Slashdot Mirror
Android Honeycomb Born Too Early
adeelarshad82 writes "This year's Mobile World Congress was the stage for dozens of new tablets. Unfortunately, Android Honeycomb tablets lacked presence; amongst the top Android tablets demonstrated at the show, only the Motorola Xoom was running Honeycomb, whereas others were running either Android 2.3 or older versions. Moreover, most of the top apps announced for the OS were not new, just reworked. Gigaom may believe that Honeycomb tablets will be iPad's true competition, but progress has been slow, in my opinion. Honeycomb was born too early, primarily out pressure from the iPad getting a one year headstart in the tablet market."
Widows 3 was half baked too. Imagine for a moment there was no iphone (or mac) to compare andorid (win 3) to. both would seem amazing. But the are kind of a joke compared to the seamlessness of the apple garden. Win3 more so. andorid is pretty polished.
The difference this time is that there's no substantial price differential. even the cheapest android is only a couple hundred less than the apple model. not so in the days of win 3. Also the Apple SDK has made it more not less enterprise ready.
So it's hard to make comparisons.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
amongst the top Android tablets demonstrated at the show, only the Motorola Xoom was running Honeycomb, whereas others were running either Android 2.3 or older versions.
Hmm, we had the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and LG G-pad too. They both had Honeycomb.
whereas others were running either Android 2.3 or older versions
Considering Google haven't released the source code for Honeycomb yet, I'm not surprised others didn't have Honeycomb.
Too early? If anything the summary gives you the idea that it came too late. But I digress.
Only time will tell if Android 3.0 is any good, but as long as nothing extremely unlikely happens, Android isn't going anywhere: it has a sizable market presence and some of us even like it. As long as I can add my home-made apps to my handsets/tablets, I'll keep using Android. It can only get better.
Both the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the LG Optimus Pad (G-Slate) were running honeycomb at MWC. http://www.androidcentral.com/lg-optimus-pad-hands http://www.androidcentral.com/hands-10-inch-samsung-galaxy-tab-android-30-honeycomb
As far as I can tell, the only evidence to support adeelaershad82's conclusion that Android was "born too early" is that the top apps are not new. To my surprise, none of the links given really backup or explain his this thesis.
So, at launch, Honeycomb will not have very many tablet-specific apps, so early adopters will be stuck mostly with regular Android apps. Wow! Big surprise.
If this is the best attack on Android they can come up with then Honeycomb must be pretty good.
I saw another article talking about the $500 price point as being 'unbeatable' in the market, this is an odd place for Apple as they actually seem to be the price leader. I'm sure that Google will sort things out with Android's issues, but for now, I think this is Apple's game.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Huawei and HTC devices didn't have Honeycomb on them. HTC said that Flyer would get Honeycomb at at lunch or right after launch.
In essence, there are 5 new tablets(Moto XOOM) on the scene. With 60%(3/5) of them on Honecomb!
If you add Galaxy Tab, then it drops to 50%.
The Honeycomb Born Too Early is an overstatement at this point.
Why do you repeat the lie that Apple "stole" anything from Xerox? Apple and Xerox had a specific deal to allow Apple engineers to see the things that PARC was doing. In exchange, Xerox was compensated in the form of cheap stock in Apple. It's pure ignorance to keep repeating the claim that Apple stole anything from Xerox.
TFS' assertion that Honeycomb is "born too early" seems not just ill-supported; but simply followed by irrelevant information occupying the location where supporting details customarily go.
Obviously, Honeycomb is later than Google would want it to be. All software, even stuff that ships as predicted, is later than its creators would want(because who wouldn't want software to be done in zero time?) However, that seems to have no logical connection to how many devices are being displayed with it. As with essentially any OS that isn't tied directly to one specific product, early development likely occurs on dev boards that will never be made into products, or on last-gen stuff that is deemed adequately representative for testing purposes. Eventually, it matures enough to appear in public facing tech demos, and then it ships. In this case, Motorola seems to have been the BFF launch buddy. Other than the trivial sense in which it is "too early" for Honeycomb to have broad distribution(which is true of every software package at some point in its life) how is this relevant?
Clearly, Google is working on catching up to the incumbent(and busy stealing share from the other players, especially no networks that Apple doesn't care to deal with); but, unless there is a cogent argument that Apple will do something in the near future that will be so groundbreaking that Google will just have to run away and abandon their efforts, the notion that they are "too late" seems dubious. Later than they would like, obviously; but (unless public reports are being fudged pretty seriously) moving more than enough Android devices to make their improvement efforts strategically viable, possibly even self-sustaining, for the forseeable future.
iPad has 2 years head start. Honestly Apple had been working on it for more than 30 seconds. Google has a LOT of catch-up to do.
Most of the manufacturers of android tablets are making low grade junk in hardware quality and choice. Yes the new ones are far better but have a price point that is the same as a iPad, so now they have to compete in direct comparison. If you were able to undershoot by even as little as $100.00 you make sales a whole lot easier. Hit the $200.00 price point and suddenly you will get even ipad diehards buying them.
But, what was released at the $200.00 pricepoint were junk. Processors and ram to slow and small to even run android 1.x decently. All of them came with a bastardized version of android and not a pure android that would have ran faster. AND all of them had severe battery problems that make them useless as a tablet.... sorry but 10 hours on and playing a video is needed. I do not want to have to charge my tablet nightly. WEEKLY is the most you will get on the charger.
Android will get there, but the current offerings do not entice me. more expensive than an ipad and still not big enough screens. Dammit I need a 8.5" by 11" screen with the resolution to match. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, and students all would want this size.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Another problem is fragmentation in the Android platform. You for the most part never hear iPad users worrying or complaining about about what version of the OS a particular device has, what compatibility issues there are with the hardware, and what version is required by what apps. It's all abstracted to the user. Until someone starts making Android tablets that are price competitive, feature, competitive, AND accessible, there won't be any credible threat to the iPad in the tablet space.
Could Google slightly change the "rules" for Android to keep release cycles and the released base a little tighter?
I'm an admitted iPhone addict and one of the things that keeps me from looking at Android is going back to the world of waiting for the carrier to "approve" or distribute OS updates and the sinking feeling that they won't ever approve them (so you'll re-up and get a new phone...)
If Google could tweak their language a tad, maybe they could coerce handset makers and carriers to either more frequently approve updates or allow customers to bypass the vendor and carrier and self-install. This might also require rules designed to keep handset makers and/or carriers from de-standardizing Android so much that updates can't be applied or are onerous to create (which gives them an excuse to not create them...)
They might also create a "new device sunset" date for specific Android revisions so that vendors can't release an "obsolete" Android version on new hardware, promising updates that they never deliver as they chase after the next hot thing.
Why does a tablet need GPS again? Or a rear facing camera? Or 32GB flash? Or 3G? Come to that why does it need a super high end dual core mobile processor? Or barometer / compass?
GPS should be painfully obvious. Rear facing camera is for reality overlay and for just good old picture-taking. Lots of flash is obvious as well. 3G is obvious but let me get to that in a moment. Super high end dual core mobile processor is so I can replace my desktop with it, which will work fine for most users if it has mini-HDMI. Barometers are cool and practically free. A compass is needed for reality overlay and also practically free.
Now, on to 3G:
The 3G alone apparently slaps $200 onto the price of the Xoom which will be a mystery to anyone who has seen 3G dongles on sale for a fraction of that.
Yes, that is ludicrous bullshit. But 3G is useful. I want a Kindle (but am unwilling to shell out for the small one, and unwilling to shell out so much for the big one) with 3G because it is a mobile Wikipedia terminal. Being able to look up zonation at the nursery or compatibility at the electronics store when shopping the sale counter is eminently useful.
Sure advanced features are nice, but most tablets are going to be used for playing videos, browsing, reading and don't need those high specs.
The difference between a tablet and a PDA is size. The difference between a GPS and a PDA is software (and a GPS, which some but few PDAs have.) The difference between a phone and a PDA is the radio. There is no particular reason why the user should not wish to converge all of these devices. Indeed, they each become more powerful when you do.
Most interestingly, when you converge them and add a rear-facing camera you get reality overlay. I don't think there is anyone out there who has any of these devices who would not like to see any of them perform GPS navigation features with reality overlay so that you can hold the unit up and see signs drawn on streets where they are missing, or a plotted route drawn out over the city so that you can see where it will lead. A lot of people don't get the utility in such a thing, but if they held it in their hand most of them would be instantly hooked.
Or in short, don't be a Luddite.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
GPS should be painfully obvious.
It's painfully obvious if you're a farmer in a field. It's not so obvious to me sitting in my house where I can't even get a signal lock. What I meant to do with it anyway? Google services can fallback on wifi spots which are reasonably adequate for location and failing that it could always offer me a dialog to "stick a pin where you are" for geolocation.
Rear facing camera is for reality overlay and for just good old picture-taking.
Which would be great if I want to take pictures of my balls while browsing. Not so much use otherwise. Who is seriously going to hold up an enormous slab to take pictures?
Lots of flash is obvious as well.
Most Android phones have micro SD slots. Stick 8GB of flash into the tablet and let users augment it if they need to.
3G is obvious but let me get to that in a moment.
Again it's obvious if you have no other means of using the internet. Most people do. They're in a house or office which has wifi. Android tablet owners most likely have a phone which can tether. Failing that, Android tablets sport a USB port, so why not support popular 3G dongles?
Super high end dual core mobile processor is so I can replace my desktop with it, which will work fine for most users if it has mini-HDMI
Not everyone wants to replace their desktop. They want to browse and do casual stuff. Stuff which shouldn't tax a moderately specced tablet. I also doubt you could replace your desktop with any tablet at the moment even if you wanted to.
Barometers are cool and practically free. A compass is needed for reality overlay and also practically free.
The point is it's superfluous fluff. It takes space, power and bloats the price while having dubious application in a tablet.
Yes, that is ludicrous bullshit. But 3G is useful. I want a Kindle (but am unwilling to shell out for the small one, and unwilling to shell out so much for the big one) with 3G because it is a mobile Wikipedia terminal. Being able to look up zonation at the nursery or compatibility at the electronics store when shopping the sale counter is eminently useful.
I'm not saying 3G is useless. I've been commenting a lot recently saying how cool it would be if Sony's NGP worked like a Kindle. What I'm saying is it really adds to the price of the tablet.
Or in short, don't be a Luddite.
I'm not being a Luddite. I just don't check my brains in at the door when the latest shiny thing comes out at ludicrous prices. Tablets can and should be cheaper.
Logical fallacy: false assumption.
Yes, on your part not mine. I was talking about what an average person is using their tablet for and wondering why any of those situations would require GPS. Care to point to any data showing that any significant group of people would use or are using tablets as their GPS devices?
If you are buying a 600 dollar tablet, and you can buy a 620 dollar tablet to avoid buying a separate 100 dollar device, why not get the slightly more expensive tablet. Of course, this is based on what such an upgrade might cost in a rational world.
Because most people don't want to lug around a 10" tablet as opposed to a smaller 3 inch sized GPS device?
First, you quoted but ignored reality overlay.
Boohoo. I'm not required to respond to every single phrase in what I quote.
Second, you ignored again my central point, which is that if I'm going to carry the device anyway then I would like it to take pictures with the camera that I want anyway for reality overlay, which you cannot do well without a camera.
That's great. But you were trying to make it seem as if what YOU want to do is somehow a common thing that OTHERS are wanting to do. I was asking you to back this up. You are trying to conflate your preferences as if these are common complaints for average users and that is highly doubtful.
Because this is Google territory, and Google is one of Apple's competitors.