|
 Originally Posted by spare
Your criteria is leaning more towards the subjective than the objective so I could say the same things about the Adam. How do I know how useful the Adam is until I've used it in my daily grind? And if I was worried about being another 'me too', why get an iPad?
Certainly usefulness is subjective. Of course, if millions find something useful, it's objective enough to make them money and create an installed base.
The issue with the Adam is hardware stability. It will run the same Honeycomb that the other bazillion Android tablets will run. The differentiation for Android will largely be hardware. But, if you prefer Honeycomb over iOS, then Adam is on the radar. Then you have to decide if you're willing to shell out that kind of money on hardware from a startup. Most people won't, but because it's Android, they could still sell a great number of units and live to fight another day.
With HP, if WebOS fails, they can also go Android, but WebOS dies. They have no built-in ecosystem or app store that is anywhere near competitive. Adam is definitely me-too on the software side (despite their Eden UI), but their hardware is different and may be more useful.
We'll see. My point is they started from the ground up from hardware and software and embellished Android extensively to meet their vision. It will be able to stand on its own and live or die that way. From what I've seen, the HP device is a me-too hardware device with software that will HOPEFULLY be worth enough people adopting the platform for developers to engage.
Given that more phones will be sold of each platform than tablets, WebOS also needs to get the phone numbers up substantially to drive the ecosystem and app development.
|
|
|