Interesting Article: "Why Android Tablet Apps Suck and the iPad Wins"

[vulcanman]

Being a linux / open-source guy who never owned an Apple product until I got the iPad2 (it still is my only Apple product) ... I have to agree with this article. By the way, I reproduced the exact title of the article as the title for my post.

"Its the APPS, dummy" argument holds in this case. I used to own a Touchpad (running Cyanogenmod) tablet which I promptly sold a few weeks ago.

The author seems to be level headed guy who is fair in his assessment. Here is a quote (article link below) ...

Way too many Android apps fall back on a design that looks like a late-20th-century WAP site: a stack of modules designed to look good on narrow screens. Unfortunately, that design is completely inappropriate for a tablet.

On the iPad, on the other hand, apps tend to use multiple panes or columns, which is a much better use of tablet real estate. This is actually a Google design recommendation for tablets. Developers just aren't doing it.


Here is the link:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401676,00.asp

Lets have a civil exchange on this topic. At the end of the day, we all want Apple to face some real competition ... so we can get more bang for the buck!



The last page or so is mostly personal attacks. I'm locking, and then I'll go back and hand out infractions or warnings once I've had some time to look at the chain of posts and think about it.

With the title of the thread being what it is, perhaps the way things went was inevitable, but there was a good discussion in the middle, I thought.


Moderator PM

 

[shortylickens]

So you use the word Suck in your title and then ask for a civil exchange?

Yeah, yur trolling.

 

[vulcanman]

So you use the word Suck in your title and then ask for a civil exchange?

Yeah, yur trolling.

Sorry, that is the actual Title of the Article.

 

[shortylickens]

Sorry, that is the actual Title of the Article.

I agree, you are sorry. It is NOT the actual title of the article. Its "The iPad Wins Because Android Tablet Apps Suck: An Illustrated Guide"

You changed it but said "suck" anyway. You wanted to start a pissing contest.

As for me: I agree with the article. For mobile devices its better to have strict control over a platform. You get better results.

 

[vulcanman]

I agree, you are sorry. It is NOT the actual title of the article. Its "The iPad Wins Because Android Tablet Apps Suck: An Illustrated Guide"

You changed it but said "suck" anyway. You wanted to start a pissing contest.

As for me: I agree with the article. For mobile devices its better to have strict control over a platform. You get better results.

Actually, the title I used was from the author's slideshow page (which is linked at the end of page 2). Here is the link to the slideshow.

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l%3D295472%26a%3D295476%26po%3D1,00.asp?p=n

 

[Anubis]

funny i prefer the android ones most of the time


and TBH if you are on a tablet you don't need an app for 99% of what they listed, just go to the fing website in the browser and request the desktop version

hell on wifi or 4g thats what i do on my phone as well

 

[bearxor]

I agree with the article, but I also agree with Anubis. I'd never download a lot of these apps. I think the only one I do care about was CNN so I could do the live streaming.

But going from a iPad to a TouchPad, I can see where the author is coming from. I've been downloading quite a few apps on Google Play (ugh) that I've also used on the iPad and the difference is usually drastic.

 

[smartpatrol]

Thanks for the article. The author did a good job at being as fair as possible. The pictures speak for themselves; most of those Android apps are just shameful.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Funny, Google provides excellent tools for using multiple panles within a tablet version of an app and single panes when the same app is displayed on a phone. The author barely acknowledges this and completely ignores the fact that it's easier to make apps that work great on both phones and tablets on Android than iOS.

The methodology for comparing games is flawed as well since it only focuses on the major publishers. Some of the best games on both sides are made by smaller firms and wouldn't have been counted in that comparison.

Basically the author comes across as an Apple shill whether that was the goal or not.

 

[goog40]

It's pretty simple, development efforts are going to be focused on the ecosystem that brings in the money. When you're talking about tablets, not only are there a lot more iPad users out there, but each iPad user on average is going to spend more on apps than Android tablet users.

From a post by Mika Mobile on why they're giving up on supporting Android:

And secondly, as I mentioned on Twitter, our Android apps aren't making money. A few people took offense to the bluntness of this statement, so I'll clarify in more delicate terms. There's a big difference between generating revenue, and "making money" - It's not that they haven't generated income, but that income is offset by the additional support costs the platform has demanded. Where did your dollar go? We spent about 20% of our total man-hours last year dealing with Android in one way or another - porting, platform specific bug fixes, customer service, etc. I would have preferred spending that time on more content for you, but instead I was thanklessly modifying shaders and texture formats to work on different GPUs, or pushing out patches to support new devices without crashing, or walking someone through how to fix an installation that wouldn't go through. We spent thousands on various test hardware. These are the unsung necessities of offering our apps on Android. Meanwhile, Android sales amounted to around 5% of our revenue for the year, and continues to shrink. Needless to say, this ratio is unsustainable.

From a purely economic perspective, I can no longer legitimize spending time on Android apps, and the new features of the market do nothing to change this. While this news may be disappointing, I hope people can accept that we've done everything we can reasonably do to bring our apps to as many potential players as possible, despite the obstacles.

http://mikamobile.blogspot.in/2012/03/our-future-with-android.html

 

[vulcanman]

It's pretty simple, development efforts are going to be focused on the ecosystem that brings in the money. When you're talking about tablets, not only are there a lot more iPad users out there, but each iPad user on average is going to spend more on apps than Android tablet users.

From a post by Mika Mobile on why they're giving up on supporting Android:



http://mikamobile.blogspot.in/2012/03/our-future-with-android.html

Wow. He lays it out in the open. I believe that most of the fault lies with Google because they have been rather preoccupied trying to win elsewhere (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225195/Former_Google_exec_rips_new_more_social_Google).

Google is absolutely responsible for not laying out proper ground rules with regard to hardware. No wonder some of the manufacturers are frustrated and are trying to come up with their own tablet OS.

 

[Mopetar]

Maybe things have changed recently, but for a long while paid apps weren't any option in many countries through the Android Marketplace. That may explain some of their problems generating revenue if they didn't want to put advertising in their game.

 

[Bateluer]

It's pretty simple, development efforts are going to be focused on the ecosystem that brings in the money. When you're talking about tablets, not only are there a lot more iPad users out there, but each iPad user on average is going to spend more on apps than Android tablet users.

From a post by Mika Mobile on why they're giving up on supporting Android:
http://mikamobile.blogspot.in/2012/03/our-future-with-android.html

With regards to Mika Mobile, it didn't help much that their Android apps hadn't been updated in 9 months, were the visual equivalent of an Atari 2600, and were riddled with bugs. That doesn't inspire confidence when I'm shopping.

Towards the PCMag article, some of the apps look better on Android, going by the screen shots. College Humor, for example, far better looking and usable on Android.

Now, the Facebook and Twitter apps have always sucked on Android. Even after several major releases and revisions, the official Facebook app blows. And because their API and backends are so bade, even 3rd party apps have serious problems. At least we've got a healthy choice of Twitter clients available, Plume is my current favorite. But there's also Seesmic, TweetDeck, TweetCaster, etc. Good options. For a company with the resources of Facebook, such an app is inexcusable. This is a company with a major development team, not two guys in a basement.

 

[preslove]

I always just used the facebook desktop site on my transformer. I liked that better than the iPad app.

 

[Anubis]

so looking at this sideshow again - its pretty much a wash, some are better on A some are better on B. many are the same, and this isn't "androids" fault, its the ap devs for the specific aps being lazy

1) CBS - this could be argued either way, so you want text or graphics
2) College Humor - Android wins much easier to use and find things quickly
3) CNN - same
4) ESPN - this one you can argue either way, the android one is amazing if all you want is the score/box score it loads super fast and simply works. IOS gives you more, but you may not want more, there is another ESPN ap for stories on android
i use the ESPN ap daily on phone and tab, ive never found it lacking and looking at the IOS version i DO NOT want it turned into that

5) i didn't even know there wan an ebay app, the IOS one looks better TBH
6) facebook, the only real difference is that the IOS one pops up the damn messenger list which I hate, so it wastes space, i consider the messenger list a waste of coding - after the last update the 2 aps are very similar
7) TBS - ok the android one looks like crap
8) twitter - who uses the stock client there are a million better ones
9) VEVO - meh it doesnt use all the space, sticl works and looks fine - non issue
10 wiki - mot even sure why there is an ap the mobile site works fine

 

[arod]

I would say overall the ios app store is more consistent than android in tablet app stores... but really don't think ios is that impressive. There is still a very stark contrast between iphone and ipad when it comes to app stores.

I personally think most apps are unnecessary when mobile websites get good enough to have the app functionality (once html5 matures some more and becomes the standard everywhere).

 

[Lyfer]

One reason why I like my IPad is because of the educational apps. They just don't compare on android. Except the kindle/nook, all android manufacturers are just selling hardware with someone else's software.

 

[dagamer34]

You have to go back to see what made Android popular. Was it because it was far superior to iOS and everyone just LOVED their Android devices? Absolutely not. Carriers just pushed Android phones because they were cheap, forced people to get data plans, and made them a ton of money. And even today with all the pre-loaded software and cheaper subsidy, a carrier would rather sell you an Android phone than an iPhone if they had the choice.

This situation does NOT exist in tablets where most people don't even see the need for a tablet. However, should they have some disposable income, there is no limitation to owning the iPad over other Android tablets. As such, developers go where the users (and hopefully money) is.

With Windows 8 lurking around at the end of the year, if Google doesn't get its act together about getting developers to build compelling tablet apps, they are doomed.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Does one really need apps for viewing friggin' web pages?
Why does one need a dedicated Facebook, College Humour or CNN "app" to access what is essentially a website, best suited for "desktop view" anyway???

Otherwise, the article says "Of course, there are entire categories of apps found on Android tablets but not on the iPad. Real alternate Web browsers. Widgets. Classic game emulators requiring illegally obtained ROMs. BitTorrent clients. Alternative app stores. What all of those categories have in common, though, is that they're for tweakers. Geeks. Experts. The kinds of people who are likely to be reading this article, to be sure, but not the mainstream consumer."

In other words, it's a rehash of the same old, tired Apple vs. Windows fight. Apple is once again capitalizing on people who have no idea how their machine works ("it's magic!"). Booo-hoooo!

 

[MrX8503]

Does one really need apps for viewing friggin' web pages?
Why does one need a dedicated Facebook, College Humour or CNN "app" to access what is essentially a website, best suited for "desktop view" anyway???

Because you use a tablet on a smaller screen with a finger, while on a desktop you use a larger screen with a mouse. These are two different experiences. Web designers and developers out there are trying to make the experiences better for everyone by creating mobile friendly web sites.

If you visit a site frequently on a mobile device, its mobile app trumps the website version almost every time.

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

You have to go back to see what made Android popular. Was it because it was far superior to iOS and everyone just LOVED their Android devices? Absolutely not. Carriers just pushed Android phones because they were cheap, forced people to get data plans, and made them a ton of money. And even today with all the pre-loaded software and cheaper subsidy, a carrier would rather sell you an Android phone than an iPhone if they had the choice.

This situation does NOT exist in tablets where most people don't even see the need for a tablet. However, should they have some disposable income, there is no limitation to owning the iPad over other Android tablets. As such, developers go where the users (and hopefully money) is.

With Windows 8 lurking around at the end of the year, if Google doesn't get its act together about getting developers to build compelling tablet apps, they are doomed.

Google is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Without apps they cant sell hardware. But without a large install base, nobody wants to make apps for Android.

The only thing they can do is what has been rumoured. Release a cheap 149-199 dollar tablet to get a large install base and hopefully the apps will start coming. Once they do it will be easier for everyone else to start selling hardware. I think this battle will be between Google and Microsoft, Apple has their own slice of the pie

 

[theeedude]

I am on TP running CM9, and all I can say is I am very happy with it. Maybe I am not an app guy, more of internet junkie. I do have enough games on it to stay entertained on long trips.

 

[theeedude]

Google is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Without apps they cant sell hardware. But without a large install base, nobody wants to make apps for Android.

The only thing they can do is what has been rumoured. Release a cheap 149-199 dollar tablet to get a large install base and hopefully the apps will start coming. Once they do it will be easier for everyone else to start selling hardware. I think this battle will be between Google and Microsoft, Apple has their own slice of the pie

I think Google will own the low price tablet market, and the battle will be between Apple and Microsoft for the $500 tablets. Google can subsidize Android, MS needs to make money off Windows.

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

Thats very possible. Im still not entirely sold on Windows 8 though. MS better have a huge marketing campaign to differentiate the two versions

I can see John Doe walking in and buying a 500 dollar Windows ARM tablet only to realize most of his legacy apps wont work on it. Not to mention the overall confusion of being able to go to desktop mode but not being able to install anything

They never should have allowed it on the ARM version, should have been only Metro.

 

[smartpatrol]

I think Google will own the low price tablet market, and the battle will be between Apple and Microsoft for the $500 tablets. Google can subsidize Android, MS needs to make money off Windows.

All I can say to Google is "good luck". They're heading for a race to the bottom against Kindle and Nook. I honestly don't see how Google can compete on price vs. B&N and Amazon. Those two can both likely subsidize their hardware far more than Google can.