People have tried x86 processors, the Intel Atom and found they just aren't suited to a mobile device like a tablet or smartphone. The battery life just wasn't good enough.
The problem with Android is the fragmentation. Having one company designing the hardware and software as well as dictating things can be a model of simplicity.
When Microsoft released the XBox they could have just made the OS and published a specification, pretty much like they did with the MSX, but nope, they realised it would be a disaster.
With Android there are too many handsets, too many software versions in the wild, different touch screen types, different touch screen sizes. It's hard to optimise an application for it as you don't know how big the screen is and at times you may not have multitouch capability as the screen might be resistive.
I had various Windows Mobile phones, they all had a reset button which would get used after trying out any new software.
These rubbish Windows OS based tablets have been around for years, they've sold poorly (even Bill Gates's predictions were completely wrong) and just have rubbish usability. Why will they sell now?
Why do you think Apple put iPhone OS on the iPad? simple, there is masses of touch screen compatible software for iPhone OS, the UI is great for a touch screen (it was built for one). Apple even redesigned and rebuilt their office tools for the touchscreen.
Microsoft couldn't do any of the above, there's just too many internal squabbles and underhanded tactics at Microsoft. The head of the Office software team refused to support tablets, so Office is painful to use. Windows itself only has a hack of a tablet layer on top of it to support tablets.
Getting storage of power to be lighter is the biggest challenge. I think once you achieve that goal the next two are making it affordable, making it environmentally sound (what good is a 'green' car if the batteries aren't) and finally making it safe. Having such a lot of energy in batteries means a lot of danger in the event of a big accident.
You can't release a game on the Wii, XBox 360 or PS3 without involvement from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony. You have to buy their dev kit, get approval from them and even pay them a royalty for each sale of the game.
So why is the iPad different? just because the distribution is electronic and it is a slightly more generic device than a games console doesn't mean Apple can't control the platform.
If you don't like the rules, don't agree to them. Buy something else.
Why patent it? is that to stop other people doing the same?
Honestly, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Apple and co, put them on a big ship and sink it. They don't want to compete, they want to lock up very generic ideas and stop everyone else from using them.
Ofcom are a telcoms regulator. Their job is to ensure competition in the telcoms sector in the UK. They were set up to keep the privatised BT under control to stop them abusing their dominance (they still own a lot of the UK's telephone network).
Their job is not to assist in copyright enforcement.
Personally I wouldn't push for money if I won a case against them, I would ask that Microsoft displays my company's name (if I had one) in big letters next to the product name. Free advertising and makes the point that it wasn't Microsoft's idea originally.
Don't be over the top and just observe what it's like at the company for a while. Once you're settled in then you can join in, have a laugh with your work colleagues if they do that.
Each company is different, some people can be really serious, others can be really relaxed. It all depends on the management culture there.
Indeed. I don't understand why a realistic desktop metaphor is so desirable in a computer interface? I can understand it if you have a huge desktop surface computer, but for a tablet it would be suboptimal.
What next? a house metaphor with different rooms? Walk to the office room to work, walk to the games room to play games?
I like the multitouch operations, but I would like to see if there is research backing this desktop or if it is just cool stuff for the sake of it.
They have nowhere near 95% market share in the desktop, mobiles or any other sector.
They're not abusing a monopoly like Microsoft does.
They don't embrace extend and extinguish. When Apple used KHTML they released their changes back, ok it took a lot of merging work to get their changes back but WebKit wouldn't have been so good without that.
They have released professional software for a fraction of the cost of the competition. Final Cut, Logic Studio etc.
Stop trying to copy people and do some innovating, y'know that thing you're always saying you should have the freedom to do (and not have the DOJ stopping you).
Apple is making loads of money and it isn't even in the advert business (yet, iPhone OS 4 will bring them into it).
I'm pretty sure that there are many XBox 360, PS3 or Wii owners here. You buy the device knowing that it is locked down, can only play vendor authorised software and has a limited vendor determined feature set.
People accept that, so why is a phone any different?
An adjustment of mindset is required. In the 80s when the first consoles from Sega and Nintendo appeared a friend of mine was on about selling his C64 to get one, I said he was mad as you couldn't do anything but play games on it and the games were all on cartridges.
Yet many years down the line we are perfectly prepared to buy a very powerful piece of hardware that is almost fully locked down. The hardware spec of the device would be useful as a basic computer. Look at the PS3, it could be used for Linux, although Sony has reeled that feature back in.
Microsoft will lock down their new phone platform like Apple has. It's just the way things are heading. I'm glad that a phone I get on contract is not allowed to be ruined by the network operator, in the past they have added their own applications, removed features from the firmware etc.
Only geeks and some developers care about tyrannical control. End users just buy the phone, use it and download the apps from the app store. If you want to be 100% in control of your device, be it a phone or a computer then you don't buy a 'console'. The iPhone is comparable to a games console as it is locked down.
The average person doesn't care about emulators, terminal emulators and SSH.
The fact that the iPhone appears to have the best user experience seems to confirm that Apple have high standards and won't let people ruin that with lazy Adobe Flash to iPhone conversion tools.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we really can complain how spammers cost us money!
People have tried x86 processors, the Intel Atom and found they just aren't suited to a mobile device like a tablet or smartphone. The battery life just wasn't good enough.
Nokia 9110 communicator.
AMD 486 processor and GEOS OS.
Well you did say x86.
The problem with Android is the fragmentation. Having one company designing the hardware and software as well as dictating things can be a model of simplicity.
When Microsoft released the XBox they could have just made the OS and published a specification, pretty much like they did with the MSX, but nope, they realised it would be a disaster.
With Android there are too many handsets, too many software versions in the wild, different touch screen types, different touch screen sizes. It's hard to optimise an application for it as you don't know how big the screen is and at times you may not have multitouch capability as the screen might be resistive.
I had various Windows Mobile phones, they all had a reset button which would get used after trying out any new software.
These rubbish Windows OS based tablets have been around for years, they've sold poorly (even Bill Gates's predictions were completely wrong) and just have rubbish usability. Why will they sell now?
Why do you think Apple put iPhone OS on the iPad? simple, there is masses of touch screen compatible software for iPhone OS, the UI is great for a touch screen (it was built for one). Apple even redesigned and rebuilt their office tools for the touchscreen.
Microsoft couldn't do any of the above, there's just too many internal squabbles and underhanded tactics at Microsoft. The head of the Office software team refused to support tablets, so Office is painful to use. Windows itself only has a hack of a tablet layer on top of it to support tablets.
Getting storage of power to be lighter is the biggest challenge. I think once you achieve that goal the next two are making it affordable, making it environmentally sound (what good is a 'green' car if the batteries aren't) and finally making it safe. Having such a lot of energy in batteries means a lot of danger in the event of a big accident.
They can do what the heck they want with it.
You can't release a game on the Wii, XBox 360 or PS3 without involvement from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony. You have to buy their dev kit, get approval from them and even pay them a royalty for each sale of the game.
So why is the iPad different? just because the distribution is electronic and it is a slightly more generic device than a games console doesn't mean Apple can't control the platform.
If you don't like the rules, don't agree to them. Buy something else.
Why patent it? is that to stop other people doing the same?
Honestly, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Apple and co, put them on a big ship and sink it. They don't want to compete, they want to lock up very generic ideas and stop everyone else from using them.
Ofcom are a telcoms regulator. Their job is to ensure competition in the telcoms sector in the UK. They were set up to keep the privatised BT under control to stop them abusing their dominance (they still own a lot of the UK's telephone network).
Their job is not to assist in copyright enforcement.
A world without Microsoft wouldn't be so bad a place surely?
After all, before the IBM PC clone became so popular at home people used to use much nicer machines. Amiga, ST, Acorn Archimedes and so on.
I'd argue Linux holds back development of new alternatives to Windows and Mac OSX. What happened to the sort of people who created BeOS?
If flash was open source, a published standard and available for every single OS and platform then yes, they could claim it was fully cross platform.
The version of Flash lagged way behind on Linux for years.
It's still a good unit because of the controls, the fact it is open and the fact that the CPU is good enough to run numerous emulators.
Personally I wouldn't push for money if I won a case against them, I would ask that Microsoft displays my company's name (if I had one) in big letters next to the product name. Free advertising and makes the point that it wasn't Microsoft's idea originally.
How many versions of the DS? DS, DS lite, DSi?
Perhaps they should get off the behinds and produce something new again?
Hardly. If Apple licenced the iPhone OS to OEMs I'm sure there would be loads more phones around.
Android phones are available in lots of different form factors, some people insist on hardware keyboards.
Don't be over the top and just observe what it's like at the company for a while. Once you're settled in then you can join in, have a laugh with your work colleagues if they do that.
Each company is different, some people can be really serious, others can be really relaxed. It all depends on the management culture there.
Indeed. I don't understand why a realistic desktop metaphor is so desirable in a computer interface? I can understand it if you have a huge desktop surface computer, but for a tablet it would be suboptimal.
What next? a house metaphor with different rooms? Walk to the office room to work, walk to the games room to play games?
I like the multitouch operations, but I would like to see if there is research backing this desktop or if it is just cool stuff for the sake of it.
They have nowhere near 95% market share in the desktop, mobiles or any other sector.
They're not abusing a monopoly like Microsoft does.
They don't embrace extend and extinguish. When Apple used KHTML they released their changes back, ok it took a lot of merging work to get their changes back but WebKit wouldn't have been so good without that.
They have released professional software for a fraction of the cost of the competition. Final Cut, Logic Studio etc.
They don't criticise open source.
They aren't trying to kill Google.
Everyone seems to accept the walled garden concept of games consoles. So why is Apple's approach to the iPhone and iPad any different?
Your console is subsidised, your mobile phone is often subsided on a contract. No difference as far as I can see.
It didn't help that he and many of his friends were heavy drug users, so much of PKD's strange visions were most likely the result of drug use.
That's not to say it won't be interesting of course.
Release loads of nice phones with WebOS, lots of different form factors and at a good price.
WebOS is a great OS, it is the hardware that sucks at the moment.
Stop trying to copy people and do some innovating, y'know that thing you're always saying you should have the freedom to do (and not have the DOJ stopping you).
Apple is making loads of money and it isn't even in the advert business (yet, iPhone OS 4 will bring them into it).
I'm pretty sure that there are many XBox 360, PS3 or Wii owners here. You buy the device knowing that it is locked down, can only play vendor authorised software and has a limited vendor determined feature set.
People accept that, so why is a phone any different?
An adjustment of mindset is required. In the 80s when the first consoles from Sega and Nintendo appeared a friend of mine was on about selling his C64 to get one, I said he was mad as you couldn't do anything but play games on it and the games were all on cartridges.
Yet many years down the line we are perfectly prepared to buy a very powerful piece of hardware that is almost fully locked down. The hardware spec of the device would be useful as a basic computer. Look at the PS3, it could be used for Linux, although Sony has reeled that feature back in.
Microsoft will lock down their new phone platform like Apple has. It's just the way things are heading. I'm glad that a phone I get on contract is not allowed to be ruined by the network operator, in the past they have added their own applications, removed features from the firmware etc.
Only geeks and some developers care about tyrannical control. End users just buy the phone, use it and download the apps from the app store. If you want to be 100% in control of your device, be it a phone or a computer then you don't buy a 'console'. The iPhone is comparable to a games console as it is locked down.
The average person doesn't care about emulators, terminal emulators and SSH.
The fact that the iPhone appears to have the best user experience seems to confirm that Apple have high standards and won't let people ruin that with lazy Adobe Flash to iPhone conversion tools.
Might be because it has a virus on it.