5 ms·

I like the idea and the hardware, but the article was really offensive to me. I design hardware for a living. To rephrase, I design hardware for money, aka PRO

by aiscott 15y ago

I like the idea and the hardware, but the article was really offensive to me. I design hardware for a living. To rephrase, I design hardware for money, aka PROFIT. So when I read something like "at the end of the day you are just passing along profit to the device makers." like that is somehow a bad thing, I'm not only irritated, I'm mystified. I've been in the market for a tablet, but it won't be this one.

abecedarius 15y ago
That annoyed me too, but why punish the maker for the reviewer's sins?
jsight 15y ago
The actual quote is: "Android tablet options abound, and Google’s operating system is as open as you’re going to find on a retail shelf. At the end of the day, though, you’re passing profit along to the Android device makers." Isn't that more of a swipe at Google/Android than at device makers in particular? Ie, presumably he feels that Android and their makers don't contribute back to the software community, whereas this device does? (Personally, I think he's wrong in that assertion, but I still don't think this is a swipe at hardware guys at all)
- MaysonL 15y ago
  Are any Android tablet manufacturers selling enough to make a profit on the tablets?
  - jsight 15y ago
    The Asus transformer has done pretty well, and is almost certainly profitable (cf, http://www.pcworld.com/article/235925/asus_transformer_tablet_surprising_second_best_in_sales_after_apple_ipad.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/235925/asus_transformer_table... though I suspect those numbers are a bit high). I don't know how many of the other models would have to sell to reach profitability, but I'd be shocked if the cheap shenzen tablets were unprofitable (why would they keep going if they weren't?). Not to mention the Nook Tablet and Kindle Fire. The others don't seem to be selling as well, but that has to do with a very poor quality->price ratio (cf, any Acer tablet). Anyway, I think the argument that Android tablets aren't selling has been vastly overstated. There was a huge line for these things on Black Friday in the US for example.
- abuzzooz 15y ago
  You might be correct, but that money doesn't go only to Asus or Motorola or Acer or Samsung. There are tens of other components in the tablet that are made by other companies (touch screens, cpus, DRAM, usb controllers, LEDs, gyroscopes, network controllers, etc). Each one of these companies needs money to survive and spend more on R&D and innovate even more. This ultimately leads to more competition, and reduced prices, which reflects back to the consumer. I think it's a very naive point of view. Not all corporations are evil.
freehunter 15y ago
I think they were trying to set up a mindset. Imagine you're a staunch supporter of FOSS. You want your money to help open-source developers. Android is open source, but the money spent on the tablet goes to the hardware makers (who are not open source developers). Instead, you could get this tablet which has its profits sent directly to KDE to continue developing software. You're picking on the point of "hardware makers gain a profit" and missing out the point of "that money could be going to KDE instead". It's not meant to be as offensive as you're making it out to be. To rephrase, giving money to the Red Cross is a good way to go if you want to donate, but if you want they majority of the money going to causes you actually believe in you can pick a more direct charity.
sigzero 15y ago
That is the REVIEWERS opinion not the hardware maker. You missed the target for your angst.
Karellen 15y ago
It's not that you're passing along profit to device makers. After all, that's what purchasing this device will do. It's that you're passing along profit to device makers who take these hundreds of millions of lines Free Software and then lock/jail the user into the device, refuse to meet their GPL obligations in a timely manner, refuse to provide upgrades, refuse to allow the user to develop their own upgrades, and basically give the finger to the thousands of Free Software developers who have developed all this software - with the intent of giving users freedom in their computing platform - upon whose work they are profiting.
muyuu 15y ago
I get offended easily as well, however I will buy the devices that suit my needs best. Right now I have a Playbook. Developing for it is extremely annoying, but I have to admit it works really well. No Android lag, which was a deal breaker when I got it. If I could have something that runs my *nix stuff out of the box or almost out of the box, worked decently and wasn't too expensive, I'd just ship immediately. This isn't even close to that, at least not so far. Device makers and software developers all want their share. That's only natural. However when I'm wearing my user clothes I cannot be thinking about that all the time. Now I develop SaaS and also, as a user, running my own stuff easily is a big plus. I've been in the hardware and software fences and I can understand the fight. You have to admit software devs got the short end of the stick in this particular market more often than not. If you're not Google, Microsoft or similar.

by aiscott 15y ago

abecedarius 15y ago

That annoyed me too, but why punish the maker for the reviewer's sins?

jsight 15y ago

The actual quote is: "Android tablet options abound, and Google’s operating system is as open as you’re going to find on a retail shelf. At the end of the day, though, you’re passing profit along to the Android device makers." Isn't that more of a swipe at Google/Android than at device makers in particular? Ie, presumably he feels that Android and their makers don't contribute back to the software community, whereas this device does? (Personally, I think he's wrong in that assertion, but I still don't think this is a swipe at hardware guys at all)

MaysonL 15y ago
Are any Android tablet manufacturers selling enough to make a profit on the tablets?
- jsight 15y ago
  The Asus transformer has done pretty well, and is almost certainly profitable (cf, http://www.pcworld.com/article/235925/asus_transformer_tablet_surprising_second_best_in_sales_after_apple_ipad.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/235925/asus_transformer_table... though I suspect those numbers are a bit high). I don't know how many of the other models would have to sell to reach profitability, but I'd be shocked if the cheap shenzen tablets were unprofitable (why would they keep going if they weren't?). Not to mention the Nook Tablet and Kindle Fire. The others don't seem to be selling as well, but that has to do with a very poor quality->price ratio (cf, any Acer tablet). Anyway, I think the argument that Android tablets aren't selling has been vastly overstated. There was a huge line for these things on Black Friday in the US for example.
abuzzooz 15y ago
You might be correct, but that money doesn't go only to Asus or Motorola or Acer or Samsung. There are tens of other components in the tablet that are made by other companies (touch screens, cpus, DRAM, usb controllers, LEDs, gyroscopes, network controllers, etc). Each one of these companies needs money to survive and spend more on R&D and innovate even more. This ultimately leads to more competition, and reduced prices, which reflects back to the consumer. I think it's a very naive point of view. Not all corporations are evil.

freehunter 15y ago

I think they were trying to set up a mindset. Imagine you're a staunch supporter of FOSS. You want your money to help open-source developers. Android is open source, but the money spent on the tablet goes to the hardware makers (who are not open source developers). Instead, you could get this tablet which has its profits sent directly to KDE to continue developing software. You're picking on the point of "hardware makers gain a profit" and missing out the point of "that money could be going to KDE instead". It's not meant to be as offensive as you're making it out to be. To rephrase, giving money to the Red Cross is a good way to go if you want to donate, but if you want they majority of the money going to causes you actually believe in you can pick a more direct charity.

sigzero 15y ago

That is the REVIEWERS opinion not the hardware maker. You missed the target for your angst.

Karellen 15y ago

It's not that you're passing along profit to device makers. After all, that's what purchasing this device will do. It's that you're passing along profit to device makers who take these hundreds of millions of lines Free Software and then lock/jail the user into the device, refuse to meet their GPL obligations in a timely manner, refuse to provide upgrades, refuse to allow the user to develop their own upgrades, and basically give the finger to the thousands of Free Software developers who have developed all this software - with the intent of giving users freedom in their computing platform - upon whose work they are profiting.

muyuu 15y ago

I get offended easily as well, however I will buy the devices that suit my needs best. Right now I have a Playbook. Developing for it is extremely annoying, but I have to admit it works really well. No Android lag, which was a deal breaker when I got it. If I could have something that runs my *nix stuff out of the box or almost out of the box, worked decently and wasn't too expensive, I'd just ship immediately. This isn't even close to that, at least not so far. Device makers and software developers all want their share. That's only natural. However when I'm wearing my user clothes I cannot be thinking about that all the time. Now I develop SaaS and also, as a user, running my own stuff easily is a big plus. I've been in the hardware and software fences and I can understand the fight. You have to admit software devs got the short end of the stick in this particular market more often than not. If you're not Google, Microsoft or similar.