Fusion Garage JooJoo review (with Vid) | Hacker News Reader

Fusion Garage JooJoo review (with Vid)

engadget.com

29 pointsaresant18 comments

Well, if you weren't going to buy it before you certainly aren't after this. Which I suspect will put an end to the Joojoo. When you're an unproven, mail order company you only get one bite at the apple and this was theirs (no pun intended)

A mail order company??? What's a mail order company?

Someone with only an online/catalog presence. As opposed to a company like Apple, who has a hefty retail presence that lets their customers, who may be still undecided, try before they buy.

Oh, so you mean like every ycombinator company and pretty much every startup out there. Funny I never saw anyone call them a "mail order company."

It's because they sell a physical product, which you probably already realized, but don't let that stop you from being a smartass, good lord.

I don't think there are any ycombinator company that delivers their product in snail-mail form... maybe I could start one! You can write me what web address you want to go to, and I'll mail you a print out of the web page.

In the EU, you have a two weeks period that allows you to send back goods ordered online if you don't like them. I always thought something similar existed in the US too. Or are US consumer rights that underdeveloped?

It all depends on the seller, average is about 30 days, but some are as low as 7 days and some go 365 days. But some also do no days, which isn't illegal :P.

Too bad the joojoo and the ipad have the exact same price. It makes it really easy to do a side by side comparison. Engadget's review makes it sound like the joojoo was a product from 5 years ago -- it's heavy, slow, poor battery life, gets hot, and has lots of annoying bugs.

I feel for them on the subject of Flash performance. They're discovering what has been biting Apple for years: Adobe's timeline for making their software work properly on your platform is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Adobe's fiscal interest.

That's not entirely true. Up until version 7 of Flash Player, Adobe (Macromedia at the time) provided a Flash Player SDK which basically gave you full access to the Flash Player source code (if you checked out as a genuine hardware provider, like Nokia, Apple etc. and where willing to sign some sort of NDA). Some old link: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer_sdk

I don't believe the SDK is available like it was back then. I think Adobe has rolled all of this into their Open Screen Project (http://www.openscreenproject.org). I believe the SDK is still available to all the open screen project partners. Apple of course is not an open screen partner. They haven't even tried...

I was mostly thinking of Adobe dragging their heels on keeping their software suite up to date with Apple's OS progress. But it sounds like you're saying that all Apple needs to do to get crash-free Flash performance is to fix Adobe's bugs for them. You may be right.

I don't think so. Opera have a long history of working in the mobile, embedded, consumer space with Adobe and I only recall them expressing frustration with the limitations that Adobe placed on them. Paraphrasing from memory: "why are you only shipping Flash 7 when 9 is available? Because that's all that Adobe allows on these platforms."

I'm fairly certain they were being charged a great deal of money for the privilege too.

Here's a direct quote, talking about the Wii:

"Why didn't we update the Flash plugin to a more recent version?

The answer is simple: there is no way to do so. It is out of both Opera and Nintendo's hands.

The latest version of the Flash SDK (Software Development Kit) offered by Adobe is version 7, so that's what anyone who is not a Windows, Linux or Mac PC have to settle with. To support Flash on a phone or device, you have to license the Flash SDK from Adobe, and as long as they do not provide a more recent version, there is nothing you can do.

If Adobe had offered a more recent version, no one would have been more thrilled than us. It would have made more sites work, and that would lead to less frustration to our users."

I think it's all in the tone of voice there really.

From the list of partners, it looks like they're all basically either handset manufacturers or content providers, which is . . . interesting. Microsoft and Apple are noticeably absent, and not too surprisingly there aren't any Linux-related organizations on there either. Their "Why" page for partners specifically targets chipset vendors, OEMs, operators, content providers and developers, and end users.

So it certainly doesn't look like they're going out of their way to play nice with browser or OS developers, or that they're trying to open up the actual implementation: the program seems more geared towards getting Adobe's software onto devices, getting hardware acceleration from chipsets, and getting content providers and developers to deliver content in their formats.

The whole review is a collection of small oversights and bad decisions. This is what makes the difference between bad, good and great products.

When people wonder what makes an Apple product great, it's the attention to detail. They didn't choose an LPS display just to add another item to the feature list. They thought about where to put the light sensor, the headphone jack, which ports to add, and all those details add up to a good experience.

Like Jony Ive said, he hopes that most users don't even notice the amount of work he's put into the design. Most people won't notice the lack of a USB port, just like they don't complain that their Nexus One or N900 is lacking a USB port. Apple is happy to give the market share for the USB port lovers to HP or some other company in order to stay focused, just like they gave the market share for MP3 players with FM radios to others for a long time.

Ironically, Arrington's review of iPad seemed to have a tone of "haha, I am glad we are not with the sinking ship of a JooJoo," not that there's anything wrong with it, given the drama...

I honestly was excited about the CrunchPad because of the rumored price of $199 back in the day. Oh well, maybe that is where the JooJoo needs to be...

Well I haven't read Arrington's review, but he shouldn't be too smug since he was heavily involved for most of the development. Clearly TC could have moved a lot more product, but it seems like maybe nobody involved had the UX chops to make this thing work. Arrington is certainly good at criticizing things but I have no evidence he knows the first thing about building a product, so it's not surprising there would be some friction.

So to sum it up: bad hardware design, rushed UI/UX design, no multitouch, practically useless Flash support, no apps platform, and the same price as an iPad?

The issues could be bearable for the originally rumored $200, but at $500, when there's obviously a superior product on the market? Not a chance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com