Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Set To Introduce Android-Based iPod Touch Competitor

Comments Filter:
  • by gearloos (816828) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:13AM (#34734874)
    Android and Itouch? they'll never figure it out.
    • by RDW (41497)

      'Android and Itouch? they'll never figure it out.'

      I'm not sure I can figure it out. There's a good reason why the iTouch has gone 'virtually unchallenged'. In most of the world, competing smartphones can be bought very cheaply without a contract. I can get a basic PAYG/unlockable Android 2.2 phone locally for the equivalent of $80 USD. So there's little market for a PMP/WiFi-only device (why carry two gadgets rather than one?). But perhaps such a device will do better in the US, where the networks distort t

    • what's an Itouch?
  • by mlts (1038732) * on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:20AM (#34734902)

    The usual $50.00 question I have for any Android device: How easy is it for this device to be rooted? An additional question would be how easy it is to flash a custom ROM image.

    I just hope it isn't too hard to have custom, fast ROM images for this device.

    • by Atari400 (1174925)
      I got a Samsung Galaxy I7500, and it's stuck at 1.5 - Samsung aren't upgrading it at all. I wouldn't recommend buying Samsung Android equipment - HTC looks a much better bet.
    • by yincrash (854885) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:56AM (#34735050)
      The Galaxy S phones are ridiculously easy to get root access. It's just a manual software update using the normal update mechanism. Samsung doesn't do the things that Motorola and HTC have been putting in their phones to try and prevent rooting. I suspect that the Galaxy Player would be the same.
      • Are you sure? What happened to the new Galaxy Tab firmware that apparently upgrades your bootloader to an encrypted one that doesn't allow downgrading OR custom ROMs?

        http://www.xda-developers.com/android/warning-leaked-galaxy-tab-firmware-comes-with-protected-bootloader/ [xda-developers.com]

        Has this been resolved?

      • by rrossman2 (844318)

        This isnt true for recovery e3, just e2. My gt-i9000 came with android 2.1 and recovery e2. All I had to do was download an update.zip file, put on phones main memory, do recovery mode and install update.zip

        that doesn't work on samsungs android 2.2 with recovery e3. They only trick that worked for me was using z4root from the market which does something with usb debugging to installed busybox and super user

        • z4root uses the rageagainstthecage method, which is uses an adb exploit to gain root access. That vulnerability has been fixed in android 2.2.1, so an i9000 running on JPU/JPX/JPY can't be rooted via z4root/visionary etc.

          However, the Galaxy S is still easily rootable, because you can build a kernel that is pre-rooted like Chainfire's CF-root, or like voodoo (you have to install the SU and busybox box binaries yourself from the market in voodoo) and flash it in download mode (hold the vol down, middle butt

    • by Nikker (749551)
      It won't really matter. This is the just the first group of iPad-esque devices, if the market takes there will be so many most companies won't bother implementing Apple type security. Why bother anyway? Every company will have to either implement their own special sauce or depend on someone else's, once one becomes more popular then it will be hacked if everyone tries their own it's likely none of them will be any good to begin with and upkeep of patches will be more cost then it's worth. I'm hoping we
  • by bfree (113420) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:28AM (#34734936)
    What's so different about this Samsung compared to the range of Archos Android devices like the 43it [archos.com] (I don't care about Android myself so at a guess there are plenty of other devices out there)? Is the "virtually unchallenged" moniker in any way warranted?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Trev311 (1161835)

      The Archos devices have several limitations that put them at a clear disadvantage compared to the iPod Touch. First of all, they do not have access to the Android Market. Sure there are other, smaller, markets and I'm sure those are great, but most people are going to want to run the same Android "Apps" on a PMP and a Phone. Much like the iOS devices. Archos also chose to go with a resistive screen instead of capacitive screen that makes a fairly big difference in usage. Go to a BestBuy and play with the an

      • by DrXym (126579) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @04:18AM (#34735784)
        The reason Archos devices don't have Android marketplace is because they fail the compatible device document and therefore do not qualify to ship it. Why don't they qualify? Because they (sensibly) omit a bunch of crap mandated in the CDD which a PMP has no good reason for needing - compass, gps, camera etc. The CDD as it exists makes sense for phones, it makes no sense for other kinds of devices.

        The only way Samsung can stay compliant with the CDD is if a) Google change the CDD in Android 3.0 to specify a range of device profiles (a way overdue change) or b) Samsung bloat the price of their device by packing it with superfluous features.

        a) is obviously the most preferable option. The CDD really should be specifying basic and extended profiles for tablets, media players, ereaders etc. Expecting tablets to be glorified giant phones is just going to stymie the Android tablet market and confuse everyone.

        • by hitmark (640295)

          the CDD for 2.3 seems to have turned a whole lot of MUST in to SHOULD when it comes to hardware requirements, so things are changing. I may well be that we will see official market and google apps on whatever archos device that gets 2.3, if they can be bothered to have a talk with google.

    • by samkass (174571) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:55AM (#34735048) Homepage Journal

      What's so different about this Samsung compared to the range of Archos Android devices...

      The Archos uses resistive touch screen with much lower resolution. It doesn't connect to the Android Marketplace for apps. They're not built in any quantity so are always "Out of Stock" (go ahead... I dare you to try to actually buy a 43it). And for that it's basically the same price as the iPod Touch. It's hard to say they're a competitor when almost no one can actually buy one.

      Samsung, though, is a household name associated with quality products, and more to the point they operate their own screen and chip fabs so can actually make the things in quantity. I could see an iPod Touch competitor from them actually being real.

    • by cbhacking (979169)

      There's also the ZuneHD, which while hardly a runaway success has nonetheless competed with some success for a year or so. It doesn't have the iOS glut of apps, but it deos support third-party apps and have a marketplace. The hardware is better than on the 43it, too, with a much better touchscren and things like HD Radio capability.

  • What is behind Apple's success?

    Its that, after an initial period of letting people rip, mix and burn their existing content for their iPods, they were able to launch the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) which now serves up music, movies, TV shows, books, apps and podcasts and do it for cheap or for free.

    Apple is just grafting other software services onto the iTMS and they're keeping iron clad control over the user experience on the hardware.

    Will anyone else?

    • by Tarlus (1000874)

      Apple products also enjoy the luxury of always having the hardware and OS all share the same creator. Couple that with the iron clad quality control over applications that are distributed through their store, and you have a consistently pleasant experience for the consumer.

      • Constantly consistent if you choose to use everything Apple. A total pain in the rear if you don't. Sure, if you have several thousand dollars to spend on getting -everything- Apple you will have a decent user experience, but if you don't it is a complete pain. Take for instance iTunes on Windows. First off, the thing pretty much has to install 1/4th of OS X to even run, because of this, it is easily the slowest running music player out there when compared to native, or lightweight applications like Foobar2
        • I don't begrudge you your Achos stuff, or whatever you're using, but its not quite as seamless as using Apple OS X 10.6.5 stuff.

          It definitely does NOT take me 20 minutes to spend my money at the iTMS. (The downloads come in at about 20mb/s in NYC. May I suggest you get a better performing ISP. :-)

          I use VLC, QuickTime, WindowsMedia, whatever, and my old 2.66 Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro is quite capable of keeping up with whatever I throw at it, even in 1080p.

          Apple is definitely a maker of good CONSUMER grade stu

        • by beelsebob (529313)

          Ugh, "I'm running out of date iTunes, out of date iOS, out of date backups, out of date apps, and now I want to complain that it takes ages for all of this stuff to update" no shit sherlock, if you let all your software get out of date, it takes a while to download and apply all the patches.

          That said, iTunes 9 and 10 are slow, even on OS X, 9 was a memory hog, at least that's fixed. Hopefully apple will realise this soon and get round to doing what they did with OS 10.6 –a major update that does noth

      • by puck01 (207782)

        That's a matter of both taste and opinion. The Itunes software is awful in my opinion.

  • I'm rooting for devices like this, but the android 1.5 phone I had was in my opinion pretty poor for music. I didn't like the interface at all, there wasn't any slick way to manage the music like there is with iTunes... I hope they take ease of use into account and improve on the crappy music implementation I was dealing with.
    • by rolfwind (528248)

      I love iPhone, but I hate Itunes on the desktop. In my limited experience with it, the way to transfer music to the device isn't intuitive, nor how to back up the files, or downloading them from the device to the computer should the Windows go bad. I can't imagine it better for the other file types -- I presuppose all this is some sort of concession to the MPAA/RIAA for one reason or another.

      I guess I have the same complaint with a lot of software these days. Even photo managers like iPhoto or Picasa or

      • by beelsebob (529313)

        the way to transfer music to the device isn't intuitive

        How is
        1. Plug the device in.
        2. Press the "yes, put my content on it" button
        not intuitive?

        nor how to back up the files

        You mean, press the 'yes, I want to back up these files' button that comes up when you add content?

  • ...but will the GPS actually work? (Galaxy S owner here...)

    • by Richy_T (111409)

      +1 to this. Never buying Samsung again

      • by michrech (468134)

        My GPS works perfectly after the 2.2.1 update (Sprint Epic "4G"). The updates El Goog made to Maps has made things even better while traveling. :D

  • by alvinrod (889928) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:33AM (#34734964)
    I don't understand why it's taken this long. The iPod has been on top of this market for ages. It may not be as lucrative as it used to be, but Apple wouldn't be in it if they weren't making a decent amount of money. Apple is probably able to control a decent portion of the market if only because they can keep costs low through scale, but Android vendors should be able to cut costs and take lower profits. This is probably the first legitimate iPod competitor in a long time.

    The only question is if this market is worthwhile anymore. Smartphones have most likely already started to cannibalize PMP sales. Once they become truly ubiquitous, how much of a market is left for devices of such caliber without phone capability.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hedwards (940851)
      I don't understand why the iPod ever got to the top. It was never the best player, never had the best features and the audio quality was never particularly great. Not that any iPod owner would know seeing as most of them seem to use the included ear buds.

      As far as I can tell the only thing they did right was make it idiot proof with the lack of software to put music on and a huge marketing campaign.
      • You must be new here! Seriously you're about to start a flame war
      • Re:About Time (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Richy_T (111409) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @01:24AM (#34735170) Homepage

        The scroll wheel was nice. Being able to locate the music you wanted to listen to quickly definitely made for a better experience. Touch screens have since made that much less important.

      • Always the best (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall (25149)

        It was never the best player

        Actually it was; just not by metrics you choose to deem important.

        • Care to share those metrics?
          • by mjwx (966435)

            Care to share those metrics?

            GP's fanboi-ism.

            I had a Cowon Iaudio 7, You could plug that thing into a speaker and it would play perfectly at it's top volume, an Ipod or Ipod touch would distort at about 75% and I'm not an audiophile, A$30 for a pair of headphones is a lot for me, the distortion from the Ipod was quite noticeable at 80-90% vol.

            The only thing Apple has is marketing and it's quickly losing that, the Iphone had the unintended side effect of convincing people they didn't need a separate M

            • Actually a separate MP3 player is a must when in the gym. Trying to carry around even the smallest smartphone is a chore. Either you carry it in your hand or get one of those dorky looking armband harnesses. As for the sound quality, it's good enough for me. I enjoy my music to the extent that I've purchased a good set of headphones for my home computer.... but I don't think much about the nuance of sound color when running a 5K.

              • by Patch86 (1465427)

                Actually a separate MP3 player is a must when in the gym. Trying to carry around even the smallest smartphone is a chore. Either you carry it in your hand or get one of those dorky looking armband harnesses.

                You make a great case for Apple's Nano (and the billion of just-as-good competitor devices). But the GP's point still stands for the iPods Classic and Touch. They're as big as a smartphone, and do nothing a smartphone can't do. Almost as expensive too.

            • by Shimmer (3036)

              an Ipod or Ipod touch would distort at about 75%

              I call B.S.

              I plug my iPod Touch into a Bose Wave (another device hated by audiophiles) and it sounds crystal clear at 100% output. In fact, I think it's foolish to output at anything less than 100% when you're listening through speakers, because then you are forcing that system's amplifier to work harder, which does introduce distortion.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Osgeld (1900440)

                hammering your amp's low power input to save "wear" on the part thats been designed to actually do work

                Brilliant

                • Re:Always the best (Score:5, Informative)

                  by russotto (537200) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @11:20AM (#34737318) Journal

                  hammering your amp's low power input to save "wear" on the part thats been designed to actually do work

                  ROTFL. It makes sense to keep the input signal at the maximum non-distorting power level, because that's typically going to result in the highest SNR for the system as a whole. "Wear" isn't involved at all. It makes sense to do as much amplification as possible close to the source, which in this case is the iPod's DAC.

        • by Ogive17 (691899)

          It was never the best player Actually it was; just not by metrics you choose to deem important.

          So what metrics made it the best? I thought my 1st gen nano was a waste of money (not to say all their ipods were garbage, but the one I got should have cost 1/2 of what they sold it for)

      • I can see why the iPhone gained and maintains the market share it does. Disregarding the whole 'closed garden' thing which is only relevant to us /.ers, it was genuinely the first decent touchscreen phone and continues to match its rivals in anything Joe Public cares about. iPad generally the same deal. The iPod? Fuck knows. Probably the same reason adidas, Nike and A&F do so well. It just took off for whatever reason, and now in the eyes of most, anything else is like buying store's own brand food (t
      • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @01:29AM (#34735186)

        They made it 'idiot proof' (translation: 'Easy to use') and they coupled it with a library of music that is also 'easy to use'. The 'best features' of the other MP3 players were trying to compensate for their lack of a good/popular legit source of music.

        The reason you don't understand is that you're neglecting iTunes.

      • As far as I can tell the only thing they did right was make it idiot proof

        Thats a huge advantage given the number of idiots out there.

        • > Thats a huge advantage given the number of idiots out there.

          Right. Recall that Apple products are for "the rest of us". Who do you think he meant by that?

      • As far as I can tell the only thing they did right was make it idiot proof with the lack of software to put music on and a huge marketing campaign.

        Which is what most people wanted to be "right"...and let's not forget the other ace in the whole: the iTunes Music Store. Apple was the first to get both the player and ability to buy music cheaply and easily for just about anyone to use. Before iTMS it was buy a $15 CD even if you only wanted a couple tracks or pirate the music via Napster/Limewire/etc.. With the iTMS they allowed people the ability to purchase only a track or two at $.99 each if that was all we wanted. The two proved to be a good comb

      • You say you don't understand why the iPod ever got to the top, but you list the #1 reason why they did...they made it idiot proof. Most people are not geeks and don't enjoy exploring every piece of functionality or configuration option. Most people arnt idiots either, but they don't have the patience to explore every arcane bit of new technology. Apple just made it work and made the majority of people happy (except geeks).
        • by dfghjk (711126)

          I disagree. People want to explain the iPod's success for some technical reason, but there were non-technical reasons. Apple was a big name in a sea of no-names and had deep pockets and a long term commitment to incremental improvement. Much like IBM succeeded with the PC, Apple succeeded with the iPod. It was, frankly, no more "idiot proof" than other players, people just like to believe it was. Eventually the iPod became the best player technically, but intitially it was far from it.

          • Apple? A big name? In the times of the first gen iPod? That's revisionist history. Yes, Apple was known by geeks, but I assure you that I had talked to many people in that period about getting an Apple Computer. They had vaguely heard about it, but wouldn't know to get one if they wanted one.

            Today, Apple is a big name. To the extent that people tend to forget they have an Apple product. Overheard at my wifes-family Chistmas party: Person A:"Say, iPhone, is that the brand?". Person B: "Yes, I think s

      • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tlhIngan (30335) <(ten.frow) (ta) (todhsals)> on Sunday January 02, 2011 @02:25AM (#34735374)

        I don't understand why the iPod ever got to the top. It was never the best player, never had the best features and the audio quality was never particularly great. Not that any iPod owner would know seeing as most of them seem to use the included ear buds.

        As far as I can tell the only thing they did right was make it idiot proof with the lack of software to put music on and a huge marketing campaign.

        Easy. Timing and It Just Works(tm).

        First is because the whole "portable digital music" thing was in its infancy and just awaiting its exponential growth. Apple got there are the right time.

        Second because they had a player that had the right formfactor, ample storage, and a usable UI. The iPod was the size of a deck of cards with 5GB of storage. Players that size had a whopping 128MB of storage! Expandable with 64MB expansion cards that cost an arm and a leg. And the scroll wheel was one of those "why didn't I think of that?" ways of navigating huge quantities of music. The competitor in storage would be the Creative Nomad, which had the bulk of a really old portable CD player, with a pile of heft. Creative included two sets of batteries because the battery life was fairly atrocious - a couple of hours-ish per set.

        Then you had Firewire. Filling 6GB of Nomad storage at USB 1.1 speeds took forever. Filling 5GB of space at Firewire speed took an hour or less.

        Finally, you have iTunes. In one app you can do your ripping, library management, and syncing.

        And Apple had it in such a combination that when the whole digital music revolution took off around 2003-2004, Apple was right there with product in the store. (The iPod, which was the best selling MP3 player since it came out, only sold its 1 millionth unit 3 years later).

        Next, Apple came out with the iTunes music store. Suddenly, a way to legally acquire music easily. Now Joe Q. Public had a stupid-simple way to rip their existing CD collection, to buy music, to manage their music, and to copy their music to their portable player.

        And yes, it also helped that all the user had to do was plug the thing in and it would automatically sync and update and everything. Suddenly even tech newbies (e.g., your parents) could manage their iPods themselves and their music collections. And the marketing campaign helped spread the idea that MP3s weren't just a geek thing. Which meant the 99.9% of the non-geek population could suddenly have entire music libraries in their pocket.

        And when the non-geek population started getting into this, music stores and DRM-free were the result because they cared. Otherwise who would bother serving the 0.1% geek market?

      • by mbourgon (186257)

        Here, let me help you out:

        "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." - Rob Malda, Slashdot, October 23, 2001.
        http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&tid=107 [slashdot.org]

      • by arikol (728226)

        I can explain.
        Unlike many state, it's not about being 'idiot proof'
        Classifying people who don't want to spend their days figuring out how to operate gadgets is, well, stupid. Your doctor may not be a computer guru, but it's fair to assume that he/she isn't an idiot. He does spend his time studying other important items, that's all.

        The iPod got successful simply because it was nicer to use, and a non-geek did not need to study a manual to make it work.
        I had a Creative Zen Micro (I think it was called

    • I would think because that few companies make both a PMP and a smart phone. The few that do like Samsung have different divisions that handle each and possible little cohesion between the separate groups. Even if they wanted to do so, they first have to make sure they had a successful phone first before basing a a PMP on it. That would take a few product cycles.

      The success of this player isn't certain. At this point one of the big advantages of Apple is their app store. Samsung has to leverage the Andr

    • Android vendors should be able to cut costs and take lower profits

      Possibly, but don't forget Apple has a huge advantage because of volume, and similar parts between iOS devices only increase that price advantage. Even lowering margins many companies may not be able to come that close in price.

      It's no surprise to me that a company as large as Samsung was the first to be able to produce a viable iPad competitor, and now a Touch competitor. Because of their size they can also get large discounts (or source

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Patch86 (1465427)

      It's funny really; the Slashdot crowd has been predicting for years that $COMPANY will challenge Apple's dominance in their various markets. Google (with Nexus, and their various software) looked good, but didn't happen. MS with WinMo7, the Kin, the Zune, etc., looked like a fair bet too. Talk of a Dell phone and Dell tablets put them in the picture too, but no.

      Who'd have thought it'd be Samsung, in the end, to release the best iPad competitor, some of the top-selling Android phones, and now a iPod Touch co

      • by russotto (537200)

        It's funny really; the Slashdot crowd has been predicting for years that $COMPANY will challenge Apple's dominance in their various markets. Google (with Nexus, and their various software) looked good, but didn't happen. MS with WinMo7, the Kin, the Zune, etc., looked like a fair bet too.

        You are suggesting that the "Slashdot crowd" thought the Zune and the Kin were serious threats to Apple? That is not the groupthink I remember.

  • Year of the Android (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dzimas (547818) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:34AM (#34734968)
    My LG Optimus One cost $200 (without contract), runs Android 2.2 and makes phone calls. I think the PMP market is going to be tough to crack, because manufacturers will have to price their handhelds extremely aggressively to make them appealing in a world that is about to be flooded with some fairly impressive Android phones in the iPod Touch price range. Still, it's a sure sign that 2011 will be the Year of The Android.
    • by frdmfghtr (603968)

      My LG Optimus One cost $200 (without contract), runs Android 2.2 and makes phone calls. I think the PMP market is going to be tough to crack, because manufacturers will have to price their handhelds extremely aggressively to make them appealing in a world that is about to be flooded with some fairly impressive Android phones in the iPod Touch price range. Still, it's a sure sign that 2011 will be the Year of The Android.

      Kind of like $YEAR is always the Year of the Linux desktop?

      • Kind of like $YEAR is always the Year of the Linux desktop?

        Oh, so THAT'S the problem!


        $ echo "The year of the Linux desktop is $YEAR"
        The year of the Linux desktop is
        $

        • by frdmfghtr (603968)

          OK I'm not a coder so my attempt at sarcasm fell flat...I shall take my lumps peacefully.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Not really, I'm not sure about these days, but there was a point where the cost to the retailer was about half what they were going for, and Apple wasn't allowing any retailer to sell them for less than the list price.

      I can't imagine the margins having shrunk by that much over the years.
    • The biggest advantage this will have over a phone is that it doesn't require a cell contract/plan. I could easily buy _just_ the LG Optimus, but with a cell contract at $50 a month...$600 a year...I can't do that. An cheap Android device that doesn't require a cell plan would be awesome.
      • The biggest advantage this will have over a phone is that it doesn't require a cell contract/plan. I could easily buy _just_ the LG Optimus, but with a cell contract at $50 a month...$600 a year...I can't do that.

        I got my LG Optimus for zero up front. 20 AUD per month (thats the same as USD at the moment) on Optus, 24 month contract.

        • by mjwx (966435)

          I got my LG Optimus for zero up front. 20 AUD per month (thats the same as USD at the moment) on Optus, 24 month contract.

          The only issue with that is that you're on the Opt-arse network.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @01:22AM (#34735154) Journal
      At least in the US, the main reason to suspect that Android based PMP/non-phone devices have a chance is factoring in cellular costs:

      The cell modem hardware isn't free; but the overwhelming majority of phone hardware is picked up, mildly subsidized, as the hook to get somebody onto a contract(or at least our month-to-month plan, rather than somebody else's).

      There is a good sized market that doesn't really want to pay $80 a month for two years; but has frequent wifi access(most homes, many businesses and places of public congregation, many schools and most college campuses). Loads of kids who have occasional bursts of spending money(their own or holiday/relative); but basically no steady month-to-month income to maintain a full data plan. Plenty of students whose, again, aren't made of money; but whose entire campus is blanketed with wifi.

      Were the US cellular market more accessible and dynamic, with doing things like "getting a spartan voice only plan for a bells and whistles smartphone" easy, rather than possible but obscure, it would be much harder to make the case for something that includes everything but the cell modem: the option to drop in a SIM at some point and do some calling would likely be worth the cost. As it is, though, while that isn't actually impossible in the US, it is so far from being the default that it is fairly rarely considered. Thus, selling a pure "PMP", at a price point available because you ditched that extra radio(and either slimmed the device or added more battery...), has a potential to be reasonably attractive.

      I know that I would strongly consider one: My home has wifi, my workplace has wifi, if I need wifi on the go there are always coffee shops and snack places willing to oblige me for as long as it takes to nurse my cup of coffee(particularly if, unlike That Laptop Guy, I'm just using something indistinguishable from a phone, and not taking up a multi-person table doing it). I don't make that many phone calls or texts, so I have a dirt-cheap prepaid plan. Now, in an ideal world, I'd carry one less device and(as noted above) use my prepaid SIM in a full phone. That isn't supported, so I suck it up and carry a $20 Motorola dumbphone when I need it. I have virtually no need, and no desire to pay for, particularly on a long term contract, cellular data when I'm within wifi range during virtually all the times that I would want internet access...
      • by evilviper (135110)

        Were the US cellular market more accessible and dynamic, with doing things like "getting a spartan voice only plan for a bells and whistles smartphone" easy, rather than possible but obscure, it would be much harder to make the case for something that includes everything but the cell modem:

        You've hit on something that's held intense morbid fascination forme for weeks now. Just recently, Motorola made available an iDEN version of their I1, older Android 1.x smartphone. Its retailing for just 350, and what'

  • by n_djinn (1883738) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:45AM (#34735004) Homepage
    Call me a troll, but I can hardly wait for a $700 iPod touch competitor.
    • by Cylix (55374) *

      Hey troll,

      This is actually a bit closer to the mark with many of the new iKiller devices. Sadly, I find X device I would like to purchase only to find it is actually more expensive then the apple equivalent. I'm not an apple fanboy, but I do own an ipad. (Somewhat of a long short story that stripped me of many options).

      None the less, I have been impatiently waiting for the big splash of Android tablets to hit the market. My goal is to eventually dump the iPad for something that is either slightly better or

    • I'm confused, what about this product leads you to believe it will be overpriced? The rest of the Galaxy line seems to be priced appropriately.

      The tab is cheaper than the iPad. Granted, it's not cheaper than the *cheapest* iPad, because they don't offer wifi-only and 8gb models, but the 16gb 3g iPad is more expensive than the 16gb 3g Tab and the the 32gb 3g tab is also cheaper than than the iPad competitor.

      As for the Galaxy S phone line, they seem to be priced competitively as well. Is dismissing the Gal

      • I'm confused, what about this product leads you to believe it will be overpriced?...

        The tab is cheaper than the iPad.

        True, but the lower price comes at the cost of significant screen space. Think they're going to release a PMP with a 2.5" capacitive touch screen?

        • And as someone looking for a tablet, you simply have to decide which size screen you prefer. The smaller screen size makes typing far easier on the tab (as its the perfect size for thumb-typing in portrait mode -- whereas the iPad can't be held and typed on at the same time).

          The iPad's larger screen is clearly superior, imo, for web-browsing and movie watching, but trying to do any work with it can be unpleasant and it's significantly "less portable" in that it weighs 1.5 pounds (almost twice as much) and

  • So, my handspring visor is about to die: The case is cracked, the screen is scratched, the leather slipcase is ripped, and I recently misplaced the stylus. What should I get as a replacement?
  • OK, sure, I'd love an android phone, but I'm not willing to pay the hefty data plan fees.

    I'd really been considering how to get a good android phone without a phone plan at all, and use it like an iTouch, only with wifi and no voice or cellular data whatsoever. The *pads are too big, I want something phone/iTouch sized that will fit in my normal sized pockets. Too bad the demoted the camera on this compared to it's Galaxy S phone cousin. I've not seen an amoled screen to know if I care that's gone too. I'd

    • I have similar trouble, though I want to add cellular service to the device and leave out the data plan. I want a phone, but don't want the data plan; I'm quite happy with intermittent wifi. I think that I'm going to switch to either a Nexus 2 phone or a Nokia N900, then buy a prepaid contract with AT&T or Tmobile. I'm still thinking about the options, though. My really old LG flip phone, and N810 still work. I just want these two devices combined into one. They're old enough to finally justify re

      • Buy an unlocked phone and get a subscription that doesn't include data? Why would that be such a difficult thing to figure otu?

        • Why would that be such a difficult thing to figure otu?

          It wouldn't, nor did I suggest that it would be. I suggested combinations that I am thinking about, not that I am having difficulty with. After my suggestion, I asked about a specific hard- and software combination.

          Do you have difficulty with English?

          -rex

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seeing that my Samsung TV can do lots of stuff through a cat 5. It would make sense if their Android tablet had a tuned dlna server installed so things like internet tv, youtube, jpegs, m4v, vobs, mp3s and radio could stream from the tablet. I have some features working with mediatomb and twonky (non-free) does some other things like youtube. There is no reason why the Android OS could not do streaming internet over wifi, it would even be possible to make it work with other DLNA compliant devices. If this i

  • A WiFi Skype Phone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @01:37AM (#34735210)
    Nice, I would buy a handful of these to use as WiFi Skype phones.
    • Depending on the price I assume? Might be cheaper for you to go with 8 GB iPod Touches instead, since Skype for iPod now supports video. But since we don't know the price yet, it's sort of difficult to say for certain.

  • by l00sr (266426) on Sunday January 02, 2011 @01:50AM (#34735250)

    I, for one, welcome our new Android PMP overlords.

  • What's the point (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun (571051)
    if it's not cheaper than an iPad. I mean, I know there are lots of /.ers that'll say they want an open platform and all, but most ppl don't care. These things are set to run $599. Then again, is apple actually running tight margins or is Samsung just trying to muscle in on their 'soak the rich' territory?
  • Practically every default (non-removable) App is focused on using Google. If I have to choose between Google and Apple I prefer Apple, because they presently don't resell my details of their analysis of me to others. This may change, but it's a matter of "who I trust less with my information".

    To me, Android is not open enough to call it open, it's a myth similar to the "do not evil" mantra, so pardon me for being critical, but no thanks. I don't even search on Google anymore: I prefer DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com] ..

  • There are plenty of ~4" Android devices already. Some are kinda scummy, but lots are every bit as capable as an "iTouch". But it is nice to see more devices in that area.

    That said, there will be numerous ~10" Android tablets coming out in 2011. Combined with Android 3.0, the Android Marketplace, great hardware, lack of needing "iTunes", and lower prices, Apple will have a HUGE challenge in the iPad arena.

    Yay! Consumers win!!

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...