kind of phone.

    1. “The iPad is selling at nearly twice the rate that the iPhone did during the iPhone’s first four years.” — So?” – Defendor

      It matters, Defendor because the sky-is-falling crowd is ignoring the rate of adoption and pretending that historical predictive S-curve doesn’t exist. What they essentially saying is that the tablet grew from 0 to 42% in four years — and not it’s going to flatline. That would be a HUGE anomaly and it should not be proposed without extraordinary evidence to support it.

    2. “New tech devices tends to grow faster than similar historical tech devices.”

      True to a degree. But tell that to the makers of (so-called) smart watches or robotic vacuum cleaners. Runaway success is more runaway-y now, but it’s mathematically obvious that to affect the same percentage of population, a trend has to sell to more people.

      John – I always look forward to your writings, and I’m also looking forward to all Apple devices having TouchID later this year, which is a key enabler for their “best pipeline in 25 years” strategy.

      1. “I’m also looking forward to all Apple devices having TouchID later this year” – N8nnc

        I’m staying away from making WWDC predictions but I think its a given that Apple is moving away from patents as a moat and using vertical integration, instead. Two examples of this are TouchID and iBeacons. Should be a very interesting WWDC…

    1. Phablets are interesting, shivraj. First, tablets are very regional. They’re especially popular in Samsung’s home country of South Korea. Second, studies have shown that Phablets, while popular, are still a niche. That is not an attempt to dismiss them but merely an attempt to keep things in perspective.

      Yesterday IDC came out with a report that lowered their tablet numbers and specifically blamed phablets. Frankly, it confused me. Isn’t a phablet just another tablet? We can draw lines of demarcation based on size and antenna, but does it really matter? Aren’t phones and tablets just part of a spectrum of touch devices?

      The main reason I wrote this article was that, as you can see from the headlines I quoted, many pundits seem to feel that the tablet is going away. That’s simply not going to happen. Today I provided the facts. Tomorrow I provide the theory.

    2. My intuition is that there’ll be lots of tablet sizes, from iPod nano to as large/heavy as can be physically handled. My mental model is traditional paper. The name “phone” will likely disappear, since that function is going to be lost/indistinguishable soon. That trend will be reinforced by consistent usage interfaces across sizes (including “phone” functions on “tablets”).

      1. Hmm. Samsung, et. al., may make many sized tablets but I don’t think Apple will. Apple is fanatical about developing their platform, which means they need to make it easy for developers to develop for their platform, which means that each tablet size should scale and be easy to program for.

      2. The screen is the computer, we will simply choose the screen size that best meets our needs. And most likely we’ll have multiple screens. I want a 40 inch drafting table style touch iOS Mac for my desk. Is that too much to ask for? 🙂

      1. At the end of the day, “the Tablet will never be better than anything at anything except for a mediocre job at being everything.”

        I guess in that sense, it is “the general purpose computer.”

        1. You couldn’t have it more wrong, Kyle. The Tablet is one of the truly magical technology devices of our times. It thrills the young and the young at heart. It has completely rejuvenated PCs and turned a moribund category into the hottest sector in tech.

          Read my article tomorrow and they’ll we’ll talk more about this. 🙂

        2. I respectfully submit to you that a computer that requires another computer to program it, by definition, cannot truly be a general purpose computer. Should that capability be added, then yes, it would be.

          1. You look at a cow. You say a cow is a mammal. You look at a dog. You say a dog is nothing like a cow so a dog is not a mammal. 🙂

            A definition is the enclosing a wilderness of idea within a wall of words. ~ Samuel Butler

            You don’t look at a thing and base the definition on it. You look at the definition and see whether the thing fits within it. I respectfully submit to you that there isn’t a definition of “computer” anywhere in the world that would not encompass the iPad within its wall or words.

          2. I did not say “computer” I said “general purpose computer”. Yes, tablets are computers. Several times in my life, what I needed did not exist, or could be done cheaper/better writing my own small programs. I just needed an answer. If all I had was a tablet, that could not be done.

            Am I the mainstream? Probably not, but that’s what makes it “general”.

          3. “I did not say “computer” I said “general purpose computer”.” – klahanas

            My apologies. That is a distinction that makes a difference.

            In that case, I think we’re just arguing semantics.

            Again, sorry to have misinterpreted your initial comment. I can see by my spelling and grammar mistakes that I should never trying to respond to comments when it’s late at night and I’m sleep deprived!

          4. I too think you are hung up on some semantics…

            Yes, “general purpose” can mean “more widely applicable to more situations” than the “specialized” one.

            However, it can also, and usually does, mean almost the entire opposite:

            If I have a “general purpose” tool, a Leatherman, in my pocket, it does not mean it is the best tool for every conceivable job. It means it does a good job for a lot of the jobs I will generally encounter.

            I may have an Allen wrench on my Leatherman. It may or may not suffice for a particular job that I run into on a particular occasion. I may yet need to go and get my full Allen wrench set for a particular job.

            Nevertheless, my Leatherman is a “General Purpose” tool — and the full Allen wrench set is “Specialized”. I do not carry around all my tools everywhere I go, but I do carry around my “General Purpose” Leatherman tool because it works in most situations that I regularly find myself.

            When the PC is described as “Specialized” it is perhaps because it contains every conceivable “blade” which the Leatherman cannot, or it would be impossible to carry my “general purpose” tool around with me in common situations. Therefore the “blades” or applications contained within the PC make it highly specialized, and some PCs are even built with certain Specializations in mind.

            I hope this helps you to stop beating your particular drum, as I believe this is really the sense in which most people in the world understand the term “General Purpose” and “Specialized”.

          5. From my conversation with jfrutral in the second installment of this article:

            Okay. Forgive the Wikipedia reference, but it suffices.
            From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G

            “A computer is a general purpose device that can be programmed to carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically. Since a sequence of operations can be readily changed, the computer can solve more than one kind of problem.”

            On the surface, this may not define the requirement of direct programmability, but if it were not for the PC (master) programming the tablet (slave) then the tablet could not be programmed to “carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations”. Thus direct programmability is implicit in the definition.

            Otherwise, if you prefer, the programming PC and the tablet TOGETHER are a General Purpose Computer. When the tablet is untethered from the PC, it’s no longer programmable beyond what it already contains. The PC does not suffer from such a restriction.

            This is a VERY fundamental distinction.

            There’s also the historical argument, preceding the iPhone by over 20 years. Until PDA’s and smartphones (Newton, Palm, Symbian, Windows Mobile, etc.) became commonplace, all PC’s were directly programmable. We never considered PDA’s and Smartphones as PC’s. I prefer the other argument, but offer this as well.

          6. I did read the whole conversation. In fact, I thought I was replying to one of your other comments within the conversation (I think Disqus does funny things with comments when I zoom in to the page).

            In particular, I was thinking of this comment of yours:

            “…This makes the PC or Mac the “master” computer, the general purpose one…”

            My point was that “general purpose” often means less specialized, NOT more capable. You may well need a PC/Mac to program apps — that is a “specialization”. That may even make the Mac the “master”. But “general purpose” and “master” are not necessarily equivalent.

            Nobody disputes the relationship you are drawing between a Mac and an iPad. What is disputed is simply your narrow notion of “general purpose” as being at the top of some some imagined hierarchy, when that needn’t be the case at all.

          7. Well then, I agree the words are semantics, the context however is not. A tablet IMO based on the arguments I make is not a PC. They should be able to do, from a software pov at least, what the PC does.

          8. Of course, you may call it, or not call it, what you like. However, in terms of analytics (sales, etc.) it should still be placed along side the PC. It (at least the iPad) is a general purpose, highly personal computer. Its use coincides with or overlaps most of the common uses that most people employ PCs for. It is even responsible for some new, increasingly common (and increasingly specialized) uses.

          9. All I can say is this… “most people”, or “mainstream”, is not “personal”.
            Lest you think I’m picking on Apple, this is why I just say “tablets”. It applies to the rest too.

          10. Whoa! You mean “most people” use one computer or tablet together? Sorry, but the iPad is as personal as it gets, far more personal than the PC.

            Most people do email. But MY email is highly personal to me. Most people are NOT involved in MY email.

            How can a personal activity that most people do, not be “personal”, just because most people do it? How about using the bathroom. Darn, i hope that’s still personal.

          11. How about activities most people don’t do? Like a college professor demonstrating physics with a Java applet. Or the hottest newest fart application? Value is in the eyes of the beholder. That’s “personal”.
            That’s what I’m talking about.

          12. All you’ve said is that individuals are doing lots of specific things on personal non-PC devices, instead of doing them on PCs. Rather makes my case.

          13. The more applicable a computer is for many specific purposes, the more general purpose it is in it’s function. Your Mac is infinitely more general purpose than your iPad.

          14. Everyone acknowledges that. And yet it has been explained exactly why the Mac was called the specialized one.

            Once again, the “general purpose” one is often the one you have with you, generally, and which allows you to tackle most jobs you generally encounter. Like my Leatherman illustration. That is something that most people understand.

            Therefore, it is not about how many jobs each can do, but what is handy for the jobs you tend to encounter. Hence, a Leatherman is general purpose, but my whole toolbox is “infintely more general purpose”, containing as it does a whole host of specialized and powerful tools to perform every job properly and exhaustively.

          15. I recall the distinct feeling when computers went from “general purpose computation” devices to “general purpose communication/office/everything” devices. This was sometime in 1985-1989, with a NeXT or Sun workstation. Computers went from doing the one thing you programmed them to do, to doing everything. Of course, there’s always a need for specific programming, but the requirements can easily be met by an iPad and some imagination. You need an editor, a compiler+linker or interpreter, and a loader. Unless you’re positing a desert island scenario, it doesn’t matter where the compilation occurs. Today, I can compose program text on iPad, use VNC/Parallels to compile on a remote Mac, and install the executable on my iPad.

          16. Yes, I like your desert island scenario. Looking at this from a computer architecture point of view. What if you own an iPad and don’t own a Mac? That’s a desert island scenario.

          17. “I respectfully submit to you that a computer that requires another computer to program it, by definition, cannot truly be a general purpose computer.”

            Just curious from where you come to that conclusion?

            Joe

          18. From a computer science perspective, it’s generally accepted. A more philosophical answer would be that, if what you want doesn’t exist, you could code it for yourself. Please see my replies to Falkirk and N8nnc as well.

          19. I guess what I am most confused about all I have found about general purpose computing (and I am no expert on the history of computing, not even a hobbyist of that history), your delineation of a separate computer coding and compiling doesn’t seem to square up with history. Maybe I am missing what your mean by “program it” versus what I understand as “programmable”, 21st century and meanings all being turned on their heads notwithstanding.

            In other words maybe meanings got rearranged by evolution of application as computers got to the point that the same computer that ran the program became the computer that could code and compile the computer easily enough.

            Joe

          20. Look at it this way. If you want to create a program for a tablet, you need a PC. In the case of the iPad you specifically need a Mac. This makes the PC or Mac the “master” computer, the general purpose one. If you don’t have a PC or Mac, and only have a tablet, you cannot program them at all.

          21. Understand that this discussion is the essence of “semantics” and really moot in the strictest definition of the word moot. I’m only going down this rabit trail because you regularly make about about what the tablet is not—general purpose or personal computer. I just don’t find your specific delineation anywhere.

            Joe

          22. Well I don’t think I could possibly be more clear. If you have to buy another computer to write an app for the tablet and you can’t see that as a fundamental difference. It might not be important to you, but it is to others.

          23. Right, no, you are being very clear. Did not mean to imply otherwise. And I can understand that this is important to you. But you framed it as “by definition” and I can’t find anything to support your view that this is a definition of a general purpose computer. Now, if this is _your_ definition of a general purpose computer, that’s fine. I don’t think this is held as widely as you seem to think.

            But I could be wrong. I only know computer science majors, I am not one, nor do I play one on TV. Again, really a discussion of semantics and academics. Doesn’t change your position at all.

            Joe

          24. Okay. Forgive the Wikipedia reference, but it suffices.
            From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_purpose_computer

            “A computer is a general purpose device that can be programmed to carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically. Since a sequence of operations can be readily changed, the computer can solve more than one kind of problem.”

            On the surface, this may not define the requirement of self programmability, but if it were not for the PC (master) programming the tablet (slave) then the tablet could not be programmed to “carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations”. Thus self programmability is implicit in the definition.

            Otherwise, if you prefer, the programming PC and the tablet TOGETHER are a PC. When the tablet is untethered from the PC, it’s no longer programmable beyond what it already contains. The PC does not suffer from such a restriction.

            This is a VERY fundamental distinction.

            There’s also the historical argument, preceding the iPhone by over 20 years. Until PDA’s and smartphones (Newton, Palm, Symbian, Windows Mobile, etc.) became commonplace, all PC’s were directly programmable. We never considered PDA’s and Smartphones as PC’s. I prefer the other argument, but offer this as well.

          25. Actually, my recollection of history was that a PC was essentially local processing, local storage. I know a few of computer science majors who actually do/did consider those older devices PCs. The argument always seems to be those who want to think in terms of “market share” rather than those who live up to their elbows in the stuff.

            I get what you are saying. I still think you are inferring more than the definition is implying. The rest of that Wiki article doesn’t lend much credence to your stance. I was actually kind of surprised by how liberal the article is about what is a general purpose computer.

            But I do believe in the functional changing of definitions through applications. The last couple of decades it has been a given that the PC can also be used to program software applications for the same device, especially as high level languages and compilers became rather ubiquitous and the OS became such a major interface rather than the necessary evil it once was. Cydia supposedly has compilers that run in iOS. I can’t testify to any efficacy of those apps, but it seems it isn’t a matter of “can’t” just that it “doesn’t” within Apple’s structure.

            Computer history, like math history, is actually quite interesting.

            Joe

          26. I too think that the article was quite liberal in it’s presentation. Rightfully so. It also seems to me that the actual programming of the device is so fundamental, that it was a “given” and thus not embellished upon. Kind of how I see it, btw. This hasn’t been an issue until some of us tried to re-define what a PC is.

          27. Although, I don’t think your line of thought is that far from Apple’s. Apple has stated it does not think of the tablet as a PC replacement. Since iOS is rooted in OS X, it probably makes more sense to use the Mac to program iOS apps than not. I would not take anything away from the processors in iOS devices, but it probably is just faster to compile on the Mac than the iPad or iPhone directly. Compiling to Apple is just one of those, in their vernacular, “truck” duties.

            Joe

          28. It’s certainly not Apple that’s calling them PC’s.
            The truck analogy is a bad one. In this case the truck can both outgun and outcorner the car. I prefer mobile being “off road” and desktop “on road” with laptops in between.

            The return of Mr. Wildstrom would be quite pleasant indeed.

          29. That’s interesting, but irrelevant: computer *used to* be used mainly to write programs. Now they’re used mainly for other things, be it writing business docs, watching media, playing…
            You’re, broadly, saying a car is not a car if you cannot fix it yourself, or a pizza not a pizza if you can’t choose its topings.

          30. I couldn’t disagree more. A car that can go to only certain pre-programmed destinations is somewhat less than a “general purpose car”, where you can change your mind, en route, and go explore the unknown areas on the map.

            “General Purpose” means being able to solve any number of “Specific Purpose” problems, not only the one’s built in at the time. It’s general purposeness that prevents me, or you, to tell anyone what kinds of applications are important to them. If a teacher, physician, lawyer, economist, bartender or waitress wants to write a program for their own specific purposes (as well as sell it), they can.

            Fixing is a hardware issue, though it too is relevant. We’re talking software here.

          31. Well, well…Look at that!
            It’s an interpreter, not a compiler, and you can’t export or import code, or sell your app, but it would count as making the iPad directly programmable.

  5. I think there are 2 distinct issues:
    1- The overall tablet market
    2- iPad’s share of that market

    1- The netbook bubble has shown that while there’s a nice, purchase-trigger-happy market for cheap, small, underpowered devices, that market is not huge, and, because it’s OK with underpower-ness to start with,, upgrades are slow coming (plus since the move to HD screens -which is not even THAT important for many cases- nothing much has happened in the tablet space to trigger upgrades). Granted, the situation is a bit different, with netbooks being mostly underpowered laptops whereas tablets are a whole new category of devices… but the use cases are broadly the same: social, light web, light games, video, office work in a pinch… those uses don’t require frequent ugrades (at least until H.265 takes off).
    Tablets are not *that* portable, they need at least both hands, preferrably, like netbooks, a lap or a desk, to operate. Phones only require 1 hand. The situations in which tablets deliver enough benefits to justify that two-handedness (and the extra expense of a second device) are rare, and are mostly netbook/laptop-replacement, moreso because expensive data contracts mean the overwhelming majority of tablets are wifi-only, hence sedentary.

    2- iPad in particular suffers from several issues. It’s 2-3 times as expensive as Android tablets for vanishingly few exclusive capabilites (Music creation and iTunes ?) especially vs an Android ecosystem that runs the gamut of prices and capabilities (12″, pen input, removable storage, USB I/O, good 7-inchers at $130…). That makes it hard to justify the extra expense of an iPad, especially since tablets are not subsidized, and less visible the Phones for the brand-needy. Sales have indeed progressed sharply, but share has fallen much more precipitously than the iPhone’s, too. Since iPads are so expensive, and tablets are personal, committing to iOS ends up a very expensive proposotion. Looking for solace in Enterprise sales is probably too optimistic: Entreprise lags consumer by 1-2 years, so Entreprise share will probably track Android’s Consumer rise in the coming quarters.
    Furthermore, if tablets move up the food chain to more serious uses, Windows tablets become a contender. Their for-now less polished UI and AppStore are more than made up for by their ability to run legacy software.

    In the end, I see the iPad faring slightly worse than the iPhone (because of lack of subisides), hence trending to 10-15% market share). Still a very nice niche with Apple’s 50%+ margins and strong lock-in, but very far from the ubiquity required to branch out to neighbouring sectors (payments, home automation…).

    1. “The netbook bubble has shown that while there’s a nice, purchase-trigger-happy market for cheap, small, underpowered devices, that market is not huge” – obarthelemy

      I disagree that this is the lesson learned from the netbook bubble. The lesson that should have been learned, in my opinion, was that people wanted lower powered, less complex and less expensive computing tools because they intuitively realized that traditional computers were over serving them on power and underserving them on usability. Netbooks were cheaper, but in every other way they were so compromised as to be practically unusable. People tried them and then just as rapidly abandoned them.

      “(The iPad is) 2-3 times as expensive as Android tablets for vanishingly few exclusive capabilities.” – obarthelemy

      I vehemently disagree with this statement. I had a whole section on the “Two Tablet Market” written for tomorrow’s article, but I had to set it aside, at least for now. Sometimes less is more.

      Still, I think I can quickly refute your contention by pointing to customer satisfaction numbers and iPad adoption in Education and Enterprise.

      People are not dissatisfied with the iPad and abandoning it for cheaper tablets. Just the opposite. The iPad’s satisfaction ratings are almost unheard of and every credible study or survey conducted has agreed that people are moving FROM Android tablets TO iPads.

      Further, the fact that the iPad rules Eduction and Enterprise is the equivalent of those institutions voting with their feet. They’ve look at the alternatives and they’ve overwhelmingly chosen the iPad.

      This is not to say that Android tablets are bad or that they don’t fill a role. They absolutely do. However that role is distinctly different from the role that the iPad plays. Stating that their is no difference between Android tablets and iPad tablets is ludicrous — all the facts testify loudly that just the opposite is true.

      1. How are the roles of Android Tablets/iPads distinctly different?

        For most users I would argue they are very much the same.
        I have essentially been shopping for a Tablet since the iPad was announced. I finally bought one a few days ago.

        I wanted something with ~8″ >300dpi screen. There weren’t many that fit that criteria. (iPad Mini Retina, Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4″).

        I went with the Android tablet and I can’t think of anything I am missing. I would be doing the same things regardless of which I purchased and I think that is actually the case for most people.

        1. “How are the roles of Android Tablets/iPads distinctly different?”

          Optimized apps. Nearly 100% of the apps available for an android tablet are stretched out phone apps. Nearly 100% of the apps for an Ipad are designed to take advantage of the Ipad’s large screen. If you’re using the tablet to just surf, read books, and watch videos, then you’re not going to feel the difference. If your needs extend beyond those kinds of basics, though, you are going to see a huge difference in the power of the app interfaces available.

          Case in point: email on a phone app, you’re basically limited to one view, either of your message list or of the message you’re looking at. The ipad mail app gives you a two-pane view with the message list to the left and the message being viewed to the right. Because of this, Phone app mail is a lot more cumbersome compared to Ipad app mail.

          1. Much less an issue today than it was years ago. The email application that came with my Samsung tablet has multiple panes that switch when you rotate the tablet between landscape/portrait.

          2. Defendor, the difference between the iPad’s tablet optimized apps and Android’s non-optimized Apps is night and day. That does not mean that everyone needs or wants optimized Apps. But for those who DO need optimization (education, business, other?) the iPad is the only real choice.

          3. Viruses are a myth perpetuated by anti-virus companies, who can sell product for Android, but not for iOS. A regular user (non-rooted, PlayStore-only) is as safe on Android as on iOS. Viruses from Asia that abuse root and are not available on the Playstore should really be discounted, though that takes away nice headlines, talking points, and selling points.

            More Android users do choose to sideload, which is only 3 taps away (Settings, Development Options, Allow install from SD) unless disabled by an Admin, or to root their device. In Western countries, I’d say 3% total. Institutions can go to solutions such as Samsung’s KNOX for added security and management tools.

            Furthermore, iOS has had its share of security flaws, from the SSL goto bug, to the Find my Phone hijack. And iOS apps crash about 2x as much.

          4. “Viruses are a myth perpetuated by anti-virus companies.” ~ obarthelemy

            If you don’t want to be viewed as a troll, you simply can’t make stupid and provably untrue statements like this and expect anyone to take you seriously.

          5. I think that’s a misconception due to 1- indeed, lack of tablet apps… but 2/3 yrs ago, when Android tablets where just beginning to appear; 2- the fact that most apps have a single Store entry, and a single executable, because Android handles screen different sizes/resolution via ressources, and the code stays the same.

            None of the apps on my 10″ have that “blown-up phone app” look.

          6. Obart, we’ve had this discussion a dozen times, on Asymco and elsewhere. The reason you are considered a troll is that you keep banging the same drum…

            It’s not about handling different resolutions without looking pixelated. It is about having new, distinct, specific UIs and views for the different devices. IPad apps introduce new UIs and views from their iPhone counterparts, and they often show different views or UIs depending on use in portrait or landscape orientations.

            That approach treats the iPad as a unique device and not merely a larger phone, and that is one way that the “roles of Android Tablets / iPads are distinctly different” as the poster asked.

        2. It’s clear to me that Apple really sweated getting the touch interface just right. I’ve still not experienced another device that does it as well. That creates an intuition barrier, regardless of the function.

          1. Do you have concrete examples ? I keep hearing pro-Apple guys say that, yet my experience is exactly opposite (widgets, back button, menu button…)

        3. “How are the roles of Android Tablets/iPads distinctly different? For most users I would argue they are very much the same.” – Defendor

          The roles played by iPads and all other tablets are very different. The iPad dominates tablet optimized Apps. The iPad dominates user satisfaction. The iPad dominates Education. The iPad dominates the Enterprise.

          Non-iPad Tablets are probably best described as media tablets. iPad Tablets are the only ones filling the role of Computer Tablets. Both categories are necessary and useful but both categories are clearly distinct and differentiated.

          1. Apple dominates user satisfaction in every category they compete in. It isn’t a case of distinctly different roles. It is a case of Apple sweating the details better than the competition to make nicer products. When you say distinctly different roles, slightly nicer execution of details hardly makes the cut. This is not a real functional role distinction.

            As far as dominating institutionally. Again, this isn’t a functional role distinction. Apple has an advantage, because they offer consistency of product to the institutional buyer, and they were the first mover. Android tablets are later to market and they are fragmented. Again the functional role of the tablet isn’t really different, it is that institutional buyers can choose iPad or face the Tyranny of choice in Android. It is much simpler for an institutional buyer to just go iPad and free themselves from the Tyranny of Choice. It is almost like the “No one ever got fired for buying IBM” days.

            But the actual functional roles of the Android/iOS tablets are essentially the same.

          2. “the actual functional roles of the Android/iOS tablets are essentially the same” – Defendor

            Just objectively untrue. Every objective measure favors the iPad. There is not one iota of proof that Android tablet are equal to the Macs whether you measure that by price people are willing to pay, satisfaction, loyalty, institutional penetration, development for iPad first, etc., etc, etc.

            I challenge anyone reading this to provide me with a ANY objective measure that places non-iPad tablets on a par with tothe iPad. You won’t find a single one.

          3. Many of your “objective” criteria have nothing to do with the functional usage of the device.

            “Institutional penetration, iPad first development, pricing etc…” these are based on first mover advantage, brand recognition, etc…

            These are not base on actual functional difference in the device.

            If I am running Flipboard on my Tab Pro 8.4 and Retina Mini. There is NO functional difference, NO role difference.

            The devices do the same things, and fit the same roles in peoples lives.

          4. I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide any objective evidence to support your position.

          5. Objectively the HW is essentially equivalent.
            Tab Pro, screen has equivalent or better resolution/dpi/color gamut to an iPad mini retina. Tablets are basically all screen.

            CPU/GPU combo is likewise equivalent

            Also like I already stated. Running something like Flipboard on each is the same. Hide the tablets in a cardboard box except for the screen and you would never be able to tell which was which.

            Similar HW that runs the same kind of applications, in the same way, with the same interface, makes these objectively devices serving the same role.

            Things like first mover advantages, brand recognition don’t factor into the actual performance of a devices in its role.

          6. I’ve been trying to get Apple fans to tell me what an iPad can do that an Android can’t for ages. Music creation. That’s it.

          7. Nothing. There. Now you can move on with your life to more important things.

            (iPad vs Android arguments are just as silly as Mac vs PC or Ford vs Chevy. Pointless and childish)

      2. Thanks for your reply.

        I’ve never seen studies on whether netbooks have been totally abandoned by their users, or whether they’re being used but just not that much, and not upgraded. Anecdotal evidence around me points towards netbooks still being used, but seldom (on holidays/trips, when the main PC/Laptop breaks). Not worth an upgrade, but not quite the bin either.

        Going from expensive to cheap does not require being dissatisfied with expensive, but being satisfied enough with cheap. There’s no doubt BMWs are very nice cars, yet most people buy not-as-nice Toyotas. They’re not saying BMWs aren’t nice, but that Toyotas are nice enough, and the extra money is better spent elsewhere.

        As for Entreprise and Edu, we’ll see in a couple of years if Apple hold on to their high share. I’m certain they won’t, but it’ll be interesting to confirm that.

      3. Also, customer satisfaction surveys for premium stuff are fraught with issues. They basically ask: “is that more expensive stuff really better, or have you been had like an idiot ?”. Unsurprisingly, expensive stuff gets voted “better”. Pretty much same principle as all those non-double-blind tests, where the expensive wine / loudspeaker / headset /… always wins, while they don’t in double-blind tests.

        1. If you won’t accept surveys, perhaps you’ll accept actions. People routinely upgrade from non-iPad tablets to iPad tablets. People almost never go the other way.

          1. Just a heads up, if you haven’t run into obarthelemy before, he (or she) is a known troll, everything is bad for Apple in his (or her) world. Obart will sometimes almost sound coherent, but then inevitably veer off into Bat Country.

          2. Thanks for the heads up. If obarthelemy is a troll, they’re not very good at it. Claiming that netbooks haven’t been abandoned is like claiming that Roman Chariot Racing hasn’t been abandoned.

          3. True. Obart can be fun, and I used to engage, it was entertaining, but at some point I had to stop, a gorilla can only waste so much time. I tend to cease dialogue with anyone who keeps shouting the same tired mantra back at me no matter what the discussion is about. Apple bad! Open! Market share! And so on.

          4. OK, I stand corrected Clearly Roman chariot races still ARE a thing.

            My bad.

          5. Surveys are OK, but within a frame of reference, ie within the premium segment. Cross-segment comparisons are more than iffy.It’s like comparing experiences between a $30 meal and a $100 meal.

            As for actions, more people buy into Android, and upgrade within Android, than go to or switch to iPad.

            As for trolling, it seems not being an Apple fan is being an automatic troll in some parts.

      4. “People are not dissatisfied with the iPad and abandoning it for cheaper tablets. Just the opposite. The iPad’s satisfaction ratings are almost unheard of and every credible study or survey conducted has agreed that people are moving FROM Android tablets TO iPads.”

        Those of us who tend towards geekiness often forget that the iPad still holds a considerable advantage in terms of overall user experience. Those of the “good enough” persuasion may not be sensitive to it, but a very large majority of consumers can sense that user-friendliness when they try an iPad after struggling with a cheap Android tablet. The gap is smaller IF they bought a Nexus 7 (2nd gen) first, but those have not sold well.

        It is also easy to miss the significance of the very deep availability of tablet-optimized apps. It means that there are many different “killer apps” for different users. For example, accessibility features and apps may not even register for most of us, but those are extremely important for millions of consumers. Someone dismissed “music apps” as if it was a minor category. Wow. Add up the many “minor” categories of users and you get a pretty good majority.

    2. “Tablets are not *that* portable, they need at least both hands,
      preferrably, like netbooks, a lap or a desk, to operate. Phones only
      require 1 hand. The situations in which tablets deliver enough benefits
      to justify that two-handedness (and the extra expense of a second
      device) are rare, and are mostly netbook/laptop-replacement, moreso
      because expensive data contracts mean the overwhelming majority of
      tablets are wifi-only, hence sedentary.”

      That’s funny, ultrabooks are almost 100% wifi-only too, but I’ve never heard anybody say that that limitation makes them inherently “sedentary.”

      Most of the use cases for phones that I see on the subway and on the bus are hold with one hand and touch the screen with the other hand. The only exceptions seem to be iphones, which thanks to their tiny screens I sometimes see people holding with one hand and swiping with the thumb of the same hand. Likewise, the use case for 7″ tablets is hold with one hand and touch with the other hand, and most tablets that size are perfectly comfortable to use that way. Especially the lighter ones (ipad mini).

      Full size tablets are indeed a bit heavy to hold in one hand and touch with the other. The transit use cases I’ve seen tend to be “use one hand to hold against the chest/cradle in the arm/balance on the lap, touch with the other.”

      I don’t see people using notebooks of any kind on the subway very often at all. When I do (very rarely), it’s balance the laptop on both legs and type/mouse with both hands on the keyboard. However, the tablet that is too big and bulky to be used conveniently in a mobile context, however, seems to exist only in your mind.

      Oh, and the total lack of either wifi or cellular reception on the subway? Doesn’t seem to deter people from using their tablets or phones there one bit.

  6. “Join me tomorrow and I’ll explain why.”

    In the future, if part two is going to be for subscribers only, it would be nice if you could be upfront about it and say so.

  7. “Just happened to come upon your incredible article, and couldn’t escape but realize the eminence of owning a quality nuclear masks and suits . On those alleviate in search, I’ve originate this noteworthy resource which outlines the best clothes hazmat suits currently available. Acquire a look and ensure your shelter!”

  8. I gave https://www.cornbreadhemp.com/products/cbd-balm a prove with a view the first previously, and I’m amazed! They tasted smashing and provided a be under the impression that of calmness and relaxation. My importance melted away, and I slept well-advised too. These gummies are a game-changer for me, and I enthusiastically endorse them to anyone seeking spontaneous pain relief and better sleep.

  9. CBD, or cannabidiol, has been a engagement changer due to the fact that me. D8 Gummies I’ve struggled with anxiety in search years and press tried diverse opposite medications, but nothing has worked as fount as CBD. It helps me to surface sang-froid and at ease without any side effects. I also find that it helps with sleep and labour management. I’ve tried various brands, but I’ve build that the ones that are lab tested and have a good noted are the most effective. Inclusive, I highly support CBD on the side of anyone who struggles with anxiety, be in the arms of morpheus issues, or chronic pain.

  10. Catch sight the ultimate gateway to smart investing with Invest -Properties . Dive into a world where opportunities meet potential. Unlock your investment journey and transform your financial future today with our expert insights and tailored solutions. Start now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *