8 ms·

Why does it matter if it is an android app? Why would they redesign the wheel? Criticism should be reserved for poor execution and hype over substance.

jchw 2y ago
Well, if there's no reason to redesign the wheel then maybe they should stop claiming that the "rabbit r1 is not an Android app" themselves. I would venture to guess the reason why this is emphasized, other than that, is that multiple reviewers made the point that it really should've just been an app.
- wlesieutre 2y ago
  “rabbit r1 is not an Android app” is true though. To a different degree, saying the r1 is an android app is like saying a polestar 2 is an android app. Yes, android OS and android software running on that OS is a part of it, but the device as a whole is the combination of all of its software and its hardware. A more accurate dig at it is that the main functionality rabbit r1 could be offered just as an app instead of bundled on its own hardware, which is not so true of a car.
  - sroussey 2y ago
    Can you have an android app always running?
    - fruit2020 2y ago
      Not sure about nowadays, but a few years ago yes. You could run a foreground(?) service which kept an icon in the righthand corner (can’t remember too well). Anyway, I had an app which kept a http server always running.
    - ukuina 2y ago
      If you turn off Battery Optimization, yes. Apps can even draw over and control other apps. Assuming the LAM is just an app controlling AOSP in a VM server-side, this really should have just been an app with the LAM sending touch events back to the device.
    - johnnylambada 2y ago
      If you run the hardware then an Android app can do anything you want it to.
  - jchw 2y ago
    You're right, and I should've adjusted my reply to be a bit more precise. That said, man, from my perspective, it's barely different than an Android app. It feels like some weird twist on the "just ship your computer" joke with Docker, wherein they just shipped a chunk of Android phone with their app. Honestly, I mostly ignored these devices when the news and fuss came around, but this class of device really does hit me as the least compelling new class of device I've seen in quite some time, personally...
gkhartman 2y ago
I agree with your take. This device kind of reminds me of the kiosk use case. There are times where having a single device, that does one thing well, feels better than having to search through a crowded smartphone for an app.
- Nullabillity 2y ago
  Luckily for that use case, smartphones have these convenient "home screens", where you can pin favourite apps for instant access!
cmovq 2y ago
One of the criticisms of this device is that it would have made more sense as an app on your phone. The fact that it is already implemented as just an app makes the point all the more valid. My only guess is that the physical device adds some additional mystique that makes it easier to sell the idea of an "AI in a box" to investors.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  > investors I don't see anything but this. Similar to startups hiring just to appear big to investors.
- samtheprogram 2y ago
  It’s implemented as a launcher, per the article. And saying it _could_ be an app is missing the point of the device entirely. It’s like saying the Light Phone could be an app. They’re trying to do something entirely different, and an app that does what the rabbit does would be very uninteresting.
  - emsign 2y ago
    But what the Rabbit R1 is doing as an app running on a cumbersome hardware device is totally uninteresting. And that is the point people are making when they say it's just an app.
  - Shawnj2 2y ago
    So it’s a great way to reuse a spare phone then
  - PurpleRamen 2y ago
    What is the different thing they are trying, which isn't already there since years, through Smartphones, Smartwatches, Amazon Echos and the wide integration of Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa on the multiple devices and services they offer?
  - Kwpolska 2y ago
    A launcher is just an app with some magic bits set. The Rabbit is just one large Android app.
tikhonj 2y ago
The (explicit or implied) corollary is that it is nothing more than an Android App. At which point, why pay for a separate physical device? Not even much of a novelty at that point.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
darth_avocado 2y ago
The criticism is that, this could’ve been an app. Imo the more important question is still, why does it matter even if it’s not an android app. If all the “magic” happens on the backend, how does it matter if it’s Android, Windows or iOS. At the end of the day, it still could’ve been an app.
BoorishBears 2y ago
I've built multiple embedded Android products and this seems like an absolutely terrible case for embedded Android. Usually embedded Android is a trade where you get rich multimedia and heavy UIs made easy at the cost of raw performance compared to something like Qt and a minimalist RTOS. The Rabbit R1 takes advantage of none of that. The UI is intentionally minimalist, while power draw was supposed to be a concern here. The thing is essentially a dumb client at the end of the day. For the kind of money they raised they should have been able to do something closer to bare metal and gotten much better performance and battery life.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I would have probably recommended Android myself if I had been involved. The points you raise are valid, but: 1. You're going to have way better board/vendor support with Android. 2. The Android networking stack is more featureful than any RTOS. You aren't constrained with e.g. TLS support or paying a vendor $$$$ to implement what the infra team wants. 3. You can hire Android developers by the dozen. RTOS application developers are much more annoying to hire, even if they'll work for cheaper. 4. You don't have to pay a vendor (or build it yourself) to get basic platform functionality like A/B updates, a build system, secure boot, etc. Android has solutions for these of admittedly varying quality. But you'd also get all of this and more by skipping the hardware entirely and just selling the app.
  - BoorishBears 2y ago
    If the main goal is vendor support, Android is downright awful compared to Linux when it comes to embedded use cases. You can get up to date Linux versions for pretty ancient stuff, but AOSP does zero favors for porting and vendors are more than happy to throw their hands up and leave you fending for yourself, breaking lots of stuff (like the build system) along the way ...but they also raised $30M and landed an extra $10M in their first week of preorders. Between that and the heat behind their name, they weren't hurting for cheap labor. I think you're ascribing too much intention to their choices, this device feels like they raised a bunch of money, let everyone do their own thing and dumped the result over the wall.
duxup 2y ago
The issue was more that Rabbit was pretending it wasn’t just an app… and when it clearly was they denied it. Otherwise if they just said it outright I don’t think it would be seen as a criticism.
- sroussey 2y ago
  Where?
  - duxup 2y ago
    I do not understand what you are asking.
notatoad 2y ago
They sold a whole bunch of these on the basis of it being a neat hardware gadget, only for people to find out they’d paid $200 for an app that didn’t work and the hardware is unnecessary and doesn’t do anything your phone doesn’t do. It all just seems like a bit of a scam for these companies to be saying you need to buy their hardware in order to use their app, only to find out their app doesn’t work after you’ve paid out the money for the hardware. If rabbit’s pitch was “pay us $200 to trial our app” they’d have had no takers.

jchw 2y ago

Well, if there's no reason to redesign the wheel then maybe they should stop claiming that the "rabbit r1 is not an Android app" themselves. I would venture to guess the reason why this is emphasized, other than that, is that multiple reviewers made the point that it really should've just been an app.

wlesieutre 2y ago
“rabbit r1 is not an Android app” is true though. To a different degree, saying the r1 is an android app is like saying a polestar 2 is an android app. Yes, android OS and android software running on that OS is a part of it, but the device as a whole is the combination of all of its software and its hardware. A more accurate dig at it is that the main functionality rabbit r1 could be offered just as an app instead of bundled on its own hardware, which is not so true of a car.
- sroussey 2y ago
  Can you have an android app always running?
  - fruit2020 2y ago
    Not sure about nowadays, but a few years ago yes. You could run a foreground(?) service which kept an icon in the righthand corner (can’t remember too well). Anyway, I had an app which kept a http server always running.
  - ukuina 2y ago
    If you turn off Battery Optimization, yes. Apps can even draw over and control other apps. Assuming the LAM is just an app controlling AOSP in a VM server-side, this really should have just been an app with the LAM sending touch events back to the device.
  - johnnylambada 2y ago
    If you run the hardware then an Android app can do anything you want it to.
- jchw 2y ago
  You're right, and I should've adjusted my reply to be a bit more precise. That said, man, from my perspective, it's barely different than an Android app. It feels like some weird twist on the "just ship your computer" joke with Docker, wherein they just shipped a chunk of Android phone with their app. Honestly, I mostly ignored these devices when the news and fuss came around, but this class of device really does hit me as the least compelling new class of device I've seen in quite some time, personally...

gkhartman 2y ago

I agree with your take. This device kind of reminds me of the kiosk use case. There are times where having a single device, that does one thing well, feels better than having to search through a crowded smartphone for an app.

Nullabillity 2y ago
Luckily for that use case, smartphones have these convenient "home screens", where you can pin favourite apps for instant access!

cmovq 2y ago

One of the criticisms of this device is that it would have made more sense as an app on your phone. The fact that it is already implemented as just an app makes the point all the more valid. My only guess is that the physical device adds some additional mystique that makes it easier to sell the idea of an "AI in a box" to investors.

gtirloni 2y ago
> investors I don't see anything but this. Similar to startups hiring just to appear big to investors.
samtheprogram 2y ago
It’s implemented as a launcher, per the article. And saying it _could_ be an app is missing the point of the device entirely. It’s like saying the Light Phone could be an app. They’re trying to do something entirely different, and an app that does what the rabbit does would be very uninteresting.
- emsign 2y ago
  But what the Rabbit R1 is doing as an app running on a cumbersome hardware device is totally uninteresting. And that is the point people are making when they say it's just an app.
- Shawnj2 2y ago
  So it’s a great way to reuse a spare phone then
- PurpleRamen 2y ago
  What is the different thing they are trying, which isn't already there since years, through Smartphones, Smartwatches, Amazon Echos and the wide integration of Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa on the multiple devices and services they offer?
- Kwpolska 2y ago
  A launcher is just an app with some magic bits set. The Rabbit is just one large Android app.

tikhonj 2y ago

The (explicit or implied) corollary is that it is nothing more than an Android App. At which point, why pay for a separate physical device? Not even much of a novelty at that point.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

darth_avocado 2y ago

The criticism is that, this could’ve been an app. Imo the more important question is still, why does it matter even if it’s not an android app. If all the “magic” happens on the backend, how does it matter if it’s Android, Windows or iOS. At the end of the day, it still could’ve been an app.

BoorishBears 2y ago

I've built multiple embedded Android products and this seems like an absolutely terrible case for embedded Android. Usually embedded Android is a trade where you get rich multimedia and heavy UIs made easy at the cost of raw performance compared to something like Qt and a minimalist RTOS. The Rabbit R1 takes advantage of none of that. The UI is intentionally minimalist, while power draw was supposed to be a concern here. The thing is essentially a dumb client at the end of the day. For the kind of money they raised they should have been able to do something closer to bare metal and gotten much better performance and battery life.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
I would have probably recommended Android myself if I had been involved. The points you raise are valid, but: 1. You're going to have way better board/vendor support with Android. 2. The Android networking stack is more featureful than any RTOS. You aren't constrained with e.g. TLS support or paying a vendor $$$$ to implement what the infra team wants. 3. You can hire Android developers by the dozen. RTOS application developers are much more annoying to hire, even if they'll work for cheaper. 4. You don't have to pay a vendor (or build it yourself) to get basic platform functionality like A/B updates, a build system, secure boot, etc. Android has solutions for these of admittedly varying quality. But you'd also get all of this and more by skipping the hardware entirely and just selling the app.
- BoorishBears 2y ago
  If the main goal is vendor support, Android is downright awful compared to Linux when it comes to embedded use cases. You can get up to date Linux versions for pretty ancient stuff, but AOSP does zero favors for porting and vendors are more than happy to throw their hands up and leave you fending for yourself, breaking lots of stuff (like the build system) along the way ...but they also raised $30M and landed an extra $10M in their first week of preorders. Between that and the heat behind their name, they weren't hurting for cheap labor. I think you're ascribing too much intention to their choices, this device feels like they raised a bunch of money, let everyone do their own thing and dumped the result over the wall.

duxup 2y ago

The issue was more that Rabbit was pretending it wasn’t just an app… and when it clearly was they denied it. Otherwise if they just said it outright I don’t think it would be seen as a criticism.

sroussey 2y ago
Where?
- duxup 2y ago
  I do not understand what you are asking.

notatoad 2y ago

They sold a whole bunch of these on the basis of it being a neat hardware gadget, only for people to find out they’d paid $200 for an app that didn’t work and the hardware is unnecessary and doesn’t do anything your phone doesn’t do. It all just seems like a bit of a scam for these companies to be saying you need to buy their hardware in order to use their app, only to find out their app doesn’t work after you’ve paid out the money for the hardware. If rabbit’s pitch was “pay us $200 to trial our app” they’d have had no takers.