Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1.    #1  
    For some reason, Google is publicly saying that Android is not designed for tablets. This, just before the release of the Galaxy Tab. Seems like Google may be trying to distance themselves from the user experience disaster that I suspect is on the way.

    What's the lesson? You can't just slap an OS made for one form factor, onto that of a different one. People who are pinning their hopes on webOS scaling seamlessly to a tablet should take note. It takes a lot of work to build an OS for a particular form factor.

    The iPad has been in development longer than the iPhone. All of that development shows. Even so, it is still not perfect. Now, competitors want to enter the market with a shortcut that cuts out proper OS development. It didn't work for Windows. It is not working for Android. And it won't work for Palm. HP needs to take their time if they want to get this one right. Otherwise, they, too, will be making announcements about how webOS was not designed for tablets.
  2. #2  
    Yes, HP/Palm will need to make sure their webOS tablet/slate is designed from the ground up to function as a tablet and not just a large-sized Pre without a physical keyboard. Even webOS 1.0 was not really designed well for the smartphone...I am not talking about their UI, but the PIM functions on the Pre are limited compared with the Treo/Centro lines...However, with webOS 2.0 and HP's funding and resources, Palm has a chance to re-birth their OS just as Google did with Android 2.x! PAAAAALLLM...FTW!
  3. #3  
    I thougt webos was designed with tablets and other form factors in mind. In fact it was built after they learned lessons from folio and realized they needed an operating system that would work in other form factors as well.

    I think it's premature to declare it won't work.

    OTOH there is certainly significant work to be done for it to be a real compelling and competitive device.
    There are four lights.
  4. spare's Avatar
    Posts
    662 Posts
    Global Posts
    664 Global Posts
    #4  
    webos will work better on a big screen tablet than a smartphone. feel free to quote me when the webos tablet hits.
  5. #5  
    It's not about the OS, so much as it is the apps. Samsung seems to realize this as they have created optimized book, magazine, and newspaper reading apps along with their proprietary media hub software for audio and video. Not quite as polished as iTunes, but a very good start and way ahead of competitors who juststick generic Android on there.

    Similarly, Verizon is working verycarefully with Motorola on their tablet, and it might not only have an early version of Gingerbread, which will be optimized for tablets, but also stream Verizon FIOS TV. Both of these are significant differentiators against the generic KIRF "aPad" Chinese junk littering eBay and Craigslist. Selling them for $200-300 with contract subsidy will also help.

    If I had to have a slate, however, I would still choose iPad at this point. Not the current one, mind you...I mean, we're getting closer to 2.0 everyday. But they provide the best value in terms of media, games, web browsing, app support, etc. Sucks being tied to iTunes, but if you want one of those, why bother with anyone else?

    Hopefully, HP will provide an answer to that question by the end of Q1 2011.
  6. #6  
    That's what Android 3.0 Gingerbread is for...it will be made to scale up for tablets and will be out around the same time your webos 2.0 comes out or maybe before knowing Palm.
  7.    #7  
    Thing is, it's not me saying it. Google is the one that came out and said Android is not designed for tablets. I don't fully understand what that means as I am not a programer. But, for some reason, Google felt the need to come out and say it. Why, if not to distance themselves from a less than ideal experience, or to curb expectations of this first round of tablets?
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Thing is, it's not me saying it. Google is the one that came out and said Android is not designed for tablets. I don't fully understand what that means as I am not a programer. But, for some reason, Google felt the need to come out and say it. Why, if not to distance themselves from a less than ideal experience, or to curb expectations of this first round of tablets?
    1) The first round of Android tablets have already happened. This is more like the third after the domestic cheapies (e.g. Augen).
    2) They should be distancing themselves from generic tablets from makers too cheap to purchase licenses for Google apps and access the Market.
    3) What they're really saying is that it's not designed for tablet resolutions like 1024 x 600, and to an extent, that's true. Lots of Android apps scale fine, but way too many don't, and there's no handy "HD" marker like with Apple's App Store.
  9.    #9  
    Sure, but the GTab is right around the corner, and it has just been lumped in with the crap tabs as, it too, is not running an OS designed for tablets. This is a horrible thing to say with even worse timing. Sammy has already announced that upcoming tablets will be running a more tablet oriented OS. The implication is that the GTab will not be getting it. I don't know who approved this statement, but it is a marketing nightmare.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Sure, but the GTab is right around the corner, and it has just been lumped in with the crap tabs as, it too, is not running an OS designed for tablets. This is a horrible thing to say with even worse timing. Sammy has already announced that upcoming tablets will be running a more tablet oriented OS. The implication is that the GTab will not be getting it. I don't know who approved this statement, but it is a marketing nightmare.
    I doubt it. Samsung is positioning the tab as somewhere between a tablet and a phone. It's being sold via carriers with full voice capabilities and with a screen topping out at 7 inches, so it doesn't need to have a special "tablet" version of Android. They're already creating some pretty cool inhouse apps for it as I mentioned above. Honestly, they're really copying the media consumption approach and look and feel of the iPad apps.

    Like...outright stealing.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Everything changed with the iPad. Before the iPad the HP Slate, the Microsoft Courier, Joo Joo etc. were viable products. Remember the Adobe demo running on the HP Slate? Now they are not. It looked cool at the time but now it just looks like a lot of poking at the screen:

    HP's slate device demo - Adobe Developer Connection

    I think the reason why we haven't heard anything about the HP Slate since January is that putting out a slate with a clunky UI and poor battery life just isn't going to be enough anymore.

    It's becoming clear that there are going to be some pretty inferior Android tablets coming out over the next couple quarters, especially, as Google hasn't made Android work well with tablets. Google should be wary of Android getting a reputation for being clunky on tablets.
    I'm pretty sure they're working very closely with Motorola and Verizon on their tablet, and the results should much like Droid, but priced below iPad due to subsidies.

    Whatever no name Android tablets wash up on our shores will have no bearing on customer perception of Android. Anybody like Samsung or Motorola that bothers to invest the resources to put a lot of tablets in the hands of a lot of American consumers...well, they're probably going to put in the work to deliver a customized and differentiated experience on their end.

    When Google is ready to deliver an out-of-the-box great tablet experience (or at least try to) with Honeycomb or Gingerbread...they're going to let people know.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    So what do people think about carrier-subsidized tablets? Just how many of us are willing to pay another monthly data fee? I'd love to see the distribution between wifi-only and 3G iPads. Remember that one of the reasons why AT&T has such relatively reasonable data rates for the iPad is that Apple has them over a barrel. You don't even have to have a subscription to turn on the iPad 3G connectivity. Think of what Verizon did to the Kin - they slapped a data plan on it that nobody wanted to pay.

    If Google works closely with Motorola on their tablet, does that mean that the software innovations they create become integrated into Android? I doubt that Motorola would allow anything they come up with to be incorporated into competitive devices. I think that Motorola would rather keep those to themselves.
    By I mean I think 3.0 will debut on their "Stingray" tablet just like 2.0 debuted with the Droid. That was a successful launch model for everyone involved. Why not recreate it for tablets?

    As for the data plan, it's part of the reason I have no interest in slates. I go almost nowhere with my netbook that doesn't have WiFi, so I wouldn't bother.
  13.    #13  
    If the tablet industry stopped in its tracks after the announcement of the iPad, it makes me wonder what their idea of a tablet was supposed to be? I think a lot of those CES announcements were just intended to preempt the Apple announcement. They thought they had an idea of what Apple would announce and how much it would cost. Apparently, they were wrong.

    Just how bad were those preemptive strikes going to be? Now, everyone will be trying to negotiate carrier deals. I get the feeling that was not going to be the case. But since Apple released a tablet well under 1K, no one seems to be able to touch the price. What were their tablets going to cost?

    Now that Android tablets are hitting the market, Google: the maker of the Android OS, is trying to lower expectations on the eve of their best representative to date. I have never seen anything like this in the business world. Right now, all, would-be competitors just look really stupid. It certainly enhances the perception that Apple is the rudder that steers the ship. What company will step up and challenge that notion?
  14. #14  
    The Galaxy Tab will require a voice AND data plan. The voice plan is required since the Tab has a non-removable phone icon. I think that's one of the reasons Google is trying to make it clear that froyo is not a tablet oriented software release.

    Future versions of Android might not require phone capability in order to gain marketplace access. That's when the tablet manufacturer's can sell Wifi only versions.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by kinster02 View Post
    That's what Android 3.0 Gingerbread is for...it will be made to scale up for tablets and will be out around the same time your webos 2.0 comes out or maybe before knowing Palm.
    Actually, that's not really what Android 3.0 is for. Yes, it will have support for larger form-factor devices, but what do you think Google has been working on Chrome OS for? Hrmm..
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    I'm pretty sure they're working very closely with Motorola and Verizon on their tablet, and the results should much like Droid, but priced below iPad due to subsidies.

    Whatever no name Android tablets wash up on our shores will have no bearing on customer perception of Android. Anybody like Samsung or Motorola that bothers to invest the resources to put a lot of tablets in the hands of a lot of American consumers...well, they're probably going to put in the work to deliver a customized and differentiated experience on their end.

    When Google is ready to deliver an out-of-the-box great tablet experience (or at least try to) with Honeycomb or Gingerbread...they're going to let people know.
    I actually think that Google will introduce Gingerbread with the Motorola/Verizon Droid tablet.

Posting Permissions