Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:27 UTC
Google So yeah, Google totally just won the conference showdown by easily beating both Apple and Microsoft. Not only did Google announce Android 4.1 with some really cool new features, a cheap but non-crippled tablet, and a new Android device called the Nexus Q, but they also opened up pre-orders for Google Glass. So yeah.
Order by: Score:
Please allow me to be the first to say...
by p13. on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:32 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

What the hell HTC?! Where's my android 4.1 update?




...



Sorry ... carry on

Reply Score: 1

The Q
by robojerk on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:35 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

The Q looks like a flop to me. It requires a phone or tablet (not a stand alone device) and is priced at $299. From looking at it the most similar product on the market right now is the AppleTV (Airplay feature). That is 1/3 the price and can be used as a standalone device.

What is Google thinking? NFC?

The Vizio Co-Star on the other hand looks about 1,000 times better. It has Google TV, Amazon Instant Video, OnLive games, and the Play Market. All for only $99.99. In my opinion, Google should have shown the Vizio product during Google IO.
http://www.vizio.com/costar/features

Edited 2012-06-27 20:35 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: The Q
by robojerk on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:39 UTC in reply to "The Q"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Also Amazon Video isn't even available on any other Google Android products. Vizio exclusive outside of Amazon's fire tablet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The Q
by Radio on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:51 UTC in reply to "The Q"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The Q is a high-end device in terms of manufacturing, not specs. Plus it is made in the USA (the metallic sphere for example is made by a rifle company).

But yeah, the Vizio is far better. Except maybe if Google updates its Nexus Q with some earth-shattering novelties next year.

The "...and a micro-USB port to promote general hackability" line was awesome, though.

Edited 2012-06-27 21:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The Q
by zdzichu on Wed 27th Jun 2012 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: The Q"
zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

"Made in the USA" is a minus, not plus. It only increases production cost. I really don't care if it's going to be shipped from USA or China, both are half a world away from here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The Q
by Stephen! on Thu 28th Jun 2012 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Q"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

"Made in the USA" is a minus, not plus. It only increases production cost.


But if it's keeping people in your country in work, rather than having their jobs sent overseas, it should be worth paying a little extra.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: The Q
by Soulbender on Thu 28th Jun 2012 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Q"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Made in the US" does not keep the people in my country in work.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: The Q
by ichi on Thu 28th Jun 2012 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Q"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

But if it's keeping people in your country in work, rather than having their jobs sent overseas, it should be worth paying a little extra.


That only works if you are from the US.
I'm sure people getting those jobs overseas don't agree with you, and everyone else only care about the price tag.

Considering Google is a US based company I guess US citizens should appreciate that, but the thing is the US market is not that big compared to the rest of the world.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: The Q
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Q"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But if it's keeping people in your country in work, rather than having their jobs sent overseas, it should be worth paying a little extra.

That is essentially not far from broken window fallacy (scary how undoubtedly many people subscribe to it) - let's do something in a way which isn't most efficient, which limits the appeal of the product (if only via higher price), which isn't about excelling in something & figuring out how to do that (drawing customers that way) ...no, it's about keeping people in work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The Q
by zima on Sun 1st Jul 2012 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE: The Q"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The Q is a high-end device in terms of manufacturing, not specs. Plus it is made in the USA (the metallic sphere for example is made by a rifle company).

It would be probably much more viable if made by some Chinese rifle company...
(BTW, Chinese-made ASG Kalashnikovs are brilliant, not as flimsy as... pretty much any other ASG rifle, just as solid as the real thing - it's suspected they come largely from the same production lines and/or original tooling as the Type 56 assault rifles)

Reply Score: 2

RE: The Q
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 04:28 UTC in reply to "The Q"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That is the price of "Made in the USA"

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:48 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Correction : the Nexus 7 has 9 hours of video playback. That's much, much more on idle.

Reply Score: 8

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Cellular connection on a tablet is stupid as long as one cannot buy an inexpensive data-only SIM card. Period.

Turning my smartphone into a wifi hotspot is the only sane way to keep all devices connected on the go.

Reply Score: 7

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Tablet cell data is definitely not a waste for me. I use it more than I use my Phone. If anything I would get rid of my cell DATA on my phone and only keep voice if I could.

It's going to be moot pretty soon. Verizon (which I use) is starting to merge cell data to a per person or family use instead of device use.

Edited 2012-06-27 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Cellular connection on a tablet is stupid as long as one cannot buy an inexpensive data-only SIM card. Period.

Turning my smartphone into a wifi hotspot is the only sane way to keep all devices connected on the go.


I don't know about the United States but you can purchase data only sim cards here in New Zealand without any problems - buy one on prepaid or contract if you want and you're only charged for the data used. I would have thought given America's size and being the centre of information technology that carriers would be offering such a service.

Reply Score: 4

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"Cellular connection on a tablet is stupid as long as one cannot buy an inexpensive data-only SIM card. Period.


I don't know about the United States but you can purchase data only sim cards here in New Zealand without any problems
"

UK too. I have a data only 30 day rolling contract SIM for my iPad from 3 mobile. 1GB of data for £7.50 per month. So, what, US$11? Can you seriously not get similar in the US? Other providers do similar deals, most are around £10 and the data amount and details vary. Heck, I can pick up a "pay as you go" SIM for £0.99 (or free) and so long as I follow the carrier rules for top ups, get 500mb of data free for circa £10 a month also.

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

UK too. I have a data only 30 day rolling contract SIM for my iPad from 3 mobile. 1GB of data for £7.50 per month. So, what, US$11? Can you seriously not get similar in the US? Other providers do similar deals, most are around £10 and the data amount and details vary. Heck, I can pick up a "pay as you go" SIM for £0.99 (or free) and so long as I follow the carrier rules for top ups, get 500mb of data free for circa £10 a month also.


Unfortunately Telecom NZ doesn't have a 1GB package but you can purchase a 2GB package for NZ$50 which works out to be £25 incl. GST (15%) or you can purchase 2 Degrees which has its own network in the CBD's but uses Vodafone's network outside the main centres which works out cheaper but you're charged a roaming rate when outside the main centres.

I can never work out the US system to be honest - most places I've visited they'll sell you a SIM, and it is up to you how you want to use it. I can't help but laugh when I hear Americans having to 'jail break' their iPhone just to get tethering that is considered a standard features on phones sold outside of the US.

Reply Score: 3

gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

We have similar "prepaid" systems here in Singapore, but they're just too expensive compared to regular "postpaid" mobile data plans, which is why I see myself using my phone as a hotspot for the time being.

Most of my acquaintances who own smartphones and tablets do the same. Possibly another factor (since it's a small country) is that we have an abundance of public wifi zones here. Well, not exactly public, but you're entitled to it if you have a home broadband connection, since the ISPs give you some sort of "public key" for all the wifi zones when you sign up for a home connection. Speeds are pretty decent, surprisingly.

Edited 2012-06-28 09:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

We have similar "prepaid" systems here in Singapore, but they're just too expensive compared to regular "postpaid" mobile data plans, which is why I see myself using my phone as a hotspot for the time being.

Most of my acquaintances who own smartphones and tablets do the same. Possibly another factor (since it's a small country) is that we have an abundance of public wifi zones here. Well, not exactly public, but you're entitled to it if you have a home broadband connection, since the ISPs give you some sort of "public key" for all the wifi zones when you sign up for a home connection. Speeds are pretty decent, surprisingly.


Unfortunately here in NZ the Wifi hotspots are run but they charge on a time/data usage model with very few businesses offering free wifi connections apart from McDonalds and I think a couple of other stores. IIRC there is only a small difference between prepaid and postpaid in NZ - years ago the difference used to be huge but isn't the cases these days. For me I like prepaid because when I want the data I can log onto m.telecom.co.nz and buy a bundle that lasts 30 days and not forced into purchasing data on a set time period given that the data usage is sporadic at best.

Reply Score: 2

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I would have thought given America's size and being the centre of information technology that carriers would be offering such a service.


Note: a bit OT.

I also thought so, until two things happened, i). I wanted to buy a cheap but decent speed home net connection in the U.S. and ii). I wanted to buy a mobile (oh, sorry cell) phone in the U.S. In both cases I was laughing at first, then became a bit shocked, then after a while, just gave up searching for things that didn't exist. I mean come on, hilarious prices, plus in many cases a very low number of ISPs to choose from, also cell plans in most cases ridiculous (just see how and what they include and the associated prices, also look at roaming options and prices).

Additionally, now they're going backwards (at least from my European point of view) "introducing" traffic based capped monthly plans for broadband ;)

So yes, while in many things the U.S. is cool, broadband and cell plans and prices do not belong in that category.

Reply Score: 6

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Note: a bit OT.

I also thought so, until two things happened, i). I wanted to buy a cheap but decent speed home net connection in the U.S. and ii). I wanted to buy a mobile (oh, sorry cell) phone in the U.S. In both cases I was laughing at first, then became a bit shocked, then after a while, just gave up searching for things that didn't exist. I mean come on, hilarious prices, plus in many cases a very low number of ISPs to choose from, also cell plans in most cases ridiculous (just see how and what they include and the associated prices, also look at roaming options and prices).

Additionally, now they're going backwards (at least from my European point of view) "introducing" traffic based capped monthly plans for broadband ;)

So yes, while in many things the U.S. is cool, broadband and cell plans and prices do not belong in that category.


The US mobile phone network is a joke - two incompatible technologies and charging customers who receive voice calls/text messages; if there is anything more f-ckedup than that I would love to hear about it.

As for traffic based capped monthly plans - we have it in NZ but that is due to the fact that 99% of data NZ users pull on is located outside of New Zealand, we have a small population and the cost of laying international cables is prohibitively expensive. Add to that the crappy backbone we have in NZ which is only just being addressed, the pricing mechanism is about the only thing left that can offset the crappy backbone and expensive nature of our international connection. As for why it is happening in the US - the media companies own the cable companies and they want to make sure that they can keep sucking money from the end users pocket by ensuring that they're dependent on the cable service for their entertainment needs rather than going for a bare cable internet and use something like netflix, hulu or some other service. By putting a price on traffic it restricts people thus any viewing of shows is pushed back onto their cable television service which is 'unmet red' by very profitable for the cable service.

Edited 2012-06-29 07:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

As for traffic based capped monthly plans - we have it in NZ but that is due to the fact that 99% of data NZ users pull on is located outside of New Zealand, we have a small population and the cost of laying international cables is prohibitively expensive.

Don't you piggyback on Australia a bit in this regard? Don't the trans-Pacific cables happen to go through NZ?
(also, data sources are outside borders for most of the planet, I presume)

PS. Ah, that was quick to find...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PacRimWest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable
(though OTOH there's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra_Endeavour
...generally, weird realisation about our data packets travelling in deep ocean)

Edited 2012-07-01 11:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

skandalfo Member since:
2010-04-07

Micro USB + OTG + USB memory stick = cheap storage expansion.

Do that with an Apple device with no user-exposed file system...

Reply Score: 5

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

No Micro-SD, a big WTF in the nexus line

Reply Score: 4

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

8 and 16 gb isn't neutured? Maybe for you but I don't live in a world where I am always connected to wifi.


Well, that's why Android has other options, so if you want more space and/or a bigger screen, you can have it. What if you wanted a 7" iOS device of this type? Tough shit, you get whatever Apple says you get.

Personally, I think this makes a cool device for reading... not only books, but magazines, RSS feeds, web sites, etc. Of course, I wouldn't use this new Nexus tablet for movies, but if other people want to watch movies on a 7" screen, more power to them. I'd rather just get a $100 set-top box and be done with it.

Reply Score: 7

v This site has jumped the shark
by adamctemple on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:57 UTC
RE: This site has jumped the shark
by Radio on Wed 27th Jun 2012 21:00 UTC in reply to "This site has jumped the shark"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

BTW thom I know gruber really gets under your skin sometimes....probably because hes infinitely more witty and intelligent than you.
This comment has jumped the shark.

Reply Score: 7

RE: This site has jumped the shark
by HangLoose on Wed 27th Jun 2012 21:37 UTC in reply to "This site has jumped the shark"
HangLoose Member since:
2007-09-03

bye, and dont let the door hit you in the iAss.

Reply Score: 17

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

thom I know gruber really gets under your skin sometimes....probably because hes infinitely more witty and intelligent than you.


Clueless and unfunny, it's the new witty and intelligent.

Reply Score: 5

RE: This site has jumped the shark
by HappyGod on Fri 29th Jun 2012 11:21 UTC in reply to "This site has jumped the shark"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Weird how you hate this website, but here you are reading the articles and taking the time to even comment on them!

What happened? Did someone disagree with you, and now you're upset? ;-)

Too funny

Reply Score: 2

Set the wayback machine to 2003,
by Kroc on Wed 27th Jun 2012 21:01 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I’m starting the Android Emulator!

Reply Score: 1

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Can you explain this comment? What is so 2003 about that?

Reply Score: 2

btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

I'm not 100% sure what Kroc meant, but it does take roughly 9 years to start the emulator, give or take a year.

Reply Score: 6

...
by Hiev on Wed 27th Jun 2012 21:43 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Android 4.1 looks awesome.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Wed 27th Jun 2012 23:05 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

I'm very pleased to see Android 4.1 notifications catching up with the interaction support of KNotify and libnotify and anything that saves bandwidth is always welcome but through all this, I keep thinking that, if it doesn't already exist, someone really needs to:

1. Cook up an App Store specifically geard toward free software. (Sort of like how, on Gentoo with Portage 2.2, I can set a license mask so I have to individually whitelist packages which use non-libre licenses.)

2. Provide a build of Android specifically geared toward minimizing the amount of data Google receives about you while not compromising functionality. (At the very least, making sure that you can force logged-out operation on things like Google Search which don't require an account)

I don't know how Google Now works, but if it isn't possible to configure it to only perform pseudo-anonymity-compatible queries (things that take only a location as input, like subway and restaurant info), then I'd rather kill it than use it.

...but then what do I know. I'm the guy who owns an OpenPandora to complement my old Sony PRS-505 not just because I prefer native Linux apps and 1st-class hardware controls, but because I want an OS where, at worst, the only binary blob is a piece of the video drivers, safely wrapped in an open-source API-isolation shim and because I like to be able to have toggle-able WiFi without worrying about accidentally leaving myself visible to IMSI catchers, abuse of e911 tracking provisions, and the like. (No better way to avoid IMSI and GPS tracking than to not have the requisite chips in the device, after all)

It also helps that, as a Canadian student, I couldn't afford a cellphone data plan even if I wanted one.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 04:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So... What's stopping you?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by Benjamin_Lebsanft on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
Benjamin_Lebsanft Member since:
2005-10-11

1. Fdroid
2. Replicant or less free, Cyanogenmod

Reply Score: 3

So yeah.
by Windows Sucks on Wed 27th Jun 2012 23:28 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

"So yeah, Google totally just won the conference showdown by easily beating both Apple and Microsoft." Problem is MS and Apple will win the profits showdown by making tons more money then Google on their product then Google will make in Ad revenue from theirs. So Yeah.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So yeah.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 28th Jun 2012 02:23 UTC in reply to "So yeah. "
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

So.. If I understand your logic correctly, the best company to buy products from is one that makes more money off of me?

I prefer to buy high quality devices at lower prices and make decisions on purchases on things other than the operating system designier's quarterly profits.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: So yeah.
by imaginant on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE: So yeah. "
imaginant Member since:
2010-02-26

So.. If I understand your logic correctly, the best company to buy products from is one that makes more money off of me?


I think he is speaking in terms of morality, as in what is best for everyone and not for an individual who is only concerned for himself. In other words, perhaps your purchase might help create a job for someone who is unemployed.

Besides, I doubt if a American company would make more money, since expenses are higher.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: So yeah.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So yeah. "
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Really? I somehow doubt that. If jobs for Americans were important or simply providing living wages, than the fact that the almost completely useless nexus Q is manufactured created in the US would seem be a significant factor as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: So yeah.
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So yeah. "
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

> So.. If I understand your logic correctly, the best company to buy products from is one that makes more money off of me?

I think he is speaking in terms of morality, as in what is best for everyone and not for an individual who is only concerned for himself. In other words, perhaps your purchase might help create a job for someone who is unemployed.

That is thinking about the economy (or "societal economic morality", whatever) essentially in the terms of broken window fallacy...

Reply Score: 2

RE: So yeah.
by cdude on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:00 UTC in reply to "So yeah. "
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Microsoft does all its profits in shrinking markets while googles still grow. If Microsoft is not able to move to other markets and make there software plus services a success, then time hits them.

Apple did succeed on that transition. I doubt Microsoft ever will.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: So yeah.
by Windows Sucks on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: So yeah. "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft does all its profits in shrinking markets while googles still grow. If Microsoft is not able to move to other markets and make there software plus services a success, then time hits them.

Apple did succeed on that transition. I doubt Microsoft ever will.


True. MS really does not have anything but Windows and Office that make massive profits.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: App Store
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE: So yeah. "
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft does all its profits in shrinking markets

Windows (PCs generally), office, gaming markets are all growing...
(and the last of those three offers nice example of very successful recent MS expansion into new business models)

Reply Score: 2

How about starting with this
by Tony Swash on Wed 27th Jun 2012 23:41 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

So yeah, Google totally just won the conference showdown by easily beating both Apple and Microsoft. Not only did Google announce Android 4.1 with some really cool new features, a cheap but non-crippled tablet, and a new Android device called the Nexus Q, but they also opened up pre-orders for Google Glass. So yeah.
I honestly have no idea where to start.



How about starting with dealing with an operating system model that means that only 7% of Android devices runs Android 4 and 90% run 2.3.7 or earlier. Given those figures gushing reviews of 4.1 seem - well - theoretical given that it's probable that it's going to be years before even a sizeable minority of Android users actually run it. I am not knocking 4.1 but it seems to me that the absurd rate of OS adoption in the Android ecosystem is the elephant in the room. Until that is addressed then new versions of the OS seem superfluous.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: How about starting with this
by tomcat on Thu 28th Jun 2012 01:23 UTC in reply to "How about starting with this"
RE[2]: How about starting with this
by gan17 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE: How about starting with this"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Google has completely lost control of the Android ecosystem....

More importantly, they seem to have lost control of their own app market. People getting malware from side-loading is one thing, but giving it away via your own sanctioned repository is just ridiculous!! Their automated Bouncer has been bollocks thus far. Not everyone (read: nobody) actually pays attention to the permissions an app asks for before installation.

Even though I haven't been affected/infected once, I'd still worry about the overall security reputation of the ecosystem I'm employing.

Edited 2012-06-28 02:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Google has completely lost control of the Android ecosystem and, while that may be by design, it's going to mean that fragmentation will continue to be a huge problem; regardless of what the naysayers claim.

Fragmentation is a moderate problem, not a huge one. A lot of the "naysayers" are quite big players. That includes Unity Tech, Pocket, Animoca and so on.

Reply Score: 6

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Unfortunately no one seems to be in control of it except Apple. Even MS flunk the fragmentation test when they've announced that current WP users will be left in the lurch.

I think the only way to remotely solve it would be to only release a few kinds of devices like Apple.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately no one seems to be in control of it except Apple. Even MS flunk the fragmentation test when they've announced that current WP users will be left in the lurch.

They won't be "left in the lurch" - framework stays largely the same, most apps will certainly work. Except, notably, the most complex & demanding (native) games ...which is basically the case on iOS too, older devices often not supported by latest gaming titles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How about starting with this
by cdude on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE: How about starting with this"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

> Google has completely lost control of the Android ecosystem

You make it sound as its something bad. Googles Android strategy is working well and its partly cause of the open nature of Android. Giving up full control accelerates the Android grow and with it propagation of google's cash cows. Google's cash cows are the services and not full control of Android.

> it's going to mean that fragmentation will continue to be a huge problem

You name it fragmentation, I name it choice. Android can fit more scenarios - what means reach more people what, I repeat, is google's goal - with diverse products.

The whole idea behind Android - may it be licenses, the distribution and the software itself - is to spread, to be adopted by as many different partners as possible, to flood the market and to make google "the door to the internet and online-services". They have no interest in making money with Android licenses, with controlling Android and the Android eco-system.

That is why google will succeed and Microsoft not. Google has a business-model that is so much different from Microsofts that google can and does give away Android to its partners so those partners have the full control and can turn that into an end-user product to make lots of money with. Microsoft's business-model is controlling the eco-system. No control, no money.

Edited 2012-06-28 11:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You make it sound as its something bad.


It is bad. Current estimates are that fewer than 4-7% of tablet users will have access to 4.1 for SEVERAL YEARS. Why? Because it takes Android-based vendors a lot of time to upgrade to more recent builds. And, by that point, Google has created new versions, etc. In other words, the fragmentation means that users have no idea what apps will run on their machines because the ecosystem is so busted.

Reply Score: 0

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Do you even use Android? If not, why do you care?

Reply Score: 2

My take...
by tomcat on Thu 28th Jun 2012 01:27 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

1. Q is going to be a complete flop. The only ones who install it are going to be Google employees. The architecture and content are inane. There's just no other way to describe it.

2. Why would anybody buy a Nexus Tablet when they can simply buy an Amazon Kindle Fire? Where's the value prop? Amazon has the content.

3. Google Glasses. Cool concept. Google would like you to believe they invented this concept. They did not. I think it will remain a niche device for a long while. Probably 3-5 years.

Reply Score: 0

RE: My take...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 28th Jun 2012 02:27 UTC in reply to "My take..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What content does amazon have that an android device does not? Amazon streaming content? I'm not aware of anyone using that service. Although I must admit, I don't see the value in buying *any* tablet.

And agreed on Q, roku is aprox $60. Why use any other set top box? It even has Amazon Streaming video, for all the millions that depend on that service for critical life sustaining video.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My take...
by ricegf on Thu 28th Jun 2012 03:19 UTC in reply to "My take..."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Why would anybody buy a Nexus Tablet when they can simply buy an Amazon Kindle Fire?


Android 4.1? Higher resolution screen? Twice the RAM? USB? Front facing camera?

Was that a serious question?

You might try http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/spec_comparison_new_ipad_v._... for a spec comparison. This Apple-centric site concludes, "we think that Nexus 7 and Jelly Bean combine to make for the first Android tablet that can reasonably give the iPad a run for its money in terms of the user experience".

Of course, if you're only interested in Amazon content, stick with the Fire. My wife owns one, and simply adores it. I, OTOH, have an iPad - but I think I see a Nexus in my future.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: My take...
by tomcat on Thu 28th Jun 2012 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: My take..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"Why would anybody buy a Nexus Tablet when they can simply buy an Amazon Kindle Fire?


Android 4.1? Higher resolution screen? Twice the RAM? USB? Front facing camera?

Was that a serious question?

You might try http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/spec_comparison_new_ipad_v._... for a spec comparison. This Apple-centric site concludes, "we think that Nexus 7 and Jelly Bean combine to make for the first Android tablet that can reasonably give the iPad a run for its money in terms of the user experience".

Of course, if you're only interested in Amazon content, stick with the Fire. My wife owns one, and simply adores it. I, OTOH, have an iPad - but I think I see a Nexus in my future.
"

Improved hardware specs are of marginal benefit in a tablet. Kindle Fire does everything that tablet users need to do, and you answered that issue, yourself. Your wife is the average test case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My take...
by ricegf on Fri 29th Jun 2012 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My take..."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

You know my wife?!?

Reply Score: 3

RE: My take...
by No it isnt on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:27 UTC in reply to "My take..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

I can answer 2 for you: anyone living outside of the U.S. wanting a cheap and powerful 7" tablet. The Kindle Fire is U.S. only. It also sucks, and most of the content you speak of -- except the books you can read in the Kindle App available through Google Play -- is U.S. only.

Personally, I have no use for the Q and the glasses.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My take...
by dsmogor on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:14 UTC in reply to "My take..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

nevermind

Edited 2012-06-28 13:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

My first android device?
by abdavidson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 01:51 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've never owned one and not really been seriously inclined to.

Thought Android was slow and kludgy originally and now I feel it is kludgy (but sped up).

However Android is a big ecosystem that being naturally curious I want to play with. Never wanted to buy a cheap tablet till now because they are so... pitiful. This however could be the first I put money down for.

Reply Score: 2

Nice
by Shane on Thu 28th Jun 2012 01:52 UTC
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

That Nexus 7 is in impulse buy territory. I might just get one.

Reply Score: 4

Nexus 7
by jello on Thu 28th Jun 2012 04:24 UTC
jello
Member since:
2006-08-08

It looks like there are micro usb and micro hdmi connectors.
Does it have loudspeakers?
(my tablet has 3...)

There is no sdcard slot?
Is the usb connector usable for external devices?
What about IR blaster?

The cpu and gpu sounds fantastic though.

Whats better for tablets: 4x3 or 16x9 screen?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nexus 7
by jello on Thu 28th Jun 2012 15:28 UTC in reply to "Nexus 7"
jello Member since:
2006-08-08

Answering my own questions:
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/7/specs

1.) no micro hdmi
2.) no IR blaster
3.) no micro sd card
4.) probably only one speaker

:(

Reply Score: 1

v Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 05:32 UTC
RE: Seriously?
by Shane on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:10 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

The one thing remarkable about that tablet is the price. It's Google coercing Asus into a race to the bottom on its way into relevance in the tablet market.

I'm not sure how sustainable this will be in the long run for device makers. However, having pulled the trigger on a 16GB version, I'm not complaining right now.

On another note, I was pleasantly surprised to see Google doing something to improve UI responsiveness (Project Butter). Last December I got a general head-in-the-sand vibe from the "Android graphics true facts" fracas on Google+. I wonder what the Android apologists have to say about that now.

I'm looking forward to playing with Jelly Bean.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Those price points are impressive, if an OEM can recoup the costs. You're not telling me they're making any kind of profit on those devices. Amazon sells at a loss and their specced lower.

ASUS has no ecosystem to make money off of, unlike Amazon. Unless Google is doing some sort of Marketplace and Ad revenue market sharing. Its unsustainable. They're just hoping to be a loss leader into some market share.

Like I said, Project Butter still isn't working..The Verge said that the smoothness still isn't up to par..4 CPU cores later.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Seriously?
by Shane on Thu 28th Jun 2012 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

The proof will be in the Jelly so to speak. I'll experience the UI responsiveness soon enough in a few weeks' time.

Regarding your original point about the announcements, I agree that they are fairly underwhelming upon reflection. Looks like Google can pull off reality distortion fields too ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Radio on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Regarding your original point about the announcements, I agree that they are fairly underwhelming upon reflection.
Yeah, I agree; we seem to be more in a consolidation period, with limited improvements to hardware and software. The next big leaps are not too far in the future but still in the future, and kept under wraps or shown in an alpha state.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Those price points are impressive, if an OEM can recoup the costs. You're not telling me they're making any kind of profit on those devices. Amazon sells at a loss and their specced lower.


Nexus 7 is being sold at production cost, ASUS revealed. ASUS and Google hope for the same profit as Amazon does - content and app sales. That 30% off Google Play is split between the network operator, manufacturer and payment processor(according to Google).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Interesting. I'll concede my argument there then, it looks like the Nexus 7 will be a great device.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by dsmogor on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Asus will recoup the marketing (not unlike MS-Nokia way) and distribution cost while getting a share from content revenue, not a terrible deal in my book.

The problem is that it effectively kills all independent Android tablet market, at least in the middle category (all where it mattered).
To OEMS that seems to be at least as bad as MS announcement. As a consumer it makes me excited (not sure I will oppose a thought of possessing tablet any longer).

Google apparently seems to agree with Nelson about prospects of Android tablet ecosystem being bleak in current situation. They responded appropriately (on SW and HW fronts), will it be enough to stand up to Win8?

Edited 2012-06-28 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Just like Galaxy Nexus killed SGS2 sales? Wait.... that is not the case! For OEMs it's a very good announcement, since it's built in 4 months and it's not Motorola that is building it. And now they have a reasonably good baseline.

Remember, that Nexus program is not about market share, it's about the baseline. I, frankly, don't believe that anything can compete with iPad and iPhone in their specific markets without sacrificing performance/functionality/quality. Android took off by introducing innovative new products and ways of delivering those products. Apple products do the same. Now it's time for the Android tablet manufacturers to think outside the box, sadly Samsung has an issue with that in the tablet space and ASUS does not have enough bandwidth to push their tablet line considerably forward.
With the Nexus 7 as the baseline, others have to take that spark and run like hell. More stuff like Galaxy Note, EeePad Transformer and PadPhone's.
I hope it will be a message that the game needs to change. Just like I hope that Surface is just a major signal to Windows tablet manufacturers that the game needs to change.
Taking on the iPad head to head is worthless, you have to make sure that all the people that buy accessories will see a product that needs none of those accessories and gives them exactly what they need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Seriously?
by dsmogor on Fri 29th Jun 2012 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Nexus is not sold at cost. And yes nexus tablet is about baseline; the price and business model baseline for Android tablets have been set: sell at cost and get revenue from ads. Not that selling at cost is a precedent in business.

Rest of your comment I agree fully, business model change is an example of that. Besides if Nexus pushes devs to give tablet form factor more love, other OEMS (ones that try to innovate) my in fact take advantage. I just wonder if this pushes Samsung (on a tablet space) into MS arms. As far as tablets are concerned they don't have any OS choice of their own atm.
(edit: hey I forgot about WebOS, that would be cool!).
In the end it's matter of trust and you have to compare MS and Google by their track record. Google's is mostly balanced (they partnerships didn't hurt partners, but ended up pretty unsuccessful) while MS is a horror story with Nokia being massacred before our eyes.

Edited 2012-06-29 05:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Sat 30th Jun 2012 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

ASUS(CEO) and Google(Rubin) said it is.
Whether Google splits mobile ad revenue with OEM's is unknown, but 30% cut does get split.

Google and Microsoft are equally attractive to OEMs right now, ever since Surface announcement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by zima on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Nokia was self-immolating itself for a long time though ...and, with Android they would likely still be squeezed out by Samsung, and Chinese manufacturers, anyway - most "western brand" Android makers don't fare that well (just a repeat of what happened with PCs, I guess)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Seriously?
by MollyC on Fri 29th Jun 2012 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Gizmodo says that Google will be selling its tablets at loss, and hoping to make up the difference via ads and online software sales. Which means that they will be undercutting other android tablet makers, which can't match Google's price since they have no way to recoup losses like Google does. This may be the end of the Android tablet market as far as non-Google devices are concerned.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Seriously?
by adkilla on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:17 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

I keep getting the feeling that you and MollyC are MS trolls. I had a look at a lot of your comments lately and it seems like you really really want W8/WP8 to succeed and have an almost religious dislike for Android.

At least with the Nexus 7 announcement, I think it is a strategy is to get as many people to adopt Android tablets by giving it an attractive pricing. Since the updates come directly from Google, the experience should also be the best experience people could get for the money. I think this would be very encouraging.

The Kindle Fire on the other hand is not available outside the US. The Amazon ecosystem is also not available outside the US. So, to people outside the US (where the majority of people are), the Kindle means diddly squat to us. Nexus devices are available and sold outside the US. You can buy a Nexus device with contract on any carrier in APAC. I would get my hands on it with this attractive pricing.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Seriously?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jun 2012 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I keep getting the feeling that you and MollyC are MS trolls. I had a look at a lot of your comments lately and it seems like you really really want W8/WP8 to succeed and have an almost religious dislike for Android.


You know, I really enjoy my WP7 phone and I find Windows 7 to be an excellent OS, and I've expressed those opinions on here more than once. As much as I like the idea of Android, in practical use I find it sorely lacking. And I'm certainly hoping WP8 is successful, though I'm not holding my breath.

Yet despite all of that, no one is calling me a Microsoft troll or shill. Are you sure you aren't taking this to a personal level? I've had my differences with Nelson and especially MollyC regarding Microsoft's business practices, but at the end of the day I see them as just having a different opinion, not actively trolling.

I know my viewpoint probably means little to nothing, I just think it would be a shame for you to dismiss them as trolls when they both have contributed a ton of insight to this forum over the years.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Seriously?
by Radio on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The "glass vaporware" line shows how Nelson is a troll. If he really thinks it is just a headcam, he is stupid.

First of all, it was streaming its video feed through a normal G+ hangout. That shows a level of ability far above what is already available.

Second, Brin clearly said they did this whole little show-off because it was something easy to show. Project Glass is far more than that, but they can't show it on stage as easily ("maybe if we put a glass over a glass...", he joked).

Third, Google Now shows what could be the future content of Glass. Snippets of curated, taylored data right about what you are doing to enhance your life. Plus voice input. We already are very close from the concept video they showed off a few months ago.

Fourth, even if project Glass was just a streaming headcam, it would already be something significant. There is a good reason this kind of stuff has already been a science-fiction trope for a long time. Imagine reporters with Project Glass. Imagine protests were people wear Project Glass. There is so much potential. Good and bad (oh yeah, lots of goods and lots of bads). But this is the kind of stuff everybody always expected to come to be one day.

And it is within reach.

The final nail in the coffin which contains Nelson's insight is that Glass "vaporware" will soon be in developpers'hands. Eh. Moron.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The "glass vaporware" line shows how Nelson is a troll. If he really thinks it is just a headcam, he is stupid.

First of all, it was streaming its video feed through a normal G+ hangout. That shows a level of ability far above what is already available.


I'm sorry, can you point me to the fucking augmented reality demo? Oh wait, what happened? It doesnt exist? You mean its vaporware? Oh, right. Shut up then.

Also, the Glasses are tethered to smart phones. They have no wireless connectivity of their own, so the term mobile webcam is actually appropriate despite how much you try to play it up.

Second, Brin clearly said they did this whole little show-off because it was something easy to show. Project Glass is far more than that, but they can't show it on stage as easily ("maybe if we put a glass over a glass...", he joked).


We'll see. Until they actually do have something to show, that aspect is vaporware. However, it is apparently outlandish in your judgement for me to even begin to question Thom for claiming this is more significant than Apple/MS events.

Get. A. Grip.


Fourth, even if project Glass was just a streaming headcam, it would already be something significant. There is a good reason this kind of stuff has already been a science-fiction trope for a long time. Imagine reporters with Project Glass. Imagine protests were people wear Project Glass. There is so much potential. Good and bad (oh yeah, lots of goods and lots of bads). But this is the kind of stuff everybody always expected to come to be one day.

And it is within reach.


So at first you're vehemently opposed to me describing it as a glorified webcam and now you make excuses for it "well even if, its still good"

And I'm the troll? Riiiight,


The final nail in the coffin which contains Nelson's insight is that Glass "vaporware" will soon be in developpers'hands. Eh. Moron.


Some time next year , lacking features that were originally shown off like augmented reality. Its not the same product. Project Glass as announced is vaporware.

Im sorry it doesn't mesh with your warped views, actually, I'm not, too bad.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Seriously?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

to question Thom for claiming this is more significant than Apple/MS events.


Apple: minor hardware updates+one big one, and iOS6 playing catch-up (to come in the Fall).

Microsoft: vapourware tablet nobody has seen in action, and Windows Phone 8 nobody will be able to use until they buy new hardware somewhere in the Fall.

Google: minor Android update with still some major new stuff (available in two weeks+now for attendees), new non-crippled tablet for *$199* (available in two weeks+now for attendees), new streaming device (available in two weeks (?)), and, oh, they're putting Glass up for pre-order.

Easy enough to see who won.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Apple: minor hardware updates+one big one, and iOS6 playing catch-up (to come in the Fall).


Oh come on, iOS is an absolutely massive upgrade compared to Android 4.1. Try to be objective.


Microsoft: vapourware tablet nobody has seen in action, and Windows Phone 8 nobody will be able to use until they buy new hardware somewhere in the Fall.


You disregard the entire Windows 8 OEM Computex showing, the Windows Azure redesign offering IaaS, and the Yammer acquisition for enterprise.

WP8 is definitely not vaporware, its just not out yet. It was shown running on devices in its entiriety. You have a confident release window, a feature set shown off in depth, etc

Same with Surface. Most journalists didn't get time on with Surface, but some did. Its more vapory than WP8 but I feel it has its feature set detailed and carved out.

The difference with Project Glass is that at first it was an augmented reality device which was really revolutionary. Now its a head mounted camera, with question mark specs, which may come out next year as a shadow of its former self. Oh, and its $1500 and only available to I/O attendees meaning General Availability is even further out.

Surface, Windows 8, and Windows Phone 8 will be out before the first Project Glass pre order is shipped.


Google: minor Android update with still some major new stuff (available in two weeks+now for attendees), new non-crippled tablet for *$199* (available in two weeks+now for attendees), new streaming device (available in two weeks (?)), and, oh, they're putting Glass up for pre-order.

Easy enough to see who won.


Major new stuff? That's a fucking stretch, considering how you just downplayed iOS6.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Seriously?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The difference with Project Glass is that at first it was an augmented reality device which was really revolutionary. Now its a head mounted camera, with question mark specs, which may come out next year as a shadow of its former self. Oh, and its $1500 and only available to I/O attendees meaning General Availability is even further out.


That's my biggest problem with Project Glass; they sold us on such an amazing concept, teased us with "it will be in testing next year" and now we find it's a webcam -- a very nice looking one, but still a webcam -- that will cost as much as three of the phones required to use it. Granted, that's a developer special price, but come on! I can build what they demoed with parts lying around my workshop.

I'm really glad Google is serious about bringing Glass to fruition, but they are years away from having The Real Thing if this is all they have right now. Then on top of that, to charge an insane amount of money for a single-function prototype sounds really fishy. Surely Google has the R&D budget already in place for this project, and a few hundred units at $1500 each is probably a fraction of that budget. So why the ridiculous price tag on something that's not even as advanced as a Kinect?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Oh come on, iOS is an absolutely massive upgrade compared to Android 4.1. Try to be objective.

Sorry, but if we compare it in the context of competition it is not a major update. If we take it in a vacuum - yes it's a major step for iOS.(Though iOS 5 was a bigger step forward) Is that objective enough?

Same with Surface. Most journalists didn't get time on with Surface, but some did. Its more vapory than WP8 but I feel it has its feature set detailed and carved out.

Compared to how Google Glass is presented, that you call vapourware, no one did have any time with Surface. Even Joshua Topolsky is saying that the "handlers" were yanking the devices out of journalists hands if they tried to actually use it.

And as I said before - you really have an issue with Android. Considering how much swearwords you use.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Seriously?
by dsmogor on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

For me the Glass was more of projecting contextual info and making it more integrated than AR. Something for making Localization Services central to the experience.

And that is wholly dependent on whether you can put that information on the first place, Google is the company that can most probably pull that off (imagine if they teamed up with Nokia on this, that would be match made in heaven), but I presume it will be US only for long time after introduction.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Seriously?
by MollyC on Fri 29th Jun 2012 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Personally, I don't think something can be considered "vaporware" the very day that it's announced, or else the term has almost no meaning. Let a product miss a few ship dates first. ;)

Edited 2012-06-29 05:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Sat 30th Jun 2012 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So... Surface will never qualify as a vapour just because it has no ship date?!?!?!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Seriously?
by Radio on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

So at first you're vehemently opposed to me describing it as a glorified webcam and now you make excuses for it "well even if, its still good"

And I'm the troll? Riiiight,

Yes, I am taking your dismissal, I show that it is already not as insignificant as you make it to be, and I add that it is going to do much more.

Get. A. Brain.

You know what is vaporware? Every single thing Microsoft showed during its own event.

OK, now I'm trolling...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

"So at first you're vehemently opposed to me describing it as a glorified webcam and now you make excuses for it "well even if, its still good"

And I'm the troll? Riiiight,

Yes, I am taking your dismissal, I show that it is already not as insignificant as you make it to be, and I add that it is going to do much more.

Get. A. Brain.

You know what is vaporware? Every single thing Microsoft showed during its own event.

OK, now I'm trolling...
"

Okay, enjoy your $1500 webcam.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Sorry, but I mostly agree with him regarding Project Glass. I was sorely disappointed at what, for now, is a head mounted webcam at twenty times the cost to build it. I realize it's in the early stages of development, but as I said below, you can pick up a Kinect and get tons of functionality above and beyond where Google is now.

Even if Google somehow managed to shrink the tech inside the Kinect down to eyeglasses scale this year, they would still be a few more years away from what we saw in the effects-laden demo video a few months ago.

I do find the other announcements they made to be intriguing; in particular the Nexus 7 tablet is very close to the "perfect tablet" for someone like me. It's basically a Nook Color but with enough horsepower to run the latest OS smoothly. Even the price is appealing, perhaps even a loss leader. The seven inch Galaxy Tab is bulky, plastic-y and slow compared to it, yet costs much more.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I want to reiterate, I'm not saying the Nexus 7 sucks. It actually looks like a great Tablet.

I'm speaking purely from the perspective of it being some game changing feat of engineering like this opinion piece would have you believe.

I don't think just because they announced a $199 tablet that they stole the show from Apple or MS. They just chose to lose money. Noble, I guess, but not revolutionary.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Seriously?
by adkilla on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

How do you know they chose to loose money? Time for a fact check?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Actually, a JAlexoid pointed out above they get revenue from Google Play to cover costs. Good on Google.

I've since taken back my criticism of the Nexus 7. Its a shot across the bow for the Kindle Fire.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Seriously?
by Radio on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Sorry, but I mostly agree with him regarding Project Glass. I was sorely disappointed at what, for now, is a head mounted webcam at twenty times the cost to build it. I realize it's in the early stages of development, but as I said below, you can pick up a Kinect and get tons of functionality above and beyond where Google is now.

Even if Google somehow managed to shrink the tech inside the Kinect down to eyeglasses scale this year, they would still be a few more years away from what we saw in the effects-laden demo video a few months ago.

What does Glass have in common with Kinect? You lost me.

If you really think that Glass is just a glorified webcam, that would be fine if Google was selling it now: Ah! Another half-baked Google product!

But here, we have one of Google's co-founder trying to woo as many people in the audience as possible and offering to order it on a very limited basis - US I/O attendees only, meaning motivated developers close from their lab. They are not trying to scam some uneducated, misinformed, helpless people.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Seriously?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jun 2012 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I never said they are trying to scam anyone, I just think it's a bit early to release such a limited form of the hardware for such a lofty price.

The comparison to the Kinect was made to show the issue with where they are right now compared to what they are charging for it. I know that they want Glass to become what they envisioned in the concept video, and I want that too! But the "live demo" we saw the other day was no more spectacular than what people on Google+ do every day in Hangouts. The only difference was that the camera was head-mounted and wireless. That's a cool thing to be sure, but it's a very small first step and not worth the price of entry as far as I'm concerned, given I could build the same thing with spare parts on the workbench to my right. I would want to see something a little more advanced before buying into the project.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I never said they are trying to scam anyone, I just think it's a bit early to release such a limited form of the hardware for such a lofty price.

Have you not worked with limited edition early access devices? $1599 is peanuts. I just dropped €4000($5000 and I'm VAT exempt) on a serial production wireless EEG! I've had devices that cost $8000 and more on my desk, that later entered the consumer space at $100.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Seriously?
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If you really think that Glass is just a glorified webcam, that would be fine if Google was selling it now: Ah! Another half-baked Google product!

But here, we have one of Google's co-founder trying to woo as many people in the audience as possible and offering to order it on a very limited basis - US I/O attendees only, meaning motivated developers close from their lab. They are not trying to scam some uneducated, misinformed, helpless people.

Well it isn't demonstrated as anything more than a glorified webcam...

What it all looks like is, yes, trying very hard to woo devs, to make them emotionally invested in the product - and "oh please, maybe they'll figure out something remotely sensible to do with that (premature) thing"

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It is vaporware, many years off ( http://www.osnews.com/permalink?525238 ) WRT to the promises of the early demo.

First of all, it was streaming its video feed through a normal G+ hangout. That shows a level of ability far above what is already available.

WTH? That's exactly what a webcam does...

even if project Glass was just a streaming headcam, it would already be something significant. There is a good reason this kind of stuff has already been a science-fiction trope for a long time. Imagine reporters with Project Glass. Imagine protests were people wear Project Glass. There is so much potential. [...] this is the kind of stuff everybody always expected to come to be one day.

Yeah, imagine reporters giving us poor quality, hardly discernible video. Imagine tons of idiot protesters choking cellular networks, then jumping on some "the gov is censoring us!" conspiracy theories and acting on such irrational hysterias (that's what actually happened already at few protests, I know of one or two in Moscow in example - and just because people were trying to text and twitter about how they're "protesting")

Scifi is more often way off the mark http://www.osnews.com/permalink?523521 & http://www.osnews.com/permalink?520970 (related here: the videoconferencing as the staple of "scifi future" communication is mostly ignored).
You were scammed by another such fantasy, deal with it (like, say, the STS was one enormous scam, achieving practically nothing as advertised)


Overall, it reminds me about the small fad of home videos, at my place happening 1-1.5 decade ago. Even though the equipment is now much better and less expensive... it mostly passed.
People, to my slight amazement, figured out how utterly tormenting such videos tend to be, and they mostly went "back" to photos (I guess also because there are usually not that many, people can quickly sift through them for the few good ones).
Also, making good videos typically involves discarding, essentially, most of the material shot - that's not only probably the single most important thing overlooked by creators of crappy videos, the concept of "life experience" videos also goes right against it.

Edited 2012-07-05 00:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by adkilla on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Unlike comments from Nelson and MollyC, I find your's balanced.

Try comparing your comment here with Nelson's above for contrast.

I would like QNX/BBX to succeed, but you won't see me religiously putting down other innovations just because I am their fan.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Blah, blah fanboy this fanboy that
You've done the absolute least to refute anything that anyone has said in this thread.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Seriously?
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's OSNews tradition once you've lost the argument, or don't want to start one, you call the other person a fanboy or troll. After this any reasonable debate ends.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Seriously?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's OSNews tradition once you've lost the argument, or don't want to start one, you call the other person a fanboy or troll. After this any reasonable debate ends.


I'm a fanboy for and against everything, all at the same time. I'm somewhat of a marvel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Wel, there's an unexpected and almost dangerous twist to an already very complicated and quite insane story.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by adkilla on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

A +1000 Internets for you sir! LoL

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by MollyC on Fri 29th Jun 2012 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

OK, that's twice that you've attacked me beind my back. Would it kill you to show a little class?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Since the updates come directly from Google, the experience should also be the best experience people could get for the money. I think this would be very encouraging.


How'd that work out for Nexus S? Lol, you cannot be serious.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by adkilla on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

"Google has also announced that it plans to have Jelly Bean running on the Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus and Motorola Xoom in mid-july."
Info: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phone...

You were saying?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Fri 29th Jun 2012 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

That despite the Nexus S being a "Nexus" device, it took them forever to get ICS. Or did that just magically happen to slip your mind? Unbelievable.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Seriously?
by zima on Sun 1st Jul 2012 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I see you already forgot what great plans there were the last time, to get rid of the slight update mess at least in such limited fashion. And the time before that. And before that...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Seriously?
by karunko on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:14 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

Project Butter? Really? Because The Verge says that it STILL isn't as smooth as an iPad.

First: The Verge is not the be-all-and-end-all of tech reporting and even if they pretend not to, they have their fair share of bias and everything they write should be taken with a (very big) grain of salt.

Second: The 16 GB Nexus 7 costs $249, the cheapest 16 GB iPad (2) is $399 while the latest and greatest 16 GB model starts at $499, therefore price should be taken into account when comparing them.

Third: Some people prefer 7", so even even the iPad is "better", that doesn't help them until Apple makes one (and I think it's a matter of when rather than if).

In other words, the Nexus 7 should be considered as a direct competitor to the Kindle Fire, not the iPad.



RT.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


First: The Verge is not the be-all-and-end-all of tech reporting and even if they pretend not to, they have their fair share of bias and everything they write should be taken with a (very big) grain of salt.


Sure but past is prologue. People said the same thing about how ICS finally made Android smooth.

I'm glad after throwing a quad core CPU and a monstrous GPU its almost as smooth as iOS and Windows Phone.

I'm glad after writing bullshit articles on Google+ denying the problem, they finally acknowledge it exists

I just have no faith in Google's initiatives. What happened to the Handset Upgrade Alliance? Crickets?

P.S I'm not downplaying Nexus 7 pricing, I'm just saying its unsustainable. They're hoping to loss lead. Its hardly remarkable, its not like they solved some engineering problem letting them make super cheap tablets. They're just deciding to lose more money. Good, but not great.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm glad after throwing a quad core CPU and a monstrous GPU its almost as smooth as iOS and Windows Phone.


My SII with CM9 is just as smooth as iOS, perhaps even smoother. WP7.5 is smoother *in some applications*, but in most, it's a total turd sandwich due to how WP7 handles networking; everything starts to stutter and comes to a grinding halt when networking is slow, which is all the time on WP7 - even on wifi backed by a 120MB connection.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

"I'm glad after throwing a quad core CPU and a monstrous GPU its almost as smooth as iOS and Windows Phone.


My SII with CM9 is just as smooth as iOS, perhaps even smoother. WP7.5 is smoother *in some applications*, but in most, it's a total turd sandwich due to how WP7 handles networking; everything starts to stutter and comes to a grinding halt when networking is slow, which is all the time on WP7 - even on wifi backed by a 120MB connection.
"

I'm sorry, this is completely wrong. In fact in the article where you complained about this no one agreed with you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Seriously?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29


I'm sorry, this is completely wrong. In fact in the article where you complained about this no one agreed with you.


Uh, I think you need to go back and re-read that thread.

It's a fairly common problem. Some have fixed it with system restores, but that's not an option for me.

The issue occurs when you have cellular and wifi data enabled at the same time. Even if you have great cellular connection. Thus, if you're using wifi, disable cellular data. For now at least. It also gives a great boost in battry life and the phone runs cooler in my case. By a lot.


I've had intermittent networking issues with my HTC Arrive on Sprint, both on WiFi and EvDO. Not quite as bad as what you've described though; mostly the web browser inexplicably unable to load a site via either connection method while the PC I'm at, connected to the same WiFi network, has no problem. It's very random and has only happened a few times in the past six months I've had the phone.

I've also occasionally had live tile update issues, but only with certain third party apps and the "Me" social notification tile.


I have a Samsung Focus, and have had some of those same issues. I almost never have a problem with the built-in stuff like mail, but some 3rd party apps give me problems on live tile updates.

[...]

And occasionally, even on WiFi, it'll tell me that it's having trouble getting updates from Facebook, which I usually take to mean that maybe instead of looking at Facebook updates on my phone, I should go do something more useful than look at Facebook updates, anyway.


Now go and look around the web. I'm not alone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You mention separate issues, and I'll address them all:

Resume from sleep WiFi is less than five seconds. You are seriously an outlier there. Contact your carrier or get your device serviced. This just isn't happening on a widespread scale.

Your second issue is also peculiar and I've found no mention of it across the internet on a large scale. These may be isolated incidents, and again I'd suggest contacting your carrier and having your device checked. It is likely this and the prior issue are related.

Live Tiles is multifaceted. Some Live Tile data is pushed, thats instant. Some developers opt to not pay money to run push notification service so they periodically poll for Live Tile data which at best fires every 15 minutes.

All push notifications, background tasks, etc are disabled during low battery or low memory conditions. So it may impact how often you have fresh tile data.

Some developers just plain don't implement the functionality correctly which can cause duplicate notifications, old notifications, incorrect clearing of live tile badge counts, etc.

The only time any of net stuff impacts perf is if you're doing on UI thread data handling or image decoding which is bad practices and fault lies with the app developer. Setting Images to Delay and Background creation, as well as using an HttpWebRquest object or marshaling your WebClient fixes this

Edited 2012-06-28 10:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Your second issue is also peculiar and I've found no mention of it across the internet on a large scale. These may be isolated incidents, and again I'd suggest contacting your carrier and having your device checked. It is likely this and the prior issue are related.


That second issue was written by me, and I've since narrowed it down to a Sprint thing. Specifically, even though I have what appears to be a good signal at my house, the data part of the signal is simply too weak. It affects text messaging as well as EvDO data. At the same time, I found that my wireless router wasn't propagating to the side of the house where my office is, and the HTC Arrive seems to be really picky about staying connected to a weak WiFi signal. Moving within range of the router, or going across the yard for a better EvDO signal fixed my connection issues.

Further proof was discovered at work, where we have a femtocell (or whatever Sprint calls their repeaters) to better serve our officers who rely on their work phones in the building. I never have communication issues at work apart from Netflix streaming, which suffers from the femtocell being prioritized for voice over data.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So... How do you feel being in the shoes of an Android apologist? You know that that is exactly the language used on the other side - "it's all the developer's fault".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I've compiled some quotes from the article you posted criticizing Windows Phone 7's networking stack.

It should prove insightful:

My Lumia 710 connects via WiFi in less than 4 seconds.
- Drumhellar

My girlfriend has a Lumia 800 and has never encountered problems like these.
- WilliamM

I have an HTC Trophy (Verizon's only WP phone), and there's no WiFi problem whatsoever, so I don't think Thom's problem is necessarily an "HTC" problem. I don't know what the cause of his problem is. I've never heard of a general WiFi problem wrt WP (sites like The Verge certainly would've ripped WP to shreds over it, were that the case.)
- MollyC

I agree. This might be a hardware issue. I have a Titan II, and Wifi reconnect (or 3G reconnect after Wifi dropoff) is usually a few seconds, and web browsing is real fast (compared to my old HTC G2 Android phone).
- sukru

yup - my lumia 800 also re-connects to wifi very fast. fast enough i've never bothered timing it (seems nearly instant)
- bitflung

I don't have the HD7, but I do own the LG e900 and I'm not having the same problems you've having with that phone.
- sagum

Like other WP 7.5 commenters, I also don't experience any WiFi issues. I have a Dell Venue Pro, and it connects in about 4 seconds.
- n4cer

Yeah, I've had absolutely no issues with WiFi on my HTC Arrive. It actually connects quicker than my FC16 laptop and iPad.

- helf

Samsung Focus - no connectivity issues here either. Yours does sound like it could be a hardware issue.
- Machester

My email, calendar and message tiles update before my PC apps do... I have my phone next to me... it chimes, I do an update on my PC to get the latest and read them. So I don't know what's up with your phone/network.
- Tuishimi

Under 2 secs on Lumia 900. I think Thom is possessed.
- frostbyte

I have an LG C900 and I have not seen any slow network stuff or broken tiles.
- DDevine

Do you see the trend? Everything points to this being an isolated Thom problem. Yet you penned an entire hit piece article trashing Windows Phone, never issued a retraction or any sort of correction, and continue to pedal the same inaccuracies as if they were some widespread issue.

You're being disingenuous Thom.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do you see the trend? Everything points to this being an isolated Thom problem. Yet you penned an entire hit piece article trashing Windows Phone, never issued a retraction or any sort of correction, and continue to pedal the same inaccuracies as if they were some widespread issue.


And yet, there were several people saying they had issues as well, as I demonstrated. Even if it's only one out of ten, that's still 10% - which is a lot.

But hey, go ahead believing WP7.5 is the perfect end-all-be-all, pinning every piece of criticism on anti-Microsoft sentiments or me being delibiritely trying to hurt your pet platform (even though I've probably been more positive about WP7 than any other mobile platform).

I'm already used to all the whining from Apple fanboys; a few Microsoft ones I can handle just fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Seriously?
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My Lumia 800 works and connects fine.

It does seem it's a personal Thom problem and a bit odd it got promoted to a "there's something wrong with WP 7.5" case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Seriously?
by delta0.delta0 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seriously?"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

how vehemently you defend Microsoft, I hope there is a nice pay cheque for you at the end of all of this..

Wp8 announcement proves how crap the underlying subsystem of wp7 is. No support for dual core cpus, no support for high res displays etc. Poor Nokia, they dumped Meego, they dumped the N9 which was apparently half baked, to lay in bed with Microsoft and sell Microsofts half baked OS and no update to wp8 ... :facepalm:

There is a reason wp7 appears smooth its running on a low screen resolution, on a mainly text based interface, it doesn't multi task properly it doesn't do half the stuff Android does, its live tiles are mediocre compared to notifications. The notification systems on Android and ios do this task _much_ better and the newer updates for jelly bean only serve to widen the gap.

Next time for some surface bashing, 10" too big for a tablet too small for a laptop.

I cant imagine getting any serious work done on a 10" screen, Cant use the keyboard on anything other than a table, as it doesn't support the weight of the screen and will just fall off of your lap. Can you imagine sitting on a couch watching TV and using this thing while trying to use the keyboard ? It makes the keyboard absolutely useless.. All that bull about the noise of the hinge who gives a flying monkeys. The whole point of a tablet is to use it away from your desk, while travelling, while walking around, Microsoft just doesn't get it, seriously they are completely clueless.

To anyone who is now going to post but you don't need the keyboard attached, again let me state what is the point of the keyboard if you can only use it at a desk ? the place you are least likely to use your tablet.

Edited 2012-06-28 18:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I cant imagine getting any serious work done on a 10" screen

From personal experience, any content producing work on 10" screen(document editing, presentation creation and similar heavy pieces of work) is like engaging in masochism. That is why I stopped using my netbook for anything after a few months.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm glad after writing bullshit articles on Google+ denying the problem, they finally acknowledge it exists

I'm sorry, but did you read the same G+ thread as I? There was no denial of the issue in that whole thread. Some fanboys did do that, but no one at Google did.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by zima on Sun 1st Jul 2012 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

P.S I'm not downplaying Nexus 7 pricing, I'm just saying its unsustainable.

The prices will only fall from here ...PC ended up on similar "unsustainable" spiral like that - so what? It's good for us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Seriously?
by zima on Sun 1st Jul 2012 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In other words, the Nexus 7 should be considered as a direct competitor to the Kindle Fire, not the iPad.

People will use all three of them to do pretty much the same stuff. That makes them competitors.

Edited 2012-07-01 11:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:42 UTC in reply to "Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Then the Glasses vaporware which was impressive at first, but has now degenerated into a glorified mobile webcam?

I am not impressed by the device's functionality, since we have not seen anything demonstrated and the heads-on was a mere "screen saver".
However Google Glass is on pre-order for $1599 with delivery early next year - that is vaporware?

Project Butter? Really? Because The Verge says that it STILL isn't as smooth as an iPad.


To quote TheVerge "It couldn't keep up with iPad". That is not smoothness, that is how fast are the transitions. They didn't say if it was smooth or not. Judging by my "new iPad" and GNex(4.0) it is smooth, though in some cases slower in transitions.
(iPad isn't all that smooth in all cases by the way. Nothing beats WP7, except maybe pure OpenGL.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Seriously?
by Nelson on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Seriously?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I am not impressed by the device's functionality, since we have not seen anything demonstrated and the heads-on was a mere "screen saver".
However Google Glass is on pre-order for $1599 with delivery early next year - that is vaporware?


It is vaporware in the sense that what the people who pre-order it will be getting is vastly different than what was originally announced.

That, and this is for I/O attendees only. God knows when General Availability will be.


To quote TheVerge "It couldn't keep up with iPad". That is not smoothness, that is how fast are the transitions. They didn't say if it was smooth or not. Judging by my "new iPad" and GNex(4.0) it is smooth, though in some cases slower in transitions.
(iPad isn't all that smooth in all cases by the way. Nothing beats WP7, except maybe pure OpenGL.)


I don't think they refer to transitions at all. "Couldn't keep up" meaning stick to your finger responsiveness. Which if they are right, is a big issue.

But regardless, like I said, it is ridiculous it takes this much raw hardware to reach kinda sorta parity with iOS. What in gods name could they be doing wrong? Something is seriously fucked.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jun 2012 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It is vaporware in the sense that what the people who pre-order it will be getting is vastly different than what was originally announced.

It still has a screen with a screen-saver at the very least, as reported by the same TheVerge.


I don't think they refer to transitions at all. "Couldn't keep up" meaning stick to your finger responsiveness. Which if they are right, is a big issue.

The flick through test is less about smoothness of the transitions, than speed of the transitions. However, they didn't explain what they did.
Mind you, the same guys also said that a less powerful GNex(has much less resources for a similar pixel count - 1024kpix vs 922kpix) is as smooth as butter and scored even higher than iPhone4s.

My Nexus S, that has comparable CPU as iPhone4(well, actually the exact same but with a faster GPU), runs very well in comparison with iPad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by dsmogor on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Smoothness it mostly a GPU thing, and compared to both Ipad2 and Iphone4s , Nexus devices (esp. the phone) are quite modest.
4 cores are really a gimmick on a mobile device imo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Seriously?
by delta0.delta0 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seriously?"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

To quote Clay Johnson, (from a repost by Tim O'reilly) :
--------
Tim O'ReillyYesterday 23:32 - Public
The ultimate demo smackdown. You do have a way of putting things in perspective, Clay!

Clay Johnson originally shared this post:
Google managed to get an unfinished product to live stream jumping out of a plane, bicycle down a wall, and jump onto a stage. It was done flawlessly when people could have actually died and there wasn't a blip. No crashes, no deaths.

Microsoft Surface's browser wouldn't launch.

---------


Its obvious Google won the presentation show down just on that.. The surface tablet crashed live on stage, how rubbish is that ?

Reply Score: 1

Just ordered one.
by gan17 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 08:56 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Just ordered a 16GB Nexus 7 via my lil' sister in Australia. Shipping is supposed to start mid-July, and I have a friend visiting my sister's city around that time. If chips fall into place right, I can have that friend collect it. If not, I'll probably just need to pay for courier charges. The tablet's basically free, since my sister gets reimbursed for tech stuff at the end of the year thanks to some sort of "professional improvement allowance" system they have over there.

Basically an impulse buy on my part. Neither iOS nor Android have impressed me, tbh. One is a prison of hipsters and yuppies, while the other is a freeland for criminals. Neither is really an OpenBSD in terms of overall quality, but keeping expectations low enough might result in a pleasant surprise or two from Jellybean.

Might have to sign up for a new US or Australian based gmail account to get my $25 worth of free-apps and access to full Google Play content, but I suppose that's for the best anyway. Better to let let Google track 10 versions of me instead of 1 or 2. I must admit to liking the look of that rubberized back. Makes way more sense than a shiny metallic or glossy plastic finish.

Edited 2012-06-28 08:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just ordered one.
by delta0.delta0 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 17:09 UTC in reply to "Just ordered one."
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

ive ordered one as well ;)

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Thu 28th Jun 2012 09:51 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Also, this event shows who Google sees as its prime competitors: Apple and Amazon.

Microsoft is not even on the radar.

Reply Score: 1

MicroSD and Camera
by sb56637 on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:05 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Without a MicroSD slot and a rear facing camera, I'm not interested. I suspect I'm not the only one.

Reply Score: 2

Surface has more impressive specs...
by rrife on Thu 28th Jun 2012 13:13 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

The compared to the $199 Nexus, the Surface has 4x more storage and ram, larger screen, more connectivity options, etc.....don't think it's safe to compare the two. But at $200, the Nexus is a good deal.

Reply Score: 1

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

"The compared to the $199 Nexus, the Surface has..." no confirmed pricing. But if the ~$600 (for the smaller version) will stay, then well, there's no $400 worth of difference there.

Reply Score: 2

Good test for OEMs
by dsmogor on Thu 28th Jun 2012 14:07 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

Upgrading to 4.1 should be an order of magnitude less involving than 2.3 to 4 with obvious non-functional gains. How long will it take to bump 4.0 devices (GS3 and one), will last GB devices get some love?

Reply Score: 2

orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

As it happens, I managed to have a play with 3 Android tablets today at one of Seoul's two major Techno Marts. I was I have to say surprised at how unresponsive the interface was. There were two iterations of the Galaxy Tab and an iMuz (?). All seemed to pack reasonable hardware specs (over 1 ghz/1 gb) but there was some wait involved regarding fairly simple operations (loading a browser, typing in a URL, getting to a specified site). Definitely not up to my experience of the iPad (which itself is not always stellar).


It leads me to think that the tablet market is probably still quite immature, more so than I was anticipating. Back in the UK though I aim to take the plunge with something reasonably inexpensive such as http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B007X3TRVA/ref=mp_s_a_7?qid=1340892... and start to see what can be achieved; the promise of something smaller and lighter but with a neat wallet and small physical keyboard instead of lugging around my MBP really appeals, and at this sort of price point (<$200) why the hell not.

I hope Project Butter does take off but even more I would hope that I would soon also be able to test a PlayBook and/or that Amazon will finally make the Kindle Fire available in the UK. I may only be a humble interested hobbyist (I bow to the true geeks here) but I am all for competition and freedom of choice.

Reply Score: 2

Glass as an ultimate advertising bearer.
by dsmogor on Fri 29th Jun 2012 06:14 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

Google is an ad company, and if you thing for a while, the glass like device development must be pushed by their desire to disrupt that business once again.
Just imagine:
1. It knows your location and knows location of advertisers
2. It's way more pervasive than other devices
3. The adv. space is unlimited
To sum up, an advertiser heaven.
Expect the glass like devices to be heavily subsidized in the future.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Then Microsoft is a licensing company and Apple is a sales company.
There is a difference between monetization strategy and what a company is.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So, we should expect Glass to be passionately hated? And/or adblock will get a whole new meaning...

Edited 2012-07-02 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v 1
by Anonymous on Thu 5th Jul 2012 14:33 UTC