Today, when most people hear the word ‘tablet,’ they immediately think ‘iPad.’ In fact,
Apple has held such a dominate position for so long that it’s easy to forget what the
tablet market looked like before the iPad’s release. But that isn’t the case when it
comes to smartphones. Although the iPhone has been very successful, Google was able
to overtake Apple in smartphone marketshare back in 2010, and today Android dominates
the global market. So why did Google fail to replicate their smartphone success with
tablets? Well, that’s exactly what we’re going to find out. This is Greg with Apple
Explained, and I want to thank Paperlike for sponsoring this video. If you want to help
decide which topics I cover, make sure you’re subscribed and these voting polls will show
up in your mobile activity feed.
Now before we get into the reasons why Android tablets failed to gain much traction among
customers, we need to understand what the tablet market looked like before the iPad
was around. Because tech companies had different ideas of what a tablet should be and how it
should function. And it was these different approaches to tablets that determined which
companies succeeded, and which struggled. So one of the biggest players in the tablet
market beginning in 2003 was Microsoft with what they called the Microsoft Tablet PC.
It ran a slightly modified version of the Windows operating system, which allowed for
input from a stylus rather than a keyboard and mouse. Now as you can see, these tablet
PCs were clunky, at about an inch thick, heavy, at about 3 to 4 pounds, and suffered from
poor battery life, delivering about 4 to 5 hours of use. And to make matters even worse,
these Microsoft Tablet PCs had an average price tag of about $2,000. Which made them
significantly more expensive than their notebook computer equivalent.
So as you may’ve guessed, these tablets never had much commercial success. But this
didn’t stop Apple users from wanting their own version of these tablet computers. In
fact, some third party companies like Axiotron took matters into their own hands and created
Macintosh tablet computers themselves. But these devices were based on the same approach
Microsoft took to tablet PCs. The idea that tablets should run a desktop-computer OS designed
for a mouse. And this created some innate challenges. In order to run Windows or Mac
OS on a tablet, you’d need the precision of a cursor. Which is why you had to use a
stylus rather than your fingers. Also, the tablet needs all the hardware of a desktop
computer. It needs a desktop-grade processor, GPU, and cooling system. All of which come
at the detriment of battery life.
So as Apple began developing on their own version of the tablet, it became clear they
needed to take a different approach. Instead using Mac OS, they’d give their tablet iOS,
a mobile operating system already used on the iPhone. And this was a good decision for
a few reasons. iOS was power efficient which would allow for all-day battery life, it featured
multitouch which eliminated the need for a stylus, and it could run on Apple’s low-power
A4 system-on-a-chip, which allowed for a compact, thin, and light design. Not to mention how
much cheaper this tablet would be to produce than a traditional desktop computer. That’s
part of the reason why tech analysts were shocked when Apple announced the iPad’s
starting price of $500, about half of what most people were predicting.
Now it wasn’t long before the iPad proved to be a huge hit, which prompted other tech
companies to create similar devices that ran Google’s Android OS. And the following year
in 2011, the market was flooded with Android tablets. Just take a look at this article
which said, “Tablets absolutely stole the show at CES 2011. Just about every company
had one. While the idea of a tablet may sound exciting, the majority of these were unfortunately
poorly put together Android tablets.” “It felt as though some companies had merely glued
a screen, a battery back, a processor, and some memory together and loaded Android onto
it thinking it would sell. Aside from a few brand-name tablets, the majority on the show
floor were still running Android 2.0, 2.1, or 2.2. While those versions of Android aren’t necessarily bad,
the OS was built for a phone”
So right from the beginning, the majority of Android tablets were delivering poor functionality
and performance. It was clear that manufacturers were rushing products to market to try and
steal as much of the iPads thunder as possible. But these manufacturers didn’t understand
what made the iPad so desirable in the first place. Because if you remember back to the
iPads introduction, Steve Jobs made it very clear that while the iPad had fantastic hardware,
it was the software that would define the user experience. And while apps made for the
iPhone could run on the iPad and be scaled up, Scott Forstall told developers that they
should modify their apps and rewrite the interface in order to take advantage of the iPads larger
display. Similar to what Apple did with their Photos, Music, Calendar, and YouTube apps.
So in order to encourage developers to rewrite their applications, Apple created an iPad
Software Development Kit that was released the same day as the iPad’s introduction.
A very strategic move by Apple that gave developers over two months to prepare iPad-optimized
versions of their apps. That way, when the very first iPad was sold, there would already
be a marketplace of high-quality iPad apps available for download.
And that brings me to one of the biggest reasons why Android tablets failed. They started off
running a smartphone operating system with apps that weren’t optimized for a tablet’s
larger display. In fact, many of these early Android tablets didn’t even have access
to Google Marketplace to download third party apps. Google was working on an operating system
called Honeycomb which was optimized for tablets, but manufacturers wanted to bring their devices
to market as soon as possible, and didn’t want to wait on Google to finish their work
on Honeycomb. This resulted in what I mentioned earlier, hundreds of cheap Android tablets
running a smartphone operating system that resulted in a poor user experience. This created
nothing but confusion and frustration for customers, and severely damaged the reputation
of Android tablets right off the bat.
It’s a story that we’ve heard before with MP3 players and the iPod. There were hundreds
of MP3 players on the market trying to compete with the iPod, but none of them were able
to gain any traction. Mainly because of their poor build quality, software, and user interface.
Despite being a fraction of the cost, most customers shopping for a music player ignored
these MP3 players and instead opted for the iPod. And there were a few reasons for this
that may sound familiar. Everyone knew what the iPod was. And most people who didn’t
own one probably had friends or family members who did. They likely used the device for themselves
before purchasing and was satisfied with the experience. Perhaps they’d like to save
money by buying a cheaper MP3 player, but they understood that no other device would
deliver the same experience as the iPod. And many people learned this for themselves by
purchasing a generic MP3 player, becoming frustrated by its complexity or poor functionality,
and leaving it in the junk drawer never to be used again. Which is very similar to what
happened with Android tablets.
But this is only one piece of the puzzle, because a recurring challenge with Android
is device fragmentation. It’s a problem when it comes to their smartphones, but it’s
an even bigger problem with their tablets. Because all the iPad’s advantages could
only be achieved with Apple’s end-to-end control over hardware, software, and the app
store. When it came to Android, things were much less organized. How can a developer optimize
an app for hundreds of different devices with display sizes that range from seven to thirteen
inches? And how can apps run efficiently when there are dozens of different processors and
chipsets they need to be compatible with?
To put it plainly, it’s a nightmare to develop applications for Android tablets. And considering
the small install base, it simply isn’t worth many developers time and effort to rewrite
their smartphone apps for tablets. And it causes what I call the “developer deterrent”
problem. You see, Android tablets have never sold well historically, so there isn’t a
very large user base. This means developers aren’t motivated to create custom designed
apps for those devices. Instead, existing smartphone apps are simply stretched to fill
the tablet’s larger display, rather than being truly optimized to take advantage of
the extra screen real estate. This issue is slowly improving, but it’s part of the reason
why the app ecosystem on Android tablets has always been underwhelming, and this discourages
people from buying them. So you can see the vicious cycle that forms: People aren’t
buying Android tablets since their apps aren’t optimized, and developers aren’t optimizing
apps for Android tablets because of the small user base. And when you consider the fact
that Apple users spend twice as much money on apps than Android users, it’s easy to
understand why developers invest more time and effort creating high quality apps for
iPads.
Now Google eventually released their Honeycomb 3.0 operating system which was designed for
devices with larger displays. But it was extremely buggy and difficult to navigate, unlike the
straightforward interface of the iPad. It was clear that Google was trying to deliver
a tablet OS as quickly as possible to compete with Apple, but in the process missed the
mark completely. Focusing on creating a more traditional desktop computer interface rather
than investing resources in the features that mattered most to users. Like a large ecosystem
with apps optimized for the devices they owned. And ever since that Honeycomb release, Google
has proved that they don’t understand what it takes to create a successful Android tablet.
In 2012 they released the Nexus 7, which was what they thought buyers wanted. A cheap mini
tablet that included Google Wallet, Near Field Communication, and their voice assistant Google
Now. But the device was poorly built plagued with bugs that rendered it useless for most
users after just one year.
In 2014 Google flipped their strategy on its head and released the Nexus 9. A more premium
tablet similar to the iPad mini whose selling point was the NVIDIA "Denver" Tegra K1 chip.
It was supposed to be one of the only chipsets to give the iPad a run for its money, but
it ended up falling behind the iPad Air 2’s A8X. Plus, Google’s tablets were still suffering
from unoptimized apps that didn’t deliver the same full-featured experience as the iPad.
The Nexus 9 was discontinued about 18 months later as Google shifted their strategy yet
again. They introduced the Pixel C near the end of 2015 which looked to challenge Apple’s
iPad Air 2. But despite adopting some of the same features and design cues as the iPad
Air, the Pixel C was plagued by Android’s poor support for tablet hardware and a tiny
app ecosystem that paled in comparison to the iPad’s App Store. In June of 2019 Google
stopped development and production of all their tablets and confirmed they’d no longer
be making those devices. Instead, Google would be investing their resources in notebook computers.
So while Android has experienced tremendous success on smartphones, it hasn’t been able
to overcome the fragmentation, poor app ecosystem, and underwhelming performance that has plagued
the platform since the very first Android tablets were released in 2011.
Now when it comes to the iPad, there’s a reason why it’s the first choice tablet
of illustrators and note-takers. And it has everything to do with the Apple Pencil. But
if there was just one thing I could change about the iPad’s writing and drawing experience,
it’d be the slipperiness of the display glass. Well, thanks to Paperlike, we can now
have that tactile experience of using a pencil and paper on our iPads. All you have to do
is apply Paperlike to your iPad’s display like any other screen protector, and you have
the ultimate drawing and note-taking tablet. The surface of Paperlike is has a very fine-grain
texture that mimics paper and makes writing feel more natural. Not only does it feel like
you’re writing on paper, but it sounds like paper too. Just listen to how the Apple Pencil
sounds on glass… and now on Paperlike… But Paperlike does even more than that. It
dramatically reduces glare and fingerprints since the protector essentially acts as a
matte cover, and it’s designed to preserve the Apple Pencil’s rubber nib, whereas other
screen protectors could potentially wear it out faster than usual. Paperlike also includes
some free bonuses like an extra cover, application accessories, and a helpful instruction video
to make the application process quick and easy. If you want to check out Paperlike yourself
just click the link in the description and be sure to use coupon code “appleexplained”
at the checkout for 10% off and free worldwide shipping.
Alright guys thanks for watching and I’ll see you next time.