Android tablets: Success is failure

Summary: There's a great deal of interest in tablet devices this year. But is the market big enough to support the manufacturers that want a piece of that market?

By now you're well aware of the events that occurred at CES 2011. Taking center stage this year was the tablet, based on smartphone technology to bridge the gap between smartphone and laptop. Coming up this month is the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona where even more tablet goodness will be introduced.

Previously I discussed tablets that appear to be successful despite the nay-sayers and market analysts that predicted failure. This time I want to take a different approach, and discuss what happens when a platform becomes so successful that it actually turns into a failure.

I know that sounds like an oxymoron: Successful failure. Bear with me, and I'll explain.

Collectively, the Android platform has become more successful than the iPhone and BlackBerry in the smartphone market. Sales of Android phones in 2010 have surpassed all other smartphone manufacturers worldwide. Cellphones are ubiquitous. The market is so large that many manufacturers can compete and make a profit without being shut out. With smartphones, consumers like to have options. Samsung sold over 10 million Galaxy S devices in the past year alone.

Samsung sold over 2 million Galaxy Tabs last year to vendors. Not all of them have been sold to consumers, but Samsung says that sales of the Galaxy Tab are "quite smooth".

It also bears noting that there have been a higher than normal rate on returns of the Galaxy Tab. These returns are typically from customer dissatisfaction; the quality of the device is not in dispute.

The cause of the dissatisfaction is up for debate. Was it due to Froyo (Android 2.2) being used on the tablet instead of waiting for Gingerbread (Android 2.3) or Honeycomb (Android 3.0)? Was it due to people who decided they needed a larger tablet? Was it due to some customers simply not being ready for a tablet at all? Or was it due to some people just testing the waters and then returning the device within the buyer grace period? Maybe some buyers decided to return the device and wait for the next generation of Android tablets like the Motorola Xoom and the T-Mobile LG G-Slate. The iPad returns are around 2%, so this high rate of returns could be a combination of all of these possibilities.

It's my contention that the market for tablets has not yet hit critical mass. It's still in the early adopter phase, regardless of the success of the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. There may simply not be enough consumers to create the demand that the tablet manufacturers and industry analysts are expecting. At CES 2011, over 100 tablets were introduced. I honestly don't see the market demand supporting all of these different tablets. And with so many manufacturers vying for attention, it makes the situation even worse.

In order for tablets to become as common as smartphones and laptops, the paradigm for using them has to change. They need to fill a need. Digital books, games and light web surfing just aren't strong enough reasons to get everyone to buy a tablet. I actually use my Galaxy Tab for a great deal of work. I still use my laptop for writing articles, extensive word processing, spreadsheets and playing MMO games. Tablets need to step up their game in order to be considered as a replacement for laptop usage. They're close, but they're not ready yet.

Update: It looks like the return rate on the Samsung Galaxy Tab may have been much lower than reported by analysts. This would result in much higher customer satisfaction, on par with that of the iPad.

Topics: Tablets, Android, Hardware, Laptops, Mobility, Samsung, Smartphones

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

61 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Although this was not an "iPad success vs Samsung Tab failure" blog, per se

    It is almost impossible NOT to frame your main points around this central theme. And for the sake of argument, let's assume the Samsung Tab was Android's "Champion" tablet of 2010. The best of the best .. so to speak. Why then have consumers chosen the iOS tablet platform over the Android platform roughly seven to one.

    To answer that question, I must first reject your conclusion that a form of "tablet critical mass" has not yet been achieved. Simply, its the wrong metaphor to apply to this discussion because a "critical mass" implies a physical measurable quantity. It implies that public awareness, interest in or desire for Android tablets is dependent upon the number of units "in the wild". That's not true. In fact, Scott, if that were so, you would not have had an interest in this tablet at all.

    And ultimately, its the wrong central reason why Android tablets have met with limited commercial success in 2010.

    The real reason Android tablets have not been successful so far is simple. People realize (or perceive) that they can't do as much with an Android tablet as they can with an iOS tablet. And how does the average consumer know that? My friend, NonZealot, would state its only because of Apple's superior marketing skills. And in this case, I would agree. But not quite the way NZ means.

    I mean, just look at Apple's tablet commercials. What do you notice? I notice the iOS tablet DOING THINGS! Lots of different things. Commercial after commercial, from day one, shows different and interesting applications being run on the hardware. Without overtly stating it, the commercials show the vast and wonderful iOS ecosystem in place and being used by iOS users.

    What does a consumer see with Android tablets? They see basic smartphone capabilities. Let me repeat that .. they see BASIC capabilities.

    Now, where I differ with NZ (that only superior marketing skills amount to the iOS tablet success rate) is illustrated by the stated numbers for post sale tablet returns. If it were only a matter of marketing, the return rate for iOS tablets would be the same, if not worse, than the Android tablet return numbers. I believe the reason for a reported very low iOS tablet return rate is due to superior hardware and software capabilities. Its that simple.
    kenosha77a
    • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

      @kenosha7777 I would have to disagree with you on the application front. I don't use my tablet as a smartphone. I have several dozen aftermarket apps installed on mine, DOING THINGS! TV commercials are not an appropriate measurement of what you can do with a device. They may show lack of foresight on the part of the advertiser, but that's an entirely different topic.<br><br>Perhaps you didn't understand my usage of the phrase "critical mass". Tablets are not yet mainstream. Hell, smartphones only take up a fraction of all mobile phones. Until people see them as a necessity instead of a luxury item, they will not consider buying one. Apple was more successful because they were first. I would recommend waiting to see what happens this year once there are more tablet options available from the big name manufacturers.<br><br>And please, don't assume you know what I would or would not be interested in. My personal needs and desires when it comes to technology are nowhere near mainstream.
      Scott Raymond
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @Scott Raymond <br><br>The iPod mp3 player was not necessarily a necessity and it sold like hot cakes for a decade +. Just a thought. <br><br>The iPad (and tablets in gen) do not have to be a full replacement to laptops before it is embraced by the public as a need or want. As it is currently proving.
        dave95.
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @Dave95 - but in the days after Napster, there was only one real online music service--iTunes. If Creative or Dell had come up with a viable service to sell music to the extent (through media deals, etc.) we would be talking about the Zen or Jukebox right now.
        hoaxoner
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @Scott Raymond You seem to have largely misunderstood what kenosha7777 said, though it seems clear enough to me.

        > I have several dozen aftermarket apps installed on mine, DOING THINGS!

        He was talking about marketing and perception.

        > Until people see them as a necessity instead of a luxury item, they will not consider buying one

        iPod, games console, tablet, none are really "essential" but all successful.

        > And please, don't assume you know what I would be interested in

        He didn't!
        The Star King
      • Not the point...

        @hoaxoner<br><br>The argument that's being raised is Tablets need to be looked at as a necessity by the general public and a full-on replacement for laptops <b>first</b> before it is widely embraced. I fully disagree with that. <br><br>I pointed to the iPod as a device that was not necessarily a necessity but yet it was widely embraced by the public. The iPod Touch not necessarily a necessity but widely embraced. XBox, Plasma/LCD Televisions, the Nintendo DS (well for some kids it is obsoletely a necessity). But point is these are all leisurely devices the mass public happily and fully embraced. The iPad fall into that same category as a consumption laisure device first, input device secondary. But no need to apologize because 90% of the average user PC use today is for the purpose of consumption. <br><br>The time was just right for a device like the iPad (and like devices) to enter. More things can be done with mobile devices today than ever before. Smart phones and now tablets are just as powerful today as PCs were a few years ago. Wifi is becoming ubiquitous. Data plans will continue to fall as a result of competition and demand. Apps are powerful and amazing. Time for the author to step away from the ol' 30 year PC centric mentality.
        dave95.
      • AMEN!!

        @dave95. why can't someone who calls themselves a tech blogger not understand that it's a new class of device? it's not a laptop replacement.. well for some it might be depending on the extent to which they use their laptop.. but it can be used for about what people are doing with traditional computers 90% of the time.. and in a smaller, lighter more portable, use anywhere, ad hoc type of use that people really like.. and it's an network appliance.. there is basically no maintenance.. just turn it on and use it so its more accessable to more people who don't want to deal with the BS that are traditional computers.. this is what MS is missing too.. tablets are the solution and the problem is complexity, bloat and BS that is traditional computers.. putting a traditional OS on a tablet is like putting a team of horses on car..

        traditional computer will be come more and more scarce.. but will never stop being used because they will alway be more powerful than tablets.. but everyone will have a tablet in the future and not everyone will have a traditional computer.. maybe there will be one in the house etc.. there is still and always will be a need for big screened, power devices, but in a few years onward tablets will become more an more powerful and less and less people will need to the kind of power of a traditional computer.. so we will likely see portable tablets with docks with big screen and keyboard for longer term work etc..

        the thing is that 90% of what people do with computers, especially in there spare time doesn't need to be done on a traditional computer and is more convenient to do on a tablet.. there is a market to to make that 90% of people's time more convenient and enjoyable.. and replacing a computer that was way more powerful than you needed in the first place is no a prerequisite for that purchase.. the value is there regardless
        doctorSpoc
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @Scott Raymond "Apple was more successful because they were first."

        Yes, they invented today's tablet, and it's reached critical mass for them and 80% of the Fortune 100. That's not good enough for you?

        I have to agree, though, critical mass hasn't been reached for Android, even the Tab. There's been a 13% return rate on the few that have been sold to customers.

        2 million shipped to channel! 200,000 SOLD is my guess.

        Android critical mass will be reached in mid 2012.
        pk de cville
      • dave95, I believe the iPod was a necessity

        and I see what Scott is saying.

        The iPod filled the need (necessity) to listen to you music collection [b]without[/b] having to carry around a CD collection. I could get music online, but I still had to burn them to multiple CD's and throw them into my suitcase or backpack if I wanted to listen to them while I traveled. MP3 players filled the need not to have to do that.

        With smartphones doing all the things I, and others need it to do, Tablets are more a luxury item for many, as what can the iPad do that an iPhone can't?
        John Zern
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @Scott Raymond

        Yes the advertising is slick - my favorite was an early one when they put up the title Science and then showed an astrological pattern in the stars ;-)

        People bought a lot of pet rocks some time ago and I'm yet to be convinced that the iPad is any more than this. I'll carry a netbook, if I need to do some work or my WP7 phone if I just need comms, email, do some light work, social networking, games and consume media.

        Do I want or need to carry around a brick to consume media or use some pretty fart app or struggle with clunky iOS? I used an iPad for a week to test web software and I still had no need for it at the end.

        Now some hi-res semi transparent glasses with WiFI and virtual keyboard and gestures, able to overlay reality with the web - that would be great. Lugging around a jumbo phone as a fashion statement is a little bit dumb.
        tonymcs@...
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @tonymcs@...

        Would your opinion of Apple's pet rock change if you could run a fully capable multi-touch enabled Windows 7 or OSX environment simultaneously within an iOS envioroment on Apple's first gen tablet? That would be pretty impressive, I would think.

        Well, do yourself a favor at self education and perform an internet search on this phrase "CES 2011 Best Android software/app award". I'm sure you will find several references for an inexpensive Android and iOs app that is currently available on both the iOS app store and on the Android Marketplace locations.

        To be perfectly honest, I was not aware of this particular app until very recently. But for the past week, I have become quite amazed at the enhanced iPad capabilities it allows.

        And, to be perfectly frank, the app works like a VPN client (although it isn't) enhanced with real time audio and video content streaming abilities. The illusion this app presents, that is, of a fully functional OS X, Linux or Windows Tablet (choose your own flavor of Windows OS versions) is quite stunning and beneficial to any iOS or Android mobile device owner.

        Of course, in my case, the iPad hasn't been transformed into a high powered core i7 iMac or Windows 7 desktop. But I do find it amazing that when I gaze upon my iPad screen, I see and interact with my desktop iMac or MacBook in real time over my home WiFi network and I often come under the impression that my iPad has become those machines. (The speed of that desktop connectivity and its display on the iPad is that impressive.) Your research will discover that this ability can also occur over 3G (but I haven't tried this out yet.)

        Did I mention that I was able to run and interact with my Windows virtual machine on my Apple computers and do that on my iPad?

        I now understand EXACTLY how any Windows Tablet currently would appear and function on the iPad's 10" screen form factor. BTW, I can state that same observation in relationship to a full fledged 10" OS X tablet as well.

        And, I have to tell you something. The iOS native tablet environment (and I would assume the Android tablet environment as well), works better than any non optimized OS tablet environment .. Any non optimized OS environment.

        So you see, my pet rock can now interact and view Flash and Sliverlight web content over my WiFi home system and run any Windows application faster than your netbook can. (With a little help from my other computers, of course.) But that's the point.

        As several persons have tried repeatedly to impress on you, Apple's pet rock was never meant to be a stand alone tablet having super computer capabilities (let alone netbook ones). It was designed to become part of an overall computing ecosystem. When you think about it, being able to leverage the computer capabilities a person's computing system that he or she already processes is really very smart!
        kenosha77a
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @Scott Raymond <br>I don't own an iPad or any tablet. I've seen a few folks get them and like them. They are people who don't like the friction of administering a conventional computer, no matter how light or small. I think the evidence is pretty clear, both from my anecdotes and what's happening out there in retail sales land, anyone who understands the tablet products in terms of an ability to replace a notebook computer isn't getting the full picture. While this is clearly a subjective opinion of mine, I'll say that the "iPad is a big iPhone when the world wants smaller laptop" folks consistently and clearly underestimated the iPad's popularity a year ago and this informs my thinking.<br><br>Regarding your parsing of unsuitability or disappointment from quality (by which I think you mean lack of manufacturing defects), I am not convinced that division has any practical meaning, i.e., a return is a return. Indeed, manufacturing issues may be addressed by choosing higher quality parts or using better factories, but "It doesn't do what I want in the way I expect." is far more damning, in my opinion. Without getting into a recap of Plato and Pirsig, I think quality is in the eye of the beholder. If the ultimate point is that Android 2.2 wasn't ready for tablet prime-time, but honeycomb is the sweet spot (pun not intended, but I'll own it), well, I'm thinking that doesn't speak well of the company or its striving for excellence and quality.<br><br>Samsung describing sales as "smooth" as the re-translation now states it, is not really comprehensible when discussing financial results. A synonym of smooth is flat. Sales are flat would not be a welcome admission among shareholders and investors.<br><br>Your mobile tech colleagues love their Galaxy Tabs, so there clearly is a segment for its success. You're right, there will not be 101 winners in the tablet space this year. It's hard to imagine why there are so many companies putting resources behind the hope that they are the spaghetti that will stick on the wall.
        DannyO_0x98
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @hoaxoner Maybe or maybe not, nobody knows for sure and any statement along those lines is simply a guess.
        non-biased
        • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

          @John Zern The iPod was in no way a "need". You don't have a "need" to eliminate having to carry CDs with you let alone the "need" to listen to your music while you are traveling. You "want" to do these things and the iPod (MP3 players in general) was the solution for your "want" but by no means a "need".
          non-biased
    • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

      @kenosha7777 "I believe the reason for a reported very low iOS tablet return rate is due to superior hardware and software capabilities."<br><br>Not sure what you're basing that on. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad have virtually identical CPUs and the Galaxy Tab has twice the amount of memory.<br><br>As for the software capabilities, my guess is that you've done one of two things:<br>1. Never really touched an Android device.<br>2. Picked up an Android device and spent all of 60 seconds to balk at the fact that it's not something from Apple.
      cbstryker
      • Galaxy Tab has 1/2 screen real estate as the iPad..

        @cbstryker and runs a completely un-optimized for tablet phone OS and completely un-optimized for tablet, blown up phone apps.. while the iPad has over 45,000 tablet optimized apps, of which many resemble desktop apps that have just been optimized for touch..<br><br>those are some pretty stark differences in hardware and software.. stop looking at spec sheets and consider real world use of the device..<br><br>people obviously like what Apple is doing software and hardware wise.. i think people who bought tabs quickly realized that the Galaxy Tab is literally a 7" inch phone that can't make calls.. but they already have phone and the value proposition of another contract for duplicated functionality is just stupid! totally rational well thought out reasoning.. some people might like the 7" form factor but for most i would guess is that it is just too close to the phone already sitting in there pocket.. add to that, that android 3.0 with honeycomb was coming out and the galaxy tab wouldn't likely be upgradable to 3.0.. who the hell would be stupid enough to be stuck with a galaxy tab for the next two years.. of course people dumped them.. people aren't as stupid as Samsung thinks they are..
        doctorSpoc
      • RE: Android tablets: Success is failure

        @cbstryker

        Some people make the mistake, IMO, of merely comparing hardware specifications in order to base an assessment of a computing devices's usefulness or to form a "superiority ranking" regarding two competing products. You yourself did that and I will not dispute your stated hardware spec comparisons. (although you did not cite a comprehensive hardware comparison)

        But I do stand by my opinion that the iOS tablet platform (comprising both hardware and software capabilities) provides a superior potential user experience than the current Android tablet ecosystem offers.

        Now, as to your "guesses".

        1) I have touched quite a few Android devices and I can categorically state that my fingers did not encounter any adverse effects from that experience.

        2) Actually, if we just limit our comments to the Samsung Tab device, it was more like 300 seconds of actually "hands on" experience. Since I was quite content with my previous iPad purchase and the way it integrates so well into my home Apple computing ecosystem, I did not see the personal need to augment that ecosystem with this particular Android tablet.

        You had to notice that I have not mentioned any particular knock against Android tablet adoption. And I won't.
        kenosha77a
      • Message has been deleted.

        frgough
      • kenosha7777, you make a good point

        [i]with my previous iPad purchase and the way it integrates so well into my home Apple computing ecosystem[/i]

        And that is something that Android tablets don't have to the degree that iPads have. Even Microsoft [i]finally[/i] realized with Windows 7 the "integration factor" of their software (i.e. Media Center, WHS, XBox360, WP7) are all capable of interacting with each other in a home/business environment.

        Android tablets interact with what? I'm not sure (though there may be many things they do, I just don't know), but then again, if I don't know, then the average consumer probally doesn't know either.
        John Zern
    • Tortuous fan boy logic, plain and simple

      @kenosha7777

      Sit back, relax and wait for the end of 2011, then try again. Talking about successes and failures, relative or otherwise, is just pointless. The Android tablet market is yet to appear, with the OS version not released.

      It must make you feel very good to stroke your Apple ego, but you lose a lot of credibility in the process.
      Economister