8 ms·

running Android, Ubuntu, or Chromium Then its not an iPad competitor or alternative. It might be a tablet, but it is not in the same market as Apple is in with

by Zev 17y ago

running Android, Ubuntu, or Chromium Then its not an iPad competitor or alternative. It might be a tablet, but it is not in the same market as Apple is in with the iPad. None of these three OS's is a drastic change from what a computer is or how a computer is currently used, which the iPad is shaping up to be.

cookiecaper 17y ago
They are drastic changes from what most users are accustomed to, which is Windows, and I'm sure there will be some changes for the platform in the case of at least Ubuntu. iPad is not shaping up to be a "drastic change from ... how a computer is currently used". It's shaping up to be a computer you use on your couch that's controlled via touch screen instead of keyboard and mouse. Otherwise, it's basically the same concept ... you click on the program that does what you want and use it. The web browser is basically the same, too; you click on it, type in the URL of the place you want to go, and then it's basically identical. iPad is not some revolution in computer interfaces, it's just a computer designed for couch usage instead of mobile or desktop usage. I'm really kind of sick of this Apple worship, and these ideas that if something isn't using Apple's OS it's hopeless against Apple. I don't believe that, and I think the majority of it is senseless fanboyism and hype.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- Zev 17y ago
  Otherwise, it's basically the same concept ... In that case, cell phones aren't a new concept. Its the same as talking to my neighbor, only through this speaker... Or maybe a car isn't a novel concept. It is, after all, the same as walking somewhere. Only slower. Or even a book. Its just another representation of stories that have been told verbally for thousands of years, after all. Sharing functional similarities in use with something that already exists doesn't mean it isn't a drastic change in how the function is performed.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    No, man, it's different. The iPhone/iPad isn't any kind of great boon or new magic thing. Like, cars are much different than walking because while both are means of getting from one place to another place, the cars is several dozen times faster. That's a huge improvement in the "getting somewhere" field. The same with cell phones. Cell phones are a huge boon because they allow you to call people almost anywhere. They eliminated the need for a hard telephone line, meaning you can now use your phone in thousands of places where you couldn't use a phone before, at least not without paying. Now, what major game-changing feature does the iPad enable? Nothing, really. All of the major iPad apps could be performed on a laptop just as well. The touching might make the interface more humane, but it doesn't create such a universally, obviously superior thing. The fact that it's made for couch is nice, and nicer for couch computing than a laptop because of the design of its hardware, but it doesn't enable anything that wasn't possible before. Some people might like or want an iPad, which is all fine, but it's not a major or revolutionary improvement like buggy -> car that made so many things possible that were impossible before. Like, before cars, it would take weeks or months to go from, say, St. Louis to Denver. With cars, you could make that trip in a few days or less. That's a huge, major, revolutionary improvement. Now, what thing does iPad provide that is similar to that?
    - Zev 17y ago
      The touching might make the interface more humane Bingo. This is exactly it. it makes things more humane. Easier. You don't have to worry about where you saved that file to. There's no accidentally deleting a folder that had an important document among a dozens of useless files. You don't need to use a clunky device to click on something. You use your finger and you push the screen. Which a lot of people do anyway, to point to something on their screen. Only, it doesn't do anything for them yet.
      - cookiecaper 17y ago
        Such an interface is not a major boon, or it would have been implemented many years ago. Touch screens are not a new technology, they've been around for more than twenty years. They may be becoming more popular right now, and Apple may be exploiting that with the iPad/iPhone, but it by no means deserves a comparison with such revolutions as the cell phone or automobile.
markkanof 17y ago
In what way is the iPad OS so different from a traditional desktop OS that Android or Chrome are not?
- tumult 17y ago
  It's possible to break Android from just within the OS itself. This also applies to Ubuntu and almost every other OS I can think of. I don't know if this will be the case with Chrome.
- Zev 17y ago
  Android has a file browser. Plus, it seems to be designed around small, portable devices. Which the iPad (and the tablet in the video) isn't. And are there any devices with ChromeOS available or about to be available in the next month or two? It was announced months and months ago. Can you write apps specifically targeting it yet? Do you even want to? What kind of device is Google targeting with ChromeOS? Whatever it can fit on? How is a ChromeOS app different from an HTML5 app on the iPad? I don't even know what Google's intentions with ChromeOS are. At least with Android, theres some sort of direction, even if it does get hijacked and thrown away by other companies. With the iPad, you know what market the OS is aimed at. Not so with ChromeOS or Android, to a lesser degree.
  - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
    Android does not come with a file browser, although there are third party file browsers available in the Android Market. By default, all access to files on the SD card are through the individual that manage those types of files. For example, there's a built in service that index's all media files (mp3s, AAC's, etc) and presents them, with metadata, to any app that wants them. Same goes for pictures.
- tolmasky 17y ago
  I am a big fan of Chrome OS, but iPad is simply a completely different model of computing, whereas Chrome OS is a completely different foundation of computing. At the end of the day, for Google to succeed, one of Chrome OS's achievements has to be to match a lot of what desktop computing is today. In fact, one "ideal" scenario is for Chrome OS to simply be the same as desktop computing today, except "better". For example, it would be faster (launch more quickly, open apps faster, etc.); the deployment model would be simpler (over the web, no more software updates for apps, etc.); and more secure. However, while these advancements are certainly great, these are all very much simply an evolution of the current desktop model. Most of the "revolutions" in Chrome OS exist for developers, not users. On the other hand with iPad you have to admit that it is drastically asking you to reanalyze what it means to use a computer. This isn't a value judgment: it remains to be seen whether this new model will be good or intuitive or successful or what have you, but it is different.
whughes 17y ago
Android? Chromium? These are not exactly traditional desktop OSes. Ubuntu I'll concede, but if they're putting Android on it by default it will be a lot closer to the iPad than to your Windows/Mac desktop. I think this was something you brushed aside too quickly earlier. Android was shown in the video, and if they want to compete with the iPad it's a very good starting point (being at least in the same league, if not on par with, the iPhone OS). As far as I know, there are no files in Android or Chrome-OS. Android also has a touch interface (and this tablet doesn't have a mouse anyway).
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Ubuntu actually released a netbook remix that would handle much better on something like this than the traditional GNOME desktop. Take a look: http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr
  - Zev 17y ago
    The iPad (and this tablet, for that matter) is not a netbook. Throwing Gnome without the bar on the bottom on it won't magically make Ubuntu usable on the tablet in any way that makes sense. I can go compile an X server for the iPhone and run all of those apps on it as well (or, most of them. Some apps or their dependancies might do weird things with bits that may break). That doesn't mean that I will have a good experience using them.
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      These tablets are essentially netbooks that use a touch screen instead of a mouse. As such, I think that UNR would be pretty much just as usable on this as it would on a netbook.
      - flogic 17y ago
wvenable 17y ago
Wait.. the iPad runs the same OS as the iPhone (slightly modified) and this tablet runs the same OS as the Droid (slightly modified). So how is this not directly comparable?
- Zev 17y ago
  The core of OS X and Springboard might be shared, but if you think that the UI of the applications on the iPad shared with the iPhone, might I suggest that you go and watch the iPad release video where Steve Jobs shows the device off? From what I've seen in the video, this device doesn't have much custom UI and the main selling point is hardware. Also this tablet might also run Ubuntu or ChromeOS. Which means that the OS won't be nearly as integrated with the hardware as it is on the iPad. Or that the tablet's UI won't be designed specifically for the device it is on. Or apps that it will run won't be designed specifically for the device and instead will be generic, to the lowest common denominator (which, most of the time, will be a phone, not a tablet).
  - Que 17y ago
    > Also this tablet might also run Ubuntu or ChromeOS. Which means that the OS won't be nearly as integrated with the hardware as it is on the iPad. Or that the tablet's UI won't be designed specifically for the device it is on. Or apps that it will run won't be designed specifically for the device and instead will be generic, to the lowest common denominator (which, most of the time, will be a phone, not a tablet). Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems this means you would prefer a device that didn't have any advanced capabilities so that way all applications won't attempt to use any? Making the iPad without any extensibility was a design choice because it would be easier to make applications uniform? You would prefer to use a hindered device by design rather then software that selects its functionality based on available hardware? By contrast a gigantic portion of applications for the iPad will be designed to be run on a phone... the iPhone. I think you underestimate or don't fully understand Android. I don't intend to sound condescending here, I am truly curious.
    - Zev 17y ago
samuel 17y ago
I can't agree. What's revolutionary about the iPad? Only that isn't running a desktop OS? There have been Windows CE tablets for ages. The difference is realization, which is everything, of course, it's the difference between Altavista and Google. The iPad will be successful But revolutionary? On other side, you have the first device that it's at the same time, a tablet and a eink reader. I don't know if it will be successful, probably not at the same scale, but certainly it's much more revolutionary. Anyway, if anything, I think this device could hurt more Kindle sales than iPad ones.
- Zev 17y ago
  The iPad isn't about hardware, at all. The iPad is about getting away from the hardware. About having a completely new way to use a computer. Yes, to do the same tasks you do now. But to do them in a better way. That this device is betting on hardware to beat Apple means that they've already lost. That they had to resort to comparing their device to a MacBook Pro with the brightness turned down to have a selling point looks desperate. The tablet these guys are selling doesn't offer a new way to go about your routine. It just offers a more complex device to go about your daily routine.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
Huh? Isn't the iPad running iPhone OS? I've got a Nexus 1 and I've used my friends iPhone a few times. They seem pretty damn similar. Certainly more similar to each other than either are to Windows or OSX.

by Zev 17y ago

cookiecaper 17y ago

They are drastic changes from what most users are accustomed to, which is Windows, and I'm sure there will be some changes for the platform in the case of at least Ubuntu. iPad is not shaping up to be a "drastic change from ... how a computer is currently used". It's shaping up to be a computer you use on your couch that's controlled via touch screen instead of keyboard and mouse. Otherwise, it's basically the same concept ... you click on the program that does what you want and use it. The web browser is basically the same, too; you click on it, type in the URL of the place you want to go, and then it's basically identical. iPad is not some revolution in computer interfaces, it's just a computer designed for couch usage instead of mobile or desktop usage. I'm really kind of sick of this Apple worship, and these ideas that if something isn't using Apple's OS it's hopeless against Apple. I don't believe that, and I think the majority of it is senseless fanboyism and hype.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Zev 17y ago
Otherwise, it's basically the same concept ... In that case, cell phones aren't a new concept. Its the same as talking to my neighbor, only through this speaker... Or maybe a car isn't a novel concept. It is, after all, the same as walking somewhere. Only slower. Or even a book. Its just another representation of stories that have been told verbally for thousands of years, after all. Sharing functional similarities in use with something that already exists doesn't mean it isn't a drastic change in how the function is performed.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  No, man, it's different. The iPhone/iPad isn't any kind of great boon or new magic thing. Like, cars are much different than walking because while both are means of getting from one place to another place, the cars is several dozen times faster. That's a huge improvement in the "getting somewhere" field. The same with cell phones. Cell phones are a huge boon because they allow you to call people almost anywhere. They eliminated the need for a hard telephone line, meaning you can now use your phone in thousands of places where you couldn't use a phone before, at least not without paying. Now, what major game-changing feature does the iPad enable? Nothing, really. All of the major iPad apps could be performed on a laptop just as well. The touching might make the interface more humane, but it doesn't create such a universally, obviously superior thing. The fact that it's made for couch is nice, and nicer for couch computing than a laptop because of the design of its hardware, but it doesn't enable anything that wasn't possible before. Some people might like or want an iPad, which is all fine, but it's not a major or revolutionary improvement like buggy -> car that made so many things possible that were impossible before. Like, before cars, it would take weeks or months to go from, say, St. Louis to Denver. With cars, you could make that trip in a few days or less. That's a huge, major, revolutionary improvement. Now, what thing does iPad provide that is similar to that?
  - Zev 17y ago
    The touching might make the interface more humane Bingo. This is exactly it. it makes things more humane. Easier. You don't have to worry about where you saved that file to. There's no accidentally deleting a folder that had an important document among a dozens of useless files. You don't need to use a clunky device to click on something. You use your finger and you push the screen. Which a lot of people do anyway, to point to something on their screen. Only, it doesn't do anything for them yet.
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      Such an interface is not a major boon, or it would have been implemented many years ago. Touch screens are not a new technology, they've been around for more than twenty years. They may be becoming more popular right now, and Apple may be exploiting that with the iPad/iPhone, but it by no means deserves a comparison with such revolutions as the cell phone or automobile.

markkanof 17y ago

In what way is the iPad OS so different from a traditional desktop OS that Android or Chrome are not?

tumult 17y ago
It's possible to break Android from just within the OS itself. This also applies to Ubuntu and almost every other OS I can think of. I don't know if this will be the case with Chrome.
Zev 17y ago
Android has a file browser. Plus, it seems to be designed around small, portable devices. Which the iPad (and the tablet in the video) isn't. And are there any devices with ChromeOS available or about to be available in the next month or two? It was announced months and months ago. Can you write apps specifically targeting it yet? Do you even want to? What kind of device is Google targeting with ChromeOS? Whatever it can fit on? How is a ChromeOS app different from an HTML5 app on the iPad? I don't even know what Google's intentions with ChromeOS are. At least with Android, theres some sort of direction, even if it does get hijacked and thrown away by other companies. With the iPad, you know what market the OS is aimed at. Not so with ChromeOS or Android, to a lesser degree.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  Android does not come with a file browser, although there are third party file browsers available in the Android Market. By default, all access to files on the SD card are through the individual that manage those types of files. For example, there's a built in service that index's all media files (mp3s, AAC's, etc) and presents them, with metadata, to any app that wants them. Same goes for pictures.
tolmasky 17y ago
I am a big fan of Chrome OS, but iPad is simply a completely different model of computing, whereas Chrome OS is a completely different foundation of computing. At the end of the day, for Google to succeed, one of Chrome OS's achievements has to be to match a lot of what desktop computing is today. In fact, one "ideal" scenario is for Chrome OS to simply be the same as desktop computing today, except "better". For example, it would be faster (launch more quickly, open apps faster, etc.); the deployment model would be simpler (over the web, no more software updates for apps, etc.); and more secure. However, while these advancements are certainly great, these are all very much simply an evolution of the current desktop model. Most of the "revolutions" in Chrome OS exist for developers, not users. On the other hand with iPad you have to admit that it is drastically asking you to reanalyze what it means to use a computer. This isn't a value judgment: it remains to be seen whether this new model will be good or intuitive or successful or what have you, but it is different.

whughes 17y ago

Android? Chromium? These are not exactly traditional desktop OSes. Ubuntu I'll concede, but if they're putting Android on it by default it will be a lot closer to the iPad than to your Windows/Mac desktop. I think this was something you brushed aside too quickly earlier. Android was shown in the video, and if they want to compete with the iPad it's a very good starting point (being at least in the same league, if not on par with, the iPhone OS). As far as I know, there are no files in Android or Chrome-OS. Android also has a touch interface (and this tablet doesn't have a mouse anyway).

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
cookiecaper 17y ago
Ubuntu actually released a netbook remix that would handle much better on something like this than the traditional GNOME desktop. Take a look: http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr
- Zev 17y ago
  The iPad (and this tablet, for that matter) is not a netbook. Throwing Gnome without the bar on the bottom on it won't magically make Ubuntu usable on the tablet in any way that makes sense. I can go compile an X server for the iPhone and run all of those apps on it as well (or, most of them. Some apps or their dependancies might do weird things with bits that may break). That doesn't mean that I will have a good experience using them.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    These tablets are essentially netbooks that use a touch screen instead of a mouse. As such, I think that UNR would be pretty much just as usable on this as it would on a netbook.
    - flogic 17y ago

wvenable 17y ago

Wait.. the iPad runs the same OS as the iPhone (slightly modified) and this tablet runs the same OS as the Droid (slightly modified). So how is this not directly comparable?

Zev 17y ago
The core of OS X and Springboard might be shared, but if you think that the UI of the applications on the iPad shared with the iPhone, might I suggest that you go and watch the iPad release video where Steve Jobs shows the device off? From what I've seen in the video, this device doesn't have much custom UI and the main selling point is hardware. Also this tablet might also run Ubuntu or ChromeOS. Which means that the OS won't be nearly as integrated with the hardware as it is on the iPad. Or that the tablet's UI won't be designed specifically for the device it is on. Or apps that it will run won't be designed specifically for the device and instead will be generic, to the lowest common denominator (which, most of the time, will be a phone, not a tablet).
- Que 17y ago
  > Also this tablet might also run Ubuntu or ChromeOS. Which means that the OS won't be nearly as integrated with the hardware as it is on the iPad. Or that the tablet's UI won't be designed specifically for the device it is on. Or apps that it will run won't be designed specifically for the device and instead will be generic, to the lowest common denominator (which, most of the time, will be a phone, not a tablet). Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems this means you would prefer a device that didn't have any advanced capabilities so that way all applications won't attempt to use any? Making the iPad without any extensibility was a design choice because it would be easier to make applications uniform? You would prefer to use a hindered device by design rather then software that selects its functionality based on available hardware? By contrast a gigantic portion of applications for the iPad will be designed to be run on a phone... the iPhone. I think you underestimate or don't fully understand Android. I don't intend to sound condescending here, I am truly curious.
  - Zev 17y ago

samuel 17y ago

I can't agree. What's revolutionary about the iPad? Only that isn't running a desktop OS? There have been Windows CE tablets for ages. The difference is realization, which is everything, of course, it's the difference between Altavista and Google. The iPad will be successful But revolutionary? On other side, you have the first device that it's at the same time, a tablet and a eink reader. I don't know if it will be successful, probably not at the same scale, but certainly it's much more revolutionary. Anyway, if anything, I think this device could hurt more Kindle sales than iPad ones.

Zev 17y ago
The iPad isn't about hardware, at all. The iPad is about getting away from the hardware. About having a completely new way to use a computer. Yes, to do the same tasks you do now. But to do them in a better way. That this device is betting on hardware to beat Apple means that they've already lost. That they had to resort to comparing their device to a MacBook Pro with the brightness turned down to have a selling point looks desperate. The tablet these guys are selling doesn't offer a new way to go about your routine. It just offers a more complex device to go about your daily routine.

theBobMcCormick 17y ago

Huh? Isn't the iPad running iPhone OS? I've got a Nexus 1 and I've used my friends iPhone a few times. They seem pretty damn similar. Certainly more similar to each other than either are to Windows or OSX.