Nexus 7, Made for Google Play
play.google.com
play.google.com
Fixed that for you. The Nexus (minus the G1) line of phones gets regular updates - my old Nexus One was always updated within a few weeks of a new version of android coming out. If you want updated OS software on your phone, be smart about which droid phone you get. Ain't goog's fault Samsung won't allow updates to Phone #4123.
> be smart about which droid phone you get
My solution to this problem is to get an iPhone. Even the phones Google makes don't have the kind of update longevity Apple's do. The Nexus One did not get ICS, much less Jellybean. The 3GS is getting iOS 6.
Also, everything you said in this comment applies likewise when I get a laptop with Windows installed by an OEM. Are you prepared to argue that a Windows computer is in no part a Microsoft product and that Microsoft would not be responsible if the OS failed to update on my laptop?
And Joe Average Consumer doesn't care what OS version his phone is running, as long as he can play Angry Birds and get email and Facebook. I wish that wasn't true, because then carriers and manufacturers who fail to provide updates would be punished by the market, but it is.
> Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it?
It is not a sword duel you know? Between this and throwing "I don't care's" around you really come off argumentative
For the most part, the extent of this with Android is providing drivers and firmware for an individual phone's hardware, plus a few crapware apps to run on the desktop. This happens all the time in the Windows ecosystem too. I think the analogy is holding up just fine.
I am argumentative, so it is reasonable for me to come off this way, although you're right that I should chill a little. I dislike the double standards that people have with respect to Google and other companies on this subject.
The thing is, this happens all the time. My Dell laptop came with Vista and it doesn't "support" Windows 7. You can't get 7 drivers directly from them. It runs 7 just fine (in fact better) but you're on your own to get it working.
You and I are using different meanings of this word. Presumably you are referring to a legal obligation, or a moral one. I don't recognize the existence of morality and I suspect that, unless they have a "Windows 8 Ready" tag on the machine, no legal obligation would exist either.
The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation formed in the minds of average consumers to the point where they consider it a fault on the part of the software manufacturer when the expectation is not met.
> Dell ...
How old was the machine? There's a big difference in most consumers' expectations between failing to support N-year old devices and devices that are currently selling.
Obligation is a legal or moral term -- you can't use that term otherwise. An expectation is not an obligation. If you expect free cookies from me because I've been giving you free cookies every day for the past week, that's fine. But I'm not obligated to give you free cookies today. If Bob gives you free cookies and I'm now sitting in Bob's desk, you might expect free cookies but I'm not obligated to give them to you.
Microsoft provides updates out of the goodness of their heart. You might expect them to continue giving updates forever. They're not obligated to do that. And because they give updates, Google isn't obligated to do it too.
If you'd like your expectations to be met, find Bob and he might give you some cookies.
Also, IMO, the term social obligation is pretty well understood. It's an expectation of your behavior by others.
I don't want a Ferrari that is not leaving its potential.
You make it seem like Google want this but I seriously doubt that they do. They simply don't have any say in the matter. They gave the carriers and the manufacturers everything they wanted to get into the market and now they can't close the barn door after the horses have run out. So instead they have their Nexus devices.
> social obligation is pretty well understood
Social obligation is also a moral term and it means more than just doing what people expect you to do because they are spoiled.
Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period.
If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.
I am slightly curious as to your personal opinion, but in the main it simply doesn't matter what an individual hacker knowledgable about the business aspects of the ecosystem thinks. I'd be willing to stake up to a hundred dollars that if you find five random Windows users on the street and ask them "If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?" five of them would say yes (assuming they know that Windows updates at all :P). Whether you technically have a business relationship with Microsoft is totally uninteresting to most consumers, as is also true in this case with Google. What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. That's really all I have to say about this subject.
Yes, I did edit it in, but I thought I had done it so quickly that you would not have seen the original comment. My apologies.
Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions of Windows 8 to everyone who bought a Windows 7 PC? Because that's what you're comparing it to. Obviously nobody on the street would think that's reasonable.
> If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?
Microsoft has no moral obligation to provide updates and updates are really a relatively new invention. They do, in fact, stop providing updates to their software all the time.
> What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI.
So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Honestly? No where does Google say they'll update your device. Not in the marketing, not the branding, not even really in the UI.
More like, "Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?"
> So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap?
Yes. I'm human. "Subjective crap" and the expectations created by it matter to me, as they do to most of us.
So now you think Microsoft is morally obligated to design their software so that it runs on older hardware? Your expectations are clearly pretty extreme.
The interesting point here is that Google's software does work on the hardware we're talking about. So is Google or Microsoft obligated to give you software for free? Obviously they are not. But even more interesting, Google's software is already free and available! So the question then becomes are the manufacturers obligated to modify it to run on your hardware and give it to you? Well are they? If they are, take it up with them. I'm not sure what Google has to do with it.
They are the expectations of typical users of Windows and Android software. I am not sure what you mean by extreme but whatever it is, it's not what I typically think of when I hear the word.
Why would it be? I'd like to know the thinking behind this. Are all software makers similarly constrained? Is Valve obligated to make games that run on computers I bought this year? In fact, are they obligated to make games that run on my crappy netbook too?
Is Microsoft obligated to give you Windows 8 for free? Install it for you? Provide all the drivers? Exactly how much free shit do you want?
"You didn't buy it from Google, so it's your own fault" is probably not a great marketing tactic for the platform.
Android is, in several ways, dependent on the goodwill and word-of-mouth promotion of people who care about things like getting their device's OS upgraded within a couple years of when the new OS is released. Losing that goodwill (which is surprisingly difficult when we consider all the different ways Google's basically said "fuck you" to the people who promoted Android for them) would probably be a major blow for the platform.
Deleted comment
The end result, however, is that iOS devices become obsolete much more slowly than Android devices. What do I care about the reading of tea leaves as to whether some company plans something or not?
Since we can’t read minds it’s definitely akin to reading tea leaves when you want to find out whether “planned obsolescence” plays any role for Apple.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/new-features-in-ios-6-re...
(I'm not complaining about the average lifetime of my Apple devices here, the iPad 1 and iPhone 3G were abysmal but my laptop & Mac Mini made up for it. I actually think that's why they have to add stronger, artificial incentives.)
The real world consequence, however, is this: if you want to be able to update your device for as long as possible you should get an iOS device. I'm talking consequences, not so much intentions.
But I haven't seen anyone argue that Apple's feature cut-off is hardware-bound. This is not reading tea leaves by a far margin. It's a business decision (like many) that goes against the interests of users. No harm in keeping that in mind.
Your complaint isn't that buying now would force you to use an outdated operating system, it's that you would use an outdated operating system for a little longer than you normally would.
It's the other Android manufacturers - Samsung, HTC, etc - and the mobile carriers that approve each OTA update that often don't fulfill their promises.
Maybe it's not Google's fault, but that seems like it's skirting the issue: a year after ICS was announced, something like 7.5% of devices are using it, and now we're moving on to JB. We can sit around and blame Samsung and HTC all day, but Google is the steward company of Android and this fragmentation is a real problem that affects developers. If it's creating a shitty situation for developers, it's creating a shitty situation for users.
As long as the tablet continues to do what it's supposed to do , it shouldn't really matter that there's a newer OS out there.
As compared to the Kindle fire, which was never any good at doing what it was supposed to do. It wasn't even present-proof.
I think it's held up pretty well, it doesn't get apps or features that require the camera, but aside from that it still gets updates and can run stuff.
Andriod tablets can run new apps but not the operating system upgrades? I don't have any experience to know.
There's no such thing, the iPad won't save you. Apple just deprecated the iPad1 at just over 2 years of lifespan. Even if they didn't the battery would die. We're in a 'disposable device' era now.
But none can predict what's future proof, mainly because it's what companies make their money off. They NEED you to buy a new tablet, phone, etc, every year.
They'd make car breaks and need complete replacement every year if they could as well.
So, while it can happen that a product is "future proof" for a couple of years instead of one, it's rare.
Heck, even clothes are made to break quickly.
Of course, that's not very ecological, and certainly not cheap for the customer ;-)
Regarding tablets, I would think that locking people into a particular app ecosystem would be a higher priority than achieving a high tablet turnover rate. Seems like the money is in the apps, not the hardware.
So for example, Samsung, etc, (but mostly Samsung here) see a benefit in having the hardware expire as fast as possible (while keeping the balance of 'not having the customer complain about reliability or performance' and 'not letting the competition get ahead, or too much ahead')
Almost a black art ;-)
I would love to have a tablet where I could easily add memory, processor, screen, etc. So instead of buying a new one every year, I can just upgrade and extend the hardware myself and still run the latest software.
E.g.: just to have a removable battery, you have to put a protective case on the battery as well as an internal "case" to receive the battery inside the device (generally, another layer of plastic. Even on laptops that is becoming prohibitively bulks; on tablets, it's a non-starter (see the recent MacBook Pro redesign). You just can't pack the parts together tight enough and still have them be user-replaceable.
I love the idea of a modular mobile device as well, but it's pretty clear things are headed in the other direction: thinner, sleeker, longer-battery-life products sell better than bulky but more customizable products.
I got an iPad 3, it is like reading eInk with fast page changes, so I can browse documentation and not only read literature (cough, out of sunlight of course).
(I'm a bit color blind, so I don't really care that much about the good graphics and color reproduction :-) )
I'd pay good money for a 2-3" larger iPad 3.
Edit: If it wasn't clear -- if you want to read real documents that can't be reflowed, it might have 0 value for the money for you (unless your eyes are < 35 years old.)
I don't think anybody would care about buying a device with a slightly out-of-date OS if they knew updates would be coming.
Google no longer supports old hardware to a certain extent. I had to upgrade phones from a Nexus One because they wouldn't be pushing ICS to it. I'm guessing that this will be the case eventually with tablets.
I particularly only purchase Nexus branded devices because of the support for the most current OS from Google.
(Just noticed you said 'for at least a couple of years')
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/26/the-nexus-one-isnt-invited-...
The iPad 1 will be (conservatively guessing) 2.5 years old when iOS 6 is actually released. The Nexus One was less than 2 years old when ICS was released.
iOS 6 does support the iPhone 3GS, which will be over 3 years old when iOS 6 is released.
I'm not sure what the discontinuation date matters; if you bought your Nexus One in the short window of time Google sold it, you got less than 2 years support. If you bought your 3GS in its first year, it's still supported today, and will be in Fall as well.
I mean, is the complaint that Google almost supported the Nexus One long enough and everybody would have been satisfied if it had gotten that one additional upgrade? Because my impression is that people would have felt it was short either way — just like the iPhone 1 owners did.
True that. Actually, Apple gets the best of both worlds. If your iOS device isn't up to date enough, then you're forced at that point to upgrade. So Apple wins on both ends: newer hardware is bought with a degree of comfort, and those who hold on are motivated to pony up for new kit.
Perhaps you'll get a few years of updates out of it?
It's like saying "I was waiting for an Android tablet that could make me breakfast and transport me through time, but I can't wait any longer, iPad!"
At least show me what it looks like!
As an iOS guy for years, I look at this as finally having an equivalent of an iPod touch to play with in the Android ecosystem.
Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced to switch off my iPhone.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the 7 inch form factor is much malaligned. It fits perfectly in between my smart phone (Galaxy Nexus) and my (relatively) massive tablet (Transformer Prime), and gives me a Kindle sized form factor for TV/Film/music (which as much as I love my wonderful Kindle - I sorely need content on the go). I didn't get the Amazon Fire - felt like it was too locked down.
The G7 is cheap enough for an impulse buy, and honestly the Android fragmentation has been greatly overstated - most apps work for the 95 percentile use case - and seeing as how massive the Android market is - I'm surprised that it isn't even more fragmented.
All in all, I'm quite sure that this and the Nexus Q (despite it's rather unique design) will be winners in their respective spaces.
This is not an iPad competitor. It's a Kindle for the rest of your content - without the lockdown.
If they want to compete with the iPad, they'll need to get down into the $500-$700 range, but I doubt they'd be giving that kind of price guidance if anything under $400 was remotely possible in Microsoft's own view - their estimate is probably a "best case" outcome given how incredibly fuzzy they were about it. (Arguably they could deliver at $1000 and claim they're still "competitive" with an Ultrabook.)
For less than half the price you get more than half the performance. I don't think theres benchmarks out there yet but I don't think its fair to say that a Tegra 3 Quadcore is 'low-end'. It's on par with the A5& A5X technically.
In my opinion, a mobile device should have a keyboard big enough for me to type using ten fingers, or it should fit in my pocket. Using something in between baffles me.
I suspect google knows it can't reach that nice price point with a 10" screen and knows the 7" market is ripe for stealing from Amazon. Its sad that its conceded the 10" market. I'd love a $299 10" google tablet to replace my aging Transformer.
The really awful part of this situation is that perhaps Google is ashamed at the lack of apps that can make use of a 10" screen. A lot of my apps are simply phone apps that look terrible on my tablet.
Its a shame there's no real pricing on the MS Surface yet. I could really see myself with one of those if they're $499 or less. I'd rather spend $499 on a super tablet than $199 on a media consumption device with little storage and not a lot of ports.
Google is gunning for the Fire/Kindle crowd here and I think its going to work. I prefer reading on an LCD where I can control the color scheme and where I can dip into using a proper browser now and again. e-ink is more than a bit over-rated and the Fire is just poorly engineered.
Like you, I'm pretty ambivalent on the 7" format, but that isn't stopping people from buying Kindle Fires...
It's large enough to read on comfortably, and about the weight of a similarly sized high quality book, meaning that it is light enough to handle for a long time without trouble. It carries by hand very easily, and just doesn't get in my way.
The iPad (v3, btw), in contrast, is bulky and heavy to carry around and hold. The keyboard still isn't big enough to touch type on comfortably, and I am not able to produce content on it with a reasonable speed (after 1mo of use, I gave it to my wife). When I need to create, I usually ended up using my notebook computer, due to the size limitations and difficulty of using the keyboard while holding the device anyways.
In the end, the Fire is the perfect size for portable media consumption, and the addition of an unlocked (and high quality) operating system makes this new offering by Google a no brainer for me.
The iPad virtual keyboard is the same size as the keyboards on all MacBooks. Size is not why you're unable to type fast on the iPad.
I think typing with ten fingers and the overall typing experience is surprisingly unimportant for many people.
# People have widely reported fatigue with the iPad (e.g. Ars). I don't know that the Google 7" device is any lighter, but I assume it is the case.
Anyone have a screenshot perhaps?
The link http://www.google.com/nexus/#/7 works.
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/7/specs
The UX of putting up this ugly banner is pretty crappy. It would be fine if this was splattered on top of the page or covering the ordering buttons but you could still see what devices are available. I think I've even gotten some form of Google Play advertising (an email perhaps) that directed me to a link that then showed me this.
I have the original iPad (twas free!), which I've really loved, but the cost is significant compared to the newer 7" tablets. I use the 3g a ton, but suppose I could fix that with a personal cellular wifi solution.
But, being a Kindle (e-ink) user since inception, I've always felt that if it were my dollars talking, I'd go with the Fire. I can't justify the cost of the iPad, but could with the Fire.
Anyone who's really in the market look over the specs and have an opinion re: google vs. amazon in the small tablet market?
How great is it that these three tech giants are all making desirable media toys? Being a fan and heavy user of all three company's products, I'm happy to see them each working to innovate something more exciting than a browser war.
And of all the things, I'd thought Amazon would be in on this. What with their Kindles being 4:3 already.
Note: this experience may have been fixed, I haven't used my kindle fire for watching movies in months, for obvious reasons.
Those people who are content to live in a walled off protected garden, might be well served in the Apple world. Those people who want to root their boxes, add USB accessories, and swap out SD cards previously could go the Google route.
I'll never buy Apple until they have replaceable batteries. I know several people like me, and there are probably a lot out there just like me. I don't know why Apple people think "why not get an IPad" if price is comparable. I'd pay a bit extra for the same specs just for the battery being swappable.
The difference is his MyTouch is "thin and sexy" and mine has a battery bulge and a tick smaller screen. Small battery + large power hungry screen = angry user base. He hates it but he's pretty loyal to TMobile. I suggested getting another Android phone but he's rather soured by the experience and plans on getting a WinPhone or iPhone (if they get them) when his contract is up.
And I don't understand the loyalty to a carrier that sells phones with such poor performance. Where does his loyalty come from, a crush on the cute girl in the T-Mobile ads?
A Single Extra Hyperjuice Battery in your pocket will let you go 7-10 days with an iPhone without having to recharge from a wall socket.
The problem with the iPad is that it's battery is so high-capacity - that you can't do the same kind of trivial charge in your pocket trick. Also - the batteries take about 5 hours to get up to a 75% charge.
So - the battery problem has been mostly solved for iPhones (just recharge them from a hyper juice or like spare battery) but iPads have yet to come out with the same convenient solution.
http://www.amazon.com/1900mAh-Batteries-GT-I9100-Anker-Multi...
A weekend charge and I'm often good for the whole workweek.
Then you'll never buy Apple.
Non-replaceable battery means a much better device. Going back to replaceable batteries would be a huge step backwards. Replaceable batteries on portable devices are going away. Sorry to break the new to you.
All IMO, I get that, but this is why I disagree.
My wife has a iPhone (the 4s or something) and still has to charge hers more than I do (Samsung Galaxy II). Not a whole lot different, but instead of her being tied to the outlet, I can pull my battery out, put in the new one and keep going.
That kind of convenience is worth everything to me. Also 200 dollars to replace a battery that lasts a year is still a lot less than I spend. I spend 20 bucks for two spare batteries on Amazon. I don't go through 20 batteries a year, that's for sure.
"iPad will be available in late March worldwide for a suggested retail price of $499 (US) for the 16GB model, $599 (US) for the 32GB model, $699 (US) for the 64GB model."
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/27Apple-Launches-iPa...
PS: For anyone that thinks 100$/16GB is a cost / space issue you can get fingernail sized 16GB micro SD cards for less than 5$, clearly there was space for more memory.
however, android has been adopted by many as the "anything but apple" crowd, and when google/android does things that apple has done (no SD card in this case), it disappoints the fans.
I'm pretty annoyed by my Nexus devices no longer having built-in SD card support, though on the tablet I don't mind using USB storage for plane rides when I need the extra space.
But Google can handle such wafer-thin margins because the secondary markets that this tablet secures for them. No other Android tablet vendor can enjoy the same control over the underlying OS, the same footprint in terms of Apps ecosystem (and importantly the revenue derived from this), the same intimacy between online applications/services and hardware. All these things mean Google can 'get away' with pricing this tablet as cheaply as they do.
But where does that leave Samsung, LG, and the others ? The big risk for us as consumers here is that Google will in fact reduce, not increase, the amount of credible competition against Apple by jeopardizing the competitors' capacity to derive profit from tablets.
Amazon retail / grocery stores are another example of an industry that survives off volume to make up for razor thin profit margins.
These other vendors like Samsung just aren't hitting it off. So it's a choice of "Apple and a bunch of overpriced tablets that can't compete" or "Apple and Google". Despite there only being two options with the latter, at least the second option is actually viable.
https://lh3.ggpht.com/3Pu3EHP1QUr9oI-YdIPQE5BxWYVGZ_DzPwhReS... - Metro-esque
https://lh4.ggpht.com/p-eZmyce7_T2-_eOwltQxU6glPj6f53kDXvDvN... - Big airy sans, open spaces, riding the line of minimalist, etc.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore
Why do people have to immediately associate something with something else even if it's only 5-10% similar?
Google: https://lh4.ggpht.com/p-eZmyce7_T2-_eOwltQxU6glPj6f53kDXvDvN...
If I remove the "Google" logo from the second image would you think it was just Google's design language? Design doesn't happen in isolation. It's a product of everything that influenced the designer.
I thought it was interesting because:
1) They look to be headed the same direction as microsoft. 2) The images they chose to use to showcase their new tablet look to be "metro".
What's next, a "work" marketplace, but with conrflower-blue themes and more mundane blurbs and graphics?
Kindle Fire nailed the obviousness of this with the top bar being labeled with Movies, Music, Apps, Books, Web.
Nexus 7's home screen widget is a poor attempt and trying to shoehorn media discoverability into an OS that isn't built for media consumption, it's built for phones primarily.
You could make the same arguement for iOS, but iTunes has already trained users that you go to iTunes to get content or you go to the obviously named App Store.
Make it easy, make it obvious. Nexus 7 is a small step in the right direction, but it needs work.
I tend to agree that "Play" as a brand is a terrible name, though. But then I feel that way about most marketing, and find my intuition there routinely wrong. So I won't judge.
This fixes itself the instant someone asks "where do I get an app?". Please.
Is "Play" a bad product name? Sure. But you're attributing powers to it that it simply doesn't have.
OTOH, Google Nexus family of devices is targeted towards a different crowd. Nexus devices are comparatively sparse, receive latest updates, and not marketed at all.
With a Nexus 7, there's nothing stopping me from downloading the Kindle app and buying / reading my Amazon content. Try using a Kindle Fire to read Google Market content. If you've never used a Kindle Fire, you have to "jailbreak" out of the Kindle portal where they keep closing the holes.
(Although £10 for shipping is a bit steep tbh.)
I don't really like the 7 inch tablet form factor (even as an 'Apple hater', I think Jobs was spot on about 7 inches being too small). Also lack of any sort of SD option is just another reinforcement of Google blindly walking down the path of Apple.
I guess I'm sticking with my OG Asus Transformer TF101 for now. I was hoping that with Asus' involvement in the Nexus there would be a transformer/hybrid variant (for more money of course), but they seem to just be trying to attack the Kindle here.
It seems more likely than ever that my next hybrid tablet/netbook will be running Windows 8 instead of Android. Pseudo-ironically at least I'll be able to write Go code on that device.
Also centering the buttons in landscape mode? Seems like it could be inconvenient.
Pretty confused branding I think.
iPad, iPad 2, iPad.
Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet.
I was going to ask for a summary, but this is good enough: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3120992/asus-nexus-7-andro...
Otherwise, looks like a nice piece of hardware: Tempted to grab one.
What a bunch of nerds. Tell me about something exciting you actually did with your new product.
Either way, could be interesting times ahead if Amazon, Apple, and Google are all marking out their tablet+store territory...
Deleted comment
The Retina iPad is 264ppi.
I have very bad eyesight, looking at the tiny UI in the screenshots on Google's tablet page made me cringe. I wouldn't be able to work with a tablet like that. I had the same problem with the MacBook Air 11", which has a resolution of 1366x768.
Even Kindle Fire's sales are slowing, so lets see how the market reacts to this. Unlike phones, which are must-haves, people have a lot of discretion when it comes to owning a tablet or not. Sadly, the only real competition to take the iPad head on this year seems to be the Surface and we'll have to wait and see what the price is.
You have any evidence to back this up? Seems like just the opposite is happening:
Amazon.com was not in our Blue Paper a year ago. After a rapid Kindle Fire ramp in 4Q11, its long-term share looks uncertain. The company gained 17 points of tablet market share in 4Q11 after launching the Kindle Fire in mid- November. Just as quickly, the product lost steam and fell to 4% share in 1Q12. While the company looks to be committed to the tablet market long-term, it is not a preferred way to play tablet proliferation given the current uncertainty in our view.
[...]
Amazon.com’s Kindle Fire is also seeing less interest— with only 4% of the current tablet installed base and with only 3% of prospective tablet owners planning to purchase an Amazon.com tablet. However, we believe Amazon.com may refresh the Kindle Fire in Q3, with an update to the current 7-inch product and potentially a new 10-inch Kindle Fire. Amazon.com has been elusive about any upcoming product releases and consumers have not seen any prototype, so potential demand for a refreshed 7-inch Fire and a new 10- inch Fire tablet are likely not fully captured in this survey.
It was mostly about other topics, but I think their sales research is accurate.
"According to a recent report from Pacific Crest Securities, a Portland, Oregon-based investment bank, orders for components used in Amazon's standard e-readers have fallen 75% from the bank's previous expectations."
- Kindle Fire: Android Tablet
- Kindle Everything Else: E-reader
The article is about how Kindle Fire may be cannibalizing sales from the e-readers.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/cheaper-ipad-2-may-be-ex...
This new Nexus 7 sort of fills the same gap, but without the tap the screen with the stylus to take a screenshot, doodle on it, and send it onwards aspect that is so handy for web/mobile developers.
Where these new range of devices excel is their ability to be used single handed. Physically and Psychologically it becomes a small device similarly to your phone.
Y'know, maybe Google is afraid to take on the iPad at $500, but thats such a waste of money and such a big risk. The market has proven theres a demand for cheap and small tablets.
edit: I meant compete directly. Obviously they can make something nowhere near as nice but a lot cheaper. But is there much profit in that? The answer so far from android phones seems to be there isn't much profit and it's hard to walk up the value chain.
I suspect Google has priced this very competitively (low margins) specifically to compete with iPad by offering something half the price.
If they'd put out a device with comparable features in screen, battery, and storage it would have had to be priced so close to the iPad that the question "why not just have an iPad?" would still remain.
This is pitched aggressively against the iPad as a (good) inferior product at an amazing price point.
Not sure what people are looking for to see them "competitive with the iPad". Would you be happy if it was 10% weaker on hardware but 5x cheaper? Would that make Android tablets "competitive" from your point of view?
I think the hardware is not a problem at all. It's the perception that Android doesn't have tablet apps, but on 7" tablet apps are almost a non-problem since most phone apps should work fine. The problem is a little bigger with 10" tablets. But at this point I really think the bigger issue is the perception. At this point even if Android had half the tablet apps of the iPad with with $100 cheaper price, people would still think it's not competitive.
In the same time, they seem to be excited about $600 Windows RT tablets with similar hardware as this Nexus 7 $200 tablet, that has no ecosystem of apps at all. So clearly this is much more about perception than it is about reality.
I think the key thing here is the "built for Play" moniker. It's also an extension of just how deeply integrated Android has always been with the cloud.
I've been using Android since the G1 first came out. My devices are a portal to my stuff rather than a container, and I don't overly care about storage space as a result. My music streams from Play to my phone in the car. I stream Netflix to my tablet. I haven't manually synced my phone to anything in years, and been through multiple devices and hundred of factory wipes playing with different ROMs in that time. Facebook statuses asking phone for phone numbers after losing a phone mystify me because I can't remember the last time I had to manually sync a device to back up my data.
The relatively slim storage is as much about a different approach to mobile devices as anything, IMO.
And it still has decent storage options for media/books/etc that you want to use whilst offline.
I'll never, ever personally purchase an Apple product until they do.
In fact, there's usually firmware specifically designed to cut power off before the battery completely discharges, because completely discharging the battery can physically damage it. (Completely discharging LiPoly batteries can actually produce a fire hazard, because gaseous hydrogen is generated inside the cell!)
This is probably true, but hopefully battery technology gets better and electronics require less and less power.
Charging every day is a hassle. Especially since you supposedly shouldn't charge until it's entirely drained.
Is this true? I thought it was an old wives tale.
Why?
Also, I'm don't like Apple as a company and am not a brandphile. Having a smart phone or tablet is enough for me, I don't need to flash around a brand name to feel important.
i own iPad 1, 2 and 3 devices (through my job) - never, ever did i need to replace the battery. it lasts very long, days, by then you have plugged it in somewhere.
my customers are big on ipads for their mobile sales forces and none, NONE, report issues with the batteries. that's a sample size of 15k+ users, worldwide.
I don't like Apple as a company, but I'd buy their products if their capabilities matched my requirements. A changeable battery is my gamechanger. My ONLY major one (price is often an issue, but I agree that the quality of Apple products reasonably matches the price - if only a bit inflated).
And just because people don't complain to you about the battery usage doesn't mean there aren't issues - nor that they just don't blindly accept the limitations. Why would they report it to you anyway? Are you working for Apple tech support?
Tablets are very much a luxury item, no one really needs two of them.
Essentially they're after people who are on the fence by making it too attractive price-wise to pass up on.
Your'e exactly whats wrong with Apple, instead of looking and hoping for innovation and risks your essentially saying don't bother, it's been done before. Maybe this device will be 'crap' but who knows? Maybe this device becomes the best selling 'tablet' over the next 12 months and Apple changes their game.
This is a fantastic, cheap piece of hardware with an elegant ecosystem, with lots of potential might I add. If you don't find that exciting - I feel bad for you.
"When it gets sold through the Play store, there’s no margin,” Rubin said. “I
t just basically gets (sold) through.”
However, it appears that the Nexus 7 is headed for retail shelves, as well,
though only the plans for the Google Play store were announced on Wednesday.
While that kind of cost structure could make life challenging for any other
hardware makers looking to sell Android tablets, Rubin insists there is
plenty of room left for Android tablet innovation.
[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/06/28/no-margin
[2] http://allthingsd.com/20120627/exclusive-googles-andy-rubin-...
Oops! Accidentally a word, there.