Google Preparing iPad Rival?

Apple, Google, Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-12 04:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

What's really newsworthy here is that the competition is between Apple and Google, Microsoft is nowhere to be found. It's temping to declare that their relevance has hit a new low. Competition is good, regardless of which side you're on, but it's really, really nice to see Microsoft no longer be competitive in a market.

Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by rjamestaylor · 2010-04-12 04:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Really hoping this rumor is true - not that I need to buy another "pad" device (yes, I stood in line for an iPad) - but I'd really like to see how the Closed vs. Open platform models play out. Best case: Apple revises its Closed stance in response to a thriving gPad ecosystem.

I really like my iProducts, but having been a proponent of open platforms for so long I am uneasy at the tight hold Apple holds over developers and users.

For example, why hasn't Apple approved the Opera Mini yet? I'd welcome a choice in browsers, personally.

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by StreetStealth · 2010-04-12 04:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't think either will "win." They are two worlds with two different goals.
Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
People will choose based on what is important to them.

--
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by uprise78 · 2010-04-12 04:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Totally agree. This is totally exemplified by dmesg0's comment above: "By the way, I own nexus one, and with the right firmware (latest cyanogenmod with UV kernel), it's a great phone." Do you really think that Apple would ever let it's users deal with something that nerdy? It's a totally different target audience. The iPhone/iPad is about simplifying things so much that the actual hardare gets out of your way. Android is more about tinkering and spec sheets and more nerdy goods. If you look at the iPad's spec sheet on the Apple webpage it doesn't even show the GPU or RAM! What nerd on earth would ever stand for buying a product with no RAM numbers given? Different strokes for different folks. It is 100% obvious that the iPad was not created for Slashdotters. It was created for Slashdotters parents, grandparents and sisters or anyone else who has come to a Slashdotter wondering why "the internet doesn't work".
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-12 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Different strokes for different folks. It is 100% obvious that the iPad was not created for Slashdotters.
The issue isn't so much that geeks weren't the target audience, but that they are specifically excluded. There's a big difference between marketing it to a user set, and locking out a user set (which is what they've done)... How else can you rationalize the inability to install apps from outside of the app store (even if it involved purchasing an "unlock" code from Apple)? There is so much that Apple could do to make the i(Pad|Pod|Phone) so much more geek friendly without sacrificing their #1 goal (user experience above all else) that not doing it is almost silly (and hence why a lot of Apple haters point to the draconian control measures). Yet they don't allow it. Perhaps part of the reason is controversy keeps them fresh in the mind (would we be having these conversations if Apple was as open as Google?)... Perhaps part of it is that they think that they can get away with it in the long run, so why not...
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by DrgnDancer · 2010-04-12 05:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

But do you understand that the Internet and personal computing were made by people who reject that approach? The people who made Apple a success in the first place are people who probably formatted the hard drive on their new Macs within at most a day or so. The first place we looked was extensions or control panel or settings. If people like that wanted somebody to hand us a sealed black box and be grateful that it just "works" (as long as "works" means "things that Apple thinks you should be doing").
Yes and no. I have an iPhone. I like my iPhone. I haven't even jailbroken my iPhone. Why? Because I'm really not all that interested in hacking my phone. My computers are every kind of weird hack jobs, with dual boots and virtual machines and such, but not so much my phone. It does what I need it too, and I don't really "work" on it. I don't need it to have an IDE and three different web browsers. I don't need root access to it. It's a phone. Sometimes I read a web site on it if I'm bored or need some bit of info *right now*. It allows me to quick scan my e-mail in a pinch. In an emergency I can even manage my servers from it.
If that makes me a bad geek, I'm sorry. I am interested in how things work and playing with new hardware/software, but in this case I'm *more* interested in a device that does what it's supposed to.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by uprise78 · 2010-04-12 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

@PopeRatzo, I'm not really sure why your attacking me on this. I didn't make the decision. I agree with what you are saying on most points but definitely not all. We (anyone using Slashdot) have to continually remember to think about things from a perspective other than our own. We are all comfortable on the command line. We all have no problem diving into the control panel or preferences pane and tinkering with options to make things work the way we want them to. We are also oftentimes the creators of the programs we use. We know what the word firmware means and we know what RAM is. We will continue to create the internet and every single platform that is to come in the future. We know a lot of technical goodness and we probably enjoy it all (or else we wouldn't be on this website). Most of us don't think about things from the other side. When I deal with 'non-techies' they don't give a crap about RAM. They don't know or care to know what OSS is. All they want is something that works and does the few things they want it to. (That touches on another huge difference between us and them: they only do a few things with hardware. We do a lot more). There is a separation between content creators and content consumers. We are generally the creators: tinkerers, programmers, web devs, net admins, etc. What it boils down to is that what Apple has done is fine in my opinion. They made smartphones easy for non-techies. They revived the tablet industry and made something kids and non-techies 'get'. You and I don't have to use these devices. We don't have to support them. We don't have to complain about them either. If you don't like it don't buy it. There is and always will be techy products for use. Remember, we are the creators. We will make things that we want to use. In summary, we have different wants/needs/likes than non-techies. There are products for use and products for them. No need to get angry/defensive at either sector. Just use what you want to use and enjoy it.
Re:Hopefully true - Closed vs. Open platforms by hey! · 2010-04-12 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple's model will always compromise developer flexibility when user experience is at stake. Google's model will always compromise user experience when developer flexibility is at stake.
I wouldn't put it that way.
Apple's model is to ensure you have the experience Apple wants you to have. Naturally they want you to have a good experience.
Google's model is to provide an open system with maximum connectivity to data sources and services.
Microsoft's model is to cater to decision makers higher up on the food chain than the user: IT managers, cell carriers, and developers. They get lots of criticism for their product design, but in fact it's not as incompetent as users think. Users aren't the audience and Microsoft typically does just enough to give it credibility with its real target markets.
In a nutshell: Apple provides the user a deal in which they give up control over their iPods and iPhones but in return get a reliable, high quality experience. Google gives you a decent experience out of the box but doesn't limit what you do with it.
There are sound business justifications for both approaches, and good reasons for users to favor either of them. In Apple's favor, they do a great job on the iPhone experience, they provide a very good content store that sells things at reasonable prices, and they give you a reasonable amount of flexibility in space shifting the stuff you bought. The price is you have to use the Apple store and accept Apple control. Since they do a great job and can attract developers, chances are you're happy with your iPhone.
In Google's favor, if you want something they don't forbid you from having it. Apple forbids Flash on the iPhone because it undermines their control. Google would not stand in the way of Adobe porting Flash, or somebody porting Gnash. The barriers are technical, not policy. As a user or an administrator you could customize your phones all you like.
What experience shows is that most people are better off letting someone else manage their stuff.
I have both a Motorola Droid and an iPod touch Gen 1. Despite being a couple years older, the iPod is far snappier and very smooth to use. If I was only thinking about the next six months, no question I'd go for the iPhone as the better device. But Android is good enough now and meets my long term needs better because I don't want to be locked in. I don't want to invest in something controlled by someone else, and I'm delighted that Google has finally broken through Verizon's closed platform mentality.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Quite the opposite by dmesg0 · 2010-04-12 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Apple is selling a phone with outdated hardware (screen size and type, low screen resolution, bad camera etc), while Android vendors continuously improve the hardware - look at Samsung Galaxy S specs, for example. The same will hopefully be true for android MIDs

By the way, I own nexus one, and with the right firmware (latest cyanogenmod with UV kernel), it's a great phone.

Re:Quite the opposite by BobMcD · 2010-04-12 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

With the iPhone you have zero choice of hardware. You can choose Apple or nothing, which isn't any choice at all, is it?
Since Apple never intended their OS for use on non-Apple hardware, and since Google never intended Android to be exclusive, these are indeed inherent traits, by the definition of the word.
So, one important example of a thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is the choice between CDMA and GSM. I could go T-Mobile or Verizon and still have an Android device. Possibly even the same family of device. I can make this choice without ever tinkering with anything at all - neither hardware nor software. I cannot do so on the iPhone due to Apple's very concept of the product. This may change in the future, but it was envisioned this way in Apple's camp while Google had the exact opposite in mind. Apple has decided that I need to select GSM to enjoy the iPhone's OS, and that I am not permitted to experience how it would behave on CDMA. Their exclusivity is by design, just as Google's openness is by design. These are intrinsic to the concept.
What are you seeing that I'm not?
Re:Quite the opposite by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-04-12 11:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

The picture is stunning, absolutely - except under sunlight (but then LCD screens don't fare much better there).
The thing drains battery like there's no tomorrow when in use, though. When checking battery usage by category on my N1, it always shows screen as >50%, and more often than not >60%, of all power consumption.
Sure, in theory, it's easier on the battery for dark backgrounds, but how many of those do you see when, say, browsing the Web, or using Google Maps?
Oh, and the screen isn't quite 800x480 that they advertise. Well, it is, but it is PenTile RGBG - meaning that each pixel isn't a full RGB pixel, but rather, every odd pixel only has R and G subpixels, and every even pixel only has B and G - and then they use subpixel dithering to make it look right for other color blends. So the effective resolution is lower; in fact, it is variable, depending on what colors are being used - for solid red or blue, it is effectively twice as low.
(All that said, the screen is still better than one on iPhone...)

Fantastic! by mikkelm · 2010-04-12 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple revives a ten year old niche that no one really liked for reasons that are still entirely relevant, and now it is speculated that Google will compete with a Google-style "open" alternative. It was interesting when their battle was over smartphones, but when it is over shoveling out pointless generic consumer electronics, it is not.

Re:Fantastic! by Bakkster · 2010-04-12 04:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

One could have said similar things about consumer smart phones before the iPhone was released. I don't think anyone would have predicted before the iPhone release that we'd have 50 million iPhones sold, plus tens of millions of other devices riding off of its popularity, many powered by Google's mobile OS. Four years ago, something like the iPhone would have been called "pointless consumer electronics" too, pointing out the failure of the PDA market. I see no reason why we couldn't see a repeat in the tablet market.
I have no doubt Google has at the very least explored a direct rival in the tablet space.

--
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Re:Fantastic! by mikkelm · 2010-04-12 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's a preposterous assertion. Four years ago, just as six years ago, and ten years ago, the emphasis was on pushing more features and more technologies into phones. The iPhone was not a revolutionary device, it was an evolutionary one. No one would have called it a pointless consumer electronics device, and no one would have pointed to a market which failed in large part to a lack of features which are integral to the smart phone. Nor is it at all pertinent to suggest that people would point to a dead market to dismiss the applicability of similar features to a living market, when the issue at hand is that the tablet market itself /is/ the PDA market in your analogy, and not merely a thriving market absorbing the redeeming features of failed products.

how about Notion Ink's Adam Tablet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-12 04:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not from Google per se, but how about Notion Ink's Adam Tablet? Gizmodo had a piece about it ... http://gizmodo.com/5471559/notion-ink-adam-tablet-caught-on-video-specs-finalized

Biggest iPad Limitation: No HTML Editing by psydeshow · 2010-04-12 04:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have an iPad. I liked it, until I tried to compose a blog post. Mobile Safari doesn't support content-editable fields.

Typing HTML code into textareas in order to compose blog posts and web pages is NOT fun. Google Docs doesn't work. and rich HTML in Gmail or other webmail services doesn't work. There are HTML editor apps, but that doesn't mean what I think it means, because they are all code editors not rich text editors.

The bottom line is that Apple supports rich text output in PDF and proprietary formats, but not HTML. Not even a little bit.

Everyone has their own priorities, of course, but until Mobile Safari supports tinyMCE and other rich text editors, I have to consider the iPad a toy. Then again, it's perfect for posting on Slashdot! (And it even supports unicode, so why should I complain?)

Re:Teh suXX0rs by AdmV0rl0n · 2010-04-12 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

It lasted 50 years, and turned a backwards agrarian society into a world superpower and put the first man in space.

Pre Soviet Russia was not a backwards agrarian society, any more than other states were.

It was never a world super power, but it was a nuclear one, driven by fear after being driven by hate.

The soviets were so powerful, they signed a pact with Nazi Germany, and offered many congratulations to Hitler, each time he domino'd a single state, including france. And during this time it decided to get a bloody nose picking on Finland.

Afterwards, when the panzers rolled across these so called previous agrarian lands, the soviets screamed for a second front from people it had cast into the fires of history to be crushed while it stood by and watched (and in the case of Poland, decided to go join the fun.)

Despite all is supposed power, it spread a failed political doctrine far and wide, caused untold damage to the planet, and now 1 in 5 people have an AK47, and a higher percentage have failed and weak governments. It never got true amphibious power, and spent the whole cold war in agressive posture, yet never able to make a move, failing in the end because of its own weight, and inability to go on.

And this summary does not count the millions killed and enslaved and left in misery by this comparitive short period in human history.

Oh don't worry, You won't quit publishing garbage, because its what good socialist and communists do.

--
We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.

Jobs: If you see a stylus or a task manager.... by scorp1us · 2010-04-12 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Jobs: If you see a stylus or a task manager, 'they blew it'

Google: If you see a proprietary, locked-down OS and App Store which may not support your model in three years, 'they [Apple] blew it'

There is so much potential to blow the iPad out of the water:
- Dual cameras for video Skyping,
- non-Integrated obsolescence (at least not having your hardware vendor determine what updates you get)
- Open App store
- Google voice / Apps.

Though I still think that the most open phone platform is still Maemo5/Meego. There are rumors to the affect that Nokia is also planning a tablet... But Nokia's execution has always left something to be desired. (In what they envision isn't want is actually delivered)

--
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.

Re:Teh suXX0rs by Princeofcups · 2010-04-12 06:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Pre Soviet Russia was not a backwards agrarian society, any more than other states were.

I'm afraid that it was. The communist revolution leaders (e.g. Lenin, Trotsky) had to make major philosophical changes to Marx's theories to accommodate the fact that the bulk of the people were "peasants" and not "working class." It was under Stalin that the Soviet Union really industrialized.

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.

This is a twisted anti-elitist argument by Geof · 2010-04-12 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Android is more about tinkering and spec sheets and more nerdy goods. . . . It is 100% obvious that the iPad was not created for Slashdotters. It was created for Slashdotters parents, grandparents and sisters or anyone else who has come to a Slashdotter wondering why "the internet doesn't work"

It is utterly ironic that the debate about openness has been twisted into one of elites vs honest folk. These anti-elistist sentiments are so powerful they drive much of American politics and scientific backlash (e.g. creationism). Moreover, Apple - long seen as the maker of elitist products for snobbish users - has been recast as the ally of the common man (or grandmother). If I were a PR manager for Apple I could not hope to do better.

There is definitely a strong strand of elitism among technical folk, from the the old idea that users are losers to the incredible resistance to ease-of-use I remember from the 1990s ("If they can't use a command line I don't want them using my software). A lot of technology really is obtusely designed; the people who get frustrated (which is to say all of us) are not stupid. Tying the open vs closed debate to this experience of disrespect and frustration, and the wider discourse of elite domination by entities from bankers to bureaucrats, is very effective for evoking (legitimate) emotional responses, passing over the need to make thorough arguments.

Because the linkage is wrong. There is no necessary connection between something being open and it being hard to use. The iPad is easy to use and it is relatively closed. That is correlation, not causation. Apple is simply very good at designing (and marketing) the user experience. This ability seems to be rare among its competitors.

There is a historical precedent for a more open system that turned out to be easier to use than what it (partly) replaced. You allude to it in your post. The Web was a huge step up in intuitive usability compared to the desktop software that had previously performed many of its functions. It was also a huge step up in terms of capability (compare searching Wikipedia to searching Britannica). And it is open. Too open, in fact, for the iPad and its prohibitions on running interpreted code. Fortunately for today, it is already established and was granted a special exemption. If the iPad lockdown had been the norm 20 years ago, the Web might never have been invented. If lockdown is the norm in the future, the next huge improvement in usability and functionality might not happen.

I am fully confident that Apple has the talents to develop an easy-to-use and open system. (After all, my computers are Macs.) But the temptation for control is hard to resist. Especially when you can remake yourself as the computer of the people with that wonderful anti-elistism PR.

Another thing... (was: Re:Quite the opposite) by beh · 2010-04-12 09:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Imagine the situation like this:

Google would have brought out the ipad.

Afterwards Microsoft would ready its rival - trying to copy all the best things from the ipad.

Do you think MS would get the same positive (or even lukewarm) reception here? Nope - it would be 'Redmond's "innovating" (i.e. copying/stealing/plagiarising) again!!'...

But because this time it's google doing it: Hey! It's all fine! I hope it will have a bigger screen, better xyz, more foo-bar, additional ...

Note: I love linux - I have used it since early slackware days - but with the ipad, apple has done something, noone has succeeded at yet, and immediately we applaud if someone else tries to build a clone.

Note 2: The same, btw. is true between open and closed source. If closed-source comes up with something open source has done first - oohh - bad guys!
But when plex86 (first attempt at a vmware clone) was 'announced': "Yay! Go, open source!".

21 of 397 comments (clear)