Google Preparing iPad Rival? 397
dazedNconfuzed noted an update in the ongoing rumor train about the Google iPad Competitor. It would be based on Android (not ChromeOS) and supposedly Eric Schmidt was telling people about it at a party in LA recently. If any Googlers want to leak me s3cr3t information, I promise anonymity, though without an actual product, price or date it's tough to get really excited. But the iPad clearly has significant limitations that someone else can capitalize on.
google ipad (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've put that on my watch list. I want to see if any of these actually get delivered. In theory it wouldn't be hard to for a Chinese manufacturer to build the hardware and port Android to it. Based on the ebay username (lifengsihai), and the fact that it's shipping out of Hong Kong, this looks like what is happening.
It should be noted that this device ships, supposedly, with Android 1.6. If that's true I wonder if it's possible to upgrade it to 2.1?
I also wonder about it's 3G support. I mean "built-in 3G HD
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Surely you mean the WePad [neofonie.de]
So we took a seriously stylish, state-of-the art media tablet and put a whole lot of fun in it. With the WePad, you can browse the Internet, watch YouTube, check your e-mail, chat with friends on Facebook, and much, much more. You can even get some work done, if you absolutely must. Most importantly, we created an open system, so that everyone can participate.
We built a platform based on two established, well-known technologies, Android and Linux, meaning that software developers can dream up apps for anything you may want to do with your WePad (and even some things you might never have dreamed possible yourself). It's quick and simple - and needless to say, any app that already exists for Android also runs on the WePad. Right out of the box.
ok, you can only pre-order it, but surely those crazy Germans aren't touting vapourwar (apparently the grad unveiling is at a show in May, cost 449.
wrong spin (Score:4, Insightful)
a device with those specs and 3G would be receiving much more noise than, well... none
Well, clearly it's the wrong story. "Company releases new multi-touch tablet device with accelerometers and 3g capabilities." That thing fizzles at the gate.
"Apple releases magical and revolutionary device with mindblowing features. It will change the future of media and the planet, and it's glory will echo throughout eternity!" Send out the skin tight girl jeans, put on some popular music and a novel graphic overlay. Hey, you just made a billion dollars!
That's why you need marketing departments. They are depraved human beings, but someone has to polish the turds.
Re:wrong spin (Score:5, Informative)
"Magical and revolutionary" I guess doesn't score high on your bullshitometer. Isn't it funny how people develop blinders for brand loyalty?
http://www.apple.com/ipad/ [apple.com]
iPad
A magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price.
Starting at $499
Re:wrong spin (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I would feel happy if I had it, and people are willing to pay for happiness.
THAT is why the iPad will be a success.
People just don't understand what happiness is. They'll trade twenty or thirty hours of work for an iPad, but not take that time off to spend with family. And don't think the marketing departments aren't aware of this fact - that's why their job is to make you believe in their narrative and fantasies, by cramming your whole world full of lies and pretty pictures.
The iPad will be a huge success, though. Just like cigarettes, cheeseburgers, and reality television.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -Mark Twain
zenPad (Score:3, Informative)
Could be the Enzo zenPad. Pure vapourware.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/09/ensos-zenpad-is-vaporware-get-refunds-while-they-last/ [engadget.com]
Apple, Google, Microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's really newsworthy here is that the competition is between Apple and Google, Microsoft is nowhere to be found. It's temping to declare that their relevance has hit a new low. Competition is good, regardless of which side you're on, but it's really, really nice to see Microsoft no longer be competitive in a market.
Re:Apple, Google, Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if "Microsoft maintains its 30-year tradition of not entering the consumer PC market" really counts as "newsworthy."
No Windows Mobile tablet (Score:2)
What's really newsworthy here is that the competition is between Apple and Google, Microsoft is nowhere to be found.
I don't know if "Microsoft maintains its 30-year tradition of not entering the consumer PC market" really counts as "newsworthy."
I think it has more to do with the wholesale rebranding of Windows Mobile as an operating system for phones, not tablets or smartbooks [wikipedia.org]. Microsoft used to have an OS for smartbooks [wikipedia.org] but abandoned it.
Re:Apple, Google, Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)
you're not looking hard enough. Apple and Google both license ActiveSync from Microsoft. Every iphone, ipod touch and ipad has a fully licensed ActiveSync client that you pay for even if you don't use Exchange email. all the iSecurity features Apple hypes are just ActiveSync features and MS code. iPhone OS 4 is going to support Exchange 2010.
Google licenses it as well, but so far only for Google Docs. if this iGoogle pad will have document transfer then it will be MS code and patents running it. a lot of people do buy Touchdown from the marketplace which is a fully licensed ActiveSync client
Nowhere to be found? (Score:2)
Um... Nowhere to be found? [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Microsoft release a portable music device?
That said, I agree that, similar to what nomadic said above, "Microsoft continues to stay out of tablet hardware market" isn't exactly newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Microsoft release a Tablet PC?
The same reason they released Zune, because nobody else has had success against Apple using MS supplied software.
Of course, the Zune failed, so you do kind of have a point.
The only way to compete (sans monopoly) with Apple is to control the whole widget. Unfortunately, that's not the whole equations (c.f., Palm, Zune).
It's kind of funny when you think of it, how MS does their best to make the best software out there, then leave it up to the PC manufacturers to complete the other half of the computer. Or loo
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
Really hoping this rumor is true - not that I need to buy another "pad" device (yes, I stood in line for an iPad) - but I'd really like to see how the Closed vs. Open platform models play out. Best case: Apple revises its Closed stance in response to a thriving gPad ecosystem.
I really like my iProducts, but having been a proponent of open platforms for so long I am uneasy at the tight hold Apple holds over developers and users.
For example, why hasn't Apple approved the Opera Mini yet? I'd welcome a choice in browsers, personally.
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think either will "win." They are two worlds with two different goals.
Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
People will choose based on what is important to them.
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The issue isn't so much that geeks weren't the target audience, but that they are specifically excluded. There's a big difference between marketing it to a user set, and locking out a user set (which is what they've done)... How else can you rationalize the inability to install apps from outside of the app store (even if it involved purchasing an "unlock" code from Apple)? There is so much that Apple
Re: (Score:2)
At face value, that's all true. But it also misses a very important part of the bigger picture. It's those "nerds", tweakers, and hackers that push the state of the art which we all end up enjoying. Sometimes there's really sudden, disruptive change. But often that disruption comes from a series of small hacks that stack up in ways central gatekeepers never foresee or approve of. And that means that even the stereotypical parents, grandparents, and sisters can benefit even if they don't even understan
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the "nerds", tweakers, and hackers usually push the state of the art for other "nerds", tweakers, and hackers. Very rarely have they done so so in a way that benefits "ordinary folks". Look at the state of Linux on the desktop. It's great for us, but despite what anybody says, it doesn't have the level of usability (different from eyecandy, looks, etc) that would prevent tech support calls to me from my mom. Therefore, we have two different markets with varying degrees of overlap. Nothin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Apple targets people who aren't really interested in doing anything that Apple doesn't allow. They're not interested in the people who bought the original Apple or Macintosh computers.
That's fine. They're a successful company that now makes a fortune from limiting peoples' options.
But do you understand that the Internet and personal computing were made by people who reject
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But do you understand that the Internet and personal computing were made by people who reject that approach? The people who made Apple a success in the first place are people who probably formatted the hard drive on their new Macs within at most a day or so. The first place we looked was extensions or control panel or settings. If people like that wanted somebody to hand us a sealed black box and be grateful that it just "works" (as long as "works" means "things that Apple thinks you should be doing").
Yes and no. I have an iPhone. I like my iPhone. I haven't even jailbroken my iPhone. Why? Because I'm really not all that interested in hacking my phone. My computers are every kind of weird hack jobs, with dual boots and virtual machines and such, but not so much my phone. It does what I need it too, and I don't really "work" on it. I don't need it to have an IDE and three different web browsers. I don't need root access to it. It's a phone. Sometimes I read a web site on it if I'm bored or need
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
So Apple targets people who aren't really interested in doing anything that Apple doesn't allow. ... They're a successful company that now makes a fortune from limiting peoples' options.
What's amazing to me is how persistent this meme is on Slashdot, of all places.
I bought *my* mac because it came with gcc, perl, apache, CUPS, and X-windows pre-installed on an open source Unix kernel. As a result, I could install just about anything on it.
You'd think that would count for something around here.
For those of you who haven't beaten yourself with a cluestick recently, the closed platform is not Apple; it is iTunes. This is Apple's variant of Xbox Live or Playstation Network, nothing more. You want onto an online media service that is integrated with your hardware, pick one of these, buy the appropriate gadget, and quit your whining. Want an online media service that doesn't integrate with your hardware, then get a multi-purpose computer, roll up your sleeves, and roll your own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. That would be as absurd as shipping a Unix shell with a consumer operating system
This is a twisted anti-elitist argument (Score:5, Interesting)
It is utterly ironic that the debate about openness has been twisted into one of elites vs honest folk. These anti-elistist sentiments are so powerful they drive much of American politics and scientific backlash (e.g. creationism). Moreover, Apple - long seen as the maker of elitist products for snobbish users - has been recast as the ally of the common man (or grandmother). If I were a PR manager for Apple I could not hope to do better.
There is definitely a strong strand of elitism among technical folk, from the the old idea that users are losers to the incredible resistance to ease-of-use I remember from the 1990s ("If they can't use a command line I don't want them using my software). A lot of technology really is obtusely designed; the people who get frustrated (which is to say all of us) are not stupid. Tying the open vs closed debate to this experience of disrespect and frustration, and the wider discourse of elite domination by entities from bankers to bureaucrats, is very effective for evoking (legitimate) emotional responses, passing over the need to make thorough arguments.
Because the linkage is wrong. There is no necessary connection between something being open and it being hard to use. The iPad is easy to use and it is relatively closed. That is correlation, not causation. Apple is simply very good at designing (and marketing) the user experience. This ability seems to be rare among its competitors.
There is a historical precedent for a more open system that turned out to be easier to use than what it (partly) replaced. You allude to it in your post. The Web was a huge step up in intuitive usability compared to the desktop software that had previously performed many of its functions. It was also a huge step up in terms of capability (compare searching Wikipedia to searching Britannica). And it is open. Too open, in fact, for the iPad and its prohibitions on running interpreted code. Fortunately for today, it is already established and was granted a special exemption. If the iPad lockdown had been the norm 20 years ago, the Web might never have been invented. If lockdown is the norm in the future, the next huge improvement in usability and functionality might not happen.
I am fully confident that Apple has the talents to develop an easy-to-use and open system. (After all, my computers are Macs.) But the temptation for control is hard to resist. Especially when you can remake yourself as the computer of the people with that wonderful anti-elistism PR.
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms (Score:5, Funny)
Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
People will choose based on what is important to them.
That's the most succinct and accurate synopsis of these two companies I've ever seen. Give this man a cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he got one when he logged in
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not sure that's as accurate as you say.
I think "People will buy what they're told to buy" is a better way to put it. Very little "choice" is involved. There's a reason that companies like Apple spend more on marketing than R&D. Because marketing "just works". Even if (or maybe especially if) you're someone who believes that advertising "doesn't really affect me" and that you're immune to marketing. I hear that a lot around here, and advertis
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya, that's what marketing people say to keep them with an income.
Please explain why then, when xbox and ps3 advertise equally, some would pick one over the other. Why is that that display a lot of Long John Silvers commercials, I never go to eat there?
Marketing works in that it lets people know of a products existence.. beyond that I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the almighty "user experience". The problem is that Apple will compromise developer flexibility on a whim.
An actual genuine engineering rationale would be one thing. However, the faithful are just searching for any excuse they can find. If some stupid restriction was a sound engineering tradeoff yesterday, then it was also that same thing when the product was first launched. Adding new restrictions is just acting in bad faith.
Apple built it's power and now is seeking to dispose of those th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think that's a bit over simplified. If that were the case than 90% of people would have Macs and geeks would be the only people with PCs. The real factor is that open platforms are cheaper. That is why the Mac lost the PC in the past. Apple tried to control the hardware and software with huge markeups. The PCs came in with competition and thin margins so they advanced faster and became more efficient lowering costs even more. Monopolies breed inefficincies because there is no reason to improve. App
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
I wouldn't put it that way.
Apple's model is to ensure you have the experience Apple wants you to have. Naturally they want you to have a good experience.
Google's model is to provide an open system with maximum connectivity to data sources and services.
Microsoft's model is to cater to decision makers higher up on the food chain than the user: IT managers, cell carriers, and developers. They get lots of criticism for their product design, but in fact it's not as incompetent as users think. Users aren't the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that will ever happen.
For better or worse, Apple is married to closed systems. In fact, I'd make a significant bet that we'll be seeing future desktop and laptop products from Apple that are also locked into the app store. Apple has staked its future on the notion that people don't really want to do anything with their systems that's outside the realm of what Apple will allow.
Those of us that like to be able
Re: (Score:2)
I think I agree with you. The main thing that bothers me about Apple's approach to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad is the restricted nature of the application distribution. It's bad enough that they force you to go through their App Store, but even worse when their approval process seems self-serving.
Even so, I could cut Apple some slack for wanting to exhibit some control over their platform in order to ensure a good experience; having the app store lets them filter out horrible applications and malwar
Re: (Score:2)
> apps loaded on device, 1 touch button to access a host of other apps that
> install just as quckly, and have been verified to work on the device.
Sounds like a Unix package manager actually.
Not terribly revolutionary, magical, or original.
OTOH, at least one of those nasty chaotic Macs will allow me to install a
non broken web browser or an application that plays just about any video
file you can dredge up.
Re: (Score:2)
People are sick of jumping through hoops for technology and I suspect that developers will go where the users are. Now I'm not saying that open platforms need to be hard to use, but it is too often the case right now.
Fantastic! (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple revives a ten year old niche that no one really liked for reasons that are still entirely relevant, and now it is speculated that Google will compete with a Google-style "open" alternative. It was interesting when their battle was over smartphones, but when it is over shoveling out pointless generic consumer electronics, it is not.
Re:Fantastic! (Score:4, Interesting)
One could have said similar things about consumer smart phones before the iPhone was released. I don't think anyone would have predicted before the iPhone release that we'd have 50 million iPhones sold, plus tens of millions of other devices riding off of its popularity, many powered by Google's mobile OS. Four years ago, something like the iPhone would have been called "pointless consumer electronics" too, pointing out the failure of the PDA market. I see no reason why we couldn't see a repeat in the tablet market.
I have no doubt Google has at the very least explored a direct rival in the tablet space.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a preposterous assertion. Four years ago, just as six years ago, and ten years ago, the emphasis was on pushing more features and more technologies into phones. The iPhone was not a revolutionary device, it was an evolutionary one. No one would have called it a pointless consumer electronics device, and no one would have pointed to a market which failed in large part to a lack of features which are integral to the smart phone. Nor is it at all pertinent to suggest that people would point to a dead ma
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's chasing Apple's formfactor and design concept. Just like how everyone's chased Palm's formfactor back in the 90's and early 00's.
That's a revolution. When you do something and everyone follows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of vague assertion is that? "Form factor" and "design concept"? The "form factor" is an obvious, logical concept that was carried over from.. PDAs and tablets! Apple didn't invent the concept of a touch input device. As for design concept, that's such a non-argument that I don't even know where to start.
It's an evolution. It's not a revolution.
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple revives a ten year old niche that no one really liked for reasons that are still entirely relevant, and now it is speculated that Google will compete with a Google-style "open" alternative. It was interesting when their battle was over smartphones, but when it is over shoveling out pointless generic consumer electronics, it is not.
Just because a 'niche' is old, it doesn't mean it is pointless. Sometimes old technology can be reshaped and innovated upon, providing a solution that finds a market today when it didn't in the past. There are reasons that technologies fail, including lack of maturity, market not being ready or lack of supporting technologies. The Wii Remote was laughed at for being a modern light pointer, now Microsoft and Sony are doing their best to emulate it. You can't simply right off technology as being old and thus irrelevant.
Microsoft didn't succeed with tablet PCs, partly because like Windows CE, they were trying to shoe-horn a desktop UI into something that would benefit from an adapted UI. To use the automobile analogy: you don't design a car by starting with boat that uses an outboard motor. Computers are the same.
Biggest iPad Limitation: No HTML Editing (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an iPad. I liked it, until I tried to compose a blog post. Mobile Safari doesn't support content-editable fields.
Typing HTML code into textareas in order to compose blog posts and web pages is NOT fun. Google Docs doesn't work. and rich HTML in Gmail or other webmail services doesn't work. There are HTML editor apps, but that doesn't mean what I think it means, because they are all code editors not rich text editors.
The bottom line is that Apple supports rich text output in PDF and proprietary formats, but not HTML. Not even a little bit.
Everyone has their own priorities, of course, but until Mobile Safari supports tinyMCE and other rich text editors, I have to consider the iPad a toy. Then again, it's perfect for posting on Slashdot! (And it even supports unicode, so why should I complain?)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an iPad. I liked it, until I tried to compose a blog post. Mobile Safari doesn't support content-editable fields.
I'm not arguing with you, but could you clarify that statement a bit? I've made Slashdot posts using Mobile Safari on a demo iPad at an Apple Store so it is possible to use text entry fields, at least.
Re:Biggest iPad Limitation: No HTML Editing (Score:5, Informative)
Content-editable is the standard that allows rich text HTML editing. You get a textarea with support for WYSIWYG HTML composition. Slashdot doesn't use it, but most blogs do.
Safari has supported it for years, but Mobile Safari doesn't, because it wasn't really needed on the iPhone. The iPad, OTOH, is pitched as a composition device.
The lack of support is frustrating if you use Blogger or WordPress or any decent Content Management Systen.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, thanks, I get what you mean now. Seems like a fairly large omission for the iPad.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes [wordpress.org] and yes. [blogger.com] WP also has a version for the iPad and it looks great.
Re: (Score:2)
He means those javascripted WYSIWYG editor widgets, like: http://tinymce.moxiecode.com/examples/full.php [moxiecode.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you throw in the word "proprietary" just to sound cool? How does Apple support rich text output in proprietary text formats?
The on screen keyboard is not the best for long posts but I do quite well with bits like this, and even longer emails. In fact
I've gotten sort of quick at this on screen keyboard, only in landscape mode though.
Why don't Google docs work? Something short in mobile safari?
I did notice the particular type of editable field in Wordpress not being editable on my iPad but then just opene
tinyMCE? Thanks! (Score:2)
here (Score:2)
IPad Competition (Score:2)
Did anybody really think they wouldn't? Seriously, who was not expecting everybody who made an iPhone imitator not to make an iPad imitator? MS has already revamped and trying to re-advertise their tablet offerings. Still, I don't think what they get is that what they need is really not a tablet with WinOS, but a touch screen slate with a better OS designed to do what the device is supposed to do. I expect Android to come out with a larger version of the Droid. Since Palm is up for sale, I guess they probab
Archos 7 inch internet tablet (Score:3, Informative)
Archos has been making an Android based tablet for some time now well before the iPad came out. Of course Microsoft has been trying to sell various tablets for years since Pen Windows plus various WinCE devices, UMPCs, Windows XP tablets etc.. Universal reaction tablets are dumb and waste of money. Steve Job's throws on his magic turtleneck and tells everyone "This is a magical device. I am really proud of the team. I really think your going to love it." And people go stand in line to get a tablet. Umm so can we all just agree there is a certain group of people that will buy whatever Steve tells them they need and hype it for him endlessly? Sorry folks but you who behave this way represent an abnormality and are not really representative you are iPeople.
Re:Archos 7 inch internet tablet (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, no we can't.
You compare devices that keep trying to make a desktop OS on tablet HW work. A method which has previously failed several times. To a device that uses an OS from a popular cell phone that was designed from the ground up to be touch enabled.
While Android was designed for cell phone use. The interface was intentionally left wide open to make it usable on a wide range of HW. There's nothing wrong with that. I think it's great. Problem is that it allows different manufacturers to put their own UI on it which when combined with the variety of HW, makes it harder on developers to ensure that their software works as they intended on every device.
Usability will trump capability with consumers. No matter how "superior" the capabilities are. i.e. It's the interface stupid.
Re:Archos 7 inch internet tablet (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about any of your anti ranting. It's not about you, me, or "people that will buy whatever Steve tells them they need and hype it for him endlessly?".
It's about a pretty good product people want. Not your dreams or anyone elses particularly. There is no need to attempt to brand purchasers of a _thing_ a fanboy, a hero, or a sheep. It just is and this convo is a waste of energy.
It's (the iPad) a great little device, it doesn't blow smoke up my ass and it doesn't do everything but damn it has been nice to have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have an Archos 5 tablet (which is much smaller than the 7) and I am completely happy with it. Though it is locked down, it wasn't hard to unlock and have access to the whole library of Android apps. It also has GPS, which means I can use it to give directions in my car, track bicycle trips, use while hiking, etc. My only complaint is that the screen is glossy and unreadable outdoors, but an anti-glare protector fixed that. Oh and it had wifi included, connects and charges via USB, and *gasp* has a mic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm so can we all just agree there is a certain group of people that will buy whatever Steve tells them they need and hype it for him endlessly?
I think there is some truth to this, but it's more like "there is a certain group of people who have been so pleased with past/present Apple products that they'll be excited to try any new Apple products which are released."
That doesn't mean they're morons or sheep. I'm going to buy Portal 2 as soon as it comes out, but it's not because I'm mindlessly buying whatever Valve releases because I've been brainwashed. It's because I've loved all the Half Life games and think that Portal was one of the best thi
Android tablets have been here for a while (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you miss CES when a dozen Android tablets were announced? Did you not notice the multiple android tablets that were released this month and last month?
How come when Apple does something people take notice. But when a hundred others go through more traditional channels such as trade shows people who think they are industry insiders don't have a clue?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because those devices largely suck with no real thought put into optimising the experience of using what is essentially a giant PDA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! Slapping Android on a tablet is an easy answer and easy answers to hard problems never sold well.
Re:Android tablets have been here for a while (Score:4, Informative)
How is that any easier of an answer than slapping iPhone OS on a tablet?
Zekret knoliz (Score:3, Insightful)
I can tell you all there is to know. It will have 4 cameras, 2 on both side, for 3D video conferencing. Obviously the display is 3D as well. It will have a number of sniffers to detect chemicals. It has more than one so that you can easily detect who it was that farted in the elevator. A 3D holographic arrow will pop up to tell you! The sniffed data is used to automatically update your twitter and facebook accounts. It will have 4g, WiMax, WiFi, and Token Ring networking support. The touchscreen display can give tactile feedback, making an onscreen display feel like real. Obviously it has uses in internet porn as well.
Most importantly, the product is not only free, Google will pay you to use it. In return you will give Google the rights to all data the device collects or sends. In order to unlock the device though you have to brand the google logo on your buttocks.
Very questionable (Score:2)
If any Googlers want to leak me s3cr3t information, I promise anonymity
Looks like a very questionable idea, would probably break NDA, for one thing
Re: (Score:2)
Use this to promote Android (Score:2, Insightful)
don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
But the iPad clearly has significant limitations that someone else can capitalize on.
Yeah, less memory than a Nomad.
When was the last time that a /. opinion on anything counted for something? The track record of this community on what the greatest thing ever is and what will fail is not exactly stellar.
"Mothership" pad / netbook (Score:2)
I'd rather have Nokia or Intel (Score:2)
With MeeGo (the Moblin-Maemo offspring), surely we could have a tablet that was more open than the iPad and closer to a standard Linux to develop for than Android. You could have an OMAP or an Atom processor depending on your price / performance / power draw constraints. If Dalvik's VM etc ran on it you could even have Android applications. That'd be far more attractive to me, giving me access to more applications whilst still retaining advantages for development and openness.
Jobs: If you see a stylus or a task manager.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Jobs: If you see a stylus or a task manager, 'they blew it'
Google: If you see a proprietary, locked-down OS and App Store which may not support your model in three years, 'they [Apple] blew it'
There is so much potential to blow the iPad out of the water:
- Dual cameras for video Skyping,
- non-Integrated obsolescence (at least not having your hardware vendor determine what updates you get)
- Open App store
- Google voice / Apps.
Though I still think that the most open phone platform is still Maemo5/Meego. There are rumors to the affect that Nokia is also planning a tablet... But Nokia's execution has always left something to be desired. (In what they envision isn't want is actually delivered)
Great Linux tablets are coming (Score:3, Informative)
I don't care whether Google prepares an iPad rival. A whole bunch of new Linux tablets are coming, likewise a whole bunch of "smartbooks" (netbook computers with non-x86 processors).
I'm really excited about the nVidia Tegra 2 chip [anandtech.com]. Typical power dissipation of about 500 milliWatts, 8 cores: ARM7 "housekeeping" core, dual 1GHz ARM9 processing cores, audio core, graphics accelerator core, video encode core, video decode core, and "image processing" core (which will support a high-resolution camera). nVidia showed off prototype smartbooks with a Tegra 2 playing HD video, and claimed that the chip was dissipating 150 milliWatts; elsewhere I have seen 500 milliWatts as the typical number.
I'm also excited about the Pixel Qi [pixelqi.com] screen. That's the same display technology from the OLPC. A nice-looking display that dissipates 2 Watts when the backlight is on, and about 0.2 Watts with the backlight disabled. If you want to sit outside in the bright sun, you turn the backlight off and you get a nice, readable, sharp display that's very suitable for ebooks and web surfing, but you could watch movies that way too if you wanted.
A typical Atom system dissipates 15 to 20 Watts [wikipedia.org] while operating. That's why netbooks need cooling fans. A Tegra 2/Pixel Qi system ought to have tremendous battery life, especially with the backlight off, and won't need a cooling fan. Win/win.
So, what I want is a tablet and a smartbook with a Tegra 2 and a Pixel Qi screen. I want Linux, but that's no problem, because Windows doesn't even run on a Tegra 2, and I don't think anybody is going to ship a Windows CE tablet. And I insist on a device with USB ports: I want to be able to plug in a keyboard, a mouse, a memory card reader, or USB storage devices.
I imagine that Acer and Asus will both ship products I will want. But the actual announced product I know about is the Notion Ink Adam [engadget.com] tablet: Tegra 2 chip, Pixel Qi screen, capacitive multitouch touchscreen, Android OS. It also has an intriguing feature: a trackpad on the back of the device, which allows you to use Flash applications that were designed for use with a mouse (you use a finger on the back to drag the cursor around, and tap on the front with your other hand to click the mouse). It also has a camera that can be flipped around to point at you, away from you, or in between. It was originally announced for June, but recent news casts doubt [engadget.com] on that.
By the way, one reason why tablets are the hot new form factor: people who see something that looks like a notebook computer expect it to run Windows, but people who see a tablet device have no expectations. So, there will probably be more tablets than smartbooks.
steveha
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The alternative is that they produce the HW themselves, but we saw what happens when they do that (Nexus One).
But Nexus One is manufactured by HTC
Quite the opposite (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is selling a phone with outdated hardware (screen size and type, low screen resolution, bad camera etc), while Android vendors continuously improve the hardware - look at Samsung Galaxy S specs, for example. The same will hopefully be true for android MIDs
By the way, I own nexus one, and with the right firmware (latest cyanogenmod with UV kernel), it's a great phone.
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, I own nexus one, and with the right firmware (latest cyanogenmod with UV kernel), it's a great phone.
That, to a large extent, is the problem. It's a perfectly reasonable thing for you to say, don't get me wrong, but 9/10 of the population would look at you and say, "Firmware? Is that some kind of new exercise plan? What do kernels have to do with it? Is their a corn diet too?"
I exaggerate only very slightly. iPhone continues to dominate the consumer smartphone space because people buy an iPhone and use it. Every so often iTunes pops up and tells you there's an OS update. It downloads and installs in a few minutes automatically like every other sync. Yeah, the major releases are sometimes a bit messy, but mostly it all just does what people expect it to, automatically.
If you get an app from the App Store it just work on your phone. No need to worry about which version of the OS is on it, whether your carrier has installed their own UI mods, or whether your phone supports the features. Even if your phone has some obvious missing feature, like a location based app on a first gen iPhone, the app works with the existing feature set and simply provides what information it can.
I'm not saying that the iPhone paradigm is better or worse. Certainly there is something to be said for flexibility and portability. When it comes to computers and electronics though, most people seem to prefer predictable and intuitive to flexible and portable. Ideally people want both, but we both know how easy that is to accomplish.
Re:Quite the opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worth noting, that Android having only been pushed for a few months (it's been out longer, but the big push was last Christmas season) it's catching up to iPhone in terms of market share very very quickly. People's preferences are often trumped by other factors - most notably - price. Android will come to dominate despite the chaos that surrounds it. This is a repeat of the Windows vs. Mac competition of the 80s, only this time it's Apple vs. Google (MS is playing the role of UNIX this round - perpetually behind/slow).
Another thing... (was: Re:Quite the opposite) (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine the situation like this:
Google would have brought out the ipad.
Afterwards Microsoft would ready its rival - trying to copy all the best things from the ipad.
Do you think MS would get the same positive (or even lukewarm) reception here? Nope - it would be 'Redmond's "innovating" (i.e. copying/stealing/plagiarising) again!!'...
But because this time it's google doing it: Hey! It's all fine! I hope it will have a bigger screen, better xyz, more foo-bar, additional ...
Note: I love linux - I have used it since early slackware days - but with the ipad, apple has done something, noone has succeeded at yet, and immediately we applaud if someone else tries to build a clone.
Note 2: The same, btw. is true between open and closed source. If closed-source comes up with something open source has done first - oohh - bad guys!
But when plex86 (first attempt at a vmware clone) was 'announced': "Yay! Go, open source!".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is selling a phone with outdated hardware (screen size and type, low screen resolution, bad camera etc), while Android vendors continuously improve the hardware - look at Samsung Galaxy S specs, for example.
Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market. Why do you suppose that is? It's because people don't care about spec sheets as much as you might think. They care about the only thing that truly matters, and that's the experiences having the device brings. No Android device can compete with the iPhone in that aspect, outside of a geek niche, regardless of specs.
And your specific list is fairly suspect:
1. Screen size: Some Android phones have larger screens. But this also means larger phones. It's a trade-off an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market. Why do you suppose that is?
Marketing mostly.... your average consumer has NO IDEA what android is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The picture is stunning, absolutely - except under sunlight (but then LCD screens don't fare much better there).
The thing drains battery like there's no tomorrow when in use, though. When checking battery usage by category on my N1, it always shows screen as >50%, and more often than not >60%, of all power consumption.
Sure, in theory, it's easier on the battery for dark backgrounds, but how many of those do you see when, say, browsing the Web, or using Google Maps?
Oh, and the screen isn't quite 800x48
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability. One of the fundamental design goals behind Android (after Google's acquisition of it) is that it be open (mostly) and hacker/tinker friendly. Cameras, folders, screens, multitasking, etc. None of these things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
I'd broaden this to 'choice'. You can choose what software you run on the Android AND you get a choice in who manufactures the device it runs on as well. There are multiple price/feature/network options to mix and match.
You spent considerable time pointing out how the platforms differ from device to device a few posts back, and somehow this fact eluded you? How so?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With the iPhone you have zero choice of hardware. You can choose Apple or nothing, which isn't any choice at all, is it?
Since Apple never intended their OS for use on non-Apple hardware, and since Google never intended Android to be exclusive, these are indeed inherent traits, by the definition of the word.
So, one important example of a thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is the choice between CDMA and GSM. I could go T-Mobile or Verizon and still have an Android device. Possib
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly: You have ONE vendor which has ONE telephone. As opposed to MULTIPLE vendors competing for a slice of the Android pie, eventually leading to divergence in the platform because each one wants to stand out from the rest. Then you end up with J2ME all over again.
Combined with manufacturers with MULTIPLE devices each targeted at a small-ish segment. But these devices cost money to research, design, manufacture, and this base cost needs to be split across the few-ish that sell of each model. For an added
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So to recap:
ONE phone for everyone with ONE OS = win.
MANY phones (because they think they have different target markets) with DIFFERENT OSes (because they think developers are fickle) = lose.
Eventually.
Welcome to 1981 [wikipedia.org]. Your name is IBM. Enjoy the next few decades. You'll do well for yourself in certain fields, but you're completely, totally wrong about what the consumer market wants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Apple never intended their OS for use on non-Apple hardware, and since Google never intended Android to be exclusive, these are indeed inherent traits, by the definition of the word.
This is part of tinkerability. You can put Android on whatever you want, including a PC.
If I buy a PC preloaded with Ubuntu, am I now tinkering?
Choice in hardware manufacturers is. If you want to break that out from tinkerability, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't really change anything.
Buying a shrink-wrapped product and using it without modification is never tinkering, period. This isn't being broken out to placate me personally. It is simply the proper uses of the words.
I think you're abusing the tinkering label to make your point, and I think you've gone so far with it as to strain logic.
As far as the bulk of your post discussing CDMA, that's not inherent to the iPhone, it's simply an implementation decision. There's nothing about the iPhone design or philosophy that precludes building a CDMA handset. In fact, the iPhone was originally offered to Verizon, to run on their CDMA network. But they turned it down.
The inherent philosophy behind the iPhone is, and has always been, 'the iPhone user experience'. Aka 'my way or the highway'. This specifical
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
tinker [reference.com] [ting-ker]
1. a mender of pots, kettles, pans, etc., usually an itinerant.
2. an unskillful or clumsy worker; bungler.
3. a person skilled in various minor kinds of mechanical work; jack-of-all-trades.
4. an act or instance of tinkering: Let me have a tinker at that motor.
5. Scot., Irish English.
a. a gypsy.
b. any itinerant worker.
c. a wanderer.
d. a beggar.
6. chub mackerel.
–verb (used without object)
7. to busy oneself with a thing without useful results: Stop tinkering with that clock and take it to the repair shop.
8. to work unskillfully or clumsily at anything.
9. to do the work of a tinker.
–verb (used with object)
10. to mend as a tinker.
11. to repair in an unskillful, clumsy, or makeshift way.
Put it this way...
Inigo Montoya [imdb.com]: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Unless anyone but Apple is an unskilled gypsy, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone/iPad is great because Apple owns every aspect of it.
iPhone/iPad is inadequte because Apple owns every aspect of it.
Re:Teh suXX0rs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Teh suXX0rs (Score:5, Insightful)
It also butchered it's own people by the 10's of millions.
Russia also wasn't quite as backwards as you're trying to make it out to be.
Their big problem was being a corrupt inbred aristocracy rather than being primitive.
Also, Russia put their first man in space the same way the US did: captured German rocket scientists.
Re:Teh suXX0rs (Score:5, Informative)
It has not. Simply by the fact that the USSR was able to sustain the population after the second world war. FYI the soviet losses in the WW2 were about 20 millions. The total population of the whole USSR was about 100 millions in 1920ies. If there really were tens of millions butchered then by 1945 the USSR would have a population of 50 millions or less. Frankly, it was not the case.
And yes, russian empire was as backwards as it gets.
The Russian populace at 1920 was around 137,727,000 , so you can quit lying.
On 26 January 1934 Joseph Stalin reported to the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party as one of the main achievements "Growth of population from 160.5 millions in the end of 1930 to the 168 millions in the end of 1933". On 1 December 1935 Joseph Stalin made a speech, on the Meeting of Kolkhozniks with the Soviet and Party leaders:
“ Everybody says that the material situation of workers has dramatically improved, that life has become better and more fun. It is of course true. But this has led the population to breed much faster than in the old days. The birth rate is higher, the death rate is lower and the pure population growth is far stronger. It is of course good and we welcome it. [Jolly murmurs in the auditorium.] Now every year we have a population growth of three million souls. It means that every year we grow as much as the whole of Finland. [Everybody laughs.] ”
Combining his reports, one could have expected to have a population of about 180 million in 1937.
Official statistics based on the registered birth and death rates implied that the 1937 census should show a population of 170-172 million. On 21 September 1935 Sovnarkom adopted a decision On the organization of registration of natural population changes most probably authored by Stalin
Stalin's population growth, meant that he enforced a change in the agrarian system - one that was implemented by force and was focused on the Kulaks and 'mechanised farming'
According to data from Soviet archives, which were published in 1990, 1,803,392 people were sent to labour colonies and camps in 1930 and 1931. Books say that 1,317,022 reached the destination. The remaining 486,370 may have died or escaped.
In the region of 24 million people, civilian and military were lost in WW2, but you can add in plenty there was killed by their own side, in the red human sausage machine.
Afterwards, millions were enslaved, and sent or killed by the regime, and stalin's words ever echo in the imphamy of history;
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic".
The butchering of people by the 10's of millions might be an expression too far, but millions fits, and thats before any expression about the misery caused to the rest of the populations involved in soviet misery
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#USSR [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_pogroms [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It lasted 50 years, and turned a backwards agrarian society into a world superpower and put the first man in space.
Pre Soviet Russia was not a backwards agrarian society, any more than other states were.
It was never a world super power, but it was a nuclear one, driven by fear after being driven by hate.
The soviets were so powerful, they signed a pact with Nazi Germany, and offered many congratulations to Hitler, each time he domino'd a single state, including france. And during this time it decided to get a bloody nose picking on Finland.
Afterwards, when the panzers rolled across these so called previous agrarian lands
Re:Teh suXX0rs (Score:5, Interesting)
Pre Soviet Russia was not a backwards agrarian society, any more than other states were.
I'm afraid that it was. The communist revolution leaders (e.g. Lenin, Trotsky) had to make major philosophical changes to Marx's theories to accommodate the fact that the bulk of the people were "peasants" and not "working class." It was under Stalin that the Soviet Union really industrialized.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, wrong. The Russian Empire was - compared to the rest of Europe - a backwards agrarian state with a huge percentage of illiterates, almost no industrial base (nearly all machines had to be imported from Britain and Germany), crazy cultists who've cutted off their own dicks and an absolute monarchy comparable to the French monarchy just before the revolution.
Re:Teh suXX0rs (Score:4, Informative)
What an interesting mismatch of fact, propaganda, and ignorance.
Where to start?
* Pre soviet Russia, was very backwards. Look at their performance in WW I where they showed up with ancient weaponry.
* It was a super power, no other way to describe a country that controlled half of the world, put the first man & satellite in space and was capable of destroying the world umpteen times over.
* Yes, it was a super power *AFTER* WW I, not before or during.
* And finally, being a super power doesn't mean you are a nice guy. If that's a requirement to super power, then yes it was not a super power.
I neither endorse nor condone any violent actions the Soviet Union performed during its history, but your account was just too messed up to leave un commented upon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if Apple could be bothered to climb down from their tower of money that they'd be happy to hear your ideas that should correct their obviously failed business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
5 also (Score:2)
It is their 5 and 7 Home tablets, not their Internet tablets.
Google Preparing Archos Rival? (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly - there are other tablets around, and there's no need to give free hype to Apple even when we're covering other products (for once) by calling them "iWhatever Rival/Killer/etc". It was bad enough with the Iphone (who cares about rivalling Apple, when there are loads of bigger companies in that market?) It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - these products aren't compared to Apple because of anything to do with Apple, it simply results from the media always comparing to Apple in the first place.
Or maybe we could just quit with the astroturfing and say "Google Preparing Tablet Computer". This is supposed to be a place for geeks - we know what products like mp3 players, phones and tablets are, without needing to be told in terms of brand names. (Was the news of Google releasing ChromeOS announced with "Google Preparing Windows Rival (or worse, OS X Rival)"? Was Firefox announced as being an "Internet Explorer Rival?" Was the first Iphone announced as being a "Windows Mobile Rival"?)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried using it outside?
Not saying you have or haven't, just curious.