The Early Days of Android Tablets: A Cautionary Tale

In the early days of Android tablets, many manufacturers were eager to bring their devices to market as soon as possible, without waiting for Google to finish developing an operating system optimized specifically for larger displays. This resulted in hundreds of cheap Android tablets running smartphone operating systems that were not optimized for tablet use. As a result, these devices offered a poor user experience and severely damaged the reputation of Android tablets.

The Problem with Smartphone Operating Systems on Tablets

One of the main reasons for this issue was that many smartphones came with apps that weren't optimized for tablet-sized displays. 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 specifically designed for tablets. However, manufacturers wanted to get their devices onto the market as soon as possible and didn't want to wait for Google to finish their work on Honeycomb.

This resulted in a vicious cycle where people weren't buying Android tablets because of the poor user experience offered by these smartphones masquerading as tablets. As a result, developers weren't motivated to create custom-designed apps for these devices. Instead, existing smartphone apps were simply stretched to fill the larger display, rather than being truly optimized to take advantage of the extra screen real estate.

The "Developer Deterrent" Problem

This issue is often referred to as the "developer deterrent." You see, Android tablets have never sold well historically, so there isn't a large user base. This means that developers aren't motivated to create custom-designed apps for these devices. As a result, people are discouraged from buying Android tablets because of the underwhelming app ecosystem.

This vicious cycle is similar to what happened 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.

The iPod's Advantage: End-to-End Control

One key advantage that Apple had with the iPod was its end-to-end control over hardware, software, and the app store. This meant that Apple could optimize its devices to deliver a seamless user experience from start to finish. With Android tablets, things were much less organized.

The Developer's Nightmare: Hundreds of Devices and Processors

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 that they need to be compatible with? This is a nightmare scenario for developers, and it's one of the reasons why creating apps for Android tablets has always been underwhelming.

The iPad's Advantage: A Seamless User Experience

In contrast, Apple's iPad offered a seamless user experience from start to finish. Everyone knew what the iPad 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.

The Vicious Cycle: People Not Buying Tablets Because of Poor Apps

This created a vicious cycle where people weren't buying Android tablets because their apps weren't optimized, and developers weren't optimizing apps for Android tablets because of the small user base. It's easy to understand why developers invest more time and effort creating high-quality apps for iPads.

Google's Early Mistakes: The Nexus 7 and Nexus 9

In 2012, Google released the Nexus 7, which was what they thought buyers wanted – a cheap mini-tablet with features like Google Wallet, Near Field Communication, and their voice assistant Google Now. However, the device was poorly built and plagued with bugs that rendered it useless for most users after just one year.

In 2014, Google flipped its strategy on its head and released the Nexus 9. A more premium tablet similar to the iPad mini, whose selling point was the NVIDIA processor. But even this attempt at creating a successful Android tablet was met with disappointment from developers and consumers alike.

The Future of Android Tablets: Still Uncertain

Today, it's still uncertain what the future holds for Android tablets. While Google has made progress in improving its operating system and user interface, the app ecosystem remains underwhelming. It's clear that Google needs to do more to address the "developer deterrent" problem and create a seamless user experience from start to finish.

Only by understanding the challenges of developing apps for Android tablets can Google hope to create a successful tablet ecosystem that will rival the dominance of Apple's iPads.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enToday, when most people hear the word ‘tablet,’they immediately think ‘iPad.’ In fact,Apple has held such a dominate position forso long that it’s easy to forget what thetablet market looked like before the iPad’srelease. But that isn’t the case when itcomes to smartphones. Although the iPhonehas been very successful, Google was ableto overtake Apple in smartphone marketshareback in 2010, and today Android dominatesthe global market. So why did Google failto replicate their smartphone success withtablets? Well, that’s exactly what we’regoing to find out. This is Greg with AppleExplained, and I want to thank Paperlike forsponsoring this video. If you want to helpdecide which topics I cover, make sure you’resubscribed and these voting polls will showup in your mobile activity feed.Now before we get into the reasons why Androidtablets failed to gain much traction amongcustomers, we need to understand what thetablet market looked like before the iPadwas around. Because tech companies had differentideas of what a tablet should be and how itshould function. And it was these differentapproaches to tablets that determined whichcompanies succeeded, and which struggled.So one of the biggest players in the tabletmarket beginning in 2003 was Microsoft withwhat they called the Microsoft Tablet PC.It ran a slightly modified version of theWindows operating system, which allowed forinput from a stylus rather than a keyboardand mouse. Now as you can see, these tabletPCs were clunky, at about an inch thick, heavy,at about 3 to 4 pounds, and suffered frompoor battery life, delivering about 4 to 5hours of use. And to make matters even worse,these Microsoft Tablet PCs had an averageprice tag of about $2,000. Which made themsignificantly more expensive than their notebookcomputer equivalent.So as you may’ve guessed, these tabletsnever had much commercial success. But thisdidn’t stop Apple users from wanting theirown version of these tablet computers. Infact, some third party companies like Axiotrontook matters into their own hands and createdMacintosh tablet computers themselves. Butthese devices were based on the same approachMicrosoft took to tablet PCs. The idea thattablets should run a desktop-computer OS designedfor a mouse. And this created some innatechallenges. In order to run Windows or MacOS on a tablet, you’d need the precisionof a cursor. Which is why you had to use astylus rather than your fingers. Also, thetablet needs all the hardware of a desktopcomputer. It needs a desktop-grade processor,GPU, and cooling system. All of which comeat the detriment of battery life.So as Apple began developing on their ownversion of the tablet, it became clear theyneeded to take a different approach. Insteadusing Mac OS, they’d give their tablet iOS,a mobile operating system already used onthe iPhone. And this was a good decision fora few reasons. iOS was power efficient whichwould allow for all-day battery life, it featuredmultitouch which eliminated the need for astylus, and it could run on Apple’s low-powerA4 system-on-a-chip, which allowed for a compact,thin, and light design. Not to mention howmuch cheaper this tablet would be to producethan a traditional desktop computer. That’spart of the reason why tech analysts wereshocked when Apple announced the iPad’sstarting price of $500, about half of whatmost people were predicting.Now it wasn’t long before the iPad provedto be a huge hit, which prompted other techcompanies to create similar devices that ranGoogle’s Android OS. And the following yearin 2011, the market was flooded with Androidtablets. Just take a look at this articlewhich said, “Tablets absolutely stole theshow at CES 2011. Just about every companyhad one. While the idea of a tablet may soundexciting, the majority of these were unfortunatelypoorly put together Android tablets.” “Itfelt as though some companies had merely glueda screen, a battery back, a processor, andsome memory together and loaded Android ontoit thinking it would sell. Aside from a fewbrand-name tablets, the majority on the showfloor 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 majorityof Android tablets were delivering poor functionalityand performance. It was clear that manufacturerswere rushing products to market to try andsteal as much of the iPads thunder as possible.But these manufacturers didn’t understandwhat made the iPad so desirable in the firstplace. Because if you remember back to theiPads introduction, Steve Jobs made it veryclear that while the iPad had fantastic hardware,it was the software that would define theuser experience. And while apps made for theiPhone could run on the iPad and be scaledup, Scott Forstall told developers that theyshould modify their apps and rewrite the interfacein order to take advantage of the iPads largerdisplay. Similar to what Apple did with theirPhotos, Music, Calendar, and YouTube apps.So in order to encourage developers to rewritetheir applications, Apple created an iPadSoftware Development Kit that was releasedthe same day as the iPad’s introduction.A very strategic move by Apple that gave developersover two months to prepare iPad-optimizedversions of their apps. That way, when thevery first iPad was sold, there would alreadybe a marketplace of high-quality iPad appsavailable for download.And that brings me to one of the biggest reasonswhy Android tablets failed. They started offrunning a smartphone operating system withapps that weren’t optimized for a tablet’slarger display. In fact, many of these earlyAndroid tablets didn’t even have accessto Google Marketplace to download third partyapps. Google was working on an operating systemcalled Honeycomb which was optimized for tablets,but manufacturers wanted to bring their devicesto market as soon as possible, and didn’twant to wait on Google to finish their workon Honeycomb. This resulted in what I mentionedearlier, hundreds of cheap Android tabletsrunning a smartphone operating system thatresulted in a poor user experience. This creatednothing but confusion and frustration forcustomers, and severely damaged the reputationof Android tablets right off the bat.It’s a story that we’ve heard before withMP3 players and the iPod. There were hundredsof MP3 players on the market trying to competewith the iPod, but none of them were ableto gain any traction. Mainly because of theirpoor build quality, software, and user interface.Despite being a fraction of the cost, mostcustomers shopping for a music player ignoredthese MP3 players and instead opted for theiPod. And there were a few reasons for thisthat may sound familiar. Everyone knew whatthe iPod was. And most people who didn’town one probably had friends or family memberswho did. They likely used the device for themselvesbefore purchasing and was satisfied with theexperience. Perhaps they’d like to savemoney by buying a cheaper MP3 player, butthey understood that no other device woulddeliver the same experience as the iPod. Andmany people learned this for themselves bypurchasing a generic MP3 player, becomingfrustrated by its complexity or poor functionality,and leaving it in the junk drawer never tobe used again. Which is very similar to whathappened with Android tablets.But this is only one piece of the puzzle,because a recurring challenge with Androidis device fragmentation. It’s a problemwhen it comes to their smartphones, but it’san even bigger problem with their tablets.Because all the iPad’s advantages couldonly be achieved with Apple’s end-to-endcontrol over hardware, software, and the appstore. When it came to Android, things weremuch less organized. How can a developer optimizean app for hundreds of different devices withdisplay sizes that range from seven to thirteeninches? And how can apps run efficiently whenthere are dozens of different processors andchipsets they need to be compatible with?To put it plainly, it’s a nightmare to developapplications for Android tablets. And consideringthe small install base, it simply isn’tworth many developers time and effort to rewritetheir smartphone apps for tablets. And itcauses what I call the “developer deterrent”problem. You see, Android tablets have neversold well historically, so there isn’t avery large user base. This means developersaren’t motivated to create custom designedapps for those devices. Instead, existingsmartphone apps are simply stretched to fillthe tablet’s larger display, rather thanbeing truly optimized to take advantage ofthe extra screen real estate. This issue isslowly improving, but it’s part of the reasonwhy the app ecosystem on Android tablets hasalways been underwhelming, and this discouragespeople from buying them. So you can see thevicious cycle that forms: People aren’tbuying Android tablets since their apps aren’toptimized, and developers aren’t optimizingapps for Android tablets because of the smalluser base. And when you consider the factthat Apple users spend twice as much moneyon apps than Android users, it’s easy tounderstand why developers invest more timeand effort creating high quality apps foriPads.Now Google eventually released their Honeycomb3.0 operating system which was designed fordevices with larger displays. But it was extremelybuggy and difficult to navigate, unlike thestraightforward interface of the iPad. Itwas clear that Google was trying to delivera tablet OS as quickly as possible to competewith Apple, but in the process missed themark completely. Focusing on creating a moretraditional desktop computer interface ratherthan investing resources in the features thatmattered most to users. Like a large ecosystemwith apps optimized for the devices they owned.And ever since that Honeycomb release, Googlehas proved that they don’t understand whatit takes to create a successful Android tablet.In 2012 they released the Nexus 7, which waswhat they thought buyers wanted. A cheap minitablet that included Google Wallet, Near FieldCommunication, and their voice assistant GoogleNow. But the device was poorly built plaguedwith bugs that rendered it useless for mostusers after just one year.In 2014 Google flipped their strategy on itshead and released the Nexus 9. A more premiumtablet similar to the iPad mini whose sellingpoint was the NVIDIA \"Denver\" Tegra K1 chip.It was supposed to be one of the only chipsetsto give the iPad a run for its money, butit ended up falling behind the iPad Air 2’sA8X. Plus, Google’s tablets were still sufferingfrom unoptimized apps that didn’t deliverthe same full-featured experience as the iPad.The Nexus 9 was discontinued about 18 monthslater as Google shifted their strategy yetagain. They introduced the Pixel C near theend of 2015 which looked to challenge Apple’siPad Air 2. But despite adopting some of thesame features and design cues as the iPadAir, the Pixel C was plagued by Android’spoor support for tablet hardware and a tinyapp ecosystem that paled in comparison tothe iPad’s App Store. In June of 2019 Googlestopped development and production of alltheir tablets and confirmed they’d no longerbe making those devices. Instead, Google wouldbe investing their resources in notebook computers.So while Android has experienced tremendoussuccess on smartphones, it hasn’t been ableto overcome the fragmentation, poor app ecosystem,and underwhelming performance that has plaguedthe platform since the very first Androidtablets were released in 2011.Now when it comes to the iPad, there’s areason why it’s the first choice tabletof illustrators and note-takers. And it haseverything to do with the Apple Pencil. Butif there was just one thing I could changeabout the iPad’s writing and drawing experience,it’d be the slipperiness of the displayglass. Well, thanks to Paperlike, we can nowhave that tactile experience of using a penciland paper on our iPads. All you have to dois apply Paperlike to your iPad’s displaylike any other screen protector, and you havethe ultimate drawing and note-taking tablet.The surface of Paperlike is has a very fine-graintexture that mimics paper and makes writingfeel more natural. Not only does it feel likeyou’re writing on paper, but it sounds likepaper too. Just listen to how the Apple Pencilsounds on glass… and now on Paperlike…But Paperlike does even more than that. Itdramatically reduces glare and fingerprintssince the protector essentially acts as amatte cover, and it’s designed to preservethe Apple Pencil’s rubber nib, whereas otherscreen protectors could potentially wear itout faster than usual. Paperlike also includessome free bonuses like an extra cover, applicationaccessories, and a helpful instruction videoto make the application process quick andeasy. If you want to check out Paperlike yourselfjust click the link in the description andbe sure to use coupon code “appleexplained”at the checkout for 10% off and free worldwideshipping.Alright guys thanks for watching and I’llsee you next time.\n"