iPads versus oranges: Product comparisons in a post-PC age

By Jonny Evans

Apple's [AAPL] new iPad 2 ad is part product push and part post-PC philosophy. In it, the company sketches its belief that what matters in this era is capability, not component specs. OK, that's the theory, but how do we develop a language to use to assess competing products? If it isn't components that count, then what does? What are the measurable comparisons that could help give a picture of potential user experience if we leave component-based feature comparisons out of the loop.

Apple's argument reflects a notion that component-based feature comparisons don't always reflect the user experience. There's plenty of examples to suggest this may be the case, three examples:

• Who cares if a tablet has a super-long battery life if there's no Apps or media available to it?
• Does Flash support really mean anything if the only things the tablet you're using can handle in the format are those Flash ads, rather than any of the more engaging media on the Web?
• When a fast processor spends most of its energy running the operating system while trying to deconstruct data from the graphics chip, is the processor really boosting the user experience when compared to a more integrated solution?

There's other examples. That's because electronics devices aren't just a sequence of component specs tied together in an otherwise completely equal chain. There's a plethora of design decisions which can impact performance and usability. Two tablets could be manufactured using exactly the same components, but small design decisions along with the design decisions inherent within the OS deployed can mean one tablet will perform significantly better than another -- even when what's inside is the same.

What's clear is that discussing tablets in the post-PC era requires we consider the implications of hardware design, software implementation and intuitive user interface behaviors.

[This story is from Computerworld's Apple Holic blog. Follow on Twitter or subscribe via RSS to make sure you don't miss a beat.]

Why is this?

Some examples might include: Device build quality, quality of the interconnects and of the printed circuit board, heat dissipation, power management, enabled system cycles, graphics processor tweaks, enabled and disabled modules at a micro-electronic level, operating system and hardware integration tweaks, memory quality, flash drive capacity, the speed of data retrieval from additional data sources such as SD cards, if supported, and the impact of this on performance, the distance between components....

This has always been the case when it comes to consumer electronics. LCD displays are manufactured to different grades, for example, while for many Linux and Windows users the attraction of being able to assemble a uniquely-configured super-powerful system is reason enough to stick with the chosen OS.

When dealing with integrated devices which are inherently non-upgradable such as tablets, then perhaps there's a case to say the technical specifications matter less, and the user experience and actual abilities of a device matter much more.

So if Apple is right, then what language should we use to enable a fair comparison between any competing tablets and an iPad? Let's assume technical specifications are part of the discussion, but given the difficult decisions you need to make to create optimized performance in micro-electronic compact devices, what other comparisons should be made?

Touchscreen performance

My first-gen iPhone is sluggish sometimes. I put this down to its age, software and incredibly clumsy owner. I don't like it when I try to input a command and the device doesn't listen. Given that most tablet devices are operated by touch, it seems a no-brainer to consider that one future comparison point between devices could (or should) be the speed of touchscreen response. That way if one device responds accurately to commands within 0.001 second and another takes 0.0008 seconds, then we can determine an actual user experience difference between the two devices.

Operating system

How do we assess the differences between operating systems? And what difference can an OS make? Here, Apple's OS has the distinct advantage to being custom-made to run on a limited number of hardware configurations. This gives Apple the chance to implement system-level tweaks to get the best out of the specific components used in its devices. Competing operating systems may not be able to boast about this, as they may be made to run on numerous different hardware configurations, with no chance to optimize for the configuration the OS is on.

This raises the question: How do we assess the effectiveness of a specific OS on the host hardware? Perhaps a grading system in which near-perfect optimization ranks a 1, while poor optimization ranks 5 could comprise part of the language of post-PC criticism?

App Support

It is clear that part of the iPad's success has been created by the evolution of Apps for the device. There's thousands of these, any one of which can turn the tablet into a completely different device. An iPad can be a piano, a scrabble board, a music system or video capture, editing and distribution device, for example. Apps let you take your light personal PC-anywhere gadget and use it for purposes that weren't even imagined when the product was developed.

All tablet-makers now seem to agree that offering access to a wide number of Apps is essential to make a tablet worth buying. As the market share for all the different device platforms grows, we're likely to see some homogenization here -- eventually you'll be able to pick up most of the most important Apps from every platform's App Store.

App Support isn't just about App Stores. This is an ecosystem. Other App-related questions might include:

• How frequently is the developer software updated?
• What is the learning curve for software development?
• How often is the device software updated?
• What is the upgrade path?
• What is the expected life-cycle in which a product will be supported?
• What are the security and rogue-App removal policies of the different platforms?
• How easy-to-install, affordable and accessible are Apps and their App Stores?

When it comes to App markets, comparisons are rather more complex than simply asking how many Apps are available to a platform, or how many developers are addressing a platform. After all, if 999 of the top 1,000 Apps are available on all platforms, then the base experience is fairly equal. Though the existence of those unique niche-based Apps is key to the personal nature of post-PC devices, so numbers still count to some extent.

Can the App ecosystem also be measured by a grading system? If so, then how can one develop a system flexible enough to accurately and representatively assess and contrast all the differing App Store approaches?

The corporate mix

How well does a device integrate with existing corporate systems? Is Exchange support included at an OS-level, or must it be implemented through licensed bespoke App development? How secure is the device, how frequently is device security upgraded, how many communication protocols can a device support, and how secure are these? How widely used is the tablet in corporate situations?

Consumer users benefit from corporate adoption. More powerful device security implementations make for more secure consumer experiences. Conversely, mass market adoption of a device also makes that device more likely to be used in corporate markets, as this report informs.

User experience

We have the devices and the Apps, how easy are the devices to use? What levels of engagement do consumers typically enjoy when using their devices? What feedback to users give for their device? How much time do these things get used each day?

User experience is also about the interface. How easy is this to learn? Does it have foibles, if so, what? Are there some things a specific device on a specific platform does better than can be done on other devices. Is Flash an asset when it impacts system performance? How does the device interact with other platforms? How does the device interact with other devices, for example cloud-based storage systems, other computers, and/or smartphones?

Retail reach

How available is a device? As disappointing Xoom sales already show, creating a good device is only part of the play, manufacturers also need to bring their device to market, and, being that the market is quite young, they must also find ways in which to demonstrate use of the device to curious consumers. Apple's retail store helps it in this mission.

Re-sale price

Re-sale price can be considered a strong measure of consumer confidence in a device or platform. That consumer confidence also reflects the user experience of a device. Of course, it's far too early in the evolution of the tablet market to make a firm assessment as to a criteria for measuring re-sale prices, but it is certainly a consideration customers could consider thinking about before investing in a new device.

And price

Price will always be part of the equation and is likely to remain a key comparison for some time to come.

I'm certain there's other indicators that should be looked at, and I think it is important to consider what these might be, and how to measure them. This is because if Apple is right about the post-PC age then we require a language by which to define it, and if Apple is wrong, then we still need to develop consistent criteria from which to assess the emerging army of tablet devices.

What do you think are the key measurements or experiences that can be used to make objective buying decisions when comparing different tablets? I'm anxious to hear what you have to say, and I'd welcome your input in comments below. And, of course, I'd be honored if you chose to follow me on Twitter so I can let you know when new reports get published here first on Computerworld.