We Want A Dead Simple Web Tablet. Help Us Build It.

Is this a case of Arrington actually trying to make something happen instead of watching things happen?

I for one, am surprised. I am very happily eating crow. Not that anyone should care, but I have always disliked Arrington and the other bunch of observers because they think they're important when all they do is watch things happen and then write about it.

I hope this succeeds, and I hope they carry it through to completion. I will buy one of these for sure when it comes out.

"yes, although we want to build it a lot cheaper and have a much bigger screen."

So, he expects to replicate the N810, but with a bigger screen and better price? How is he going to beat Nokia and still make a profit?

And unless Arrington is ready commit to this project full-time, it is going nowhere fast. I suspect that he is using his clout to simply trying to get into the inbox of vendors.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love one.

I suspect Apple is working on something like this. We have the technology of Air and the technology of iPhone. Their love child could fill this gap.

I don't know going OS-less either. I think "Grandma" mode would be fine, otherwise, I'd rather have more control over the box.

Regardless of whether or not this project ever amounts to anything, and I don't believe it will without an individual at the epicenter with the talent and taste to make final decisions on all details, this is a scam for those who are contributing to it. I hate spec work posing itself as generosity, and the humanitarian effort this most closely resembles is King Leopold in the Congo.

Why did this thread devolve into "it can't be done" or "it can't be done that cheaply" or "it's just product x" or, finally, "its just revision n+y of product x"

I mean, ok, you think it's a crap idea: fine. You don't like it: fine. You have another product that fits this niche for you: fine. But I don't get why everyone is dumping on this.

Let's keep the conversation constructive at least. Saying "it can't be done for x$" and laying out the prices of the components you assume is furthering the conversation. Saying "it can't be done"- and leaving it at that- is useless.

Yet as brm notes, it's probably going to take more than just the open source community. Open source seems great for advancing the bleeding-edge; but honestly, unless money is on the line, how many devs are going to cut out their cool feature that they spent hours developing, just because it's hard to use or might make the device more complicated?

Perhaps, a team (but not necessarily a large team) of hackers devoted full-time to making a successful interface / kiosk for this might make it big. Perhaps, such a business might make a good fit for Y Combinator. ;-)

They will face two big problems: 1) touch screen - what type they would use? how it "lights"? weight? 2) battery - capacity? POSITION of battery! and few other problems such power supply (integrated?). CPU, RAM, SSD are not problems, they are cheap and really easili intergrated, OS is not problem too (already seen such devices with Linux).

And the last thing is design... lets face it. It's important how it will look and feel when carrying. And I'm not talking about catching the right size of it (in my research A4 is too big and A5 is too small).

So lets see what will happen... I offered I will try to help them, what about you?

If they do build it and keep it open (which is by no means a given when it comes to stuff like this), it could be a wonderful success.

None are mainstream. None come close to the appeal of Apple products.

Hardware is really hard. Most people reading TechCrunch probably don't understand this.

Mind you, we had a couple of things going against us -- (1) a brand new cross-cultural team, which meant learning curves and inefficient communication; (2) we did it in China, where something as simple as renting an apartment can turn into a full-time job for two weeks due to their culture of distrust and inefficiency... (doing it in the U.S. must make things a lot smoother), (3) we didn't have the benefit of being able to take advantage of a lot of existing software, so as to avoid doing a lot of custom coding, and (4) we had trouble finding proper parts which could both do the job right & pass electrical inspections for european/US markets, whereas I'd imagine that their supply chain company should be able to find good parts quickly and easily.

Maybe all of their advantages will result in a stellar timeline. Or maybe not. (When we began, we also thought we could get it done in a month or two.)

1. It won't cost $200. The Nokia N810 has similar specs and had a price drop to $300, so I don't see how this will happen. It might be possible to source the parts for 200, but not build it, ship it and make a profit.

2. Why not use Ubuntu MID? I have not used it, but it was made for these kind of devices. Certainly much easier and cheaper than writing custom linux/ff code. Just add Firefox with a preset homepage to the startup and you're done :)

I'm usually pretty excited about plans like this, but the way Arrington talks about this project makes me wonder whether he actually has any clue about what he is getting into.

Specially, the part where he said that they will put together a nice software stack and then see on what hardware that will run. It is a very wrong approach in my opinion. Software is not the limiting factor here. It is the hardware. There should be a fine balance between the hardware and software choices for this thing.

Ah well, they are probably having fun.

This seems like a possible solution to that problem and could be the future of the news industry.

I would find it much cooler, if the front was symmetrical and without any buttons. It would probably be eays to put a little on/off switch on the back. I would like a switch, that shows in a physical way if the thing is on or off. Buttons are much more confusing.

I don't think it would be using Windows Firefox!