Why Google Isn't Pushing Android For Tablets 224
Brad Linder of Liliputing posted an interesting analysis today about Google's reluctance to endorse Android for tablets. Linder argues that while there may be legitimate concern that Android just isn't polished enough for devices without phone access (because some apps need it), it would be smart for Google to segregate the apps themselves, so users can simply know which apps will work on Wi-Fi-only tablets. But from Google's perspective, he observes, "pushing a version of Android that isn't exclusively for phones could be all it takes for Chrome OS to be dead on arrival."
Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone remind me, what is the point of ChromeOS after all? Because I can't see any.
An actual OS can run a browser, and, in addition, any other program. Having an OS that's an one-trick pony seems to be useless to me here. For flight controllers, that can be good. For non-embedded computers, big or small, not so.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
With Chrome, you can focus all your attention on ads without being distracted with other software.
Sort of like television - only more portable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see you got the talking point memo Jobs put out this week.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've yet to discover an android app that's incompatible with my phone.
Maybe that's because the Galaxy S has a superset of currently available features - but as far as my experience with a user goes, I don't care. All I know is I haven't seen personal evidence of the much talked about fragmentation and incompatibility.
Unlike my previous experiences with J2ME, where pretty much no applications ever worked with my phone, no matter which manufacturer it was from, or if they did work, they were very clunky (lik
Re: (Score:2)
I've yet to discover an android app that's incompatible with my phone.
Maybe that's because the Galaxy S has a superset of currently available features
Har Har Hardy Har Har, "maybe"
So as long as some jerk doesn't along with the el cheapo E-Machine of smart phones, everything will be just peachy? Well, you'll be alright anyway because you'll just buy the good ones, just like everyone else. It's not like people have ever bought cheap computers in masses and then blamed the software for performance problems, right?
glhf
Re: (Score:2)
Google Maps on that 7-inch screen is wonderful (as long as I am near wifi access points)
One of my coworkers has that K-Mart Android tablet thingy, and tethers it to his N1 so he can use the bigger screen for browsing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy cow! Someone gets it!!
If Android users already have an Android phone (and a monthly bill to go along with it) what sense would it make from a consumer standpoint to have an additional monthly bill for an ancillary device?
Tether the damn tablet to another connection and be done with it. It's not difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People with iPads do the same thing. Personally I like those mobile MyFi type devices like Virgin Mobile sells. This way I can just purchase 3G access when I really need it and not have a data plan stuck on my phone.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
why can't I use that app on MY Android, it works on his!
Hi, Mr. Jobs. How are you today?
Google knows theres a lot of disent in the ranks over the already fragmented and inconsistent android platform from consumers and developers.
Huh? It's a lot less fragmented and inconsistent than Windows or the desktop Linux market, and those seem to be doing quite well.
Seriously, I've been using Android since the G1 came out, and I know tons of people with everything from Samsung Galaxies to Nexus Ones, and I've yet to hear that complaint. Not once. Not saying that it isn't a possibility if cellular providers fragment the OS too badly, but right now I think that's just Apple marketing blowing smoke. Besides, wh
It exists for web apps (not a good reason) (Score:5, Insightful)
As TFA explains:
Google Chrome OS, which is basically an OS built around a web browser. Instead of downloaded apps, it will run web apps, although we expect there to be some offline caching capabilities which should let you do things like read eBooks or watch videos even when an internet connection isn’t handy.
I agree with the author that this is a bad idea:
Don’t forget, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, it didn’t have native apps either. He insisted that the development platform for the iPhone was the web, and the phone was designed primarily to run web apps. Today, there are over 250,000 native apps available in the App Store because, let’s face it, web apps just aren’t always going to do the job.
I don't know how much info is in the wild about Chrome OS, so maybe it'll have some wiz bang features that will rule, but I doubt it. Having two operating systems where one will certainly do just doesn't sound like a good idea -- especially when one is out, the other isn't, and the unreleased one is built around a questionable concept.
Re: (Score:2)
But, it's a pretty wild idea. It will work if there's some serious finessing, and Google is likely capable of that, but....
It's also possible it will useless. I can't play games on it?
Interest waning.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
web apps just aren’t always going to do the job.
What's stopping them?
The only thing I can think of is cross-site scripting restrictions, but there are workarounds for that
Re: (Score:2)
I really think it'll be a flop over all. Google wants web apps because Google loves the web. So far it is the only area they've really been able to make any money on. Their other apps are kinda neat but they don't seem to have monetized them very effectively. What they make money is mostly ads. Their search engine makes money because their ads are effective. Gmail makes money because of the ads. Google wants everything to be online, or more particularly on google.com, because that's how they know how to mak
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair to Google, I thought WebOS sounded like a retarded idea as well, and they seemed to make it look and work brilliantly (Never used it personally, but tons of people seem to like it). If Palm had a half credible marketing department, they may have had a chance before getting bought out.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair to Google, I thought WebOS sounded like a retarded idea as well, and they seemed to make it look and work brilliantly (Never used it personally, but tons of people seem to like it). If Palm had a half credible marketing department, they may have had a chance before getting bought out.
Yeah, Palm's marketing department seemed to have a lot in common with Commodore, when it was trying to push the Amiga. Never could figure out exactly what it was they were trying to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of ChromeOS was to compete with Microsoft in the AaaS front.
The point of Android was to compete with Apple on the smartphone front.
Now, they're fighting a two-front war, and can't decide which general to sacrifice in order to save the other one.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome OS is designed to force people to use Google's web apps. Well, actually, it's to force people to look at Google's ads, but same difference.
Android has this pesky ability to run native apps. Bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well one of the points is that, by having your computer run only a single programme (with 99% of everything else being a webservice), it should be able to run very smoothly on low-powered devices.
Not that I really agree with this. The big resource hogs these days are HD video, games and picture editing- none of which are helped much by running over a network.
Not only that, but it feels like it has missed the boat. Android is already taking care of the pocket-computing (these days- smartphone) niche, and the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Never understood this myself. Android works, and works well. Sure Chrome will be great, but can't they get the Chrome browser in Android? Then get the best of both worlds. More online apps running in a browser, and Android apps to cover everything else.
To turn away people wanting to use your products, making them harder to use, seems an odd path to go down.
I'm still after a decent Android tablet, Samsung Tab looks perfect if it ever gets released, and I'd be happy with just a wifi version if I had to.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the problem, and why the Galaxy Tab won't come in a wifi only version, because Google demands that Android devices that want access to the Marketplace must have cell access.
Supposedly this is gonna be fixed up in Gingerbread -- I hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It actually really worries me that you had to post this reply. Have we really reached the point where people have forgotten that you can buy things from hardware shops? Do people now really believe that hardware must always be dealt with through a carrier, who owns the device over you?
I feel like I should blame somebody for this. I want to say Apple, but that might just be habit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Never understood this myself. Android works, and works well. Sure Chrome will be great, but can't they get the Chrome browser in Android? Then get the best of both worlds. More online apps running in a browser, and Android apps to cover everything else. To turn away people wanting to use your products, making them harder to use, seems an odd path to go down..
Chrome is targeted at devices with one to two orders of magnitude more RAM, flash storage, and network bandwidth than a typical Android device. Chrome assumes you have a mouse and keyboard, Android does not. Naturally the designs will differ. A few examples:
* Chrome renders web pages in separate processes, and sandboxes the renderers to make malware harder to write. A desktop PC is fast enough that the slight performance penalty and increase in RAM used is worth the extra security. On a cell phone with
Re: (Score:2)
What Chrome can NOT do that Android can is more important, and that is: everything. So much hype for vaporware that so few people are begging for. Most people are happy with Windows, geeks are content with new linux distros, and nerds and self-declared hipsters would put their lives on the line for OS X; android and iOS both have huge upsides, whether on phones or tablets. I am an admitted Google fan, but come on, who is really holding their b
Too early to tell (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think this is the case considering Motorola is expected to launch a tablet-ready android tablet this year. (And so is Acer too, according to rumors)
ChromeOS will probably ship on tablets AND on netbooks, while Android will probably only ship on tablets. (at least officially, since there are already some netbooks running android)
I don't think Google will want to let everyone down releasing non-optimized android versions for tablets, which would only genererate fragmentation (that magical word again) as far as tablet-specific implementation is concerned.
Also, why wait even more when their competition (Apple) is already singing the infamous "Its printing money!" song?
I expect them to release a tablet-friendly Android version this year so everyone can start working on top of that new "standard". (i.e. they want to set the standard so Android doesn't end up having 100 tablet implementations)
Who knows if that will be Gingerbread or Honeycomb...
Re:Too early to tell (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never been terribly interested in netbooks and have generally viewed them as rubbish, but I'm genuinely interested in the AC100. I'd need to use one before deciding to buy it, but I view it as a better proposition than any netbook I've seen to date. The newest versions of Android have added a lot of polish and can really run well on hardware that's not overly powerful. I can see smartbooks being incredibly popular, especially if they stick with keeping the profile small.
Android-based solutions are already here. ChromeOS isn't. Google should just axe the project and focus on making Android better for these types of devices rather than trying to have two different operating systems. Any other response just makes it appear as though they're well on the road to becoming more like Microsoft where projects are made in different small fiefdoms within the company and dick-waving contests between the kings result in crap products. Set a company goal and get the whole company behind it.
Google TV (Score:5, Informative)
not just that, but Google TV is based on... Android. I guess all TVs will have to come with cameras and GPS too :)
Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] has a article about it, they say that Google gives out varying answers depending who you talk to.
One one hand, we have a radically new set-top form factor that will supposedly run Android applications, and on the other hand, we have a Google product director saying that Android isn't a good fit for non-smartphone devices and that those devices may pose insurmountable application compatibility challenges in some cases.
I reckon this will quickly be a non-story in the end. Someone from Google will provide the necessary foot to the bum of the marketing department and all will be well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite possibly the most useless link ever.
Anyone watch that video? The guy even says, "I have no idea how to use this" and "there's no internet connection"
Why bother?
Re:Too early to tell (Score:5, Interesting)
Android-based solutions are already here. ChromeOS isn't. Google should just axe the project and focus on making Android better for these types of devices rather than trying to have two different operating systems.
No, Android and ChromeOS are both optimized to run on very different hardware platforms. One is designed for low energy usage, passive cooling, no swap memory, and plenty of sensors. And the other is designed for high energy usage, active cooling, and plenty of swap memory space. Fundamentally, those two types of hardware profiles are very different.
And unless one type of hardware profile completely replaces the other, and it hasn't yet, Google should continue supporting both types. And who cares if Chrome OS is not ready yet, Google is taking the longterm view on this. Take its 'Google Docs' for instance, it's not ready to challenge Microsoft Office head-on yet, and it may never be, but it's slowly improving and it's already miles ahead of any similar online Office features offered by Microsoft -- so it will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years. The same could be done with Chrome OS. Give it two years. Give it five years, or even ten years. Google can wait. Google can afford to wait. It just needs to keep its eyes on the ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Android is already shipping on netbooks. [engadget.com] Granted they're referred to as smartbooks when they run a smartphone OS, but the device is basically a netbook that runs Android.
Like this little thing being sold by an Australian company: http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=12&id=3169 [pioneercomputers.com.au]
You can buy it with "Andriod" or the appropriately named WinCE.
I have a 7" tablet with the same CPU and version of Android as this device and it is usable - the netbook is tempting in some ways ... a keyboard is useful when doing any input, but an annoyance when (say) reading an eBook.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Samsung is realeasing an android tablet within the next month. and its quite smooth. uses a built in cellular card to cover data and apps that require it.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung is realeasing an android tablet within the next month. and its quite smooth. uses a built in cellular card to cover data and apps that require it.
But will I be able to buy it in the United States without bundling it with a plan?
It's not dead already? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well ChromeOS is not really an OS so much as an Idea..
From Google's perspective, the underlying linux is not really relevant, what they are pushing is the idea that you can live entirely within the walls of Chrome (the browser) and the underlying OS does not matter.. this in contrast to Android which is far more tightly coupled with the underlying Linux based mini-distro (you couldn't just port the user facing front end to say .. windows mobile or iOS or blackberry and call it a day)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From Google's perspective, the underlying linux is not really relevant, what they are pushing is the idea that you can live entirely within the walls of Chrome (the browser) and the underlying OS does not matter
For that to work, Google would first have to fix the cracking problem with antialiasing in HTML's 2D graphics API (as seen in this demo [tapper-ware.net]).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it could be argued that android alone isn't very functional. It doesn't even have a package manager or market. Who makes an OS without any kind of software management capability at all these days?
Those "optional" google apps pretty much are the only reason anybody runs it.
Don't get me wrong - I love android. However, it has a ways to go before it truly is "open."
Android and Chrome OS will become one (Score:2)
I'd wager anything that google will merge the two....if that wasn't their plan from the beginning, it will come to pass regardless.
I don't see this too difficult really.... but it's smart that they didn't attempt it too early though for various reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think that's the right approach, mostly because ChromeOS has a little bit more to offer as a desktop OS for thin clients or netbooks.
They need to make ChromeOS run Android apps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds sensible. I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts supporting web-standards that involve even further web-to-PC bleeding in the near future. I think that at minimum, google wants the equivalent of "Android Market", "Google Desktop", The Google installer, and Google Gadgets to all be integrated into the underlying web platform in a way that most computing needs regarding applications can be fully met through web 'application' running on the host platform / browser. Or maybe more, effectively equating
Horseshit (Score:5, Informative)
I use my Android constantly with airplane mode turned on and wifi turned back on since the cdma radio is such a hog. I never run into any app that doesn't work as expected based on this setup.
Re:Horseshit (Score:4, Insightful)
This. The only apps that don't work with the cellular connection off are those that rely on A-GPS, and they can always use the device's GPS chipset instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The SprintTV thing won't work over wifi. It pops up a thing that says so. I've never tried using it really, just the once, so I don't even care.
Maybe this is "reason" stuff won't work over wifi, because they don't want it to. Bah, whatever. Welcome to 2010. Marketing 1 - Engineering 0
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the real problem for Android/Chrome tablets. Who's going to sell the non-cellular version? None of the carriers will because they won't make money for them. Will it even be made?
Jettison ChromeOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not ChromeOS is better than Android at this point is largely academic. Android is here, now and (arguably) ready for mass consumption. ChomeOS isn't. It's a shame, and it would suck to jettison all of that work put into ChromeOS, but it's just too late to the party at this point. People are already packing up and heading out to the retail store with Android and diluting the development of Android to push ChromeOS out to market a day late and dollar short does a disservice to both platforms.
They need to retool their Chrome developers to start making Android more tablet friendly and rolling the most positive features of Chrome into Android.
The netbook market is largely static and is likely to self implode or at the very least be rolled into the ultralight laptop market. I mean, really the current generation of Netbooks are really just small laptops; calling them netbooks is paying lip service to the netbook form factor only - a 12" screen really isn't a netbook anymore and people have largely figured out that anything smaller really isn't useful for much in laptop form - but it is in tablet form. So the netbook market is all but gone as separate entity. Where does that leave ChromeOS? Pretty much nowhere. It has no real platform and it is too late to the party to do much of anything.
Meh... I'd really like to see it rolled into Android, that's really the smartest move at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that chrome was kind of made to work in this space, and I have chrome installed in a virtu
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure Android is for those that want a keyboard? Most Android phones don't have a keyboard, they are entirely touch based. Only a select few have a keyboard and most of those are either old/underpowered or just plain suck.
With Swype, even the touch keyboard is becoming faster or at worst the same speed as the chiclet sized keyboard on the phones that have them.
I fail to see how Android is designed for anything but touch. A keyboard is possibly a nice convenience, but is by no means required.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also I'm real skeptical of Chrome OS (Score:2)
It is marketed as a web OS, as in the only thing the computer will have on it is a media player and web browser. Ok, well putting aside if it is a good idea to make everything web based, that only works for online all the time situations. You know, like not tablet PCs. Seems like what tablets demand are a classical embeded OS. Something that is light weight but can have all the features you need. Sounds just like Android to me.
I think Google gets a little blinded by their web focus sometimes. They think it
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume they will use Android to govern the "application" market for things which the user perceives as private, usable when there's no network at all, or rely on a lot of computer power and little network needs. ChromeOS, the technology if not the brand name, would be used to define a new level of compatibility and seamlessness with the internet. Chrome the name (rather than the OS) could be used to market this technology. Chrome capable devices could be given a physically distinquishing factor so i
Just sayin' (Score:2)
I will buy a tablet when it can run windows 7, with autodesk inventor, all my typical programs, and browse the web from anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget your anti-virus and spamware programs.
Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't Chrome OS already dead on arrival?
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what I was thinking. Chrome OS is a gigantic waste of time at this point. It would make far more sense to offer an Android subset than to have two separate distributions. The right way to do "Chrome OS" today is to simply hide most of Android from the user until they ask for it.
This article is bollocks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless your Android app is specific to some telephone thing, like SMS or a dialer, that app is going to be just fine on a tablet without phone features or even service. WiFi will do.
Really, let's go down the list of apps on my Android phone:
The Google Stuff: Calendar, Calculator, Amazon MP3, Camera, Contacts, Email, Gmail, Clock, Gallery, Google Search, Maps, Latitude, News & Weather, Navigator, Places, Talk, YouTube. None of these need phone service, they are happy with WiFi or nothing at all.
Android Market likes to have your SIM I think to validate ya. OK, ONE.
Messaging, of course, likes SMS. That's TWO.
Phone, obviously, THREE.
Oh darn, Mobile Backup. Oh, FOUR.
Other Apps: AppMonster, Terminal, World, AK Notepad, Astro Player, Barcode Scanner, AndroZip, Barcode Scanner, Bonsai Blast, Browser, Classic Tetris, Craigslist, CraigsNotifier, eBay, Facebook, GPS Status, Music, Pandora, SetCPU, Superuser, Twitter, WiFi Analyzer, World.
None of these need phone anything. WiFi will do where needed.
Out of 44 apps on my phone (not counting some very, very obviously non-phone-dependent one I haven't listed), only 4 need or just use phone service.
Reality check. The many Android apps that want phone permissions just want them to screw with your contacts or to check the phone state. Woop.
It's not at ALL about Android needing a phone. It's about Android being more suited to small screens and small machines (minimal RAM and lesser CPUS), and Chrome pointed directly at the desktop and netbook/notebook markets. More exactly, pointed directly at Microsoft.
Fracturing a market with Android and Chrome competing for share doesn't work for Google, so they will try to avoid it. It's just that Chrome is not as ready as Android is, and Android will have to keep itself lean to be workable on smartphones.
Of course, ARM is working on giving smartphones the power that netbooks have, and Intel is growing the Atom line up and the Duo line down to crush AMD's hopes in emerging markets.
It's actually not a bad strategy to be competing with yourself. IBM gave that a go in the 80s and 90s.
Android is the past, ChromeOS the future (Score:2)
Lost a potential android user here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree that Samsung is on crack with the Tab - it's £680! And one of their executives thinks they're going to sell 10m of these things. Maybe it's just me, but I felt unhappy paying just under £200 for a ZT-180 (which tries way too hard to look like an iPad, it's embarrassing). Build quality could be better, it's a resistive screen and the battery life could be better too, but otherwise it seems to do the job fairly well.
If you're happy to do a little hackwork, there are a number of peopl
ChromeOS (Score:3, Interesting)
ChromeOS as far as I can judge from what I have seen on the pictures and the emulation is pointless for tablets the entire ui is centered around a mouse and a smallish screen estate. Trying to push chromeOS on a tablet would be a huge mistake. I personally dont think google is that stupid, and I beliefe their arguments the OS simply needs a tablet refinement to work fine. Heck apple did the same for iOS on the ipad, you need to change the aspects of various distances, better even introduce resolution independence, you have to ajust the layout system of the apps so that they can use the bigger real estate better than just presenting themselves blown up (the classical example is the mail menu system on the iPad)
and you also have to adjust the market apps decently.
I would be surprised if google would come up with ChromeOS as solution for Tablets, I rather expect a Gingerbread reference design given first to the Google Employees on christmas with decent Android based tablets following the upcoming months from HTC and co.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Android was designed from the beginning to fight with guys like RIM and Microsoft, and to a lesser extent, Palm.
I don't know which "beginning" you are referring to, but Android was released on the market to compete against what was at the time iPhone OS.
iOS on the other hand, was inteded for a tablet style device.
No, it was iPhone OS [wikipedia.org] before it was iOS.
Also, with the advanced operating systems today, such as iOS and Android, it doesn't matter what their original release device or the intended device was. They are both equally flexible enough to be adjusted to and support multiple different resolutions, architectures, and other hardware.
What makes more sense is that Android started gaining traction at a much higher rate than Google initially anticipated. So, Android may be stepping into Chrome OS territory with tablets. However, Google still wants to give Chrome OS a legitimate shot. Maybe they think they can repeat what they did with Android. I think it's going to be hard.
iPad was created before iPhone (Score:4, Interesting)
Read this in an interview with Jobs. They basically made an iPad prototype and Jobs said, "let's make a phone out of this". So they did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read this in an interview with Jobs. They basically made an iPad prototype and Jobs said, "let's make a phone out of this". So they did.
That is 100% correct. It was an All Things D interview with Mossberg and Swisher; I think it might have even been D8 this year. iOS (even before it was called that) was always designed to go on both a tablet and phone. Android, on the other hand, wasn't, at least until v3.0. Seeing as how rudimentary features like the virtual keyboard and copy/paste suck on Android, I hope they fix that before going headstrong into tablets. Sure, HTC has fixed the C&P issue in Sense, and Swype is really cool, but those
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt any of this, but what I do doubt is its accuracy.
If Jobs said that just this year, he could have simply been playing the FUD game in reverse. His minions already love their iThings, and he wants to make sure they will love the newest iThing, the tablet one. He tells them, "This is what we had planned all along!" and voila! Instant cred.
Again, I'm not necessarily saying this is untrue, just taking it at face value.
Re: (Score:2)
While Jobs can certainly say whatever he wants, Wired reported about the iPad [boingboing.net] in 1999.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And why do I think this? It's quite simple really. There was no implementation in the API for devices of varying features or screen size until iOS 4. If the design was originally intended for a tablet, I would think they would be smart and implement the API from the beginning, so that they wouldn't need to re-create all the apps so that they would run on the tablets natively. But they didn't. No support for the basic features of a tablet appeared until iOS 4. Which shows that either it wasn't i
Re: (Score:2)
I've read that too and I think Jobs is lying.
For me it's obvious that the iPhone grew out of the success of the iPod. Apple was smart enough to realise that mobile phones were poised to evolve to become music and media players. So if Apple wasn't going to throw away their huge iPod success they needed to make a mobile phone themselves. Don't forget there's an iPhone version without phone functions. It's called the iPod Touch.
Jobs is trying to rewrite history to make the iPad even more enticing. Never trust
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Jobs is spin personified, one should take anything that man says with a serious serving of salt.
It's not many years ago that he claimed Apple would never get into ebooks, as people didn't read anymore. What was the first they introduced on ipad again?
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
No, internally from the ground up it started as an unreleased Tablet OS
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-at-d-iphone-os-started-on-a-tablet/ [engadget.com]
Jobs was just never happy with battery performance and other tablet problems... Then they figured out that they could start out even smaller with a phone and do a good job...
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
iOS on the other hand, was inteded for a tablet style device.
No, it was iPhone OS [wikipedia.org] before it was iOS.
If you dig a little further [allthingsd.com], you will learn that the iPad came first in Apple's R&D pipeline. They had to wait for some reason, and so they made the iPhone in the interim. If you've used the iOS SDK, it becomes pretty clear that it is not something that Apple just shoved out the door in 12 or 18 months or whatever it was. It's obvious that it had already had years of effort put into it. Perhaps the SDK was indeed intended only for iPad, and they rushed it out for iPhone due to popular demand, or perhaps it was a parallel effort. But it's not something Apple just cobbled together and shoved out the door and later updated to work with iPad. iOS was built for a tablet device from the beginning, IMO.
Also, with the advanced operating systems today, such as iOS and Android, it doesn't matter what their original release device or the intended device was. They are both equally flexible enough to be adjusted to and support multiple different resolutions, architectures, and other hardware.
The wildcard here is device and OS compatibility, which Apple obviously had thought through pretty well. While Android seems to just march forward ignoring it, creating a challenge for app developers. I don't have an Android device, but it is my understanding that it needs to be a phone to use their app marketplace, e.g. I'm not an Android dev, either, but from the sidelines, it looks like they just keep making things tougher for devs as time goes on. Not as bad as Rim or others, but not nearly as nice as iOS. My money is on the fact that the next revision of iPad will work with 99.999% of the apps out there. I'm not sure you could say the same for an Android tablet. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The official android market is dependent on a sim card. Even a phone wont work unless it has a sim card in it.
Tell that to my EVO 4G, on Sprint [sprint.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is that some of the older apps makes assumptions based on the specs of the G1 and similar gen android devices.
Take for instance the camera subsystem. All older apps assume that the camera will be auto-focus, so they don't bother asking (or do not have the capability to do so). But many of the cheaper devices with camera use fixed focus. This means that android market (more like google market, but that's a whole different rant) have to assume that if a app asks for camera capability, but do n
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know exactly how long it took them to "shove it out the door", but probably less time than you think. It is after all a redo of Mac-OS with touch interface. All the paradigms were imported from Mac OS, and I don't think it would have taken them that long. Remember, it wasn't as polished as it is now when they first pushed iPhone version 1 out the door with no dev kit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Latest version of Android 'not designed' for tablets, report says
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100910/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc3593 [yahoo.com]
"Hugo Barra, Google’s director of mobile products, told TechRadar UK that Android 2.2 Froyo is "not optimized for use on tablets," and that while Android itself is still an "open platform," the Android Market — Google’s version of Apple’s App Store — is "not going to be available on devices that don’t allow applications to run correct
iPod touch (Score:2)
it was iPhone OS before it was iOS.
And even when it was iPhone OS, iPod touch ran it. The article, as I understand it, is about the general lack of something that could be described as "Android pod touch". And even when Archos does bring out the occasional Android tablet, Google doesn't let it into Android Market, unlike iPod touch, which has had App Store access since iPhone OS 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Not official from Google, but Android x86 exists [android-x86.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
pardon? This from the guys that literally double the dimensions of the iPhone's apps just to run on the tablet? This from the guys that didn't and still don't multi-task on these devices? Designed for Tablet computing? What are you smoking?
Android isn't designed for Tablet either to be fair. Both platforms had a very small profile and screen requirement. IOS's GUI core was enhanced to include another GUI profile target. There's nothing specifically brilliant about IOS that makes it a tablet user's wet dream
Re:they all suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that we have an MS fuckwit running Nokia, I don't really care what runs on phones or tablets. The available choices all require giving up my right to make choices, period. The whole smartphone tablet space really really fucking sucks.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's - but I think it's pretty obvious most people couldn't care less about, as you call it, "giving up my right to make choices". Thing is, most people don't seem to see anything problematic about Apple's walled garden or with any limitations Google might put on their marketplace. They just care that it's easy to grab the Facebook app.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people simply aren't bothering yet.
iPad numbers are still like Commodore 64 numbers at this point.
Making any grand pronouncements from them is a bit absurd and premature.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think you realize how well the Commodore 64 actually sold....
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I wonder how Model T sales figures compare to Ford Pinto's.
Pure quantity isn't necessarily relevant if market saturation is drastically different.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
50M+?
More like 5M+. They're making between 2 & 3 M a month now.
But they'll hit 17M easily by next year. And probably another 17M the year after.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
iOS 4 updates for iPad have been delayed multiple times.
They have? In July, Jobs said the iPad would get it iOS 4 "in the Fall," [osxdaily.com] and at the beginning of this month he said November.
Doesn't look like it's been delayed to me, looks like it's right on track.
~Philly
Re:Even Apple is struggling (Score:4, Insightful)
November is very definitely Winter...Steve needs to learn his Irish Calendar before making promises that will be listened to Worldwide
Hi, southern hemisphere here. We'd like a word about your concept of "worldwide"...
Re: (Score:2)
Which app? How do you know it's not a problem with the app?
Re: (Score:2)
People who think that apparently haven't used both operating systems. Android is a mobile OS designed to run third party apps - the apps are the centerpiece of the OS. ChromeOS is for devices that want to run a web browser. And nothing else. ChromeOS is great for kiosks and a decent choice for a netbook. But tablets are a big in between. If your tablet is a big phone, get an Android model. If it's a slim netbook without a keyboard, ChromeOS should be your choice. If it's a laptop replacement, look to better specs and full Linux or (*gasp*) Windows 7.
Remember this:
Want apps? Choose Android.
Want web browsing? Choose ChromeOS.
Want flexibility? Choice Linux/Windows.
That's the problem - why diversify your product line when there's no point in it. You'll confuse most consumers by having Chrome OS on this tablet (which is a small netbook) and Android on this tablet (which is a large phone) - Well they are both made by Company X and look almost the same - why don't my Android apps work on this tablet? BAH TABLETS SUCK!
No... that's just a horrible idea. They need to unify the OS. Android is here and now, ChromeOS is too far off to be viable. It needs to be rolled into
Re: (Score:2)
My idea is that Chrome as a brand name needs to be phased in later- once there is a larger market for Android devices. Chrome could be used to define internet interoperability- that two devices which feature "chrome" are compatible in the way you'd intuitively expect and behind the scenes they use whatever amazing technology they've discovered with ChromeOS development. Chrome apps would be available exclusively over the internet and you could purchase any app in the family and it would know how to interope
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of Google's stuff is in a perpetual beta.