How Google Can Make Android Truly Tablet-Worthy 168
With an Android armada on the horizon (or at least expected), reader androidtablet plugs this piece on ways Android could be truly tablet-friendly. Armchair engineering may be easy to knock, but I like the ideas presented here, such as aggressively using the inactive (locked) screen state to display useful information.
Features Android tablets need (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking I would offer some features an Android tablet might need. I made a list:
Share screen - for educational purposes
Ebook reader.
Internet browser
Citrix client
IRDA capture/replay (media remote control apps)
Skype
Apparently I'm not very creative. Those things and many thousands more are available in the standard package. Truly inventive stuff is offerred in the app store.
Focus (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be better for Google make Android 100% perfect as a phone OS before branching out into other areas?
Re:Focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Focus (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be better for Google make Android 100% perfect as a phone OS before branching out into other areas?
Why? Didn't stop Apple?
*Boom* *Boom* *High Hat*
Re:Features Android tablets need (Score:4, Insightful)
What Google should be doing is improving the speed and stability of the entire Android OS, most critically the Dalvik virtual machine. For crying out loud they just enabled JIT on 2.2.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's "fuck whatever you're doing and quit" key is stupidest UI decision ever made.
If you ask most people, they wish they had that button on absolutely every device they have to use.
Re:Haven't RTFA but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sympathetic to the idea of mandated hardware buttons and placement, buuuuuut ... I'd rather have tiered recommendations / human interface guidelines, because there might be a lot of cool applications for Android where a mandated layout wouldn't work, but a secondary recommended layout / alternative would. I'm spur-of-the-moment imagining an embedded display in a convertable's dashboard that's intended to have little chance for dust to get in. I don't have a convertable, and maybe that's a silly example, but Hey. I know that on many of my electronic gizmos, the actual electronic bits and display have outlived the life of the buttons.*
Want to be real awesome? Have touch-sensitive dedicated scroll areas off the display surface.
As long as we're thinking of the same sort of thing, that's one thing I look forward to in the (of-course-it's-delayed) Notion Ink Adam tablet [engadget.com]. (Though I also worry that it will be distractingly bad, as when a touchpad on a notebook is oversensitive and leads to all kinds of curse-inducing pointer misplacement.)
timothy
* Another reason I hate trackpads :) When their "mouse buttons" fail or start to go wonky, the simple, elemental-to-human-life matter of click, Yea, whether left or right, can bring great wailing and gnashing of teeth and bashing of buttons.
Re:Focus (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?
Assuming that you could make anything 100% perfect, which would presumably involve making it everything to everyone, so that nobody would ever need another of its type, why should you wait till you reach 100%?
It's a different market, but so many of the same assumptions apply. It just makes sense for them to start using an existing codebase for a new device. Apple did it!
It doesn't need to be perfect - just good enough (on both the tablet and phone) that people will want to buy it.
Also, look at other things that have languished in dev hell because they tried to go for perfection: Enlightenment, WinFS (actually, most of Longhorn), Plan 9,... Better to have something working today than something perfect next millennium.
Re:"iPad killer" from Foxconn (Score:2, Insightful)
Amusing, but not crazy, as far as I can see. There are only so many large-scale makers of this kind of electronics -- and it's no weirder than different parts of Apple, or HP, or Microsoft (or GM, for that matter) trying to put the other parts out of business. Foxconn seems like one of the very most likely sources for an "iPod Killer" device, because they have in-house expertise. (Of course, maybe they have agreements with Apple that rule out certain routes to producing an iPod killer ;))
timothy
want one now! (Score:4, Insightful)
All these demo unit's/available in China, I just want one now!
2.2 minimum, tegra would be nice, standard usb socket to charge (as well as another one to drop in cradle for hdmi output I guess), bluetooth keyboard support as standard so I can use a keyboard with it if I want to, or just lug around without and use the onscreen one if I have to.
Done.
I've got a credit card warmed up and ready to use for something like that. Why all this 1.5/1.6 stuff?
Seems to be true that there's alot of Android Tablets inc, heck, they were showing dozens of them off before Apple even admitted they had a tablet
I do have some fears.
It appears if you've got a non-Google phone, updates are looking risky. As much as the new Dell tablets ones look neat, if Google(htc) brought their own out, I'd probably go for that with a better expectation that it'll be supported for later updates.
Whats the Chome Tablet for? Seems odd for them to fracture their own market when Android seems great and well suited for a tablet. Can the Chrome browser just be chucked on an existing Android platform to give people more choice?
But yeah, if the Dell tablets were going on sale tomorrow at Best Buy, I'd be typing this out on my G1 camped outside.
I'm bemused (Score:2, Insightful)
And what are they actually for?
Reading slashdot while sitting in a comfy chair. (Score:4, Insightful)
The tablets available previously were laptop computers running lightly modified desktop operating systems and applications. Consequently, that's what people tried to use them for. They were not very good at it.
The iPad doesn't pretend to be a laptop replacement, it's for web browsing, casual gaming and media playing with maybe a little light note taking. It's using an OS which is designed specifically for the job. Also, love it or hate it, the iPhone did revolutionise the design of touch interfaces - if you can't see how everything since has copied it then you need stronger glasses.
People describe the iPad as "just a big iPod Touch" as if that were a criticism - I bought an iPad because that was exactly what I wanted. Most of the haters are evaluating it as if it were a small PC.
Its also closer to the original Netbook concept, while Netbooks themselves have morphed into entry-level laptops because they could run desktop software, and there wasn't a lot of alternative net book-friendly software. The iPad arrives with a good developer base, lots of available apps and no option to stick Windows or Ubuntu on it...
Re:I'm bemused (Score:2, Insightful)
The iPad seems to be a huge success. Tablets have never been hugely popular before. Now everyone wants to make one. Why all of a sudden?
Because battery and screen technology has improved to the point where you can have $200 tablets weighing 2 pounds, with a big screen, and 10h battery life.
As usual, Apple has rushed out this kind of product a little earlier at a premium price and marketed the hell out of it. But tablets were going to happen now anyway, Apple or no Apple.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask most people, they wish they had that button on absolutely every device they have to use.
That button is standard on most phones, including all Android phones.
What Apple is missing is the "go back", "search", and "show me my options" buttons. Those functions are inconsistent among many iPhone and iPad apps.
Re:"iPad killer" from Foxconn (Score:3, Insightful)
Foxconn seems like one of the very most likely sources for an "iPod Killer" device, because they have in-house expertise.
No they don't. The real value behind tablets is in the software, not the hardware (except that the HW shouldn't hinder the SW), and Apple produces that part themselves. The Foxconn employees just copy it to the device.
I'm already seeing it coming that most tablet developers will miss this crucial thought and fail miserably. Just stuff some UI (aka Android) meant for 3.5" onto a 10" tablet and sell your hardware with it. This is really easy to do and will work perfectly, right?
Just like that "iPad killer" tablet produced by some Chinese manufacturer I saw a few months ago on television. It worked so well that even the Skype application that ships with it doesn't scale correctly. Not to mention that the presenter had to do every tap on the screen twice because the touchscreen was so good that it didn't recognize the first one (that was an official presentation!).
Re:Android tablet prototypes not ready yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
this right here is the point. the software isn't optimized for the hardware. They can't get the best use out of any given chip. Apple does more "advanced" features on less powerful hardware and ram than anyone else. how is it possible that they got the OS working better than anyone else?
Oh and for the record every andriod phone I have used have had horrible interfaces, hard to navigate browsers(where the fsck is the back button in landscape mode, and why does the typing on the keyboard have to be so painful?)
Re:I'm bemused (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Apple timed this product just right. The appeal of tablets have been clear for years, it's just that the technological infrastructure wasn't good enough and the implementations were lousy. Windows tablets anyone? I have one, and I almost never use it as a tablet.
If you look at the iPod, iPhone and iPad, they're all cases where Apple chose the right time to capture the second mover advantage. It's a natural role for a company driven by a perfectionist like Jobs who sees the mistakes the first generation products make and does not repeat them.
Now if things go true to form, the third generation competitors will scramble for scraps from Apple's table by copying whatever they can, repeating the mistakes made in the first generation products, and trying to come up with bullets for a side by side comparison. It'll take several iterations before a credible competitor to the iPad emerges.
Re:Focus (Score:3, Insightful)
for some sense of "right" (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look at the iPod, iPhone and iPad, they're all cases where Apple chose the right time to capture the second mover advantage.
Apple sells premium products a little ahead of the mass market. That's neither "right" nor "wrong". Nokia or HTC couldn't have sold the same devices in their markets.
Now if things go true to form, the third generation competitors will scramble for scraps from Apple's table by copying whatever they can, repeating the mistakes made in the first generation products,
If things go as they usually go for Apple, Apple will get stuck at a few percent market share, while the mainstream companies saturate the market with more powerful and much cheaper devices. The only time Apple ever managed to hold on to a significant lead was with iPod/iTunes. And the reason people copy prior products is not necessarily because they are better, but because users don't want to have to learn new systems all the time.
and trying to come up with bullets for a side by side comparison. It'll take several iterations before a credible competitor to the iPad emerges.
Apple's market niche isn't technology, it's branding. A competitor to iPad is like a competitor to Nike shoes: it doesn't really matter what the shoes are--they all get the job done--it matters how people perceive the brand. Can Apple maintain its brand perception as a supposedly innovative brand for create people? I don't know; they're getting a lot of bad press.
Re:I'm bemused (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has a very dedicated herd of followers who buy everything Apple throws at them.
Turn the hate down from 11 and think about why that is. My personal story is that after supporting a series of clunky laptops at home, Vista made me reluctantly buy the wifey a MacBook Air. Wow. Her experience with that made me replace my latest in a series of problematic Belkin routers with a Time Capsule (wireless N with automatic backups). She broke a MBA hinge and because we were no longer supported I got her a MacBook. After 11 months Apple decided to fix the MBA hinge at no charge. Wow. Then I got her a 2G iphone (which at the time the RAZR was the top selling phone for three years). Wow. Then came the 3G and I got one for myself (I got tired of rebooting the work HTC 8500 to make a phone call). Then the 3GS. Got one for myself and gave the 3G to the wifey because she dropped the 2G into a glass of tea. The iPhone makes me use my desktop only infrequently. My work laptop now stays at work. I bought and returned a Windows 7 netbook. Wow (in a bad way). Then the iPad came out (wow) and I got the wifey one and now she only uses her laptop to type meeting minutes and reports. Now that we have kids there is no screen to open, no laptop to lug around with both hands, and no keyboard for the monkeys to lunge at. I bought an old used eMac just like the one the girls use at school ($200US). I look around the house and see all the Apples and wonder what the hell happened, and then realize I wouldn't change a thing.
To do all this I gave up the features that are important to you but got features that turned out to be important to me. I paid more than I would have using the other technologies but they also sold at a higher rate. So I'm in the herd. With the options today, if I was buying my first phone I don't know if it would be an iPhone. But at each point in time what I purchased was the right one for me as compared to the other options.
Branding == technology and execution. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Apple's market niche isn't technology, it's branding."
WTF??
Perhaps you mean Apples niche isn't check-box marketing and they aren't meeting your check-boxes?? While I don't own anything Apple (yet) but it is clear to me that it is a lot more than just branding.
Unless Apples Branding is shorthand for technical excellence(at least in this case). Just look at the technology aspects.
Example: Brilliant industrial engineering and packaging.
Example: High Quality IPS screen: Apple is using a better screen here than practically every product shown so far. All I see in competitors is crappy TN screen with horrendous viewing angles, that might be acceptable in a netbook, but not in a tablet meant to be used in multiple orientations.
Example: Battery life. Apple engineer it to use the lowest power envelop possible and deliver solid 10 hour battery life, also it doesn't need a fan, doesn't get hot.
Example: Capacitive multi-touch. Many competitors are single touch resistive (Yuk).
Example: HW/SW integration. This is the special sauce that make enables them to build something that is greater than the sum of its parts. That enables true engineering to take place where every component is engineered to just deliver what needs to be there, so you can a low powered device that is more response than people dropping in much more powerful off the shelf components but poor integration.
So I would like a more open tablet with and SD-Slot/USB port, but I serious don't think we will have anything with remotely as good technology (Screen/digitizer/battery life/industrial engineering/HW-SW integration) all in one package for a long time to come.
To say Apple is just branding and not technology is completely ridiculous. Did you take any time to consider the technology and execution before you made that claim?
Re:Branding == technology and execution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Example: Brilliant industrial engineering and packaging.
No, just luxury components and packaging. You pay for it. Brilliant would be to deliver the iPad for $199.
Example: High Quality IPS screen: Apple is using a better screen here than practically every product shown so far.
Yes, they buy expensive and high end components. Your point?
Example: Battery life. Apple engineer it to use the lowest power envelop possible
Same thing: they use expensive components.
Example: Capacitive multi-touch. Many competitors are single touch resistive (Yuk).
The choice between resistive and capacitive is not so clearcut. Capacitive is good for fingers, resistive is good for pens. iPad and iPhone are lousy for drawing, and handwriting input is a no-go. I hope someone will start making Android tablets with resistive input (or Wacom or hybrid input) because the Apple iPad input sucks for anything other than poking at oversized on-screen buttons.
Example: HW/SW integration. This is the special sauce that make enables them to build something that is greater than the sum of its parts.
There's nothing "special" about it; it's marketing fluff. iPhone batter life, screens, hardware integration, etc. is no better than on the Droid or the X10 or any of numerous other phones, and those cost much less.
So I would like a more open tablet with and SD-Slot/USB port, but I serious don't think we will have anything with remotely as good technology (Screen/digitizer/battery life/industrial engineering/HW-SW integration) all in one package for a long time to come.
The reason you won't see anything like that is not because other companies don't know how to build these kinds of machines, but because their customers aren't willing to pay as much.
To say Apple is just branding and not technology is completely ridiculous. Did you take any time to consider the technology and execution before you made that claim?
Yes, I did. Nothing you say contradicts what I said: Apple is a luxury brand delivering a luxury product made from premium components. They do use new technology, but most of that they just buy elsewhere.
The reason their competitors don't compete with Apple is not because they don't know how to, but because it's not rational to compete with Apple for a small part of the market. Google, Microsoft, Nokia, HTC and others are going for the mass market.
App context is better done custom (Score:3, Insightful)
That button is standard on most phones, including all Android phones.
Right, so it in fact was not a stupid idea to put it on the iPad as the original poster was claiming.
What Apple is missing is the "go back", "search", and "show me my options" buttons. Those functions are inconsistent among many iPhone and iPad apps.
Actually Back is pretty consistent being the upper left.
The other things you mention (and in fact even back) I believe do not need to be consistent, they are items better off presented in ways that make the most sense for the particular application they are running in.
Think about it this way, the "stop everything" button is really unrelated to the application, it's a system button. But the other three buttons are very much application specific buttons, even though they can also do other things in the system. That is the difference and why I think they are better done as virtual controls rather than physical ones.
Physically the buttons are very bad for other reasons on something the size of a tablet, for a phone size device I see how they are kind of nice but I still don't think they are a better idea than virtual controls can be.
Re:App context is better done custom (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is stupid, because it kills the application, and you'd better hope it saved state.
And that's why it is smart. Because applications that do not will simply not be used. So obviously it saves state, and also it gets you out of ANYTHING not matter how broken. That's why it's so vital, because being able to continue using your device instead of being blocked by one app from all other functionality is key. I've found finding the button to hit is more of a problem than accidentally hitting it.
Which is pretty stupid in a device that is usually being manipulated by the thumb of the right hand.
It's pretty humorous hearing someone so worried about losing data wanting to make the second most destructive action you can make in an application be easier to hit. And thanks to Fitts's Law, any corner of the screen is very easy to hit when that's what your target is so it's not like it slows down navigation.
Re:App context is better done custom (Score:3, Insightful)
You are exhibiting several symptoms of being an Apple fanboy.
Irrefutable reason and logic? Yes, they are my stock in trade; my bread and butter if you will.
The first is in the claim that pushing a function from the OS to the application, and that introducing inconsistancy is a good thing
You're pretty ignorant for an Apple Hater. Otherwise you'd realize that in fact the hallmark of people who truly believe in Apple's UI design mantra, think that consistency is key. My instance that it is not is in fact total divergence from the party line, rather a heresy to those who prefer to follow any one style guide (not just Apples). But over time I have come to be sure it is true, and Apple has actually shown this to be true though the applications they have done even if they always advise one to follow the style guides.
You also show the symptom in defending the One button is all you need idea.
I am saying one button is tolerable, in the context of an iPad - for computers I have five button mice thanks. Again you are totally ignoring context, like you are unaware that different devices are used differently.
Having the most destructive action you can make in an application in an easy to accidentally hit location is a massive UI blunder.
You seem to be one of the few people with this problem, and like I said in almost no instance is it destructive anyway - you'd have to be an idiot application designer for it to be destructive, because it means someone taking a call would also lose data. Such an application would simply not sell.
In fact, here is where your mouth meets the road. Name two REAL applications that exhibit the flaw you are describing. My guess is, like so many elitists, you are simply stuck in the rarefied air of Architecture Astronauntism without considering how things work in the real world and have never seen such an app, you simply hypothesize one must exist because without it your whole foundation crumbles.
On a touch screen, that does not apply
Again you forget about context, again you float in a world without form or shape and consider only abstracts. For a device the size of an iPad you are correct, corners become meaningless - but that is most about the bezel.
But in the context of the phone, corners are just as easy to hit because of how quickly humans can move fingers to specific points in space within a small area, and your hand is cupped around the device to give your other hand positional context.
For example, the idea that corners are easy to hit, does make some sense with a mouse on a screen. Why? Because you just shove the mouse as far up and over as it can go and you will be on the target. You don't have to actually hit the target. The back button being (when it is there) in the upper left corner makes about as much sense as remapping the 'e' key on your keyboard to the Esc key because it is in the corner.
The context of a keyboard is that your fingers are hovering over the center, and you hit e the most often. The Back button is something that in fact you hit with much less frequency, and itself can be destructive if you have partially filled out form data the application does not save where you are - ironically even more destructive than the button you hate much, because most apps would retain partially filled forms and restore the information on a relaunch! Again, you simply are not thinking through the consequences of controls.
I find educating you to be really annoying since you simply cannot listen to reason, but hopefully others are learning something from the effort. As always, I give you the last response so you can come up with some other new wild reason for your beliefs, I think I have sufficiently covered the detail for mine that someone more reasonable can fully understand the extent of my arguments now.