Where My Tablets At?

The launch of the iPad nearly two years ago heralded what was to be a revolutionary new device. Apple’s incredible marketing machine combined with an Apple-loving tech-press and a fan-base avid for the newest and hottest Apple-product made the iPad’s debut a major event. It seemed to many that the iPad had changed the world. But has it?

While at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs revolutionized the PC, mobile phone, and music industry, thus transforming the entire tech-space.  Yet, his venture into tablet PCs has been less impressive. You may disagree, but the numbers prove it.  Since the iPad's arrival, Apple has sold less than 30 million units. Globally! To provide some perspective, during the same period of time Apple sold more 3x as many iPhones, even when many customers have been holding off purchasing an iPhone in anticipation of the "iPhone 5". But don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the iPad is a terrible product. Many sales people love the device for client presentations and its ability to watch video on a portable screen is amazing, but it isn’t as revolutionary as the hype would have us believe. Rather, it is simply an OK product with an iconic brand-logo and an incredible PR/marketing effort behind it. I mean, the most popular website in the world, Facebook, has not even put the resources necessary to create an app for the iPad yet.

The truth is that no one has really figured out how to make a tablet device revolutionary yet. Neither Google nor HP has fared better. The fact that both companies’ efforts into the tablet market were a flop only further proves my point. The Android tablet for the most part has been from a hardware perspective, equal if not better than the iPad. Additionally, Google's mobile operating system is extremely user friendly – it is the most popular OS in the smartphone space. The key difference between them is that Apple has the ability to sell a product and to attract older consumers with disposable income to buy luxury multimedia toys. But if the iPad and other tablets are to become devices that are truly revolutionary and as ubiquitous as PCs or mobile phones, which they can be, they will need to change a few things.

One major flaw is that the iPad is neither ultra-portable nor does it provide an easy to use experience for key tasks. How does it fit into a person's life, with a computer, a smartphone and a TV? Shouldn't an "iPad" be a digital notepad? Well, Steve Jobs does not believe in the stylist and feels that writing is an ancient solution that will replaced by typing, but in reality for such a product and for various tasks on a flat device, a stylist would be an easier and more logical solution. For example, if you were reading a digital textbook and wanted to make a note in the margin a stylist would be perfect. Or if you did not have a flat surface to prop the iPad against, writing free style would be preferred. And typing on an iPad will never be an extremely easy experience; I am currently outside in a park where using an iPad is ideally designed to work, but my laptop is much easier to use.

Another major flaw is the size. The iPad is too big. It should be ultra-portable, not just thin and light. It should fit into a person’s suite jacket, back pocket, or small purse; only then will it have the same utility as a smartphone. Right now, my iPad is usually at home and when I am there, I often prefer to just use my laptop or TV. Apple's OS and huge selection of apps, combined with a 7” form factor (like the Blackberry Playbook) would be a winning tablet design. 

There are many rumors about the forthcoming Amazon tablet and Amazon maybe one of the few companies that has the operating environment and technical skills to create a tablet equal if not better than Apple's iPad. These additional two pieces combined with a user friendly operating system, a vibrant app store, and an innovative marketing strategy will give people a reason to buy a tablet. Plus, lead to the creation of something truly revolutionary. “Think Different” Amazon!

Google+ Will Not Succeed

Mark Hurst wrote an excellent piece on Google+ that covers many of the reasons why Google+ will not succeed, but he and others have missed a few things which I will discuss.  If interested here is a link to his blog post:

http://goodexperience.com/2011/07/why-google-will-succe.php

Mr. Hurst does feel Google+ will succeed at first, but that begs the question what is your definition of success? Clearly he means getting a lot of users and in real numbers, yes Google has done that, but for a company like Google, if it can't get 20M users for a huge product launch then it is not a product worth developing. That being said I would not call Google+'s launch a success, but rather the first step towards becoming an actual player in the social space. Welcome to the party. It only gets harder from here. 

But by now it is becoming clearer that Google+ may not be the new darling that the media and tech world predicted two weeks ago. Hitwise reported that for the week ending July 23, Google+ had 1.79 million visits, down 3% from the week before. The report also noted that the average time on the site was down 10%, to 5 minutes and 15 seconds.  Definitely not a good sign, but even Facebook had its ups and downs.

Still, most of us don't need in depth research reports to know how Google+ is really doing.  How often this week did you check your Google+ versus Facebook?  Or how about you go to your Google+ right now and scroll to the bottom of your "Stream" (News Feed). How old is your oldest post? Mine is nearly four weeks old (July 5th). What! And that is the true test. Some days it is hard for me to find something more than four hours old in my Facebook News Feed. My friends and contacts are constantly posting information, making Facebook a vibrant and live site, and a place where I and the majority of the other 750 million members regularly visit. 

Social networks are not about being beautiful or having cool tech functionality, but they are all about a product that actually helps people and does so in a fun, social manner. Google+ is incredibly designed and has cool functionality like group chat, but honestly ask yourself, what percent of the 300M Americans really notice the difference in the design or uses the group video chat regularly.  It is not like normal people are going to stop "hanging out" in person so they can "hangout" virtually online.  Mark Zuckerberg has never claimed that Facebook would replace real-life social interaction, but conversely has explained it would help make the world more social, and Facebook has.

If Google is serious about getting into Social, they need to think about their strategy, again. They need to stop going at Facebook head on. Sure people have their issues with Facebook like every other major website, but for the most part people are generally happy with it. But that does not mean give up on social; it is a huge white space where various products can co-exist, while serving millions of people.  Business and creating new products is not always about beating your competitor, but many times about figuring out how to grow the entire market. Google needs to figure out new ways to grow the pie for the social-media hungry audience, instead of trying to steal a large slice of what's already been served.

The biggest hurdle any social media product faces is with network affect - getting a lot people to use your product regularly and keeping it interactive. That is what Google+ is fumbling with now.  Google has tens of billions of dollars in the piggy bank, it should be aggressively shelling out that cash and buying up existing social products and integrating them successfully into Google (yes, I am thinking about Dodgeball). Some companies that come to mind would be Twitter, Foursquare, Tumblr, Spotify, Instagr.am, and GroupMe.  Great products with regular users that frequently use their services; all the pieces a strong social application needs. And with Google's reach these products could become even more mainstream. 

At the same time, they need to start looking at their products from a different perspective and start focusing more on their end users and less on what would be cool from a functionality point of view.  They are a user interfacing company and they need to start running their company like such. Google, if you are not sure how to do that look at Apple. They do a pretty good job with this.


Please follow me follow me at @vivekmgeorge