It ships with Jellybean... I've been waiting for the Samsung 10 inch tablet with the stylus, but it's already out of date and hasn't even shipped yet. I don't want a 7inch tablet and it is going to be years by the time a Jelly Bean 10 inch tablet comes out and by that time there will already be a new version of the OS! I already have a Fire and I can't read magazines on it, it's too small. I'm just going to give up and get an iPad.
Tablets are expensive. I cannot afford to buy a tablet every year. So I want a tablet that is future proof. The 10 inch tablets that others will release this year will have an outdated operating system on them and will still cost many hundreds of dollars. I do not want to spend hundreds of dollars on an outdated operating system. I love Android, but this terrible to the extreme.
I love that people accuse Apple of planned obsolescence in the phone market when Google releases operating systems that don't even work on devices that came out in the current year.
"don't even work on other companies devices that they have no control over"
Fixed that for you. The Nexus (minus the G1) line of phones gets regular updates - my old Nexus One was always updated within a few weeks of a new version of android coming out. If you want updated OS software on your phone, be smart about which droid phone you get. Ain't goog's fault Samsung won't allow updates to Phone #4123.
I'm just a user of Google's Android OS. My three-year old Windows and Mac computers still get the latest OS versions, as do my iPhones. I don't care about the particular reasons why my phone with Google's Android OS doesn't get updated. I just know it doesn't. Those are Google's problems, not mine. My problem is that I own an Android phone that is not on the latest version.
> be smart about which droid phone you get
My solution to this problem is to get an iPhone. Even the phones Google makes don't have the kind of update longevity Apple's do. The Nexus One did not get ICS, much less Jellybean. The 3GS is getting iOS 6.
You didn't buy your OS from Google. You didn't buy your device from Google. Your phone doesn't have the latest OS because your device manufacturer isn't giving it to you.
Yeah, I don't really care. It is Google branded, was developed primarily by Google, was marketed as "Google Android" and/or "Android by Google" at various times, has Google apps, has a store run by Google where I get more apps, and has Google's name associated with it in every news article I find about it online. It's a Google device to me, Joe Average Consumer. Your technicalities don't mean jack to me.
Also, everything you said in this comment applies likewise when I get a laptop with Windows installed by an OEM. Are you prepared to argue that a Windows computer is in no part a Microsoft product and that Microsoft would not be responsible if the OS failed to update on my laptop?
And Joe Average Consumer doesn't care what OS version his phone is running, as long as he can play Angry Birds and get email and Facebook. I wish that wasn't true, because then carriers and manufacturers who fail to provide updates would be punished by the market, but it is.
Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows. More importantly, Microsoft has full control over update channel. Not so with Android.
> Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it?
It is not a sword duel you know? Between this and throwing "I don't care's" around you really come off argumentative
> Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows.
For the most part, the extent of this with Android is providing drivers and firmware for an individual phone's hardware, plus a few crapware apps to run on the desktop. This happens all the time in the Windows ecosystem too. I think the analogy is holding up just fine.
I am argumentative, so it is reasonable for me to come off this way, although you're right that I should chill a little. I dislike the double standards that people have with respect to Google and other companies on this subject.
But, of course, you're wrong since there is no double-standard. Microsoft is no more responsible than Google is with regards to their software installed on hardware you buy from a manufacturer.
I would be very surprised if the average Joe feels this way. To double check my theories, I just asked three engineers where I work and they all seem to believe that Microsoft has an obligation to support new, high-end laptops in a near-term OS bump.
Microsoft has no such obligation; but you might certainly want that. But we all want stuff. Do a bunch of engineers want Microsoft to release an OS that supports their new laptops -- of course. So what.
The thing is, this happens all the time. My Dell laptop came with Vista and it doesn't "support" Windows 7. You can't get 7 drivers directly from them. It runs 7 just fine (in fact better) but you're on your own to get it working.
You and I are using different meanings of this word. Presumably you are referring to a legal obligation, or a moral one. I don't recognize the existence of morality and I suspect that, unless they have a "Windows 8 Ready" tag on the machine, no legal obligation would exist either.
The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation formed in the minds of average consumers to the point where they consider it a fault on the part of the software manufacturer when the expectation is not met.
> Dell ...
How old was the machine? There's a big difference in most consumers' expectations between failing to support N-year old devices and devices that are currently selling.
> The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation...
Obligation is a legal or moral term -- you can't use that term otherwise. An expectation is not an obligation. If you expect free cookies from me because I've been giving you free cookies every day for the past week, that's fine. But I'm not obligated to give you free cookies today. If Bob gives you free cookies and I'm now sitting in Bob's desk, you might expect free cookies but I'm not obligated to give them to you.
Microsoft provides updates out of the goodness of their heart. You might expect them to continue giving updates forever. They're not obligated to do that. And because they give updates, Google isn't obligated to do it too.
If you'd like your expectations to be met, find Bob and he might give you some cookies.
I guess we have reached an impasse. We'll see how well this approach works out for Google in the long run. I'm inclined to suspect it is hurting them as it would probably hurt Microsoft if they started breaking backwards compatibility with every OS release. But reality will have to be the arbiter of whether this theory is correct.
Also, IMO, the term social obligation is pretty well understood. It's an expectation of your behavior by others.
I loved this thread. I am beginning to hate Google. I don't care about words and explanations: I remember updating my iPhone "1" a little while after the Apple event, While just updating my Samsung Galaxi SII to ICS a few weeks ago with shitty Movistar stuff bundled and where they even removed the "native" browser and you must go to the search option tocopen it. Sure I can now install Chrome but I discovered that Opera works better than Firefox and Chrome! (hilarious? I can't submit to HN with these last two). And everyday I trigger vlingo shit because I pressed two times the home button and can't be disabled! (vlingo posted a solution that don't work on their websites).
I don't want a Ferrari that is not leaving its potential.
> We'll see how well this approach works out for Google in the long run.
You make it seem like Google want this but I seriously doubt that they do. They simply don't have any say in the matter. They gave the carriers and the manufacturers everything they wanted to get into the market and now they can't close the barn door after the horses have run out. So instead they have their Nexus devices.
> social obligation is pretty well understood
Social obligation is also a moral term and it means more than just doing what people expect you to do because they are spoiled.
Do you believe that Google doesn't want all Android users to have the latest and greatest? The more people happy with Android, the more people using Android, the more people seeing Google provided ads, which was the whole point of starting Android in the first place.
You have absolutely no business relationship with Google with regards to your device and yet you think it's their problem? Branding tells you what software it's running -- that's all -- it doesn't imply anything more.
Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period.
If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.
This is not the question I asked. I asked you if you thought it would be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop.
I am slightly curious as to your personal opinion, but in the main it simply doesn't matter what an individual hacker knowledgable about the business aspects of the ecosystem thinks. I'd be willing to stake up to a hundred dollars that if you find five random Windows users on the street and ask them "If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?" five of them would say yes (assuming they know that Windows updates at all :P). Whether you technically have a business relationship with Microsoft is totally uninteresting to most consumers, as is also true in this case with Google. What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. That's really all I have to say about this subject.
Yes, I did edit it in, but I thought I had done it so quickly that you would not have seen the original comment. My apologies.
> be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop.
Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions of Windows 8 to everyone who bought a Windows 7 PC? Because that's what you're comparing it to. Obviously nobody on the street would think that's reasonable.
> If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?
Microsoft has no moral obligation to provide updates and updates are really a relatively new invention. They do, in fact, stop providing updates to their software all the time.
> What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI.
So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Honestly? No where does Google say they'll update your device. Not in the marketing, not the branding, not even really in the UI.
> Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not run on a computer I bought this year.
So now you think Microsoft is morally obligated to design their software so that it runs on older hardware? Your expectations are clearly pretty extreme.
The interesting point here is that Google's software does work on the hardware we're talking about. So is Google or Microsoft obligated to give you software for free? Obviously they are not. But even more interesting, Google's software is already free and available! So the question then becomes are the manufacturers obligated to modify it to run on your hardware and give it to you? Well are they? If they are, take it up with them. I'm not sure what Google has to do with it.
They are the expectations of typical users of Windows and Android software. I am not sure what you mean by extreme but whatever it is, it's not what I typically think of when I hear the word.
> Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?
Why would it be? I'd like to know the thinking behind this. Are all software makers similarly constrained? Is Valve obligated to make games that run on computers I bought this year? In fact, are they obligated to make games that run on my crappy netbook too?
Is Microsoft obligated to give you Windows 8 for free? Install it for you? Provide all the drivers? Exactly how much free shit do you want?
Your phone doesn't have the latest OS because your device manufacturer isn't giving it to you.
"You didn't buy it from Google, so it's your own fault" is probably not a great marketing tactic for the platform.
Android is, in several ways, dependent on the goodwill and word-of-mouth promotion of people who care about things like getting their device's OS upgraded within a couple years of when the new OS is released. Losing that goodwill (which is surprisingly difficult when we consider all the different ways Google's basically said "fuck you" to the people who promoted Android for them) would probably be a major blow for the platform.
Uhh.. I have a Nexus One, and that was not my experience at all. It took a fucking long time to get updates. But maybe that's because I had one of the later models of Nexus One, which supported AT&T 3G, and all the updates only went out on time to the people who had the original model.
You know, the point of a computer is to do work or play games with it. You do not need the absolute latest release of whatever to do useful work or play games.
Hihi, you are funny. You view of the companies clearly colors your view. It’s not really clear that either company plans or does not plan the obsolescence of their devices.
The end result, however, is that iOS devices become obsolete much more slowly than Android devices. What do I care about the reading of tea leaves as to whether some company plans something or not?
Apple owns the entire ecosystem, they can't claim anything they do to it is unplanned. Google merely owns the OS and a few devices, they can't control what samsung and htc and everyone else decides to do or not do.
“Planned obsolescence” implies that a device is made obsolete to force people to buy newer devices as opposed to other reasons. Just because a device becomes obsolete doesn’t mean it’s “planned obsolescence”, even with total control over the whole ecosystem. That’s at least how “planned obsolescence” is commonly used and defined. “Planned obsolescence” as a term implies a reason (forcing people to buy newer devices), so not all forms of planned obsolescence (not as a term, notice the lack of quotation marks) are really “planned obsolescence” (as the term implying the reason).
Since we can’t read minds it’s definitely akin to reading tea leaves when you want to find out whether “planned obsolescence” plays any role for Apple.
So do you imply that the iOS6 features missing on the iPhone 3GS are missing for hardware reasons - or that intentionally leaving out features is not planned obsolescence? Whatever it is, I don't think Apple is maximizing hardware lifetime here.
(I'm not complaining about the average lifetime of my Apple devices here, the iPad 1 and iPhone 3G were abysmal but my laptop & Mac Mini made up for it. I actually think that's why they have to add stronger, artificial incentives.)
You can debate about this forever. It's like reading tea leaves.
The real world consequence, however, is this: if you want to be able to update your device for as long as possible you should get an iOS device. I'm talking consequences, not so much intentions.
I agree with the consequence and buy accordingly. I don't have anything to add to your first posting, where you've stated how things factually work out.
But I haven't seen anyone argue that Apple's feature cut-off is hardware-bound. This is not reading tea leaves by a far margin. It's a business decision (like many) that goes against the interests of users. No harm in keeping that in mind.
You're never going to have a tablet that is future proof if you don't want to upgrade every year... because there will always be newer, better ones coming out, and newer versions of Android.
Your complaint isn't that buying now would force you to use an outdated operating system, it's that you would use an outdated operating system for a little longer than you normally would.
What are you talking about? This is a 7" $199 tablet we're talking about. And besides, the talking head on stage mentioned JB is coming to the Xoom in the next month or two.
No, Google keeps its promises when it comes to supporting old devices - Jelly Bean will be released in mid-July for the Nexus S, a phone first shipped in Dec 2010. It also got the ICS upgrade months ago.
It's the other Android manufacturers - Samsung, HTC, etc - and the mobile carriers that approve each OTA update that often don't fulfill their promises.
Google promised like two I/Os ago that they were solving the fragmentation problem with some kind of new agreement with device makers, but after that we never heard another word about it.
Maybe it's not Google's fault, but that seems like it's skirting the issue: a year after ICS was announced, something like 7.5% of devices are using it, and now we're moving on to JB. We can sit around and blame Samsung and HTC all day, but Google is the steward company of Android and this fragmentation is a real problem that affects developers. If it's creating a shitty situation for developers, it's creating a shitty situation for users.
Future-proof is a reasonable goal for a desktop PC, television, digital camera, automobile, wristwatch, or other more mature technology. It's just too soon to expect future-proofing from tablets or phones.
As long as the tablet continues to do what it's supposed to do , it shouldn't really matter that there's a newer OS out there.
As compared to the Kindle fire, which was never any good at doing what it was supposed to do. It wasn't even present-proof.
How does the future-proofedness of Android tablets compare to the first iPad?
I think it's held up pretty well, it doesn't get apps or features that require the camera, but aside from that it still gets updates and can run stuff.
Andriod tablets can run new apps but not the operating system upgrades? I don't have any experience to know.
Generally API features of newer versions of Android are backported and made available through the compatibility library, so it's common to get features of newer OSs on older devices (a major exception to this is Google Chrome which is unavailable for pre-ICS devices).
There's no such thing, the iPad won't save you. Apple just deprecated the iPad1 at just over 2 years of lifespan. Even if they didn't the battery would die. We're in a 'disposable device' era now.
If you had gotten the galaxy 7 (the new one) you'd still be fine.
But none can predict what's future proof, mainly because it's what companies make their money off. They NEED you to buy a new tablet, phone, etc, every year.
They'd make car breaks and need complete replacement every year if they could as well.
So, while it can happen that a product is "future proof" for a couple of years instead of one, it's rare.
Heck, even clothes are made to break quickly.
Of course, that's not very ecological, and certainly not cheap for the customer ;-)
I understand your point, but I am not sure I agree. The initial demise of the American automobile manufacturers was partly due to the unreliability of their products.
Regarding tablets, I would think that locking people into a particular app ecosystem would be a higher priority than achieving a high tablet turnover rate. Seems like the money is in the apps, not the hardware.
It depends, most of the hardware is not manufactured by Google (even thus it's sold in Google's name)
So for example, Samsung, etc, (but mostly Samsung here) see a benefit in having the hardware expire as fast as possible (while keeping the balance of 'not having the customer complain about reliability or performance' and 'not letting the competition get ahead, or too much ahead')
I imagine a future-proof tablet would be modular and easy for consumers to modify, like PCs. Modularity for PCs is possible in-part because of standard form factors. But this is something that hasnt been fully embraced by mobile device manufacturers (to my knowledge).
I would love to have a tablet where I could easily add memory, processor, screen, etc. So instead of buying a new one every year, I can just upgrade and extend the hardware myself and still run the latest software.
The problem is that having user-serviceable parts significantly adds to the bulk of a device, and it's pretty clear that's not an appealing tradeoff to most users and manufacturers.
E.g.: just to have a removable battery, you have to put a protective case on the battery as well as an internal "case" to receive the battery inside the device (generally, another layer of plastic. Even on laptops that is becoming prohibitively bulks; on tablets, it's a non-starter (see the recent MacBook Pro redesign). You just can't pack the parts together tight enough and still have them be user-replaceable.
I love the idea of a modular mobile device as well, but it's pretty clear things are headed in the other direction: thinner, sleeker, longer-battery-life products sell better than bulky but more customizable products.
I hope your eyes are much better than mine; good luck reading A4 documents on 7". :-(
I got an iPad 3, it is like reading eInk with fast page changes, so I can browse documentation and not only read literature (cough, out of sunlight of course).
(I'm a bit color blind, so I don't really care that much about the good graphics and color reproduction :-) )
I'd pay good money for a 2-3" larger iPad 3.
Edit: If it wasn't clear -- if you want to read real documents that can't be reflowed, it might have 0 value for the money for you (unless your eyes are < 35 years old.)
No, they should do like Apple and not obsolete Android devices that aren't even released yet. It's part of making customers feel good about buying your product.
The xoom 2 or the very first one? It got off from 3.1 and then got 3.2, 4.0 and now 4.1. That sounds like a nexus like update life. Is nexus 7 really the first google tablet?
It has nothing to do with numbers versus names. It has to do with the knowledge that, if I buy an iOS device today, I know I'll get the next couple of OS releases. The is absolutely not the case with Android (unless you want to deal with rooting your device).
I don't think anybody would care about buying a device with a slightly out-of-date OS if they knew updates would be coming.
Nexus branded devices do get the OS updates in a timely manner. It's part of the Google Nexus experience. This is actually one of the reasons Google keeps putting out devices...to keep their OEMs honest and moving forward. It isn't working as well as I'd like (my HTC Sensation 4G which I bought on short notice to replace my Nexus One, which broke while I was traveling, still doesn't have ICS, despite having HTC assurances that it would be out early in the first quarter; I've given up and will be rooting it), but when you buy an Android device from Google, it's gonna get the latest Android for at least a couple of years.
They could, well... gosh, I dunno, perhaps put licensing restrictions on the use of the Android name/logo, such that by referencing your device as an Android, you commit to a certain minimum level of upgrades/support for devices, vs just cranking them out with 0 upgrade path.
Google no longer supports old hardware to a certain extent. I had to upgrade phones from a Nexus One because they wouldn't be pushing ICS to it. I'm guessing that this will be the case eventually with tablets.
I particularly only purchase Nexus branded devices because of the support for the most current OS from Google.
(Just noticed you said 'for at least a couple of years')
I loved my Nexus One, and it was always on top of the latest official Android releases for about three years (and, if you wanted to root it, there's still good community support for it).
The Nexus One has only been out for 2.5 years (since Jan 2010) and it was announced back in October that it wouldn't be getting ICS because it was "too old", which at that time was still less than 2 years since its launch.
The iPad 1 will be (conservatively guessing) 2.5 years old when iOS 6 is actually released. The Nexus One was less than 2 years old when ICS was released.
iOS 6 does support the iPhone 3GS, which will be over 3 years old when iOS 6 is released.
The 3GS is not a good comparison, as it's still being sold. It may have been released a while ago, but it is still a current product. Support for the original iPad was cut off after about two years, as was support for the original iPhone — because those were both actually old (in the sense of "not current") products. They got very slightly longer support periods than the original Nexus, but they got the same sort of complaints.
"Support for the original iPad was cut off"? What? Isn't the current version of iOS 5.1.1? Doesn't the iPad 1 run it?
I'm not sure what the discontinuation date matters; if you bought your Nexus One in the short window of time Google sold it, you got less than 2 years support. If you bought your 3GS in its first year, it's still supported today, and will be in Fall as well.
Apple has already announced it's cut off. The fact that it's still supported by last year's OS is nice, but given that I already acknowledged that the support period was a little bit longer, I think you're splitting hairs here. They were both cut off fairly quickly. I think Apple gave one more release than Google did.
I mean, is the complaint that Google almost supported the Nexus One long enough and everybody would have been satisfied if it had gotten that one additional upgrade? Because my impression is that people would have felt it was short either way — just like the iPhone 1 owners did.
My feeling is, if you're going to declare the iPad "unsupported" by dint of "doesn't run operating system Apple won't even release for another 3-5 months", there's not a lot of productive conversation for us to have.
Personally I don't give Apple a free pass for not being able to update the original iPad to iOS6. They low-balled the RAM presumably to keep costs under control and now users are going to suffer for it. Delivering one major OS update is better than most of their competition but still not good enough.
Actually, they delivered two - it shipped with iOS 3.2 and has been supported with iOS 4 and 5. But I agree it's annoying that it's not supported with iOS 6, especially given that the 3GS has a slower processor and the same RAM and will be getting it.
> It has to do with the knowledge that, if I buy an iOS device today, I know I'll get the next couple of OS releases.
True that. Actually, Apple gets the best of both worlds. If your iOS device isn't up to date enough, then you're forced at that point to upgrade. So Apple wins on both ends: newer hardware is bought with a degree of comfort, and those who hold on are motivated to pony up for new kit.
While I'm all over you getting an iPad (I'm primarily an iOS dev), the Nexus line of phones, other than the G1, have shown markedly more updatability than the run of the mill random crapware phones you get for free by doing X or Y.
Perhaps you'll get a few years of updates out of it?
What is future proof exactly? While updates matter, how it's bad not to have them? It's like saying you don't like the Android (that's fine) and you will like the next one (that's weird).
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought that the Xoom was included in the updated devices list that will be pushed OTA in july. The xoom is a ten incher, right?
Or just get a 10 inch Samsung tablets and buy one of the stylus's that are available anyways. It's no different than an iPad with one of the 3rd party stylii.
Was exactly what I thought. I know its a google search away but at least show me specs/pictures so that I know whether to wait few weeks or just get your-competitor's tablet.
I'm pretty sure the price will be at least $400 in my region. So the super low price factor won't help me. Other thing is most of the new play content (music, movies, tv series and magazines at the minimum) won't work here as well.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the 7 inch form factor is much malaligned. It fits perfectly in between my smart phone (Galaxy Nexus) and my (relatively) massive tablet (Transformer Prime), and gives me a Kindle sized form factor for TV/Film/music (which as much as I love my wonderful Kindle - I sorely need content on the go). I didn't get the Amazon Fire - felt like it was too locked down.
The G7 is cheap enough for an impulse buy, and honestly the Android fragmentation has been greatly overstated - most apps work for the 95 percentile use case - and seeing as how massive the Android market is - I'm surprised that it isn't even more fragmented.
All in all, I'm quite sure that this and the Nexus Q (despite it's rather unique design) will be winners in their respective spaces.
This is not an iPad competitor. It's a Kindle for the rest of your content - without the lockdown.
Just ordered the 16gb version. I'm not much of an android guy, but for that price and the fact that it's pure android (not manufacturer customized shit) and it's running the newest OS update...meh, why not.
I just did too. I hope that I don't regret this decision like I did the Kindle Fire. It seems that $200 is my price point for impulse-buying tablets. If Microsoft can manage to get their Surface out for $200, I guess I'll have to get one of those, too.
According to Microsoft, Surface pricing is "expected to be competitive with a comparable ARM tablet or Intel Ultrabook-class PC" (paraphrasing from the original presentation.) It's pretty clear that's closer to the $800 mark than the $200.
If they want to compete with the iPad, they'll need to get down into the $500-$700 range, but I doubt they'd be giving that kind of price guidance if anything under $400 was remotely possible in Microsoft's own view - their estimate is probably a "best case" outcome given how incredibly fuzzy they were about it. (Arguably they could deliver at $1000 and claim they're still "competitive" with an Ultrabook.)
To clarify that, the RT version will compete with ARM tablet prices; expect ~US$500. The Pro version will compete with Intel-based ultrabooks; expect ~$1200.
Sure. Care to specify the "high-end" tablet you're buying for $200? I'm a bit skeptical. If you're claiming the Nexus 7, that's not in the class of the iPad nor the proposed Surface.
Not really sure what you mean by "not in the class of the iPad".
For less than half the price you get more than half the performance. I don't think theres benchmarks out there yet but I don't think its fair to say that a Tegra 3 Quadcore is 'low-end'. It's on par with the A5& A5X technically.
I think counting cores (should be a band name) is a useful metric. By iPad class, I mean similar build quality, similar battery life, similar size, similar responsiveness.
I have to say, 7" is enough for me. I've got a Samsung Tab 7.0 from work, and it fits in my pants pockets; can't see that happening with anything bigger. Also, it's just about the right single-hand holding size and weight (anything bigger/heavier would be too much). What gets me about this offering from Google is the storage. 8GB and no microSD? Seriously? Some of us don't have 24/7 high-speed connectivity, and even if we did, we don't necessarily want to use the cloud.
The 7" form factor: big enough to be a pain in the ass to carry and small enough to be useless for most tablet stuff anyway.
In my opinion, a mobile device should have a keyboard big enough for me to type using ten fingers, or it should fit in my pocket. Using something in between baffles me.
Agreed. I had a color nook before my transformer and the difference is night and day. The 7" is essentially a super ebook reader. Its useless for comics, magazines, non-mobile web, tv/movies, etc. My phone is almost 5". Not sure why I need a non-4G device that is merely 2" larger.
I suspect google knows it can't reach that nice price point with a 10" screen and knows the 7" market is ripe for stealing from Amazon. Its sad that its conceded the 10" market. I'd love a $299 10" google tablet to replace my aging Transformer.
The really awful part of this situation is that perhaps Google is ashamed at the lack of apps that can make use of a 10" screen. A lot of my apps are simply phone apps that look terrible on my tablet.
Its a shame there's no real pricing on the MS Surface yet. I could really see myself with one of those if they're $499 or less. I'd rather spend $499 on a super tablet than $199 on a media consumption device with little storage and not a lot of ports.
Google is gunning for the Fire/Kindle crowd here and I think its going to work. I prefer reading on an LCD where I can control the color scheme and where I can dip into using a proper browser now and again. e-ink is more than a bit over-rated and the Fire is just poorly engineered.
It's a Kindle Fire competitor. Without doubt. Having played with one at one of the IO Extended events today, and given the massive emphasis on the play store and video/audio/written content being made available Google are definitely making a play for Kindle territory here.
Like you, I'm pretty ambivalent on the 7" format, but that isn't stopping people from buying Kindle Fires...
I'm a Kindle Fire and an iPad owner, and I love my Fire.
It's large enough to read on comfortably, and about the weight of a similarly sized high quality book, meaning that it is light enough to handle for a long time without trouble. It carries by hand very easily, and just doesn't get in my way.
The iPad (v3, btw), in contrast, is bulky and heavy to carry around and hold. The keyboard still isn't big enough to touch type on comfortably, and I am not able to produce content on it with a reasonable speed (after 1mo of use, I gave it to my wife). When I need to create, I usually ended up using my notebook computer, due to the size limitations and difficulty of using the keyboard while holding the device anyways.
In the end, the Fire is the perfect size for portable media consumption, and the addition of an unlocked (and high quality) operating system makes this new offering by Google a no brainer for me.
I think that's a valid position to take, but people have different needs. Another person might say a mobile device should be big enough to let them use the non-mobile version of the web, or it should fit in their pocket. Or it should be light-weight# enough to comfortably hold in one hand for extended amounts of time, or it should fit in their pocket.
I think typing with ten fingers and the overall typing experience is surprisingly unimportant for many people.
# People have widely reported fatigue with the iPad (e.g. Ars). I don't know that the Google 7" device is any lighter, but I assume it is the case.
"Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet.
We're working to bring devices to more countries as quickly as possible.
Please check back again soon."
Same here: "Los dispositivos en Google Play aún no están disponibles en tu país.
Estamos trabajando para ampliar la disponibilidad de los dispositivos en otros países lo antes posible.
Inténtalo de nuevo en unos días."
Thanks. Turns out the corporate VPN routes to the Internet somewhere where this is available. This is probably a better link (seems to work everywhere):
The UX of putting up this ugly banner is pretty crappy. It would be fine if this was splattered on top of the page or covering the ordering buttons but you could still see what devices are available. I think I've even gotten some form of Google Play advertising (an email perhaps) that directed me to a link that then showed me this.
I have the original iPad (twas free!), which I've really loved, but the cost is significant compared to the newer 7" tablets. I use the 3g a ton, but suppose I could fix that with a personal cellular wifi solution.
But, being a Kindle (e-ink) user since inception, I've always felt that if it were my dollars talking, I'd go with the Fire. I can't justify the cost of the iPad, but could with the Fire.
Anyone who's really in the market look over the specs and have an opinion re: google vs. amazon in the small tablet market?
How great is it that these three tech giants are all making desirable media toys? Being a fan and heavy user of all three company's products, I'm happy to see them each working to innovate something more exciting than a browser war.
As an avid Android guy, I have to admit that ONE thing Apple got right was the aspect ratio on the iPad. Even though I have the TF101, it's way more convenient to use the iPad in both portrait and landscape as compared to the Android tablets.
And of all the things, I'd thought Amazon would be in on this. What with their Kindles being 4:3 already.
If there were a "Trade your Kindle Fire" button on that page I would click it in a second. I like my Kindle Fire but it has issues. I'd kill for just a hardware volume control. It's hard to say without handling one, but my guess is to choose the Nexus over the Fire.
Thanks for that. I had no idea the Fire lacked a hard volume button. I almost compulsively use the one on my iPad, as I find quantified increments far easier than sliding my fat finger over something my fat finger is blocking.
Not only that, but the soft volume controls aren't uniformly available. When you're watching a movie in Netflix, you have to stop the playback to adjust volume, but you can't hear the volume until you start playback again. Just painful.
Note: this experience may have been fixed, I haven't used my kindle fire for watching movies in months, for obvious reasons.
Its been fixed upstream by Netflix.... but why didn't you just change the firmware on your Fire to ICS like I did? Standardized soft vol avail everywhere.
Well, lots of people complained about the lack of an SD card - and indeed, one of the differentiators that people look to google for are things like replaceable batteries, USB connectivity, and SD card expandability.
Those people who are content to live in a walled off protected garden, might be well served in the Apple world. Those people who want to root their boxes, add USB accessories, and swap out SD cards previously could go the Google route.
I swap my batteries (and always have a spare which doubles my battery time - with my phone I have three), on my laptop, on my phone, and if I had one, on my tablet.
I'll never buy Apple until they have replaceable batteries. I know several people like me, and there are probably a lot out there just like me. I don't know why Apple people think "why not get an IPad" if price is comparable. I'd pay a bit extra for the same specs just for the battery being swappable.
So you always carry two extra batteries around? That must be fun. What model phone do you have that you need 3 batteries to get through the day? Wouldn't it be easier just to carry around a charger?
My buddy has a TMobile MyTouch phone (forget which one) and he goes through three batteries per day. My Samsung Admire lasts a day and a half on one battery with similar usage.
The difference is his MyTouch is "thin and sexy" and mine has a battery bulge and a tick smaller screen. Small battery + large power hungry screen = angry user base. He hates it but he's pretty loyal to TMobile. I suggested getting another Android phone but he's rather soured by the experience and plans on getting a WinPhone or iPhone (if they get them) when his contract is up.
That's just insane, and I can't think that's a typical usage scenario. Going through three batteries a day (assuming he charges it while he sleeps) means he's getting less than six hours per battery.
And I don't understand the loyalty to a carrier that sells phones with such poor performance. Where does his loyalty come from, a crush on the cute girl in the T-Mobile ads?
Phones are different from tablets/laptops in terms of battery use case, of course. An iPhone's internal battery can quickly charge to 75% in your pocket (60 minutes) from a spare battery, and then be good to go for another 12-18 hours.
A Single Extra Hyperjuice Battery in your pocket will let you go 7-10 days with an iPhone without having to recharge from a wall socket.
The problem with the iPad is that it's battery is so high-capacity - that you can't do the same kind of trivial charge in your pocket trick. Also - the batteries take about 5 hours to get up to a 75% charge.
So - the battery problem has been mostly solved for iPhones (just recharge them from a hyper juice or like spare battery) but iPads have yet to come out with the same convenient solution.
>I'll never buy Apple until they have replaceable batteries.
Then you'll never buy Apple.
Non-replaceable battery means a much better device. Going back to replaceable batteries would be a huge step backwards. Replaceable batteries on portable devices are going away. Sorry to break the new to you.
I disagree. Non replaceable batteries are a step back. Guess it depends on your outlook. I like to work with things. Some electronics, some carpentry, some mechanic work on my cars. Anything that restricts that freedom is a step backwards. Anytime you are at the whim of a tyrannical company, you are limiting yourself.
Two twenties, because after a few months, I have two 15s and you have a twenty. Batteries never seem to fully charge like the used to.
My wife has a iPhone (the 4s or something) and still has to charge hers more than I do (Samsung Galaxy II). Not a whole lot different, but instead of her being tied to the outlet, I can pull my battery out, put in the new one and keep going.
That kind of convenience is worth everything to me. Also 200 dollars to replace a battery that lasts a year is still a lot less than I spend. I spend 20 bucks for two spare batteries on Amazon. I don't go through 20 batteries a year, that's for sure.
By the time a [nondefective] battery needs replacing in an iPhone, your warranty is up anyways. They're not user-replaceable under warranty but they're not especially difficult to replace either, and only cost about $30 from an OEM parts supplier.
Apple batteries last much longer than a year. My first iPhone was 3G model and after changing hands three times and three and a half years later it still goes strong.
Also you are never tied to the outlet with iPhone — battery easily lasts a day even under heavily usage, so you can just plug it in for the night.
And for most people convenience is not to have to carry spare batteries. I never so a person who did that — it is extremely rare preference. Apple is done with replaceable batteries, expect others go the same way.
No, the original iPad was 16/32/64GB, just like the current one. That's why there is no gnashing of teeth. (I have a 64GB original iPad and never have hurt for space.)
Indeed. From Apple's press release of January 2010:
"iPad will be available in late March worldwide for a suggested retail price of $499 (US) for the 16GB model, $599 (US) for the 32GB model, $699 (US) for the 64GB model."
Also, they both charge 6.25/GB for extra storage which is stupid levels price discrimination so it's a little silly for Google not to include a 32GB option. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination.
PS: For anyone that thinks 100$/16GB is a cost / space issue you can get fingernail sized 16GB micro SD cards for less than 5$, clearly there was space for more memory.
however, android has been adopted by many as the "anything but apple" crowd, and when google/android does things that apple has done (no SD card in this case), it disappoints the fans.
I complained. It's one of the reason's I switched to Android.
I'm pretty annoyed by my Nexus devices no longer having built-in SD card support, though on the tablet I don't mind using USB storage for plane rides when I need the extra space.
I think this is what the "Made for Play" thing is all about. It also leaves room for Asus and other manufacturers to come out with tablets with more ports.
I struggle here with Google's business model, and the impact their efforts have on other Android tablet vendors. At this price point the profit (if there is any to speak of) must be wafer-thin.
But Google can handle such wafer-thin margins because the secondary markets that this tablet secures for them. No other Android tablet vendor can enjoy the same control over the underlying OS, the same footprint in terms of Apps ecosystem (and importantly the revenue derived from this), the same intimacy between online applications/services and hardware. All these things mean Google can 'get away' with pricing this tablet as cheaply as they do.
But where does that leave Samsung, LG, and the others ? The big risk for us as consumers here is that Google will in fact reduce, not increase, the amount of credible competition against Apple by jeopardizing the competitors' capacity to derive profit from tablets.
But it's Apple that already has this advantage, controlling the HW and the app/media ecosystem. Someone needs to step in and compete with that, and it looks like Google (and MS someday?) is the only one in a position to do that.
These other vendors like Samsung just aren't hitting it off. So it's a choice of "Apple and a bunch of overpriced tablets that can't compete" or "Apple and Google". Despite there only being two options with the latter, at least the second option is actually viable.
I haven't been following much of android development but is it starting to look like WP7? I only say this because both of the screenshots on the page look very very much inspired by WP7.
Google started that design language quite a while ago with Google+ and all the new designs for their services. The big images thing came a long time ago in the Chrome Webstore as well:
If I remove the "Google" logo from the second image would you think it was just Google's design language? Design doesn't happen in isolation. It's a product of everything that influenced the designer.
I thought it was interesting because:
1) They look to be headed the same direction as microsoft.
2) The images they chose to use to showcase their new tablet look to be "metro".
I loooove Google, but I can't get over this "Play" nonsense. I get that it's short and (maybe) easy to remember, but it just sounds stupid. They certainly could have come up with a better name than that.
I thought RIM's BlackBerry PlayBook name was brilliant. To the consumer market, they read it as "play book" and think of all the fun things they can do while playing with it. For the business market, they read it with the sports metaphor as a "strategic playbook" which fits their purposes well.
Anecdotally, they've also done relatively well here in Ontario ever since they dropped the prices to 200$ and up. Many of my friends and family have one (no Kindle Fire up here).
Tablets still aren't generally thought of or used as productivity devices, they are viewed and used more as consumption devices. I'm not saying this can't or shouldn't change, I'm just saying this is how it is right now. It seems smart to market to that.
But, Google's Play is not just for tablets; Play is the market for ALL of Google's apps, from Android to Chrome (browser) to ChromeOS. Chrome is already heavily used for commercial purposes, and ChromeOS has the potential to be (and might be used for such already). That's kind of where I was going with that.
Really? It seems like it made sense and maybe sounded funny for like... two days. Now I kinda like it. I'm surprised that the hate for this name is sticking for so long for that many people.
Android's UI as a "media consumption" device is terrible compared to what Kindle Fire and Nook have done. The average user (say your parents), aren't going to go to the Google Play Store (which is a terrible non-obvious) name to buy books, movies, apps, etc. unless you explain to them that you have to use the Play app to download content.
Kindle Fire nailed the obviousness of this with the top bar being labeled with Movies, Music, Apps, Books, Web.
Nexus 7's home screen widget is a poor attempt and trying to shoehorn media discoverability into an OS that isn't built for media consumption, it's built for phones primarily.
You could make the same arguement for iOS, but iTunes has already trained users that you go to iTunes to get content or you go to the obviously named App Store.
Make it easy, make it obvious. Nexus 7 is a small step in the right direction, but it needs work.
I think the first point is pretty suspect, and definitely not a trait of the "average user" (who, on a tablet, remains a techie early adopter). You get content the same place you get apps. You're saying that the "average user" can't download an app, either?
I tend to agree that "Play" as a brand is a terrible name, though. But then I feel that way about most marketing, and find my intuition there routinely wrong. So I won't judge.
That seems to be getting pretty far off into silly now, though. Your contention is that grandparents with iOS devices can download apps (and presumably view media) there, but not on Android, precisely because the "app store" is called "Play Store". Really? Is there any research at all that bears this out?
It's not silly. Even as a fairly serious tech guy, the first time I saw "play store" I thought "what the fuck is a play store?" (and, half an hour earlier, "where the fuck did the market go?"). Because I'm a tech guy I have the confidence to click random things and see what they do (plus I could put two and two together in this case), but I'm pretty sure my parents wouldn't; they'd just stay away from the strange icons, and stick to the ones they recognize, like youtube and browser.
Getting sillier by the hour, it seems. You're taking one usability problem (that the upgrade from "Market" to "Play Store" is non-obvious) and trying to use that to reason that once someone uses "Market" they will never be able to use "Play Store". Ridiculous. Among other things, how did they find "Market" in the first place? I don't see how that's any more or less obvious, frankly -- the words are synonyms, for goodness sake. People find videos in something called "iTunes" after all.
This fixes itself the instant someone asks "where do I get an app?". Please.
Is "Play" a bad product name? Sure. But you're attributing powers to it that it simply doesn't have.
Let's be honest here. Kindle family of devices is aimed at average consumers. It's sold at retail stores, and everything is setup for you out of box. In fact, it's a bit of a pain to break out of Kindle Fire portal and revert back to native Android.
OTOH, Google Nexus family of devices is targeted towards a different crowd. Nexus devices are comparatively sparse, receive latest updates, and not marketed at all.
With a Nexus 7, there's nothing stopping me from downloading the Kindle app and buying / reading my Amazon content. Try using a Kindle Fire to read Google Market content. If you've never used a Kindle Fire, you have to "jailbreak" out of the Kindle portal where they keep closing the holes.
I don't really like the 7 inch tablet form factor (even as an 'Apple hater', I think Jobs was spot on about 7 inches being too small). Also lack of any sort of SD option is just another reinforcement of Google blindly walking down the path of Apple.
I guess I'm sticking with my OG Asus Transformer TF101 for now. I was hoping that with Asus' involvement in the Nexus there would be a transformer/hybrid variant (for more money of course), but they seem to just be trying to attack the Kindle here.
It seems more likely than ever that my next hybrid tablet/netbook will be running Windows 8 instead of Android. Pseudo-ironically at least I'll be able to write Go code on that device.
It seems like there is really 3 form factors: 1 hand operation, 1 hand hold / 1 hand operate, and big tablet. It seems once you get past being able to hold it in one hand comfortably, you might as well go for the 10".
Yeah, one of the major UX failings of the iPad is the way the notification shade is handled. It seems extremely out of place on a tablet. I'm surprised the Nexus 7 seems to have a similar style shade.
Also centering the buttons in landscape mode? Seems like it could be inconvenient.
afaik it's made by ASUS so I don't imagine how it would be much different from buying something ASUS branded. Besides if they have control of all of the software already I don't see what difference the hardware would really make.
Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet.
I agree; that is sorry. They even show me this when I log in, go to the 'My Orders' screen, and click on the Galaxy Nexus I just bought from them this month (when I visited the US for WWDC).
Do any of you use a 7 inch tablet as a distraction-free writing device? I have got a 10.1 tablet that I use for reading and writing. A smaller tablet will be more friendlier for reading.
I use my 10-inch transformer as a writing device, if by writing you mean typing (I wrote a novel on it, if by novel you mean 50000 word work of prose fiction). Honestly I think the "distraction-free" aspect works against it - forcing me to move out of google docs and into something else to check train times or skype messages makes me less productive, not more. But ymmv.
Looks like a solid Android gaming device. The Kindle is pretty nice in that aspect. There still is really no competitor to the iPod which holds down almost half of handheld gamers on the iOS platform. Android has no match for that still really being solely phone based for the smaller devices for the most part.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if this is selling below manufacturing cost? At least, I thought that was the case with the Kindle Fire, which has less impressive specs?
Either way, could be interesting times ahead if Amazon, Apple, and Google are all marking out their tablet+store territory...
1280x800 on 7" is a very high resolution, it will make everything look tiny. I think what parent was referring to is that the OS doesn't scale the text and UI elements, like the new iPad does. The new iPad has a 2048x1536 screen, but the UI looks like it's 1024x768, it's simply twice as sharp.
I have very bad eyesight, looking at the tiny UI in the screenshots on Google's tablet page made me cringe. I wouldn't be able to work with a tablet like that. I had the same problem with the MacBook Air 11", which has a resolution of 1366x768.
Android OS scales items to match the density of the device. Also, you can adjust text size via the accessibility or display settings as of 4.0 (there may be an accessibility option on older device but that is inconsistent).
The acquisition closed a little over a month ago; communication during a buyout before it's approved is seriously restricted. A month isn't anywhere near enough time to get a product from scratch to market. Besides the logistical issues, Google's stated that Motorola doesn't get special treatment, so going by their word, Motorola has to compete for Nexus bids just like everyone else.
Motorola Mobility will never build a Nexus device. The other Android manufacturers (particularly Samsung) need to be reassured that Google will not simply lock them out of Android's future by leveraging its own hardware division.
Google has stated very often and very clearly that they're trying to maintain a separation between them and Motorola. They don't want owning Motorola to mess up their relationships with other hardware companies.
You know the tech world is in a sorry state when "Made for Google Play" is openly touted as a good thing. Where's the mobile platform that aims to be a computer instead of the next TV?
Looks like even Google is afraid to directly take on the 800lb. gorilla that is the 10" iPad at the $500 price point. Xoom, Touchpad, Playbook(7") and countless others seem to have bit the dust trying. HTC and LG have even temporarily quit the tablet market to stem the bleeding. Wonder if ASUS is seeing volume on its Transformer line. Also, does anyone know how the Galaxy Tab is doing?
Even Kindle Fire's sales are slowing, so lets see how the market reacts to this. Unlike phones, which are must-haves, people have a lot of discretion when it comes to owning a tablet or not. Sadly, the only real competition to take the iPad head on this year seems to be the Surface and we'll have to wait and see what the price is.
FWIW, this is from recent Morgan Stanley coverage entitled "Tablet Landscape Evolution
Window(s) of Opportunity":
Amazon.com was not in our Blue Paper a year ago. After
a rapid Kindle Fire ramp in 4Q11, its long-term share
looks uncertain. The company gained 17 points of tablet
market share in 4Q11 after launching the Kindle Fire in mid-
November. Just as quickly, the product lost steam and fell to 4% share in 1Q12. While the company looks to be committed
to the tablet market long-term, it is not a preferred way to play tablet proliferation given the current uncertainty in our view.
[...]
Amazon.com’s Kindle Fire is also seeing less interest—
with only 4% of the current tablet installed base and with only 3% of prospective tablet owners planning to purchase an
Amazon.com tablet. However, we believe Amazon.com may
refresh the Kindle Fire in Q3, with an update to the current 7-inch product and potentially a new 10-inch Kindle Fire.
Amazon.com has been elusive about any upcoming product
releases and consumers have not seen any prototype, so
potential demand for a refreshed 7-inch Fire and a new 10-
inch Fire tablet are likely not fully captured in this survey.
It was mostly about other topics, but I think their sales research is accurate.
"According to a recent report from Pacific Crest Securities, a Portland, Oregon-based investment bank, orders for components used in Amazon's standard e-readers have fallen 75% from the bank's previous expectations."
HTC quitting the game is actually a bit of a shame. The 7" HTC Flyer has been the best home browsing device I've had.
This new Nexus 7 sort of fills the same gap, but without the tap the screen with the stylus to take a screenshot, doodle on it, and send it onwards aspect that is so handy for web/mobile developers.
I fail to see how a 10" iPad is a compelling device. Theres one sitting here in my household and it barely gets used. It's far too locked down to be of any use at that size. Far too close to an actual laptop than a phone in reality.
Where these new range of devices excel is their ability to be used single handed. Physically and Psychologically it becomes a small device similarly to your phone.
Y'know, maybe Google is afraid to take on the iPad at $500, but thats such a waste of money and such a big risk. The market has proven theres a demand for cheap and small tablets.
I don't think google can compete with the ipad. The ipad is priced competitively, and the question every similar tablet has to answer is why on earth would I pay as much for this as I would for an ipad? There doesn't appear to be any good answers. The android tablet manufacturers don't appear to able to compete on price with a similar hardware quality.
edit: I meant compete directly. Obviously they can make something nowhere near as nice but a lot cheaper. But is there much profit in that? The answer so far from android phones seems to be there isn't much profit and it's hard to walk up the value chain.
It's also 3" smaller, shorter battery life, much lower resolution, and maxes out at 16GB of storage.
I suspect Google has priced this very competitively (low margins) specifically to compete with iPad by offering something half the price.
If they'd put out a device with comparable features in screen, battery, and storage it would have had to be priced so close to the iPad that the question "why not just have an iPad?" would still remain.
This is pitched aggressively against the iPad as a (good) inferior product at an amazing price point.
216 PPI vs 264 for the new iPad and vs 132 PPI for the old $400 iPad. How is that not extremely competitive? It even has a quad core processor compared to iPad's dual core.
Not sure what people are looking for to see them "competitive with the iPad". Would you be happy if it was 10% weaker on hardware but 5x cheaper? Would that make Android tablets "competitive" from your point of view?
I think the hardware is not a problem at all. It's the perception that Android doesn't have tablet apps, but on 7" tablet apps are almost a non-problem since most phone apps should work fine. The problem is a little bigger with 10" tablets. But at this point I really think the bigger issue is the perception. At this point even if Android had half the tablet apps of the iPad with with $100 cheaper price, people would still think it's not competitive.
In the same time, they seem to be excited about $600 Windows RT tablets with similar hardware as this Nexus 7 $200 tablet, that has no ecosystem of apps at all. So clearly this is much more about perception than it is about reality.
I think the key thing here is the "built for Play" moniker. It's also an extension of just how deeply integrated Android has always been with the cloud.
I've been using Android since the G1 first came out. My devices are a portal to my stuff rather than a container, and I don't overly care about storage space as a result. My music streams from Play to my phone in the car. I stream Netflix to my tablet. I haven't manually synced my phone to anything in years, and been through multiple devices and hundred of factory wipes playing with different ROMs in that time. Facebook statuses asking phone for phone numbers after losing a phone mystify me because I can't remember the last time I had to manually sync a device to back up my data.
The relatively slim storage is as much about a different approach to mobile devices as anything, IMO.
I understand where you're coming from, but customers who want/need to swap out batteries themselves are too small of a market for Apple to care about. Unfortunately for you, the trend of ever-tighter industrial design (which means integrated batteries) only looks like it will continue.
will_work4tears: Lithium batteries (used in all modern phones and tablets) work best when not drained completely before recharging.
In fact, there's usually firmware specifically designed to cut power off before the battery completely discharges, because completely discharging the battery can physically damage it. (Completely discharging LiPoly batteries can actually produce a fire hazard, because gaseous hydrogen is generated inside the cell!)
Because I like to be able to swap my batteries without paying 200 bucks and having my electronic device away (Send to apple to replace).
Also, I'm don't like Apple as a company and am not a brandphile. Having a smart phone or tablet is enough for me, I don't need to flash around a brand name to feel important.
you are a brandophobe then, completely guided by a logo rather than the capabilities of the device.
i own iPad 1, 2 and 3 devices (through my job) - never, ever did i need to replace the battery. it lasts very long, days, by then you have plugged it in somewhere.
my customers are big on ipads for their mobile sales forces and none, NONE, report issues with the batteries. that's a sample size of 15k+ users, worldwide.
>you are a brandophobe then, completely guided by a logo rather than the capabilities of the device.
I don't like Apple as a company, but I'd buy their products if their capabilities matched my requirements. A changeable battery is my gamechanger. My ONLY major one (price is often an issue, but I agree that the quality of Apple products reasonably matches the price - if only a bit inflated).
And just because people don't complain to you about the battery usage doesn't mean there aren't issues - nor that they just don't blindly accept the limitations. Why would they report it to you anyway? Are you working for Apple tech support?
I actually think they are putting this up head to head by making people ask the question about whether they should bother spending the extra £200 on an iPad.
Tablets are very much a luxury item, no one really needs two of them.
Essentially they're after people who are on the fence by making it too attractive price-wise to pass up on.
I think you're right that tablets are a luxury item but that might also be part of the iPad's success too. People aren't really looking for the cheapest option it seems. I remember reading somewhere that the average iPad sale price ends up being above $650 since a good number of people opt for the larger capacity or cellular models.
it's also crap compared to the ipad. Smaller, lower resolution screen. Less storage. No ability to directly access wireless networks. Crappier apps. Fewer apps. Crappy entertainment ecosystem compared to itunes. Most likely Google will dick you on OS updates just like the nexus phone that waited months and months. No genius bar to send your mom to. etc etc etc.
Can't believe i'm even replying to this but here goes.
Your'e exactly whats wrong with Apple, instead of looking and hoping for innovation and risks your essentially saying don't bother, it's been done before. Maybe this device will be 'crap' but who knows? Maybe this device becomes the best selling 'tablet' over the next 12 months and Apple changes their game.
This is a fantastic, cheap piece of hardware with an elegant ecosystem, with lots of potential might I add. If you don't find that exciting - I feel bad for you.
When I got my transformer it was competing directly against the ipad. Flash, a video app I trusted to play everything, and (being honest, and going against my normal tendencies) that beautiful copper look are reasons I would have paid an ipad price for it, and it was actually substantially cheaper.
DF / allthingsd is relevant: essentially, there is no profit in the google nexus tablet and they're selling it at a loss. Thus my point is correct: Google can't compete with the iPad and instead they're going for decent but really cheap. Which is fine, but how long are they going to take a loss on the hardware? Also, this quote is money:
"When it gets sold through the Play store, there’s no margin,” Rubin said. “I
t just basically gets (sold) through.”
However, it appears that the Nexus 7 is headed for retail shelves, as well,
though only the plans for the Google Play store were announced on Wednesday.
While that kind of cost structure could make life challenging for any other
hardware makers looking to sell Android tablets, Rubin insists there is
plenty of room left for Android tablet innovation.
That was the sound of Google's partners being dicked.
The Nexus 7 just made the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet obsolete. I've been holding back on buying a Kindle Fire, but I think I may just pull the trigger on the Nexus 7.
Wow! I have seriously never noticed that. My brain has always just filled in Dark Side of the Moon. It wouldn't surprise me if they wanted it to be that, but some copyright/trademark issue with Pink Floyd prevented it.
