No, Google didn't want to take on Apple directly. Well these days, I doubt anyone would considering they are by far the biggest technology company in the world with endless amounts of cash and influence.
Google has tried platform independent with their services. Unfortunately with Mac OS, iOS, Windows, Windows Phone, Amazon etc. all adopting more and more closed models, they aren't left with much choice but to put their weight behind Android. They still make a lot of money from Mac OS and iOS users, and want to keep developing their apps like Google+, search, youtube, GMail (the likely reason for buying Sparrow), Chrome, Maps for iOS. You would have seen plenty of Macs on the stage and in the audience at Google I/O. However, you can't be a major player these days just depending on other companies' platforms.
"seven Motorola Mobility patents on features including location reminders, e-mail notification and phone/video players" -- doesn't sound very standards essential to me.
Maybe the thought of not being able to buy iPads and iPhones will wake up the U.S. to how badly screwed up the patent system is? Or maybe that thought will stop ITC from treating the case the same way it has treated cases against MotoGoogle.
The gloves are really off, the floodgates are open, the fat is on the fire etc. Although Google inherited cases from Motorola, this is the first time Google has directly sued Apple. Google has been reticent to take on Apple directly but they don't have much choice left now.
It is possible that a similar patent is among those involved here. Maybe the Motorola purchase wasn't as useless as Florian Muller makes it out to be...
Now he's not just a patents expert, despite not being a lawyer, he is also an expert on the whole industry, and has inside knowledge to tell us how buying Motorola is already a colossally bad deal mere months after the deal closed.
I despair for journalism, if this guy is what passes for it now.
Actually Delhi has one of the best public transportation systems in the world with more stations being built at I type this (literally). No idea what LA has...
Slashdot has interesting and informative posts on many topics, but I don't know why everything goes to hell the moment India is mentioned..
1) It doesn't take a hugeass rocket to send an unmanned probe to Mars. The amount of energy needed once you're in the right orbit to escape earth's gravity is minimal. So it's not that crazy to imagine India doing it given that they already got a probe to reach the moon. It's the next step, not a massive leap. Putting a lander on the moon or Mars, or manned spaceflight would be a much bigger step. So the figure of 100 million is not outlandish and it's very possible and a logical progression given the current technical capabilities of the Indian space program. In fact, India may well be able to use one of their existing rockets for this, the hard part is making sure interplanetary probes get captured into the orbit of the target planet, instead of missing it completely (something that's not that hard to do and multiple countries have aimed and missed in the past, I remember a Mercury probe that ended up orbiting the sun).
2) Yes, India has overwhelming amounts of corruption. The space program is one of the better run organizations though.
3) Even though India is a poor country, due to the sheer size of the population the amount of money the government controls is huge. Not USA/China huge but at least the size of large European economies. 100 million is pocket change. And not spending it on a research mission to Mars that can help advance technology in the country doesn't mean it would go towards feeding hungry people. Just like reducing 100 million of the defence budget in the US won't put that money into schools or universities or healthcare or whatever.
4) It has little to do with the slowing Indian economy (even if it grows at 5% that's far more than most other countries in the world right now).
5) Talk of burning cars or powerless villages is just bigoted racist arrogant illogical bullshit.
It's not that simple. I didn't say it's hard for developers to support different resolutions. I am saying that from the release of the iPhone 5, people are going to have two different experiences for the same app based on whether you're using a 4/4s (around 100 million sold?) or the new iPhone. There's no getting away from it. It's not necessarily a bad thing, desktop operating systems have always catered for it. But it represents a fundamental compromise for the tightly controlled iOS experience, there is no getting away from that fact.
The retina display upgrades were different because there was a direct linear mapping from 1 to four pixels, and then scope for improving the app so it looked good on retina screens.
I am not saying the iPad Mini buttons will be too small to use. It's the fact that iPad apps are fundamentally and carefully designed for a 9.7 inch screen, the user experience is completely customized for someone using an iPad. There is no way you get the same experience by just shrinking dimensions.
Actually Apple do not do a great job of product differentiation, they rely on the fact that the halo of their high end products extends to their low end products which often represent a poor bargain or an unnecessary compromise. Look at the current $0/$99/$199 iPhone line. There is no rational reason for even buying an iPhone 4, forget the 3GS, when the difference in cost is so small compared to what you pay over two years for the contract. Just because customers fall for it doesn't mean Apple is doing a good job of differentiation. Or look at the iPad 2/3: Someone who can pay $400 for a tablet can almost always scrape together another $100, and the new iPad gives you so much more for the $100. Or remember the people carrying around awful slow plasticky Macbooks because they couldn't afford a Macbook Pro? Apple's product differentiation is a well marketed sham, anything but their very latest product usually represents a terrible bargain. Look at the retina Macbook Pro for example compared to the slightly cheaper old Pro.
I am not saying this will hurt Apple's sales in any way. Not when their main rival is Samsung, who just released the Note 10.1 with terrible software for the price of an iPad. But it represents a fundamental compromise in iOS, where so far you had exactly two distinct screen sizes that you could design your app for.
If Apple finally kill off the iPhone 3GS, it leaves us with three models the iPhone 5, 4S, and 4. For people with loads of cash of course (and people in the US stuck on the absurd $0/$99/$199+$2400 over two years pricing) you just get the latest one. For the rest, have fun making sense of it. The iPhone 5 has a bigger screen. How much does it matter? Will people build their apps targeting the larger screen? Probably not to begin with. So do you lose out by getting an iPhone 4S? Then why not get the iPhone 4? Oh wait, no Siri or new Maps or new iPhoto. So the 4S has those? Yes. But so does the 5? Yup. So will the 4S not get the next cool thing Apple introduce? Maybe. Will they work better on the bigger screen? Don't know. Won't it be better to just get the smaller screen until developers actually get around to building apps for the larger screen?
It gets even more fun with the iPads. Do you buy an iPad 2 or an iPad mini? The former isn't getting the new maps or Siri, while the latter probably will. But the iPad 2 has a bigger screen. But the Mini screen will look better even at the same resolution as the iPad 2. So wait, doesn't that mean everything - the buttons controls etc carefully designed on apps for the big iPad will be shrunk on the Mini, making it much less convenient to use? Will the Mini get Siri? Yes - perfect, why spend loads more on a bigger less portable iPad or a far more expensive iPhone to get Siri. No - doesn't make logical sense, a new product that's already crippled.
Then we have the iPod touch, which is supposed to get an update. It should remain at $199 or so. Will it get Siri? Probably not, it's too cheap. So what exactly is the point of it?
I am not saying Apple can't find their way around it. But if they've given into giving their customers choice instead of saying that their devices are the perfect size, it's going to bring inevitable issues. Just like the profit focused planned obsolescence approach which artificially limits features like Siri and iOS Maps. There will have to be some degree of compromise on the core Apple values of apps just working and looking the same on every Apple device. We would already be looking at 4-5 different screen sizes and resolutions that developers will have to think about.
This. Honestly, you sound a bit naive for even suggesting that a Phd is a near-guarantee of anything. Generally a Phd is an end in itself, before the days of maths phds getting six figure quant jobs it would be unimaginable to think of it as a career step outside academia. You're looking for some kind of mathematical valuation of degrees, your questions sound like some kind of logic tautologies like phd->research job ms=phd ms->research job, the value of letters of recommendation. People who do degrees for the sake of doing something end up like the people driving taxis with Phds (not saying you'll end up driving a Phd, but my point is those were driving a taxi before a Phd and after because they didn't really have a plan, I have met more than one). Figure out where you want to be, and work your way backwards to find the path, and remember there are no guarantees.
Your post reads like a parody, although based on your signature I assume you are deadly serious. A parody because it lives up to so many stereotypes of Americans, a big one being utterly clueless about the rest of the world.
You continue to be incredibly presumptuous about how no one needs stuff you don't need.
Many people tend to travel outside their city or even country sometimes, I have no idea how many paper maps you carry around. And GPS helps to figure out where you are, which isn't always that easy with paper maps, especially when you're in a less populated area.
Some people's jobs depend on being able to read emails as soon as possible, not everyone checks their phone all the time for frivolous reasons.
Some of us actually wander outside our neck of the woods, where you may not know where you can get waffles, some information is better than non.
Twitter recently helped me get news when there was a massive power breakdown in my area. Before the news outlets. It has its uses.
You're a funny new breed, someone who grew up with technology, but looks down on people using technology just because they have it easier than you did, and don't need to run their own servers to host a few files, for example. Some kind of neo-luddite. No one is going to make an intentionally crippled phone for you. Just get a Blackberry and turn off the data and GPS if you want. Or ask the Amish what phones they use.
You're just being intentionally obtuse. I haven't denied that the Nook devices can't hold a candle to the Nexus 7. The present day comparison is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Your forgiveness is not of much concern to B&N, the Nook devices are not being improved because Microsoft has made a substantial investment into B&N and they are unlikely to release another Android device ever. What Google released two years after the Nook Color is irrelevant, two years is a lifetime in this industry.
Here's a car analogy: The Nissan GT-R was considered revolutionary, even though it was nowhere as good as a Lamborghini, and not as fast. You could call it 'crap' compared to the Lamborghini based on how you look at things. Most people didn't however.
You don't have a point. It's like picking up the original iPhone today and complaining about how crap it is compared to phones today. The Nook Color was first. The software didn't compare to a $500 device, but it wasn't a $500 device. It did at least one thing well, which a damn sight more than I can say about any device of that time. And no, people who read will happily pay for a device that is great for reading. You're happy with a smartphone because you're not a photographer. You don't read much so you're happy with a crap reading experience. The software wasn't crap, it was just crap compared to the iPad, otherwise it would be considered revolutionary. It's a matter of perspective. You don't sound like you read much sir, and sadly, you're rather proud of that.
I have no idea why some people, especially tech people who have completely different demands compared to most users, actually imagine that it's worthwhile for a company to make a phone to cater to their esoteric demands. The time of the N900 is past, smartphones are mainstream now, not mini Linux computers for geeks (though you can turn your android phone into one to an extent).
Out of your requirements, only battery life matters to the average user.
Have you tried a Blackberry? I still fondly remember the keyboard of my Bold 9000, and the web browser was so awful that it would fit your requirements. Get a Blackberry Bold cheap off someone, and use it with a normal non-blackberry plan or pre paid. There were no superfluous animations. I am sure you can find an app that plays Ogg etc. It has MicroSD and Bluetooth. The battery life was better than current smartphones and you could get high capacity aftermarket batteries. Call quality was excellent.
The camera sucked though... Just buy a slim point and click with the money you save? Old Blackberry models must sell for peanuts these days..
The Nook Color wasn't just ok hardware, it is brilliant hardware for it's time. The screen density is higher than the iPad 2, the screen is less reflective, and it's a beautifully designed and built device, and an IPS screen at that. With crap software yes, but everything this side of the iPad had crap software back then. It ran Cyanogen mod 7 nicely and unlike the Nook Tablet, shipped with a completely unlocked bootloader, you just stick in an SD card and it booted from it, and didn't even touch the internal storage at all, kind of like a Linux live CD. It was the first non e-ink reading device that was worth considering.
My point is some people are criticizing the Nook Color by comparing it to the Nexus 7. That's unfair. The Nook Color is a pioneering device brought out by a small unfancied competitor, and the inspiration for current 7" tablets in many ways. It created the market, and was actually unique, unlike the half iPad imitation half giant phone original Galaxy Tab.
Yes discounting it now is just desperation, or more likely an effort to sell of remaining stock. B&N are controlled by Microsoft now and it is unlikely they will ever release another Android device.
It's the same market. I am not a big fan of Apple, but you're kidding yourself if you think a 7" tablet has no impact on the iPad, even if Apple do not release a smaller iPad. Think of it this way, how many people are going to buy both a 7" tablet and a 10" tablet? Most will buy one or the other and live with the compromises. Just like most people will either get an ultrabook or a more portly larger laptop. They won't get both.
The MicroSD slot and the design and build quality. The Nook Color feels heay but I won't have it any other way, it's a study, beautiful gadget and doesn't feel plasticky though it probably is made of plastic. It's a reading device, it's awful at everything else, the browser is terrible.
Android tablets are mostly 16:10, unless you are talking about cheap chinese knock offs which frankly don't count. No one needs a tablet, there is absolutely no benefit to getting a barely functional knock off.
The Microsoft Surface and other Windows 8 tablets are 16:9. I don't know why, it seems a stupid ratio for a tablet and an even stupider one for a tablet that is supposed to convert into a laptop. Hated 1366x768 on 15" laptops? Wait till you try it on a 10 inch laptop!
Disabled automatic updates. Not sure what the point is anyway, the last few updates seem to have added useless bloat, all the important functions have been around a while: scheduling, bandwidth controls, downloading individual files etc.
Google has never sued anyone over software patents except in retaliation to defend Google's own products. Ever. So yes it is undoubtedly better for Google to get a patent than anyone else, based on facts. I am not a fanboy, but the facts don't lie. Contrast this with the behaviour of Microsoft or Apple or Oracle or a billion patent trolls.
The fact that he was loudly and incessantly and inaccurately criticizing Google throughout the trial while being a paid Oracle consultant and turned out to be completely hilariously utterly stupidly wrong about every single thing raised some eyebrows in the right places. Finally.
If you have the patience to trawl through some of his writings you immediately realize how biased he is. He has a deep unexplained hatred for anything Google and is constantly harping on how all Android manufacturers should just pay Microsoft to license their patents. Guess the other paid consulting relationship he revealed, yup, it's with Microsoft.
He claims he is conducting a study on FRAND patents for Microsoft, and he continues to write on the issue with a decidedly pro-Microsoft perspective (one appropriate for a company with limited standard essential FRAND patents but thousands of software patents). So his perspective on FRAND patents is exactly the same as Microsoft, he is doing a paid study on FRAND patents for them, and yet he continues to write on the issue like he is an unbiased commentator.
His pro-Microsoft leanings predate his pro-Oracle posts (because the consulting relationship with Microsoft is older). You won't find a scrap of writing that criticizes anything about Microsoft in his blog. When something happens that is embarrassing to Microsoft (like the B&N trail before MS gobbled them up), he completely ignores it. He sometimes criticizes Apple mildly but treads carefully, so I assume he wants to work for them but they haven't thrown him a bone yet.
He is a self proclaimed expert with no law degree. The reason he is quoted so widely is because he is known to email his blog entries to every single media outlet and until recently, there weren't that many people writing about technology patents. Yes, I find it infuriating to find him quoted exclusively in major media outlets. Imagine if there was a consultant conducting a Google-funded study on privacy writing about online privacy and how Google's practices are acceptable, and getting quoted by every single major media outlet.
Because he's not the only idiot. You would be surprised how many tech savvy people have no backups and are equally vulnerable. Also it's something worth highlighting as it has shown critical flaws in bot Amazon and Apple's authentication systems. And it persuaded me to go ahead and set up 2-step authentication on Google, and I am damn glad I did.
You have something important enough (maybe email) on Google that you want 2-step authentication, and you're concerned about them having your phone number? What exactly are you afraid they can do with it? (I get the point of not wanting other information online)
Slashdot Mirror
No, Google didn't want to take on Apple directly. Well these days, I doubt anyone would considering they are by far the biggest technology company in the world with endless amounts of cash and influence.
Google has tried platform independent with their services. Unfortunately with Mac OS, iOS, Windows, Windows Phone, Amazon etc. all adopting more and more closed models, they aren't left with much choice but to put their weight behind Android. They still make a lot of money from Mac OS and iOS users, and want to keep developing their apps like Google+, search, youtube, GMail (the likely reason for buying Sparrow), Chrome, Maps for iOS. You would have seen plenty of Macs on the stage and in the audience at Google I/O. However, you can't be a major player these days just depending on other companies' platforms.
Apple don't have a manufacturing plant either...
Google owns Motorola now, it's time to stop making the distinction.
"seven Motorola Mobility patents on features including location reminders, e-mail notification and phone/video players" -- doesn't sound very standards essential to me.
Maybe the thought of not being able to buy iPads and iPhones will wake up the U.S. to how badly screwed up the patent system is? Or maybe that thought will stop ITC from treating the case the same way it has treated cases against MotoGoogle.
The gloves are really off, the floodgates are open, the fat is on the fire etc. Although Google inherited cases from Motorola, this is the first time Google has directly sued Apple. Google has been reticent to take on Apple directly but they don't have much choice left now.
Interestingly, probably the sole patent victory for any Android manufacturer has been the ban on push e-mail from iCloud on Apple devices won by MotoGoogle, which still exists: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/04/13/apple-still-blocked-from-using-push-email-in-germany/
It is possible that a similar patent is among those involved here. Maybe the Motorola purchase wasn't as useless as Florian Muller makes it out to be...
When it comes to attacking Google, he doesn't even limit himself to patent issues any more:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/googles-motorola-mobility-lays-off.html
Now he's not just a patents expert, despite not being a lawyer, he is also an expert on the whole industry, and has inside knowledge to tell us how buying Motorola is already a colossally bad deal mere months after the deal closed.
I despair for journalism, if this guy is what passes for it now.
Actually Delhi has one of the best public transportation systems in the world with more stations being built at I type this (literally). No idea what LA has...
Slashdot has interesting and informative posts on many topics, but I don't know why everything goes to hell the moment India is mentioned..
1) It doesn't take a hugeass rocket to send an unmanned probe to Mars. The amount of energy needed once you're in the right orbit to escape earth's gravity is minimal. So it's not that crazy to imagine India doing it given that they already got a probe to reach the moon. It's the next step, not a massive leap. Putting a lander on the moon or Mars, or manned spaceflight would be a much bigger step. So the figure of 100 million is not outlandish and it's very possible and a logical progression given the current technical capabilities of the Indian space program. In fact, India may well be able to use one of their existing rockets for this, the hard part is making sure interplanetary probes get captured into the orbit of the target planet, instead of missing it completely (something that's not that hard to do and multiple countries have aimed and missed in the past, I remember a Mercury probe that ended up orbiting the sun).
2) Yes, India has overwhelming amounts of corruption. The space program is one of the better run organizations though.
3) Even though India is a poor country, due to the sheer size of the population the amount of money the government controls is huge. Not USA/China huge but at least the size of large European economies. 100 million is pocket change. And not spending it on a research mission to Mars that can help advance technology in the country doesn't mean it would go towards feeding hungry people. Just like reducing 100 million of the defence budget in the US won't put that money into schools or universities or healthcare or whatever.
4) It has little to do with the slowing Indian economy (even if it grows at 5% that's far more than most other countries in the world right now).
5) Talk of burning cars or powerless villages is just bigoted racist arrogant illogical bullshit.
It's not that simple. I didn't say it's hard for developers to support different resolutions. I am saying that from the release of the iPhone 5, people are going to have two different experiences for the same app based on whether you're using a 4/4s (around 100 million sold?) or the new iPhone. There's no getting away from it. It's not necessarily a bad thing, desktop operating systems have always catered for it. But it represents a fundamental compromise for the tightly controlled iOS experience, there is no getting away from that fact.
The retina display upgrades were different because there was a direct linear mapping from 1 to four pixels, and then scope for improving the app so it looked good on retina screens.
I am not saying the iPad Mini buttons will be too small to use. It's the fact that iPad apps are fundamentally and carefully designed for a 9.7 inch screen, the user experience is completely customized for someone using an iPad. There is no way you get the same experience by just shrinking dimensions.
Actually Apple do not do a great job of product differentiation, they rely on the fact that the halo of their high end products extends to their low end products which often represent a poor bargain or an unnecessary compromise. Look at the current $0/$99/$199 iPhone line. There is no rational reason for even buying an iPhone 4, forget the 3GS, when the difference in cost is so small compared to what you pay over two years for the contract. Just because customers fall for it doesn't mean Apple is doing a good job of differentiation. Or look at the iPad 2/3: Someone who can pay $400 for a tablet can almost always scrape together another $100, and the new iPad gives you so much more for the $100. Or remember the people carrying around awful slow plasticky Macbooks because they couldn't afford a Macbook Pro? Apple's product differentiation is a well marketed sham, anything but their very latest product usually represents a terrible bargain. Look at the retina Macbook Pro for example compared to the slightly cheaper old Pro.
I am not saying this will hurt Apple's sales in any way. Not when their main rival is Samsung, who just released the Note 10.1 with terrible software for the price of an iPad. But it represents a fundamental compromise in iOS, where so far you had exactly two distinct screen sizes that you could design your app for.
Assuming all these rumours turn out to be true..
If Apple finally kill off the iPhone 3GS, it leaves us with three models the iPhone 5, 4S, and 4. For people with loads of cash of course (and people in the US stuck on the absurd $0/$99/$199+$2400 over two years pricing) you just get the latest one. For the rest, have fun making sense of it. The iPhone 5 has a bigger screen. How much does it matter? Will people build their apps targeting the larger screen? Probably not to begin with. So do you lose out by getting an iPhone 4S? Then why not get the iPhone 4? Oh wait, no Siri or new Maps or new iPhoto. So the 4S has those? Yes. But so does the 5? Yup. So will the 4S not get the next cool thing Apple introduce? Maybe. Will they work better on the bigger screen? Don't know. Won't it be better to just get the smaller screen until developers actually get around to building apps for the larger screen?
It gets even more fun with the iPads. Do you buy an iPad 2 or an iPad mini? The former isn't getting the new maps or Siri, while the latter probably will. But the iPad 2 has a bigger screen. But the Mini screen will look better even at the same resolution as the iPad 2. So wait, doesn't that mean everything - the buttons controls etc carefully designed on apps for the big iPad will be shrunk on the Mini, making it much less convenient to use? Will the Mini get Siri? Yes - perfect, why spend loads more on a bigger less portable iPad or a far more expensive iPhone to get Siri. No - doesn't make logical sense, a new product that's already crippled.
Then we have the iPod touch, which is supposed to get an update. It should remain at $199 or so. Will it get Siri? Probably not, it's too cheap. So what exactly is the point of it?
I am not saying Apple can't find their way around it. But if they've given into giving their customers choice instead of saying that their devices are the perfect size, it's going to bring inevitable issues. Just like the profit focused planned obsolescence approach which artificially limits features like Siri and iOS Maps. There will have to be some degree of compromise on the core Apple values of apps just working and looking the same on every Apple device. We would already be looking at 4-5 different screen sizes and resolutions that developers will have to think about.
This. Honestly, you sound a bit naive for even suggesting that a Phd is a near-guarantee of anything. Generally a Phd is an end in itself, before the days of maths phds getting six figure quant jobs it would be unimaginable to think of it as a career step outside academia. You're looking for some kind of mathematical valuation of degrees, your questions sound like some kind of logic tautologies like phd->research job ms=phd ms->research job, the value of letters of recommendation. People who do degrees for the sake of doing something end up like the people driving taxis with Phds (not saying you'll end up driving a Phd, but my point is those were driving a taxi before a Phd and after because they didn't really have a plan, I have met more than one). Figure out where you want to be, and work your way backwards to find the path, and remember there are no guarantees.
Your post reads like a parody, although based on your signature I assume you are deadly serious. A parody because it lives up to so many stereotypes of Americans, a big one being utterly clueless about the rest of the world.
You continue to be incredibly presumptuous about how no one needs stuff you don't need.
Many people tend to travel outside their city or even country sometimes, I have no idea how many paper maps you carry around. And GPS helps to figure out where you are, which isn't always that easy with paper maps, especially when you're in a less populated area.
Some people's jobs depend on being able to read emails as soon as possible, not everyone checks their phone all the time for frivolous reasons.
Some of us actually wander outside our neck of the woods, where you may not know where you can get waffles, some information is better than non.
Twitter recently helped me get news when there was a massive power breakdown in my area. Before the news outlets. It has its uses.
You're a funny new breed, someone who grew up with technology, but looks down on people using technology just because they have it easier than you did, and don't need to run their own servers to host a few files, for example. Some kind of neo-luddite. No one is going to make an intentionally crippled phone for you. Just get a Blackberry and turn off the data and GPS if you want. Or ask the Amish what phones they use.
You're just being intentionally obtuse. I haven't denied that the Nook devices can't hold a candle to the Nexus 7. The present day comparison is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Your forgiveness is not of much concern to B&N, the Nook devices are not being improved because Microsoft has made a substantial investment into B&N and they are unlikely to release another Android device ever. What Google released two years after the Nook Color is irrelevant, two years is a lifetime in this industry.
Here's a car analogy: The Nissan GT-R was considered revolutionary, even though it was nowhere as good as a Lamborghini, and not as fast. You could call it 'crap' compared to the Lamborghini based on how you look at things. Most people didn't however.
You don't have a point. It's like picking up the original iPhone today and complaining about how crap it is compared to phones today. The Nook Color was first. The software didn't compare to a $500 device, but it wasn't a $500 device. It did at least one thing well, which a damn sight more than I can say about any device of that time. And no, people who read will happily pay for a device that is great for reading. You're happy with a smartphone because you're not a photographer. You don't read much so you're happy with a crap reading experience. The software wasn't crap, it was just crap compared to the iPad, otherwise it would be considered revolutionary. It's a matter of perspective. You don't sound like you read much sir, and sadly, you're rather proud of that.
I have no idea why some people, especially tech people who have completely different demands compared to most users, actually imagine that it's worthwhile for a company to make a phone to cater to their esoteric demands. The time of the N900 is past, smartphones are mainstream now, not mini Linux computers for geeks (though you can turn your android phone into one to an extent).
Out of your requirements, only battery life matters to the average user.
Have you tried a Blackberry? I still fondly remember the keyboard of my Bold 9000, and the web browser was so awful that it would fit your requirements. Get a Blackberry Bold cheap off someone, and use it with a normal non-blackberry plan or pre paid. There were no superfluous animations. I am sure you can find an app that plays Ogg etc. It has MicroSD and Bluetooth. The battery life was better than current smartphones and you could get high capacity aftermarket batteries. Call quality was excellent.
The camera sucked though... Just buy a slim point and click with the money you save? Old Blackberry models must sell for peanuts these days..
The Nook Color wasn't just ok hardware, it is brilliant hardware for it's time. The screen density is higher than the iPad 2, the screen is less reflective, and it's a beautifully designed and built device, and an IPS screen at that. With crap software yes, but everything this side of the iPad had crap software back then. It ran Cyanogen mod 7 nicely and unlike the Nook Tablet, shipped with a completely unlocked bootloader, you just stick in an SD card and it booted from it, and didn't even touch the internal storage at all, kind of like a Linux live CD. It was the first non e-ink reading device that was worth considering.
My point is some people are criticizing the Nook Color by comparing it to the Nexus 7. That's unfair. The Nook Color is a pioneering device brought out by a small unfancied competitor, and the inspiration for current 7" tablets in many ways. It created the market, and was actually unique, unlike the half iPad imitation half giant phone original Galaxy Tab.
Yes discounting it now is just desperation, or more likely an effort to sell of remaining stock. B&N are controlled by Microsoft now and it is unlikely they will ever release another Android device.
Before the Nexus 7 it wasn't such a bad bargain compared to the junk you could get in the price range.
It's the same market. I am not a big fan of Apple, but you're kidding yourself if you think a 7" tablet has no impact on the iPad, even if Apple do not release a smaller iPad. Think of it this way, how many people are going to buy both a 7" tablet and a 10" tablet? Most will buy one or the other and live with the compromises. Just like most people will either get an ultrabook or a more portly larger laptop. They won't get both.
The MicroSD slot and the design and build quality. The Nook Color feels heay but I won't have it any other way, it's a study, beautiful gadget and doesn't feel plasticky though it probably is made of plastic. It's a reading device, it's awful at everything else, the browser is terrible.
Android tablets are mostly 16:10, unless you are talking about cheap chinese knock offs which frankly don't count. No one needs a tablet, there is absolutely no benefit to getting a barely functional knock off.
The Microsoft Surface and other Windows 8 tablets are 16:9. I don't know why, it seems a stupid ratio for a tablet and an even stupider one for a tablet that is supposed to convert into a laptop. Hated 1366x768 on 15" laptops? Wait till you try it on a 10 inch laptop!
Disabled automatic updates. Not sure what the point is anyway, the last few updates seem to have added useless bloat, all the important functions have been around a while: scheduling, bandwidth controls, downloading individual files etc.
Google has never sued anyone over software patents except in retaliation to defend Google's own products. Ever. So yes it is undoubtedly better for Google to get a patent than anyone else, based on facts. I am not a fanboy, but the facts don't lie. Contrast this with the behaviour of Microsoft or Apple or Oracle or a billion patent trolls.
Try this entry for blatant sock puppeting: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/microsoft-says-motorolas-efforts-to.html
Does he seriously believe that posting that and pretending to be unbiased is ok when he is conducting a study on the same topic that is funded by Microsoft: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html
Have a look at this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129
The fact that he was loudly and incessantly and inaccurately criticizing Google throughout the trial while being a paid Oracle consultant and turned out to be completely hilariously utterly stupidly wrong about every single thing raised some eyebrows in the right places. Finally.
If you have the patience to trawl through some of his writings you immediately realize how biased he is. He has a deep unexplained hatred for anything Google and is constantly harping on how all Android manufacturers should just pay Microsoft to license their patents. Guess the other paid consulting relationship he revealed, yup, it's with Microsoft.
He claims he is conducting a study on FRAND patents for Microsoft, and he continues to write on the issue with a decidedly pro-Microsoft perspective (one appropriate for a company with limited standard essential FRAND patents but thousands of software patents). So his perspective on FRAND patents is exactly the same as Microsoft, he is doing a paid study on FRAND patents for them, and yet he continues to write on the issue like he is an unbiased commentator.
His pro-Microsoft leanings predate his pro-Oracle posts (because the consulting relationship with Microsoft is older). You won't find a scrap of writing that criticizes anything about Microsoft in his blog. When something happens that is embarrassing to Microsoft (like the B&N trail before MS gobbled them up), he completely ignores it. He sometimes criticizes Apple mildly but treads carefully, so I assume he wants to work for them but they haven't thrown him a bone yet.
He is a self proclaimed expert with no law degree. The reason he is quoted so widely is because he is known to email his blog entries to every single media outlet and until recently, there weren't that many people writing about technology patents. Yes, I find it infuriating to find him quoted exclusively in major media outlets. Imagine if there was a consultant conducting a Google-funded study on privacy writing about online privacy and how Google's practices are acceptable, and getting quoted by every single major media outlet.
Because he's not the only idiot. You would be surprised how many tech savvy people have no backups and are equally vulnerable. Also it's something worth highlighting as it has shown critical flaws in bot Amazon and Apple's authentication systems. And it persuaded me to go ahead and set up 2-step authentication on Google, and I am damn glad I did.
You have something important enough (maybe email) on Google that you want 2-step authentication, and you're concerned about them having your phone number? What exactly are you afraid they can do with it? (I get the point of not wanting other information online)