4 ms·

Just "who" is it you think they are trying to rush? Certainly not Apple, and aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on

Just "who" is it you think they are trying to rush? Certainly not Apple, and aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival (800 dollar Xoom anyone)? If this was vaporware they were pushing in an attempt to get ahead of the market instead of playing catch up they would have put this out in 2010 instead of halfway through 2012. If they can price the thing realistically (again, 800 dollar Xoom anyone?) it will have a shot otherwise it will fail (I'd really prefer it to succeed) and they'll try and spin it by saying it's targeting "the enterprise".

lotharbot 14y ago
> "aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival" The ASUS Transformer line.
huggyface 14y ago
is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival There have been millions of Android tablets sold. In most product spaces that is an incredible success, and it's only relative to the astonishing success of the iPad could that be called "dead on arrival". And that was the rather terrible phase one. The incomplete Honeycomb, the rather terrible Tegra 2, and toothing pain hardware. I've noticed my online electronic store absolutely pushing the next wave - the A700, 7" tablets of all sorts, etc. All of them finally featuring price advantages over the iPad.' Anyone who buys the Android failed on tablets thing has been misled. It has been an ugly adventure but they're actually doing okay, and have set a pretty good foundation for success going forward.
- jan_g 14y ago
  Correct. I can see here locally that many, many Android tablets are sold on regular basis. $100-$300 price range, manufacturers that I've never heard of (yarvik gotab, goclever, prestigio, archos, ...), marketed everywhere - even with flyers in mailboxes and so on. And many people buy them.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  This is true, only if you compare every android tablet across manufacturers. People who like to tout android vs apple love to do this. But the fact is, android tablets have not been a success for a single manufacturer. There's only so long companies will keep dumping money down this rabbit hole hoping to get lucky. Android tablets have been a success for Google. for everyone else, not so much.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    They're also arguably a success for those who are interested in building off the platform. While Google certainly counts, I suspect this goes beyond them. As far as the hardware goes, I suspect it's going to be a very low-margin market. Razors to the blades. This doesn't make it unsuccessful. At all.
dredmorbius 14y ago
To dissect the frog for you: the "look at teh shinay" with an absence of (or grossly overinflated) specs was the standard MO for Microsoft through much of the 90s. I'm pointing out that such tactics are not particularly effective when there are existing products which have not only captivated the public's eye, but also captured much of the market. Yes, I'm aware that Android are registering 900,000 new activations. Per day. By some reports, Microsoft's prior Great White Hope in the mobile space, the Kin, sold a total of 500 units through Verizon. I'm seeing significant marketing for the Nokia N900 Windows phone while reading about spectacular business concerns with Nokia. I'm not holding out great hopes for Microsoft's Surface. I'm thinking it may prove to be a tad ... unstable. Sure, there are some nifty design features that might well be ripped off by others (steal from the best, as the Krell say), including cover-as-keyboard, but as for the rest of it, I'll see it when I believe it.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Quick reference for those who don't recognize the significance of Microsoft's previous vaporware abuses. And no, again, I'm not saying that "Surface" is same, at least not in the way of being able to torpedo an existing market. But as they say, history may not be repeating, but it's rhyming. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm

lotharbot 14y ago

> "aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival" The ASUS Transformer line.

huggyface 14y ago

is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival There have been millions of Android tablets sold. In most product spaces that is an incredible success, and it's only relative to the astonishing success of the iPad could that be called "dead on arrival". And that was the rather terrible phase one. The incomplete Honeycomb, the rather terrible Tegra 2, and toothing pain hardware. I've noticed my online electronic store absolutely pushing the next wave - the A700, 7" tablets of all sorts, etc. All of them finally featuring price advantages over the iPad.' Anyone who buys the Android failed on tablets thing has been misled. It has been an ugly adventure but they're actually doing okay, and have set a pretty good foundation for success going forward.

jan_g 14y ago
Correct. I can see here locally that many, many Android tablets are sold on regular basis. $100-$300 price range, manufacturers that I've never heard of (yarvik gotab, goclever, prestigio, archos, ...), marketed everywhere - even with flyers in mailboxes and so on. And many people buy them.
hackinthebochs 14y ago
This is true, only if you compare every android tablet across manufacturers. People who like to tout android vs apple love to do this. But the fact is, android tablets have not been a success for a single manufacturer. There's only so long companies will keep dumping money down this rabbit hole hoping to get lucky. Android tablets have been a success for Google. for everyone else, not so much.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  They're also arguably a success for those who are interested in building off the platform. While Google certainly counts, I suspect this goes beyond them. As far as the hardware goes, I suspect it's going to be a very low-margin market. Razors to the blades. This doesn't make it unsuccessful. At all.

dredmorbius 14y ago

To dissect the frog for you: the "look at teh shinay" with an absence of (or grossly overinflated) specs was the standard MO for Microsoft through much of the 90s. I'm pointing out that such tactics are not particularly effective when there are existing products which have not only captivated the public's eye, but also captured much of the market. Yes, I'm aware that Android are registering 900,000 new activations. Per day. By some reports, Microsoft's prior Great White Hope in the mobile space, the Kin, sold a total of 500 units through Verizon. I'm seeing significant marketing for the Nokia N900 Windows phone while reading about spectacular business concerns with Nokia. I'm not holding out great hopes for Microsoft's Surface. I'm thinking it may prove to be a tad ... unstable. Sure, there are some nifty design features that might well be ripped off by others (steal from the best, as the Krell say), including cover-as-keyboard, but as for the rest of it, I'll see it when I believe it.

dredmorbius 14y ago
Quick reference for those who don't recognize the significance of Microsoft's previous vaporware abuses. And no, again, I'm not saying that "Surface" is same, at least not in the way of being able to torpedo an existing market. But as they say, history may not be repeating, but it's rhyming. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm