Why Windows 7 "Slate" Tablets Won't Happen 467
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Galen Gruman questions the viability of Windows 7 on tablets in the wake of the news that HP will use Palm's WebOS as the foundation for iPad rivals, rather than follow through with the previously hyped Windows 7-based Slate. 'The iPad proved a tablet shouldn't be a portable computer that happened to have its screen always exposed. Even though technical components are shared between the Mac OS and the iPhone OS, the irrelevant Mac OS functions aren't gumming up the iPhone OS, and Apple's development environment doesn't let you pull through desktop approaches into your mobile applications. You're forced to go touch-native,' Gruman writes, adding that, when it comes to touch capabilities, Windows 7 leaves much to be desired. 'Sure, a few Windows 7 slate-style tablets will ship — Asus and MSI are said to have models shipping later this year. But those products will go nowhere, because Windows 7 is simply not the right operating system for a slate.'"
Thanks you... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks you... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't get it. How does the ipad indicate that a windows 7 tablet won't work? The fact that there is a market for a handheld web appliance doesn't obviate the existence of a market for a windows 7 tablet. Especially if Microsoft is able to pull in all the consumer class features across their product lines (nice integration of media/content from Xbox/Xbox 360 to desktop to laptop to tablet to phone.) Right now Apple is riding easy, but once someone comes along who can compete across the board, Apple's "just barely enough" attitude* will start to hurt.
* Examples:
- iPad only able to support nine pages in Safari and when you touch a link that opens a new page it drops one of your existing pages without any user interaction. This is bad behavior.
- itunes choking on iTunMOVI atom metadata that iPhone/iPad/AppleTV have no problem with.
- iPod mode of iPhone having bizarre restrictions on rotated video playback. A movie played directly cannot be rotated, but if you add it to an on the go playlist and play the playlist, you can then rotate the video.
- The sleek looking apple remote that requires the hand-eye coordination of a Street Fighter II junkie in order to operate (select-up-up for chapter selection, wtf?)
- Apple's total mediation of content onto the devices and how you interact with them. It would be nice if you could have multiple libraries, both public and non-public across your iTunes environment.
Re:Thanks you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually it does demonstrate that (Score:4, Insightful)
So you have a tablet with a different OS selling well, how does that not demonstrate that Windows does not in fact work well on tablets?
A tablet running one OS that sells well does not mean that a different OS is bad. Lets use a good old car analogy...in America automatic transmissions seem to be more popular therefore manual transmissions don't work well on cars. That is patently false (I live in the UK and manual is much more popular here than automatic), but is equivalent to what you are saying. Saying one thing is good does not mean an alternative is bad. On top if that, sales do not equal performance, so you fail on two levels.
The only way your argument would hold up is if Apple released (at the same time and for a comparable price) an iPad with Win7 on it rather than iPhone OS, but it sold poorly. Even then it would only be an indication, not proof (the full OS version would likely be more expensive - I did say comparable price - and wouldn't be as pretty, so no "I want it!" impulse buyers).
I am not saying that Win7 has a better tablet interface than the iPhone OS on the iPad. What I am saying is that your argument is fundamentally flawed on several levels. There are many factors here that would effect sales, such as brand loyalty, aesthetics of both hardware and software, price, marketing, novelty factor, target demographic, size (windows tablets I have seen in the past have been quite a bit larger than the iPad) and so on, therefore you cannot draw the conclusion Windows doesn't work on tablets from multi-vendor sales comparisons. As a side note, do you know how many Windows tablets have been sold? It wouldn't surprise me at all if all the Windows tablets on the market well outstripped the iPad in sales...you just wouldn't notice it as it would be spread across multiple vendors and models. Incidentally, I think Apple is leading computer manufacturer, or at least up there but they still have a minuscule amount of the OS share since so many companies (and individuals) make Windows machines.
Re:Actually it does demonstrate that (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the only possible reason for this that the iPad OS (i.e. iPhone OS) is good and Windows is bad?
Yes, it is. Because it can be done, Windows has not done it through multiple iterations, that is exactly what it means.
Note that the fully qualified statement is really "Windows is Bad - for tablets".
There are other reasons that are also possibly true, but through each failed iteration they all became exceedingly unlikely. Now the essence of the thing has been boiled down, and even HP is fleeing Windows on tablets. If that doesn't complete the picture for you, you are staring too hard at the lines between the pieces and not looking at the image they make...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you have a tablet with a different OS selling well, how does that not demonstrate that Windows does not in fact work well on tablets?
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you say. Please don't do it again.
So you have a car with a gasoline engine selling well, how does that not demonstrate that diesel engines in fact do not work well in cars?
So you have a blender with white paint selling well, how does that not demonstrate that black paint does not work well on a blender?
I can say shit this stupid all day, but I can feel my IQ dropping.
Re:Thanks you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying a tablet isn't a full blown computer is not forward thinking. That's like saying 10yrs ago, you're crazy for wanting to use email on your phone, a cell phone has a niche and this is what it does - accept it. Apple loves this kind of thinking.
Realistically though - who wants to carry around multiple portable devices? Should I use my netbook for somethings, my laptop for others, and my full-blown computer for yet other things? Marketing departments everywhere are screaming YES! but really, a lightweight portable device that runs a similar platform to whatever I sit in front of at work and that has as few limitations as possible will clearly dominate the market at some point. The demand for performance and user interface will always be highest on portable devices - if you are bothering to lug something around with you in a world saturated with computer terminals - the thing you are carrying around better make itself snappy and easy to use or it gets left behind. I'll wait until I get home to check my email rather than lug some piece of junk on the bus that takes one minute to boot, 3min to connect to some sort of network and another 3min to get into my email. Apple has recognized this and windows has not. As soon as someone makes something that incorporates Apple's understanding of the UI but makes a tablet style computer instead of a toy, the idea that your tablet has to be a specialty niche device evaporates - it becomes just another portal to your digital world.
Re:Thanks you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying a tablet isn't a full blown computer is not forward thinking. That's like saying 10yrs ago, you're crazy for wanting to use email on your phone, a cell phone has a niche and this is what it does - accept it. Apple loves this kind of thinking.
What's 10 years from now got to do with anything? If 10 years from now tablets will be running a full-blown desktop OS (they won't), that doesn't mean they should be doing so now.
but really, a lightweight portable device that runs a similar platform to whatever I sit in front of at work and that has as few limitations as possible will clearly dominate the market at some point.
That's not clear at all. An OS designed for a large screen with a mouse and keyboard doesn't make sense for use on a small multitouch device. Additionally, what you mean by "as few limitations as possible" is not relevant to most people. I assume you mean the type of limitations that the iPad has (primarily, the app store). Those "limitations" to you are not limitations for most people. On the contrary, the App Store is more enabling for most people than the Android-style solution.
What matters much more than if your portable unit runs the same OS and the same exact apps as your desktop is if your portable device has apps available to do the things people want to do away from home. With the iPhone and iPad, the answer is clearly "yes" for the vast majority of consumers so far.
As soon as someone makes something that incorporates Apple's understanding of the UI but makes a tablet style computer instead of a toy, the idea that your tablet has to be a specialty niche device evaporates - it becomes just another portal to your digital world.
The thing that makes you call the iPad a toy is the exact reason you are wrong here. People just aren't bothered by the limitations that irk you. In the '80s, the Mac was a "toy" because the mouse was "too limiting" and people "wanted the same text-mode apps they used at work", etc.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
apparently your a moron
His a moron what?
Re:Thanks you... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, Windows based tablets are actually making headway. For one example, look at a lot of medical use doctors offices/hospitals/clinics, many of them have tablets. For another, look at many classrooms, where if the professor uses any computer, it is quite likely a tablet.
That's not "headway", except possibly in two very small markets. Only 3-4 million tablet PCs are sold per year. I have little doubt that the iPad will outsell all other tablets this year, even given the iPad not being available until April, and the supply being severely constrained.
The far more interesting question isn't "will the tablet PC make headway against the iPad", it's "how long will it take before the iPad sells more total units than total tablet PCs ever sold."
Could the ipad do some of the above? Probably. Is it likely to be given the chance to? I doubt it. Many of the applications used for the medical uses, especially from what I've seen, are both custom and subject to HIPAA. I seriously doubt anyone will actually try to replicate it on the ipad, due to being essentially held hostage to apple's approval for any new versions.
The notion that developers are going to shy away from the iPad for fear of rejection is absurd. It's not terribly difficult to have a fairly reasonable idea of whether or not your app has a reasonable risk of being denied. Sure, there have been a handful of surprising rejections (almost all of which have been accepted after minor changes). Medical apps, especially, have very little risk of being rejected.
That doesn't even address the mess that would be the ipad in regards to HIPAA, due to Apple's control.
And what mess, exactly, is that? "Control" isn't a magic word that means "can't be used by third parties".
Re:Thanks you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh fuck off. Yes, Apple only sells stuff because of the RDF or advertising. What a load of shit.
Windows 7 tablets have been out already, just as Vista and XP tablets have also been out. What we do know, is that so far, these devices have not taken off.
Now, there will be a second wave of tablets, where everyone runs out and copies the iPad, and that might change things. They will be cheaper, and not as powerful, and have longer lasting batteries. It remains to be seen how well W7 does on this, andoid might be a better fit, and might actually take off.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll be the minority here because I've used both an iPad and a windows 7 tablet (Asus T91MT). Windows 7 does a good job at handling touch events, and passing them to non-touch aware apps.
I have the choice between an iPad and a Windows 7 tablet, and I choose the Win 7 tablet.
You all need another angle. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but there are enough exceptions. Was the first netbook by Asus hyped to extreme proportions? Is the Macbook Air selling wildly or is it eventually going to be quietly discontinued? Hyping isn't everything, but it helps. Now please, read my reasoning below.
Let's look at this from an interestingly different other angle. Here on slashdot people blame Apple for advertising they have a tablet whose main feature is that it is more of a flexible appliance than a computer. If you go to a video game website, when a good game doesn't sell well, all the gamers start blame the company for not advertising enough. (Particularly on the Wii.) Both Dell and Microsoft are much larger than Apple. They regarded tablets as niche for all these years and done their best to avoid advertising them all together. Apple did too considering a third party company started making the ridiculously expensive "Modbooks" [macsales.com].
Why are people not blaming Microsoft and the computer makers for sitting around doing nothing for 10 years? Apple hypes their new products much like a console maker, but come on guys. You don't take the initiative, you don't get the cookie. If it wasn't Apple with the iPad, it was going to be Amazon with a future revision of the ereader. PC industry have their heads so far up their asses with the status quo they didn't have a chance in hell of making a breakout product with the public in this segment.
Re:Thanks you... (Score:5, Insightful)
No the fuck it didn't. The iPad proved that people will buy anything if it's had enough Apple hype ladled onto it.
That's why everyone has an AppleTV.
Oh wait. They don't. People don't buy Apple products because they have an Apple logo, they buy them because they work extremely well. The fact that the products that tend to work the best tend to have an Apple logo says more about Apple and its competition than it does about those that buy Apple products.
I think the new wave of Windows 7 and Android tablets will show that in short order.
Nonsense. Windows 7 tablets are a dead end. Android and WebOS are the only real competition for the iPad going forward. This year, there's no chance Android or WebOS tablets will outsell the iPad, and further down the road, I don't see people buying either over the iPad, as there's pretty much no compelling reason to.
Sadly, breathless hype is a speciality of Apple disciples, and so we'll be hearing about how revolutionary the iPad is long after everyone who actually wanted a real tablet computer has bought one and is happily at home using it.
Only 3-4 million tablet PCs are sold per year. The iPad will outsell the tablet PC this year. Windows 7 won't have any significant impact on this.
Apple's marketing strategy could be best described as "less is more, more is more than that".
No, Apple's marketing strategy is to make sure their products are appealing without marketing, and use marketing as a way of getting people to get into an Apple Store. Once there, their products sell themselves. You can't polish a turd. Apple could not have had the success they have had to date if their products are successful primarily due to marketing, and not for the inherent quality of the products themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Windows 7 tablets are a dead end. Android and WebOS are the only real competition for the iPad going forward. This year, there's no chance Android or WebOS tablets will outsell the iPad, and further down the road, I don't see people buying either over the iPad, as there's pretty much no compelling reason to.
You could have said the same thing about the iPhone and Android, yet Android phones have already outsold the iPhone. Non-Apple Tablets will outsell Apple tablets because more people want a computer that works than want a computer that's shiny, and let's face it, Android works so it meets the basic requirement. The masses will go with what's cheap, over time. Who cares if the iPad sells more in its first year, or second? There's still a lot of years left (unless the world ends in 2012, is that on what you ar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did Apple (and the media) hype Apple TV as much as the iPad? I didn't think so. The sales of Apple products are proportional to the degree to which they were hyped.
Hype doesn't appear out of thin air. If all it takes for Apple to sell a product is hype, why would they skimp on it for the AppleTV? Because hype feeds on genuine interest. Hype without genuine interest quickly fades.
People are buying iPads because they're magic and not because they've tried them and compared them to competing devices.
There are no competing devices. And if you don't think people are trying iPads, you clearly haven't been in an Apple Store during the better part of the last two months.
You are right in that people are buying iPads because they are magical. Not literally, of course, but Apple's chosen adjectiv
Re:Thanks you... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not selling to Apple fanboys, they're selling to the general public. You and I notice when it shuts down the current process to fire up the web-browser but the average person doesn't notice and doesn't care. They care more about it being easy to use. That's Apple's focus and they only add features when they can nail the ease-of-use as well. That's why they are so successful.
It's not for you. It's probably not for me. But it is for most people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No the fuck it didn't. The iPad proved that people will buy anything if it's had enough Apple hype ladled onto it. I think the new wave of Windows 7 and Android tablets will show that in short order. Sadly, breathless hype is a speciality of Apple disciples, and so we'll be hearing about how revolutionary the iPad is long after everyone who actually wanted a real tablet computer has bought one and is happily at home using it.
I noticed your post was modded up as "Insightful". It makes me wonder why the rating menu doesn't have a "completely of his rocker" entry.
Where did you find any "breathless hype"? I haven't seen any. I have seen plenty of information what the iPad does - it is basically a huge iPod Touch and by being huge it suddenly becomes very useful. It has applications that are easy to call up and many of them look very nice and they all are very easy to use. Have you ever used the word "ladled" and "disciples" anyw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely the mods smelled an anti-Apple viewpoint that is regurgitated regularly and without any thought or originality. He or she immediately starts the usual "they only buy it because it's Apple" rant, spewing more 'Apple Disciple' nonsense, throws in the required 'fanatical', and 'brainwashed' buzzwords. About the only phrase that's missing is the 'Alter of Steve' bit. Was there really anything insightful in the parent post that we haven't read thousands of times in countless Apple threads for the las
No current OS is "right for a slate" (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, I'm having a hard time thinking of what would be right for a "slate". That Courier sure looked nice for what it was designed to do. As a general computing platform... nah
OS designed to be used at a desk with a keyboard, mouse, and unlimited energy? Not so great on a small slate.
OS designed for small handsets for quick and dirty access to stuff on the go? Easier to put on a slate, but still not something I'd want.
Where is a slate with a "SlateOS"? Good for reading, good for watching, good for casual surfing/ computing. multitouch, high end pen input.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Newton.
Re:No current OS is "right for a slate" (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's the Xerox of our days. There's some great ideas coming out of Microsoft Research but the rest of the company's pathologically unable to see anything through to the end.
Tablet PCs. Great idea, it failed because all the devices were half-assed notebooks with a touchscreen tucked on. It failed because MS went all the way to create the best handwriting recognition on the planet and then didn't make it usable in Office (with the exception of one specialized app). It failed because they really needed something like the Courier user interface but instead they built the back-end then scrapped it and instead they're just gonna copy Apple like usual.
P.S.: Oh and they failed because Intel's been unable or unwilling to really improve the Atom in over two years. It's their Tick....Quack model of development. The Quack is them moving the GPU on the CPU die which is less about better performance or lower power and more about killing Nvidia without being quite so obvious about it.
Re:No current OS is "right for a slate" (Score:5, Insightful)
And Tablet PCs failed because I've never, *ever* seen one priced below the level of a high-end notebook. I've heard there's some in the US, if you're willing to spend two days finding one online and then masquerading as a small business to buy it, but in the rest of the world your options are between "sell one kidney" and "sell both".
When an Apple product is the *cheap* alternative, you know you're doing something very, very wrong.
Re:No current OS is "right for a slate" (Score:5, Insightful)
I concur. Microsoft already tried the tablet route with the MIDs not 3 years ago, and it sucked, because desktop OS's are too deeply invested in keyboards, mice, and power outlets. I bought a Samsung MID and it was a terrible user experience.
I've thought for a long time now that stylus' are crutches that allow you to use the wrong kind of UI on a portable device. The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad only serve to reinforce that belief.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've thought for a long time now that stylus' are crutches that allow you to use the wrong kind of UI on a portable device. The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad only serve to reinforce that belief.
That depends. Wacom seems to be making a living for themselves making it possible for graphic designers to use a stylus on their laptops. A general purpose input, it is not. But if Wacom can make their existence dependent on adding a stylus to a computer, there IS in fact a demographic that WANTS one. Personally, I've been saying it for ages - HP, Toshiba, and Fujitsu have all had tablet PCs since 2004, they've all cost an arm and a leg (though I've seen some decent HP units cost south of $1,000 recently),
Mobile and Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Their vulnerable blind spot is called WINDOWS.
Everything in Windows was designed for mouse/keyboard combination, and there is no touch UI to behold.
Apple's approach is much better, different products, different approaches, and a different UI for Desktop and touch based items.
The reason why touch screens suck so much, is not because they suck, but the application/OS is always bolted on afterthought, rather than separate approach.
This is why I see Apple and Android being the dominant players in these types of devices. And if HP can pull off a miracle and get Palm functioning, it might prove to be a viable third tier option.
I'm afraid the people running Microsoft can't think outside of the whole "Windows" paradigm long enough to figure out that Windows is NOT a touch screen OS, no matter what they try to bolt on.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of.
Actually, Microsoft doesn't have a "vulnerable blind spot". What they have is an applications stack lever. They've never managed to reach into the mobile platforms because their whole business is built on application/data incompatibility with other platforms. The cost of moving from Microsoft is not the loss of Windows. It's the loss of the millions of Windows apps.
That's wonderful for them when they "compete" in the Wintel market, but elsewhere, without the support of that weight of backwards compatible applications, their OS efforts are exposed as bland, clunky and unreliable.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and no. Microsoft wants Windows to be everywhere, and lots of people want Windows to be everywhere. So far, that hasn't worked for a variety of reasons.
Again, yes and no. Windows 7 has a terrific touch UI. but the legacy apps aren't written to support it.
An affordable windows slate is wanted and needed and has a market, if it has the performance characteristics necessary (cpu, battery, etc..). Nobody wants another overpriced tablet pc.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple didn't just package it better. They packaged it so it works on the device. Features don't get used when they are too clumsy. Try to sell me a hand power drill that requires two hands to operate and I'll tell you to suck it. Sure if it was the only drill available I'd try to make it work but I'd drop it instantly the minute I saw a one handed version.
The interface is the tool. Without a good interface it's just a bunch of technology being under used.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
They're working too hard for Windows lockin. If they would just let that go, and let all their smart people develop a *good OS* for *just* *mobile*, with no ball & chain to Windows, it'd be competitive.
Sadly, I think that such an activity is against their DNA at this point.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
They're working too hard for Windows lockin.
And Apple isn't working just as feverishly for their own lockin?
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a little different - the ecosystem, yes - vertical integration is their game, but for your data they are opposed to lock-in.
Office apps: documented, open XML format (making it very easy and supported to write converters if you don;t want to use the format itself). .mbox
Audio: AAC
Video: H.264
Email:
Calendars/contacts: vcard/icalendar
They want you using Apple hardware and software, but they make it easy to move your data in and out of the ecosystem as you choose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not any more - except for the TV and movies on the iTunes store, due to content provider requirement.
The music has no DRM now, which they wanted from the start. On the whole, their formats are DRM free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All DRM schemes are proprietary by their very nature... Apple don't want DRM, they are forced to use it by the content providers or they won't supply any content. Their DRM scheme for music is gone now, and was always very easy to bypass.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
What proprietary formats? I gave you specific examples. What proprietary and "lock in" data formats do they use?
What exactly do they "do in software" that restricts users more than Microsoft?
The provide *optional* software registration for OS X and several of their products - the pro apps are all optional registrations, it has nothing to do with activating or validating the installs.
The last bit of DRM on the data formats they use is on movies and TV shows from the iTunes store, which they are working on removing (like they did with music), but cannot do so unless the content providers (namely the movie and TV studios) agree.
They "take advantage" (you try to make it sound like adding commercial weight to an OSS project is a bad thing) of free software and yet still favour data transparency - there is nothing stopping them using a proprietary blob for their formats on the other side (for example, the mailbox format in Mail - they didn't have to use .mbox, or they could have used .mbox but wrapped it up inside an app bundle with Mac-only extensions, or their office formats (iWork etc) could have used a non-documented and difficult to reverse engineer XML format, instead it is well specced and open for anyone to write a full converter.
All you are doing is spreading FUD of your own. Apple are no angels, but your post is nothing more than accusations with no citation. I gave you examples, I expect them in return in a counter argument. Oh right, you don;t have any, you're just making it up.
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
And Apple isn't working just as feverishly for their own lockin?
Sure, they are, but they aren't trying to leverage MacOS out into the iPod Nano. The difference is that Microsoft isn't willing to compete on features + quality alone, they want to bring all their application base to the new platform. They may eventually succeed, but it would be a long, hard road. Apple seems perfectly willing to ditch their "application base" if/when the need arises - witness OSX itself, which is a complete, ground-up rewrite of their O/S for Macs. And it's worked very well for them. I type this on a Mac Mini that I've grown to love.
So much, that I was just about to turn in my geek cards and pick up the Apple Fanboi deck. But I have to say, with their recent shenanigans around Flash and the iPad, any urge to do so have vaporized. As a developer myself, I'm thinking I'd rather take my chances on Android than deal with the increasingly dystopic-looking future with Apple!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: Personal experience)
For the same reason that people don't like Internet Explorer, or Windows in General, after trying out alternatives seriously. It's slow, it's bloated, it's insecure. I haven't seen a windows mobile phone that takes less than a second to load the contacts list, or one that even manages to navigate menus fluidly.
It's not a hardware issue, its a software issue. And they haven't had a lot of big name acquisitions in the mobile field, as far as I can recall.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who has said they are complete failures at this? They have a phone on every network/carrier, they have tons of apps, and they have tons of sales - no not as much as apple, but you don't have to beat everything to a pulp to be successful.
Only reason I quit using my Windows Mobile 6 device (and will never get another one ever again) is because of the firm belief that I shouldn't have to reboot the phone 2-3 times a day. Aside from that issue - the apps were great, the experience was usable and the battery lif
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a bunch of stuff they never managed to crack. In the entreprise, "embrace and extend" works, though I wouldn't really call that "cracking" anything, it's more like buying into something. In the consumer market, they failed at pretty much everything, except Xbox, and that's only because they where willing to sink so much money into it that they scared competitors away.
Generally speaking, their blind spot is their legacy: they're afraid to innovate lest they either break backwards compatibility, or op
Re:Mobile and Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Been There, Done That (Score:4, Interesting)
Slate tablets running a regular, desktop OS have been around for almost 10 years now. And they still have yet to gain traction or become popular. Mainly because people don't want a desktop OS in a slate form factor. Part of the reason why these new phone OSes are making inroads in the tablet space is because they were designed from the ground up to work in low power conditions (ARM processors) and work with a finger based input. What's more, the app catalogs of these OSes are full of apps that are designed with these limitations taken into account from the beginning.
People say they want a slate running a desktop OS so they can use all their existing desktop OS apps. But what they fail to realize is that any slate tablet is going to have the internals of a netbook or worse, and the apps they're gonna try and run are going to be designed with a keyboard and mouse in mind, which will make finger usage difficult. Sure, you could carry around a keyboard and mouse with you in case you need it, but then you've kinda defeated the purpose of a slate tablet in the first place (portability), and might as well carry around a much more powerful laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Been There, Done That (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's first answer to every problem has been to protect/promote Windows, even when that wasn't a viable strategy. At first they tried to ignore the internet because it conflicted with their idea of Windows, and then when that didn't work, they came up with IE and tried to use that to tie the internet to Windows. Windows is their biggest cash cow, it's their marketshare dominance, it's the heart of their company. (One big exception to this is the Xbox, which despite not making any money, has at least been successful in terms of marketshare. If the Xbox dropped you into a windows desktop when you powered it up, it probably would've failed pretty hard).
They're finally starting to get it, but at this point, they're years behind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, office is certainly big for them, no argument there.
You're also correct about certain significant computing tasks being tied to a real keyboard for all practical purposes. Microsoft could probably shut down all of it's consumer related divisions tomorrow, and continue to be plenty profitable for years just by selling office software to businesses. But even if they could stay afloat like that, being relevant only in the area of word processing and spreadsheets is a rather lame fate for a company that b
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly because general end users don't want a desktop OS in a slate form factor.
There are some domains where a desktop OS tablet is very desirable.
Re:Been There, Done That (Score:4, Insightful)
Mainly because general end users don't want a desktop OS in a slate form factor.
There are some domains where a desktop OS tablet is very desirable.
There are some domains where a Barium Enema is very desirable. That doesn't mean the general population wants one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't Win7 have a "tablet mode"? (Score:2)
I could have sworn I heard in the run up to release that there were tablet features built-in to Win7. Pare down the install footprint by ripping out unneeded drivers, and then you've got a full OS on a tablet. Sure, it's probably not as good as an OS designed specifically for a tablet, but you'd still be able to connect whatever peripherals you had ports for, and install whatever you wanted.
Or is the tablet mode just not that useful for
touch/stylus computing?
Re:Doesn't Win7 have a "tablet mode"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You basically repeated the summary. Yes, it has a tablet mode. Yes, some manufacturers are going to ship with it. Yes, it's going to suck.
As much as I loathe Apple's restrictions, they have the right idea with the iPad. As a device, the entire desktop UI metaphor needs to be rethought.
Microsoft is the type that's always going to throw a stylus and a full keyboard into the mix "just in case", and developers will enevitably end up writing with those in mind because it's closer to what they already know how to work with on the desktop. In short, Microsoft's products in new markets suck because they just don't have the balls to try something REALLY different. They take baby steps when they should be taking leaps.
Re:Doesn't Win7 have a "tablet mode"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's marketing magic has managed to create a market for cheap-ass crap slates, by not marketing them as computers, but rather as toys for grownups. They've lowered the functionality expectations, so people won't be disapointed with something barely more than a big cell-phone. I wouldn't even want to try Photoshop on an iPad if it were available. I'd give OneNote a shot if it existed for the iPad, but I wouldn't expect much from it.
Why don't they... (Score:2, Insightful)
Build a tablet that can run .Net and Java apps native, can render CSS3 (gotta get at least 80% on Acid3), and can run both Flash and Silverlight in the browser. I'd be willing to part with some hard earned cash for it.
But for now, if my choices are between "be a tool, buy an Apple" iPad and a "more bloated than 3 day old roadkill" Windows 7, I think I'll wait.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not gonna happen. MS would never let .Net run anywhere else and the same will be true for silverlight soon enough. Note no play ready DRM for moonlight and the fact that the windows version is gaining features the mac one will never get. Microsoft would never do anything that does not serve to prop up their windows desktop monopoly.
Time will tell if Android will succeed (Score:2, Insightful)
Android market can get segmented quickly in terms of display resolutions and hardware capabilities, how do these "big players" expect to deliver quality apps to the Android devices?
I already have an iPad (that makes me a sheep according to some of you more "in the know" experts, I know) but I do like the idea of a strong competitor to Apple. Unfortunately, I don't think Android will deliver.
Had HP, Dell or anyone else had the balls to embrace Linux a few years back and deliver a few meaningful apps, I think
Re: (Score:2)
Your "car analogy" doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your "car analogy" doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote.
Sure it does. He's saying that he no longer wants to be forced into dicking around to get his tablet computer to do what he needs it to do, much in the same way that he no longer wants a car that requires him to pop the hood and stick a pencil in the carburetor in order to get the engine started. He's also saying that the iPad is the equivalent of a newer car that just starts when he turns the key.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, he was writing about fragmentation of the market. He does not say a word about being forced to dick around -- which you correctly point out is what the "analogy" is about -- and neither does that have anything to do with the problems of the android platform. So basically, he plain forgot what his complaint was, and veered into the stale cliché of Macs "just working", and you support him because you're an idiot fanboy just like him.
Re:Time will tell if Android will succeed (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally, Android has another huge advantage in the tablet arena: it's capable of TRUE multitasking for all applications. This is somewhat detrimental for a phone since battery life and memory is already limited, but is not as much of an issue for tablets, which are expected to be way more powerful and don't have to dedicate resources to the cell phone component. Getting similar multitasking on iPhoneOS is only possible through jailbreaking, which is a concern for a LOT of people, considering they either aren't technical enough to do it (yes, I know it's super easy) or are afraid of potentially long-term consequences associated with it. Basically, it makes the tablet that much closer to a computer, without the extra overhead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How is that flash video working out for you?"
It's blessedly absent, thank you for asking!
Re:Time will tell if Android will succeed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I love about iPhoners.
"We don't want to be able to choose or not Flash video"
Seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Android is selling more units than iphone at this point.
Not really. Roughly half of all those Android phones that were "sold" over the last quarter we're actually given away by Verizon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still haven't quite figured this theory out yet.
Let's assume that's true (it's not like anyone else sells Android phones) and half of the phones were given away. Why did that happen and why is that a bad thing?
First, Verizon buys cellphones for wholesale and "sells" them at retail. So if they buy too many and don't sell them, they drop the price or include them in a buy-one-get-one free kind of deal in order to get them out of the warehouse so they can put newer and better ones in there. In this case,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. It only matters if it's not sustainable. If the costs on the Android are low enough that HTC and Verizon still make money (maybe just not as much), and if the promotion gets them word-of mouth advertising and mindshare that would have required more money to secure through just advertising, then it's still a win for them. Were Verizon hemorrhaging customers to AT&T iPhone contracts and did this campaign help them retain customers profitably?
To put it another way, Windows PCs outsell macs by
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all iPhones were given away by AT&T, by that criteria.
No they weren't. All last quarter Verizon was running a two-for-one offer. Buy an Android phone (with a two-year contract, of course), get a second one for free. AT&T has offered nothing like that with the iPhone.
Re:Time will tell if Android will succeed (Score:4, Informative)
The android market is not fragmented in any meaningful way, if you target 1.5 or 1.6 it will run on everything later.
So I should ignore all the great new features that came out in 2.0 and 2.2? And continue to do so? What a fantastic solution!
From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Issues concerning application development
Follow the links in the footnotes. This is not just "FUD from the Apple camp."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's slightly skewed - this is the slow time for iPhone, especially with the 4G around the corner. There is no doubt that Android is making huge gains (I was in the O2 store yesterday and they had some lovely HTC handsets out on display with Android) - the real crunch is going to be how sales stack up when the 4G comes out.
I dare say I agree (Score:2)
Windows 7 is the first OS that "could in theory" work on a tablet/slate, but like TFA says, it's taking Windows and down-scaling it for a much lesser subset of it's design. Windows CE did this; tried to have the full/normal Windows desktop experience on a (much) lesser device and now they've scrapped it in favour for a massively redesign & specifically engineered mobile OS, because that too was ultimately a shit idea. Horses for courses.
I don't see tablets/slate as being productivity work-horses; you ge
Archos 9 (Score:4, Informative)
Archos 9 (http://www.archos.com/products/nb/archos_9/index.html?country=us&lang=en) ships with Windows 7, the older Archos 7 and Archos 5 shipped with Angstrom Linux and they even release the source code.
Or rather, anything Jobs says, goes. (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point, while the products Apple is shipping obviously have good points (many of them) and in many ways are going in the right direction, it still wouldn't matter. If Apple had released an e-Ink tablet, we'd be reading how anything non-e-ink is bound to die and that backlit tablets are dead. If they released something that is in every way opposite to the iPad, we'd be reading about how anything close to the current ipad is dead and simply "not the right tool for the job".
Apple, the greatest marketing
Re:Or rather, anything Jobs says, goes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows 7's issue here isn't anything based on capabilies, design, or limitations. Its that "It wasn't approved by Apple fanboys" and nothing else.
Funny how not so long ago, Apple and its users were insignificant and doomed to obscurity, irrelevant in the face of the Windows behemoth, but now somehow "Apple fanboys" wield immense power to control entire industries.
Alternatively, it might be that your analysis is way off and not really based on reality. I wonder which is more likely?
Only Apple could convince the industry that... (Score:2)
Only Apple could convince the industry that limiting features is a good idea.
I wont touch the iPad... not until v3.. and until it can sync in other ways without itunes etc.
Re:Only Apple could convince the industry that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only Apple could convince the industry that limiting features is a good idea.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, 16 years before Steve Jobs was born. Apple may have good taste, but they didn't invent it.
Re:Only Apple could convince the industry that... (Score:4, Funny)
I have devised the perfect counter for that argument, marred only by this sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
I won't touch the iPad until it has a USB interface. Sometimes being able to add flash memory or a real keyboard is a good thing...
I agree that a real USB port would be a great addition to the iPad. In the mean time, however, any standard Bluetooth keyboard will work with one and Apple also sells one that will plug into the docking port.
The problem isn't the OS (Score:4, Informative)
If slates are going to stand any chance of being successful they need to be full computers running a full OS (even if it's Android) that have a properly-designed GUI. Smartphone OSs just aren't going to cut it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPad also benefits from the established framework provided by the iPhone and iPod. Such a framework does not exist outside the Appleverse. You can't compare Apple products to non-Apple products any more than you can compare the Asian market to the US.
We've already gone thru this with the netbook. Linux netbooks didn't sell. Not because they didn't perform well but because people wanted a platform they were familiar with and that was com
Some common sense is starting to show (Score:4, Insightful)
The input method for an OS or its applications is very basic stuff; what works well for input from a keyboard doesn't work well with a mouse. Try operating programs in a Windows CMD window with your mouse and see how far that gets you. Operating Windows from a keyboard is possible but you wouldn't want to try to do serious work this way - and even today there's important menu functions that don't have keyboard equivalents. Neither of those designs is wrong, they're just designed for a particular input method. You can attempt to patch things so that the support for a wrong input device is a different kind of wrong but the only way to do it right is to start from scratch and design from the ground up for the input method.
A touch screen interface - especially multi-touch - is also a different input method. Your finger isn't a mouse and while you can try to emulate a mouse with a finger you'll quickly find that there's information a mouse supplies that a finger can only do awkwardly if at all. You'd think that Microsoft - who was right there in the thick of the battle to change input methods from text to mouse - would know these things. I suspect their engineers do but their marketing people apparently don't.
Anyone that has a digitizer tablet connected to a Windows box can easily verify that attempting to operate Windows with nothing more than "point" and "click" is a frustrating experience. Everything is much more difficult to do until you reach a critical point where you won't be able to proceed any further. Their tablet add-ons try to address these fundamental problems but they can only do it imperfectly - Windows is designed from the ground up to be operated with a mouse / keyboard. The companies making tablet PCs have known this for years and you might note that they include a detachable keyboard and a PS/2 mouse port in their designs. Their hope was that your in-house programs would be good enough to work from the touch screen and that this would make their product truly useful. Trying to use Office apps on a touch screen just doesn't work well enough to be usable.
Apple's success with their touch screen devices is largely due to the simple fact that the OS that runs them was built to use a touch screen as its primary input device. And much of their app approval process is there to insure that quickie ports of mouse operated apps aren't inflicted on their users. Touch is another different input method and like the others, only works well when the system is built from the ground up to be operated in that way.
If Microsoft wants to play in this market they're going to have to break away from tradition and build a lightweight touch operated OS - they've got the talent to do it but I'm not sure if they have the willingness to do it. I suspect they'll just keep on pushing their desktop OS on tablets and watching them fail in the market.
Linux on tablets is going to face the same challenges. To operate not just the kernel but the applications using an interface that reports nothing more than a "click" at a screen address and do it well will require some very serious effort - and a willingness of the various programmers to support not only the keyboard / mouse version but the touch version as well. If we want to see successful Linux tablets this will need to be done - or else Linux can follow the Windows model and suffer the same fate.
it may work for me (Score:3, Interesting)
My needs are quite modest and, frankly, are tied to the application stack and the standard list of PC ports (VGA, USB etc.)
I'm not looking for a new computing paradigm, just something to fill a niche. Hell - I'm not so pure that I can't plug a wireless mouse into the thing if it helps. Something a little slicker than my netbook would be nice.
Fail @ Comprehension (Score:4, Insightful)
Printing is a big one, its not that hard to detect and download a printer driver automatically, every desktop OS does it and it's great.
The USB functionality, at the very least for (you guessed it, printers) and flash drives would make this the primary tool for a great many college students. Why tether a device to a desktop when the device is perfectly capable by itself of handling all kinds of file manipulation.
That last point is the singular reason i have no interest in owning an ipad, the network device and file support is in the dark ages. Even apple supported apps like the vaunted keynote remote are horribly buggy, slow, and unintelligent, often requiring router configuration without the help of man pages. Is it really that hard to believe that offices WANT a slick, intuitive interface for accessing and manipulating documents on a local network, a flash drive?
There's still alot of untapped market demand, the ipad only scratched the surface.
What's Hypothetical about a Windows 7 Tablet? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm writing this on one of them. Specifics:
http://www.motioncomputing.com/products/tablet_pc_le17.asp [motioncomputing.com]
True tablet, no keyboard, though it supports most USB keyboards (obviously). Runs Windows 7 just fine (ran Vista when I got it, which was a nightmare), and has really good handwriting recognition. Great for reading in bed. And being able to play Plants vs. Zombies with a stylus instead of a mouse nicely offsets my hand-eye coordination problems.
Which is not to say that I disagree with TFA about the economic viability of the thing. It's way too expensive, and if I weren't an overpaid geek who's willing to pay a huge premium just to have certain ubercool technologies, I wouldn't own one.
The iPad is overhyped, as are all Apple products. But so what? Even if it's just an overgrown iPod Touch (which means it's something I'd never bother with), there's obviously a market for it. On the train to work this morning, half my fellow commuters were passing the time on some kind of pocket device, and maybe a third of these were iPhones or iPads. Take one of these and give it a half-decent screen, and I think you've got a winner, even if it is a product most geeks would sneer at.
Microsoft has failed to understand its developers (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft just never quite understood its developer base as well as it should have. For decades, they kept API's incredibly archaic and unchanging because they fear abandonment. They were scared to death of putting out a brand new OS because they fear abandonment. That fear drove their decision making process.
So, it must have shocked them greatly that so many Windows developers just went ahead and wrote a ton of brand new code for iPhone. Like, 100,000 apps worth of code.
They never got it - developers *like* to write code. Just give them decent something to write *for*.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hugh? You can use javascript or native C code to write your apps for webos too, so I fail to see your point.
Re:WebOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that is exactly the reason that IPhone apps smoke any other platform when it comes to performance.
So why not let the consumers decide? If apps written in Objective C or C++ will "smoke" the competition, what does Apple have to fear?
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry bro, now that Microsoft's entertainment and electronic executives have been fired, Ballmer is back in charge.
Smooth sailing from here bro.
Microsoft needed moar Ballmer and it's getting it.
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sez you.
I think the iPad proved just how badly we need a tablet that IS a portable computer.
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree to some extent.
Certainly, the iPad has it's place, and it's a popular place. It's going to destroy part of the ebook reader market, at least until color eInk shows up, and even then lack of backlight makes eInk difficult for a lot of people. I know, that's what makes it such a great ebook reader, lack of a backlight... but tell that to people that like to read in bed, or in low-light areas.
In any event, the iPad proves there's a market for a non-general purpose computer tablet. It does not prove that general purpose tablets will fail. To date they have because they keep trying to cram a full computer into a tablet, and they cost too freaking much.. but a netbook level computer with a tablet interface would be priced correctly, and would appeal to a lot of people as well.
Too many tablet makers price tablets outside their value proposition, they're too greedy.
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I'm still surprised that here on Slashdot that there are people who form their preferences for technologies based on how well "they're doing in the market". Maybe it would be different if I ran an electronics store or an advertising agency. The fact that a lot of people are buying iPads might persuade me to buy Apple stock, but it's not going to persuade me to buy an iPad.
Honestly, the fact that people are lining up to buy something has never been a strong recommendation for me, any more than having a lot of advertisements for a particular technology indicates superiority. If it was, I'd be getting my technology news from Wired Magazine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'm still surprised that here on Slashdot that there are people who form their preferences for technologies based on how well "they're doing in the market". Maybe it would be different if I ran an electronics store or an advertising agency. The fact that a lot of people are buying iPads might persuade me to buy Apple stock, but it's not going to persuade me to buy an iPad.
Honestly, the fact that people are lining up to buy something has never been a strong recommendation for me, any more than having a lot of advertisements for a particular technology indicates superiority. If it was, I'd be getting my technology news from Wired Magazine.
OP didn't say that the iPad was the greatest thing ever, or that you, as Joe Average Slashdotter, should immediately buy one. OP just said that it was successful and that there were lessons to be learned from its success.
Slashdotters focus on the iPad's limitations and the restrictions Apple places on it. Fair enough. But when a limited, restricted devices like the iPad succeed, you have to wonder, what does it have that makes people buy it anyway? The popular response from Slashdot is: well, the people who
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it proved it in the sense that tablets with full desktop OSes have been on sale for many, many years and when the iPad went on sale it sold at twice the rate of the iPhone and continues at that pace even after the reviews are in.
There are already many tablets that are portable computers; they just don't sell well.
iPad/Android/WebOS tablet, however, looks like it has some promise.
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Only twice the rate? This is pretty sad considering how CHEAP Apple's devices are.
Really, they are the "netbooks" of tablets. The PC tablets that have been around
for years and years are much more expensive and often ruggedized for real work.
A cheap device with an absurd amount of hype treated with kid gloves by the media
should be able to sell well.
The iPad has gotten more media hype than an atrocious Hollywood remake.
Re:Are you serious...?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me rephrase it then: the iPad shows with crystal clarity the difference between a traditional GUI and a designed-for-touch GUI when using a tablet.
I'm not aware of any existing full-scale OS--including Linux--where existing applications can be cleanly ported to 'designed for touch' GUI. Therefore, if you want a designed-for-touch GUI, you need a designed-for-touch OS.
Now maybe Android will be exactly what you're looking for, with the right hardware--a full OS/GUI stack designed for touch with the power of a full computer. But so far, nobody else has really done it. I mean, hell, it is a good idea. I like to think that eventually a portable OS with an intuitive interface will merge with the full power of linux scripting, development, etc, on a processor strong enough to really carry the whole setup. However, I don't think that the iPad shows that restricted OS+Touch GUI is a bad combination.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you own one?
I do, and I haven't hooked it up to iTunes since I bought it. Everything I need on it is synced through mobileme. The iTunes store, app store and book store are all on the iPad and respond very nicely. I dunno about other people, but that's my usage pattern.
I mainly use the iPad for movie watching, browsing the web on the toilet, and book reading. Basically what I use my iPhone for, but with a bigger screen and more access to other apps.
I wouldn't say it's a killer app but it's definitely a n
Re:Does anyone praising the iPad actualy have one? (Score:4, Informative)
I have an iPad. I'm using to enter this post. I also have an iPod touch that I used for about a year for web surfing and reading e-books.
It's not meant to be a replacement for a full on computer. In fact when it was officially announced, and people trashed it as an overgrown iPod Touch my first thought was, "Great. Just what I was hoping for."
As far as needing
to add something to read. You're just wrong. I can download books from Amazon, or the book section of the iTunes store straight off of Wi-Fi or 3G on to the iPad.
I rarely use my home commuter for anything other than as an HTPC anymore. It fulfills my home commuting needs nicely. While at work I have a very powerful desktop to do my job. At home I have a tablet that allows me to surf, do personal email, and read books in any room, or on my deck, or in the parking lot.
Re:Does anyone praising the iPad actualy have one? (Score:5, Insightful)