thinking about tablets...

I'm recovering from what appears to be a successful operation and have been distracting myself from the pain by following some interesting threads and thinking about Android.

Samsung's willingness to remove two UI features in the Galaxy Tab 10 dispute with Apple in Australia represents a big turning point for Android on tablets.  It sends a signal to other tablet makers that they will probably have to follow suit.  The best case for Apple would be if this takes place non-uniformly across time and manufacturer as it would introduce new levels of Android fragmentation across the tablet market that will drive up  costs and frustrations for developers.  The current level of fragmentation is already unpleasant for the developers I know (in full disclosure I'm on the TAB of one of the larger app developers and have a one-time student who has a six person shop that does iOS and Android apps).  Google is already blessing certain phone makers - I wouldn't be surprised if this will have to occur for tablet makers too.  And if Google keeps Motorola and tries to make a go of it life gets even more interesting for the other manufacturers.  (I would now be willing to make smallish bets that Google will do this)

Fragmentation is an interesting phenomena to study in its own right.  It is very difficult to avoid in an "open" software world (this has always been true).  It takes place when there is little in the way of careful UX planning and is one of the larger unintended consequences of letting engineers run the show by themselves.  In some areas this approach doesn't make a lot of difference, but if you want a superior consumer level experience and external software developers it can be poison.  This has been a major topic of conversation among some of my colleagues for about 20 years now.  I became very sour on open projects that use third party software and are  aimed at mass markets where UX is important when I was working with my HCI department.  Life is hard enough for successful "closed" core platforms as different versions emerge over time unless you also lock the hardware to the software as much as possible.  The lack of control can make an already difficult process impossible.

Amazon's OS - I'll call it FlameOS as it is no longer Android and I don't know what to call it  - has the potential to become a very desirable destination for developers if Amazon wants to encourage third party development.  They may not need to though.  It is possible their big market is only at the low end … the people who rarely buy apps (you see this on phones and PCs - I'm impressed by some of the information on app buying habits of feature phone users who are buying smartphones … basically they leave them almost stock.  It is certainly true for a huge number of commercial PC buyers as it is true for most consumer products …  I can offer more thinking on that as it is not counter indicative of mass customization trends).  Amazon has the potential of making FlameOS very stable and with a good enough UX and UI.  They only need a base hit in their first at bat as their ecosystem is so attractive to many consumers. They'll have a year or two to make it good enough and this is going to kill the Android tablet market.  Apple could drive a stake into that market by lowering the price of the iPad2 to $350 when the iPad3 comes out if the 3 is a big improvement over the iPad2 - they used that strategy about three years into the iPod lifecycle.  Margins are so tight at that level that only low end hardware can compete and Amazon will probably own that part of the market.  A not unrelated note is the issue PC makers are having with the MacBook Air and ultrabook margins.

Bezos stated the guys who only make hardware will fail and I can't agree more with him on that observation.  The rush to the bottom will be dramatic.  You can already buy a Playbook for $300 even though it has a different OS and UX/UI.   Based on my experience with it I wouldn't consider it worth more than $200 of my one dollars and I'd much rather use the Fire as the Amazon ecosystem is so much more attractive.

What is interesting and almost beautiful is that we are seeing some successes and failures that are driven by some basic principals of design, open vs closed, and scope of ecosystems.

What a fascinating period.

 

Comments

[Jean Russell]

Thank you for this Steve. I am thinking about doing a major tech transition... moving from smart phone to dumb phone and getting a tablet instead of the smart phone. From a pricing and use perpective - of both the objects and the paired services, I think this makes sense. Although I haven't figured out the camera dimension. I am trying to carry fewer gadgets. So, if I go to a tablet, which direction? I need it to do video skype/facetime. My computer is a macbook, but my phone runs android. I depend on google for integrating calendar and email. What is the resilient and wise choice? Homogenize tools -- go toward all apple products and even leave google? There is an argument for that. Suggestions?

At a completely different level of the conversation, can we have a dialogue around ecosystems? :)

Hope you are recovering well.

ps. are you calling the Amazon os - Flame or Fire?

[steve]

Hi Jean and thanks for pointing out the confusion on Flame and Fire. I meant to call it FlameOS as Fire is the device and there will be several over time. It sounds better than AmazonOS and it will be increasingly wrong to call it Android as time goes on. It is out of Google's hands.

I'll talk to you separately about the devices. If you are looking for a general purpose tablet the only one you'll be happy with is the iPad. Android tablets are not "there" yet. The cameras are not great for photography, but are fine for Skype and Facetime. For reasonable photography a tablet doesn't make much sense from a UX point of view.

The ecosystem dialog is very important - so rich. Your insights are useful on the subject.

[Brian]

Excellent post, St4eve.

Interesting that the two companies positioned to sweep the tablet market are those with deep customer-facing brands: Apple and Amazon. Google is a reluctant brand (all those years in beta taught them bad habits) that never seems to grasp the holistic customer. The fact that Google's users are really their "product" (for advertisers) doesn't help.

I can't imagine that a strong brand would ever tolerate "fragmentation." It's antithetical to the unified experience that makes brands successful.

[Howard Greenstein]

Interestingly enough the Fire is a 7" tab which is the same size as the original Samsung Galaxy tab. With a recent update to Android 2.3 (by jailbreak not carrier), the device has taken on new life as it can now do skype video, Netflix, and potentially be a phone (with a little more online forum reading and a SIM card).

I like the model for the Amazon tab, but want to see how "locked down" it is - will I be able to install non-Amazon web store apps? Will I be able to avoid their cloud speedup/constant observation of surfing habits?

Hope you're feeling better, Steve.

[steve]

Amazon has said you can turn off the split browser mode, but performance will suffer. My guess is most people who buy it will not even think about the potential issues and will leave their machines completely stock just like a regular Kindle.

This does seem to be precipitating a real fire sale (pun intended) for the other non-iPad tablets. Prices have crashed from iPad levels to about $300 overnight. Probably companies clearing out stock. I have no idea how any of them will be able to make any money without participating in some other ecosystem that benefits the hardware marker. A brutal race to the bottom perhaps?