IP Carrier is an excellent blog that focuses on new business models in telecom and related areas such as data. A recent story, "Is there a Tablet Killer App?", raised an interesting point not just about tablets but all computing devices.
From the early days of computing, a new device succeeded if there was a "killer app". A killer app was a software application that had such high utility that people bought the device to get the app. The classic killer app was the spreadsheet running on the PC. The conventional wisdom is that VisiCalc, Lotus 1,2,3 and Quattro Pro, the early spreadsheet apps, made the PC market. However, we all know that Microsoft Office, which integrated several useful apps, is the most profitable Microsoft product. What Microsoft realized is that the suite of productivity apps, and not a single product (app) was the way to satisfy the customer need. Effectively, Microsoft looked beyond the product and looked at what was the customer need. (Perhaps Microsoft's last great insight until they became a game company.)
This issue of looking at product and not the real customer need may explain the decline of BlackBerry. The "killer app" for Blackberry is generally considered to be email. However, email was available on PCs and the real benefit to the customer was reliable, remote access... to email. Reliable, remote access explains the popularity of BB Messenger in many developing countries where network quality is not good. Many people in such countries buy their Blackberry just for BB Messenger as a chat device. If Blackberry had realized that the way the device was used and not the app was important they might have dominated chat worldwide and not have their current problems.
If we now turn to the tablet, we should not be considering killer apps but rather why do people use the device. Fortunately there is no "killer app" on the tablet to confuse the analysis. In talking to hundreds of people about their tablet, nobody singles out a particular app consistently to explain their tablet purchase. The manufacturers all highlight their app stores but nobody ever says they bought an iPad because they can easily add new apps. Maybe early adopters mention such "geek nonsense" but typical users never mention it. What people typically cite is the interface and how everybody in the family can use the device--even two year olds. Maybe tablets are "family" entertainment devices or maybe they will become "childrens' connectivity devices".
When the tablet first emerged, Frog Design, the world renown design firm, said that the tablet was a new interface and not a new product (SF story, Frog Design article, both from March 2010). Frog focused on the customer and why they would use the device and not the device or its apps. This is the same point IP Carrier made in their story. It is a point that cannot be over emphasized. Understand the use case of the customer and not the product.
