Google vs. Apple: Battle of the Copycats
How Google’s Tablet Can Challenge The iPad.
So there you have it. Google will release its own tablet to steal a piece of the iPad pie. Lately, it seems, Google puts quite a bit of effort into annoying Apple. Conceivably, Google has already become the new Microsoft by trying to be everything to everyone and this upcoming tablet may just be another example of how Google is much more a content provider than a hardware company. But there is also a real chance that Google can succeed and beat Apple’s iPad—the iPad isn’t as new and magical as Apple claims it is and it has weaknesses. Google has all the necessary pieces in place. So what if Google gets it right?
The tablet PC business is probably one of the most attractive unlocked secrets in the IT industry. It isn’t as innovative and groundbreaking as Apple says it is. There is a history of innovation and failure. Think about the Webpads of the early 2000s, some of which were actually quite good for their time, and I would even point to Alan Kay’s vision of the Dynabook in 1972, which really should be considered as the origin of the Webpad. It is also interesting to note that the first Dynabook model and the design of the first tablet PCs were developed by the same guy, Chuck Thacker. What we are seeing today are more and more companies taking stabs at the tablet opportunity. They are simply improving previous concepts that haven’t worked well in the past.
As much as Steve Jobs touts the iPad as the most important product he has ever created, it is just another typical Apple product that refines, admittedly in an impressive way, what we have had before. However, in the case of the iPad, there is an enormous range of weaknesses in the concept of the product that may limit the growth potential and excitement for the device. And no, I don’t necessarily point to the lack of Flash support or the missing Webcam. If Alan Kay’s software vision is as accurate as his hardware vision already has been, then Apple’s walled garden and, excuse my frank words, promotion of user laziness by pushing the App Store, may be Google’s biggest opportunity to take down the iPad. Ultimately, the Google tablet may have to be a much better Dynabook copycat than the iPad is.
Open vs. Locked Down
Obviously, the ability to download virtually any application you could ever think of from a directly connected App Store is a huge convenience factor for the iPad. It caters to the expectation that a computing device should just work, no questions asked. We have learned that computers are a relatively cheap commodity and we don’t put that much effort anymore into making them do things that are special to us as individuals. And even if you wanted to create that special script or application, your choices are limited with the iPad. It isn’t particularly easy for a general user to come up with a customized application, and even if you figure out how to do it, Apple tells you what you can and cannot do.
What if Apple’s greatest growth opportunity today, the App Store, could become a major annoyance and the foundation of a rather fragile product in the future? An opportunity that can be attacked and taken down by a powerful competitor as soon as users needs change.
Google’s strategy can only be an open platform that is exactly the opposite of Apple’s approach to highlight the weaknesses of the iPad. And if you think about it, Google has all the right pieces in place. Think cloud computing. Think Google Docs, for example. Google can offer plenty of music and video content and I don’t think that Google would have a problem striking a book deal with Amazon or Barnes & Noble that would blow Apple’s iBook store out of the water. And then there is Flash, which I personally doubt will just die simply because Apple says so. There’s a wealth of flash content out there, especially in the entertainment segment, which would be a major advantage for the Google tablet.
You only would lock that content out of your products if it is poison to your business strategy. Flash goes against the concept and monetization strategy of the App Store, but it works very well for Google.
However, Flash may not be enough for Google. I would agree with Kay that a mainstream computing device should be easily programmable to adapt to certain scenarios when you want it to. Imagine a visual programming language that would enable you to create simple applications to perform very specialized tasks. These tasks could be used around your house in a scenario of smart appliances. Imagine a modern version of Apple’s abandoned Hypercard programming environment or even Squeak. The true potential of the tablet may lie in its mobility and flexibility and this flexibility can only be achieved through an open interface. Google should take a serious look at making its tablet programmable, while keeping the convenience of the Android Marketplace available at all times.
Entertainment Device vs. Social Communication
Another key differentiator between the iPad and a Google tablet could be social networking. We can’t really ignore this trend and it is somewhat surprising how Apple misses the mark on this one. Microsoft’s Kin phones are a first indication of how portable devices can be much more portable and can cater to the information needs of teenagers and young adults. Imagine an always-connected device that integrates all types of communication, including VoIP telephony over Facebook messaging, tweeting, chatting, and even telepresence. Imagine 3D audio services such as Mingleverse on a tablet and you could see an entirely new way of immersive communication that only a connected tablet could enable.
Apple completely ignores opportunities in social networking and advanced communication and this trend may be another huge opportunity for Google to design and launch something much better than the iPad.
That said, the Google tablet, of course, needs to be a great entertainment device with substantial hardware horsepower as well. Getting content to the tablet may require some investment, but there is a true opportunity for Google to challenge the iPad on the hardware side. Intel isn’t really happy that Apple has ignored the Atom processor for the iPad, and if my sources are correct, then Intel is accelerating its efforts to turn Atom and especially its graphics features into a much more capable product in the near future. Intel is under pressure and we have seen in the past that Intel creates its most impressive products when challenged to the core. There is an unusually attractive opportunity for Google to collaborate with Intel to equip the Google tablet with hardware that may be superior to Apple’s A4 chip. And Intel isn’t the only company that would wait in line to work with Google.
The Open Road to Success
The iPad isn’t perfect. The Google tablet won’t be perfect. But Google needs to be different and it does not hurt to look into the past of personal computing to see what has worked in the past and what has not. Convenience is what most users are attracted to, but choice is Google’s biggest opportunity to show users how limited the iPad really is. Google has a true chance to inject excitement into computing again. Let’s hope the Google tablet will be a great copycat of the tablet vision and not just a copycat of the iPad.
---
Wolfgang Gruener is a technology journalist and analyst. He was managing editor for the Tom’s Hardware news section from 2003 to 2005, before launching and acquiring TG Daily. Today, Wolfgang works with startups and publishes his thoughts and analysis on critical and emerging technologies and products at Conceivablytech.com.
- google ,
- android-tablet ,
- ipad
- Google to Remove http:// From Future Chrome
- Who Has Fastest, Cheapest Internet in the World?
- New Nexaria 3G/4G Router Ships in May
- NEC Working on 3D All-in-One PC for Gamers
- Deals for April 20: FREE Lonely Planet for iPhone
- Cool VIA DIY Kit Puts HD in Your Hands
- Acer Launching AMD-based Aspire One Netbook?
- Lenovo ThinkPad L Series Geared for Professionals
- Nvidia GTX 480 3-Way SLI Tested Against Radeons
- Steam Sale: Deus Ex PC Games for $2.50 Each
- McAfee Update is Shutting Down Windows XP PCs
- CradlePoint's $350 Router Has 3G/4G Card Slots
- Sierra's Aircard 890 Has 2-In-1 Form for Laptops
- Pre-Order StarCraft II, Get Beta Access
- Over 320K Warcraft III, Diablo II Accounts Banned
- Deals for April 21: StarCraft II Preorder + Beta
- Laptop Falls From Helicopter, Narrowly Misses Boy
- Apple Making Big Profits, Disses Netbooks Again
Somebody just make a blank one and let us have it for a fair price, we will do the rest.
android good..
a .NET based OS better, if going any way near Microsoft.., a win 7.. UI specialized for the tablet, simplified and stripped to the bone..but capable of running virtually all win apps..
just my 2 cents
i think Google poses a formidable threat to Apple. let's just wait and see if Google releases a device that trully will be the definition of tablet.
google has much perspective..and so many awesome products for free..
the tablet could be a major success
Open vs. Locked Down
that says it all, because even apple users admit at times they need some un-approved apps, since some of them got some apps that were latter withdrawn from the store, (not counting in those who jailbreak, those are disowned children now).
Key is interfacing / interaction with other devices. The key part ipad lacks. For example lets take the situation at a friends work place. They want to use a tablet to sign in people to their data center, they have a custom application which handles their authorization into the center. Currently its running on a tablet laptop. Allows for digital signatures, etc.
They would love to throw this onto a ipad but can't, being 5 floors below the ground, and no wi-fi allowed in the data center. And cell phone blocking technology in place. (mainly so people can't send infromation about the center out of the place unless they memorize it, which is usually difficult to do. The ipad ends up being pointless, no connectivity means no way to validate, also they tried a similar sign in upstairs but their app was denied by apple, they have a webpage but their programmers use flash, so they have to rewrite the whole webpage, or just wait for google / hp / MS to release tablets in 6 months.
Now yes I know they could build the app and just load it with the webkit etc, but its not clean / user friendly to boot it up that way.
I'm getting the same sinking feeling about tablets that I had about netbooks (for my use at least). When netbooks first hit the market I was thinking "damn, I'll just wait a few months and then grab the best one for the lowest price"... but a few months came and went and I never got a netbook because they just didn't seem... useful. Of course, having said that, I'm sure the flame-throwers will be coming out in defense of how awesome everyone's netbooks are.
.
Maybe the tablet craze will be different.
My concern is that the quality of doing it "different than Apple" overlooks the things Apple is doing *right*. And despite all attitudes and bias, they do some things right. Unfortunately, one of those things is control. That power, abused or not, makes appliances work.
So, consider a two-tiered platform: One an open, flexible action space with all its boons and banes, and the Other a tighter, structured space much like Apple has, or perhaps a suped-up Valve Steam if you'd like. Things that are well built and fit can graduate from the former into the latter. AM and FM, in a radio appliance paradigm.
Just a thought.
Googles Tablet will be tied to Googles apps. I suspect it will not be anymore capable that Apple's, Or HP's. The real question is usability and overall functionality and who's gonna make that happen.
Like it or not, Googles Os is still rough around the edges and seriously lack refinement and HP is trying to make use of windows who's interface is based on Keyboard and mouse inputs now rigged to work with touch input. Apple is the only company who has taken the time and resources to develop an OS for the sole purpose of working on touch based devices. If the other companies would just take their time and make a product from the ground up and stop being "me too" followers....Apple would not be consider the ones to beat, but just another flavor of an excellent selection of Tablet devices.
"I would agree with Kay that a mainstream computing device should be easily programmable to adapt to certain scenarios when you want it to. Imagine a visual programming language that would enable you to create simple applications to perform very specialized tasks."
What I wish my computer had is the ability to write a script through normal sentences. This could for example be used for easy but time consuming tasks such as "copy all the rows in the excel file with the word 'New' and paste them in the word document". Depending on the length of the file it can take AGES as a human being to do, the computer would do it in less than a second.
For more complicated tasks, lets say you have tons of physical books or movies to choose from. You want to pick out the best rated one. There are applications on the mobile devices to take a pic of the cover and then give details about it. If things were open and easy, you should be able to just ask the device to just take a pic of all of them and return with the name of the highest rated one.
The application that analyzes pictures of things shouldn't only be a stand-alone program, it should be just one open feature that can be used together with other things.
Interested in the Google one. It bet it will do what the iPad does and use Linux and hopefully have a removable battery. If not I will wait for Acer.
As far as the headline, the biggest copycat is Microsoft. They have copied since the beginning. Back then it was copying from Apple to make Windows 3.1.
Shez wrote:
Netbooks aren't awesome. They are just another tool realistically aimed at a fairly small niche market. For me, a netbook is a perfect travel computer. When I am traveling, all i need is internet access for email and an ebook reader. Mine has an especially long battery life under light usage. Battery charge will last one Middle East to Europe hop and Europe to US hope before it needs charging. And it fits inside my carry-on bag - really important now that some airlines are prohibiting 2 carry-ons.
Would a tablet work as well? I don't think so.
regulas:
Don't forget. Macintosh was based on a copy of the old PARC Xerox Star complete with paper white screen and single button mouse.
I think something the author is missing is that he talks about the Google tablet as being cloud focused. The iPad has a browser and can use any non-Flash content (by and large), so most of the cloud-based things would be the same for either. There is already a job posting at Apple that gives away the fact that the next version of the iPad will have a camera. You already have Skype functioning on the iPad and there is a built in mic, so conferencing is already possible. The initial version is less crippled than some people want to believe.
Somebody just make a blank one and let us have it for a fair price, we will do the rest.
seconded
Well, its not like tablets are anything new anyway....I would bet on google, but with Apples advertising schemes(ones that have worked well in the past
)I would say its a bit too early to call a winner.
One weaknesses Google will continue to have is that they do not build hardware. Apple, on the other hand, is arguably the best quality hardware builder out there. People will buy an Apple product because Apple can stand by their hardware and repairs can be done as near as any Apple Store.
Yeah, I know this is barely anything to do with the perspective of the discussion but I had to ask myself which of these two I'd buy in a given situation. I hate shoddy hardware, or even the chance of it.
google could be on the disadvantage here, apple has its own hardware, google is relying on a second party hardware.
Googles Tablet will be tied to Googles apps. I suspect it will not be anymore capable that Apple's, Or HP's. The real question is usability and overall functionality and who's gonna make that happen.Like it or not, Googles Os is still rough around the edges and seriously lack refinement and HP is trying to make use of windows who's interface is based on Keyboard and mouse inputs now rigged to work with touch input. Apple is the only company who has taken the time and resources to develop an OS for the sole purpose of working on touch based devices. If the other companies would just take their time and make a product from the ground up and stop being "me too" followers....Apple would not be consider the ones to beat, but just another flavor of an excellent selection of Tablet devices.
While you are 100% correct here, that's why Apple wins where it wins. They take the time to do things right and, despite everyone kicking and screaming, do things the way they envision it. Sometimes that means ignoring certain technologies, other times it means jumping on open standards before they are popular.
A good example is Blu-ray or a front facing camera - which they are criticized for. But then they go and use the new USB specs for the iPad charging - which they are criticized for.
Well, its not like tablets are anything new anyway....I would bet on google, but with Apples advertising schemes(ones that have worked well in the past )I would say its a bit too early to call a winner.
As someone who never owned an Apple product in their life until the iPhone 3G - let me promise you it had nothing to do with advertising. Once Apple added Exchange support to their phone, I abandoned Windows Mobile. And, it being an MP3 player, I was forced into the iPod world that I had avoided.
Regardless, the product sold me because it was quality in every way, and did exactly what it was supposed to do without the hangups...and now I pay much closer attention to Apple's products, because I recognize their value in a way I hadn't. Advertising is definitely not what sold me an iPad over a Google tablet that doesn't even exist yet - which is another point. The iPad name is going to be synonymous with tablets from here out - it's the first of a new type of portable that relies on a more efficient OS, and has a humongous head start because Apple did something that nobody else would.
Hmm... we'll see
PRICE??? PRICE!!! You didn't mention PRICE. Price will be very important. At equal price points it can't compete with Apple, it will have to be significantly cheaper, but I think this is key. A lot of people could put together or rationalize $250-300 but couldn't rationalize $500-600.
This is a typical article written by someone who clearly has no programming experience, and doesn't understand at all software development.
I'm not fan of Apple, at all, but pure freedom in design of applications is a disaster, and antithetical to proper software development.
I'm not clear on all of Apple's motives, as I don't care about the company and don't closely watch what they do, but using a consistent design with software is imperative. It's been that way for a very long time. You want users to jump on your app and know exactly where everything the first time they use it, if they have experience with that platform.
It's not about being cute, and showing what a great programmer you are, and showing your personality. Jerks like this learn quickly it's not tolerated. It's putting things where people expect it, and following the guidelines of that computer so the customer is as comfortable as possible with the application.
I'm not suggesting Apple should artificially limit what apps are available for their device to make a profit, but I am suggesting they define a common user access interface as a standard and have applications follow it as much as possible. Anything else makes the device more difficult to use, and the device less useful. Not everyone wants to fidget with a computer, they just want it to do what they want it to do. So, it's got to be simple to use and intuitive, and consistent with what they know, but, admittedly, Apple's got to allow applications that do these things as well.
My point is, a blank slate without standards is nearly useless to most people, and not a product that can sell. Keep It Simple, Stupid! It's a bit condescending and insulting, but it's really important to remember when developing software.
Open vs Closed - Interesting arguement.
The statement is that the closed system is one that "just works" but you are forced to use pay-for Apps that Apple has the ultimate sanction over.
The further statement is that the open system is one that allows you to use whatever software you want from wherever.
The underlying implied statement is that the closed system and the "just works" are somehow linked and that being closed is what gives it stability. Poppycock. Where is it written anywhere that if a system is open it has to be unstable. A system may very well be unstable, or have been accused of being so in the past (eg "MS made Win ME so buggy so I dont trust Win 7, blah blah").
But let's get this straight. An open system is not the cause of instability. It may be a contributing factor, but the main reason why things go belly up is people installing something they shouldn't. This takes us back to the App Store. They ensure that only approved Apps go through to the end user and the end user is not given the choice other than what Apple tells them.
This is not a fanboy issue, this goes to the root of a political stance for many people, so imagine it was your Government.
Do you prefer an all-encompassing Party machine that runs everything, because they are supposedly the people in charge and therefore more qualified to make decisions for you? Alternatively, you could have smaller Government that privatises major services and leaves decision making to the individual.
Apple is basically a Communist State, which would make Steve Jobs the new Stalin.
If I was to bet on this, I would bet on Apple. Marketing is just way too important to the majority of people. Unless Google comes out with a vastly superior product and gains a good portion of market share in a short period of time (Apple can match anything Google throws at them within 6-12 months), they have little chance.
I hope that Google can compete with Apple (I have little love for Apple) but regardless, I think tablets are about 2-3 years of software development away from being useful for the mainstream, which could give Google the time it needs to be competitive.
back by demand,
Your logic is flawed! Please explain how Apple is a socialist company when Quality control measures are used to ensure a desired outcome? I hardly see the relevance in your argument when any manufacturer or software writer's can produce products for their computers. If the complaint that Apple holds software makers to a standard, then i fail to see how thats bad for the customer. The FDA ensures that food, drug makers provide safe effective products. Are they Socialist? And if they are, then it's to your benefit. What about the car makers who have to meet the NHTSA safety standards before they sell you a car. Im sure your glad someone is holding Toyota to a standard when it comes to your life and money. All this anger towards Apple for doing the same thing that Government does to protect you from corporations and scam's is just asinine.
I for one am glad to see a company forcing software makers and hardware makers to a standard. I don't feel I should have to pay X amount dollars for a product and then have to figure out why it doesn't work or why this software crashed my computer.
People say that Apple dumb downs their products for the masses...I say they are doing giving me what I paid for. A finished product that works as it should!
Correction......
People say that Apple dumb downs their products for the masses...I say they are giving me what I paid for; A finished product that works as it should!
Apple has had a lot of wins lately, but they have had some duds (iCrap) in their history as well. Remember the Newton? Lisa? The desk lamp shaped iMac? Everything Steve Jobs touches in not gold. Only time will tell which side of the fence the iPad will fall on. But it certainly is not a run-away success like the iPod or the iPhone. The Newton is actually a really interesting example, because Apple was ahead of the competition by a number of years, but the PDA market didn't take off until someone else, Palm, can along and did it better.
I thought Microsoft already won the battle of the copycats? They have a 30 year legacy to prove it.
Hmm we do need more competition now I'ma look toward HP Slate and this Google one
Open vs Closed - Interesting arguement.The statement is that the closed system is one that "just works" but you are forced to use pay-for Apps that Apple has the ultimate sanction over.The further statement is that the open system is one that allows you to use whatever software you want from wherever. The underlying implied statement is that the closed system and the "just works" are somehow linked and that being closed is what gives it stability. Poppycock. Where is it written anywhere that if a system is open it has to be unstable. A system may very well be unstable, or have been accused of being so in the past (eg "MS made Win ME so buggy so I dont trust Win 7, blah blah").But let's get this straight. An open system is not the cause of instability. It may be a contributing factor, but the main reason why things go belly up is people installing something they shouldn't. This takes us back to the App Store. They ensure that only approved Apps go through to the end user and the end user is not given the choice other than what Apple tells them.This is not a fanboy issue, this goes to the root of a political stance for many people, so imagine it was your Government.Do you prefer an all-encompassing Party machine that runs everything, because they are supposedly the people in charge and therefore more qualified to make decisions for you? Alternatively, you could have smaller Government that privatises major services and leaves decision making to the individual.Apple is basically a Communist State, which would make Steve Jobs the new Stalin.
Then you'd need to take this back as far as Nintendo, and any other gaming platform with a standard of quality and design as well as control over their platform.
This isn't a government, it's a computing platform designed with control over its apps. Even making that analogy shows a type of bias in judgement of the pros and cons of this type of control coming from someone who obviously has disdain for communism. Which isn't necessarily an evil form of government, just very non-American. And if you think capitalism/freedom is a perfect form of government for all involved, you might need to think about that.
Apple has had a lot of wins lately, but they have had some duds (iCrap) in their history as well. Remember the Newton? Lisa? The desk lamp shaped iMac? Everything Steve Jobs touches in not gold. Only time will tell which side of the fence the iPad will fall on. But it certainly is not a run-away success like the iPod or the iPhone. The Newton is actually a really interesting example, because Apple was ahead of the competition by a number of years, but the PDA market didn't take off until someone else, Palm, can along and did it better.
The desk lamp iMac was actually a big success. The iPad is already selling more than the first iPhone, but everyone needs a phone so I'd say for its market, it's selling extremely well.
As far as Palm and the Newton go, that was different iteration of Apple, certainly not as successful as the Apple of today, especially at that time.