I can see this filling a niche population, not necessarily one that competes against the iPad. However, if the price for a wi-fi only (unsubsidized) is anything above 500, then I can't really see why anyone would get the Tab over the iPad unless a camera was a necessity.
Personally, I'm still waiting for an iPad with camera.
It is an Android tablet made to look like an ipad. And since Samsung doesn't write the Android software(they get if for free), they can charge pennies for the device. And so will every other sap sucker in the tech game. There will be a slew of Android tablets on the market. And all they do is surf the next and play youtube video. They don't play nice with windows and of course not with OSX.
And Samsung doesn't have a customer service presence. They just dump sh** on the market and run.
I'll stick with my ipad 16 gig with wifi +3G thank you.
Which is no different then the iPad being a larger version of the iPod Touch. In fact is the new iPod Touch comes with a cam and Facetime then it will offer more in the way of features.
I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.
Personally, I find the Galaxy the perfect size/weight for this kind of device as it's much easier to hold with one hand, and considerably lighter than my iPad.
I'll be comparing both extensively the minute I purchase my GalaxyTab upon its release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
It's just a large Samsung Android phone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Which is no different then the iPad being a larger version of the iPod Touch. In fact is the new iPod Touch comes with a cam and Facetime then it will offer more in the way of features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.
I think, being late to the troll, extremeskater is just engaging in schmuckenfreude.
And btw how in the hell does this thing not infringe on some of the ipad's patents. I mean it's pretty sad that these other companies can only copy instead of come up with something at all original.
What patents would that be? A number of Android tablets (like Vega and NotionInk Adam) were demo-ed in conferences months before Apple even announced the iPad. The WePad was shown in April unless you think it was copied in 2 months into a production unit. It's just that these are all small manufacturers and can't get them produced in mass quantities. But it obviously puts to rest that they copied the iPad if they were shown earlier.
There's not much that can be done with form factor. I'm sure your flat panel TV/monitor looks a lot like Phillips first available to consumers plasma TV and very much like your neighbors Sony/Toshiba/Samsung/Panasonic etc? but no one yells bloody murder at that. Historically one company leads the way and others follow suit. Companies copy other companies and not just in the electronic world. Nabisco copied the Hydrox and made the Oreo. Get over it people, competition no matter how inferior is good.
I think it's rather nice. Its not a critism of the design.
I'm just amused at how the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" to some folk and yet this new device, which looks like a "big iPod Touch", is a beautiful thing. The tribalism makes fascinating reading.
Man, this looks great. I look forward to the WiFi-only models.
I was really looking forward to the Samsung Tablet after buying the Vibrant. I'll have to see it to make a decision, but at the moment it looks like it's not going to replace my iPad.
1. Apple got the dimensions right. 7" is too small.
2. It's got proprietary jacks like the iPad. No standard mini USB
3. It doesn't have the fantastic SAMOLED screen. I guess the price would have been prohibitive.
4. It may not run beyond Gingerbread according to a Samsung exec at the inauguration launch.
5. The European cost is insane! And it will be a code day in hell before I sign up for yet another data plan. If the wifi only model is not around $300, it will be too pricey. Adding a useless rear camera isn't helping the price.
They did get a couple of things right. The weight. The iPad is simply too heavy. And it's got Android.
At 11.98mm against 12.7mm of iPad's thickness, it's 0.72mm thinner than the iPad.
Yes, but the ratio of xy:z is significantly higher (~ 3.5 vs. 2.0) for the iPad vs. Galaxy Tab, making the iPad much thinner, relative to itself, than the Galaxy Tab, relative to itself. Despite all the nonsense in this thread, this is the important metric when discussing the thinness of a device. The absolute dimension (which, for the iPad is 13.4mm, btw, not 12.7) is meaningful if you are making cases, but in terms of how it will feel in one's hand, it's the overall size (xy) compared to the thickness (z) that matters.
I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.
They shouldn't be looking the other way because its nothing more then a larger version of an Android phone.
People always take the comment the iPad is nothing more then a larger version of the Touch as a negative comment. Its not a negative comment as long as someone understands what the iPad can do and its limitations.
I have an iPad and I have no problem with what it is, however like most I look forward to seeing the product mature.
I think, being late to the troll, extremeskater is just engaging in schmuckenfreude.
.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most Tablets that come to market at least when they are first generation are going to be nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists.
As I posted above this the Samsung is nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists. In turn the iPad is still nothing more then a larger version of the Touch.
I would expect as all Tablets mature that will not be the case but you have to start somewhere.
There isn't anything about my statement that can be confused with trolling. That term is used on this form so often it has no meaning at all, its hard to believe at times this is a forum with adults.
It?s interesting that the two newest Android tablets from different vendors I?ve read about in the last day have a wonky 1024x600 resolution (1:71 aspect ratio) with one being a 7? display and the other 10?, but I am under the impression that Android v2.2 ?Froyo? only natively supports resolutions up to 854×480. So are these some add on that will make 3rd-party apps not work right, is there a 1024x600 option built in, or will these be using a version of Android newer than 2.2?
There are some preset sizes out of which 854x480 is the largest. But if you use device independent resources and layouts, the apps should work just fine. Out of curiosity, I just fired up the emulator and punched in 1024x600 and tested my app. It works just fine. Good to know :-)
A 7 " Galaxy will have ZERO - ZERO impact on a 9.7 in iPad - NONE. Consumer purchasers will look once at the 7 inch screen and laugh all the way past the check out counter with their iPads... Absolute waste of money.. - same fate as Mircoshaft 'Kin"...
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most Tablets that come to market at least when they are first generation are going to be nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists.
As I posted above this the Samsung is nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists. In turn the iPad is still nothing more then a larger version of the Touch.
I would expect as all Tablets mature that will not be the case but you have to start somewhere.
There isn't anything about my statement that can be confused with trolling. That term is used on this form so often it has no meaning at all, its hard to believe at times this is a forum with adults.
It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.
But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.
I know they have a contract, but does anyone know the actual (not guessed or assumed) time the Apple and AT&T contract expires? I struggle to understand why Steve Jobs stands by AT&T so much when they can go off and hype, praise and sell any competitors devices. I really-really hope Apple spreads the wealth to other U.S. carriers 30 seconds after their AT&T contract ends, because I think this is b.s. and kind of foolish for Apple to sign such a long committed contract.
Yes, but the ratio of xy:z is significantly higher (~ 3.5 vs. 2.0) for the iPad vs. Galaxy Tab, making the iPad much thinner, relative to itself, than the Galaxy Tab, relative to itself. Despite all the nonsense in this thread, this is the important metric when discussing the thinness of a device. The absolute dimension (which, for the iPad is 13.4mm, btw, not 12.7) is meaningful if you are making cases, but in terms of how it will feel in one's hand, it's the overall size (xy) compared to the thickness (z) that matters.
I don't even think that the ratio of xy:z is applicable to the "fatness".
According to your logic, the iPhone 4 should be "fatter" than the iPad.
CONCLUSION: The higher the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.
But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.
I Agree.
When the rumors first appeared about an Apple tablet, I speculated on the optimal size-- anywhere from a 3x5 index card (would fit in some pockets), size of a VCR Cassette w & h, 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper (folded in half vertically), 8 1/5 x 11 full page.
At first I was put off by the iPad's display size... until I used one.
Then it became apparent that a lot of thought went into the display size.
It is big enough that the device "gets out of the way" (doesn't get between you and what you are viewing). With the virtual keyboard showing there is enough size to type comfortably, while enough display area to see the data being typed or browsed.
That's the magic of the iPad.
This is no way true on an iPod Touch-size display (or any mobile phone)-- there's no magic!
I have a 17" AluBook that sits idle... I am more productive on the iPad.
I have a 17" iMac on my nightstand... I prefer surfing, reading, watching movies, etc. on the more "personal" iPad. (ever tried to watch a movie with a Mac or Laptop on your stomach).
When I go out and about, I take my iPad and my iPhone.
When I am around the house/yard, same thing-- while watching TV I surf and browse/post the forums, etc.
I just wouldn't do that on a small iPod Touch-size screen/kb.
I do not know if the 7" form-factor will be good enough for these things-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do not know if a larger (than the iPad) screen or a different aspect ratio is better or worse-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do my heavy lifting on an iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display.
But, whenever I can, I use the iPad.
Maybe the best way to say this is: the iPad is the baseline standard that I use to measure other devices, rather than the converse.
CONCLUSION: The higer the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
My iPhone feels "fatter" in my hand than my iPad, so, yes, I think it's a valid metric, although, perhaps not interpreted linearly.
It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.
But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.
Yet you don't give one example why I am wrong which is typical for you. I own both products and its my opinion that the difference is minor at best.
And Mouse I hate to tell you what your attitude gets you labeled as.
Comments
Personally, I'm still waiting for an iPad with camera.
And Samsung doesn't have a customer service presence. They just dump sh** on the market and run.
I'll stick with my ipad 16 gig with wifi +3G thank you.
Have you seen how fat this thing is http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//20..._1_610x457.jpg
At 11.98mm against 12.7mm of iPad's thickness, it's 0.72mm thinner than the iPad.
Which is no different then the iPad being a larger version of the iPod Touch. In fact is the new iPod Touch comes with a cam and Facetime then it will offer more in the way of features.
I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.
Personally, I find the Galaxy the perfect size/weight for this kind of device as it's much easier to hold with one hand, and considerably lighter than my iPad.
I'll be comparing both extensively the minute I purchase my GalaxyTab upon its release.
It's just a large Samsung Android phone!
Which is no different then the iPad being a larger version of the iPod Touch. In fact is the new iPod Touch comes with a cam and Facetime then it will offer more in the way of features.
I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.
I think, being late to the troll, extremeskater is just engaging in schmuckenfreude.
.
And btw how in the hell does this thing not infringe on some of the ipad's patents. I mean it's pretty sad that these other companies can only copy instead of come up with something at all original.
What patents would that be? A number of Android tablets (like Vega and NotionInk Adam) were demo-ed in conferences months before Apple even announced the iPad. The WePad was shown in April unless you think it was copied in 2 months into a production unit. It's just that these are all small manufacturers and can't get them produced in mass quantities. But it obviously puts to rest that they copied the iPad if they were shown earlier.
http://mashable.com/2009/11/12/vega-android-tablet/
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/12/18...etter-be-real/
http://wepadnews.com/
There's not much that can be done with form factor. I'm sure your flat panel TV/monitor looks a lot like Phillips first available to consumers plasma TV and very much like your neighbors Sony/Toshiba/Samsung/Panasonic etc? but no one yells bloody murder at that. Historically one company leads the way and others follow suit. Companies copy other companies and not just in the electronic world. Nabisco copied the Hydrox and made the Oreo. Get over it people, competition no matter how inferior is good.
I think it's rather nice. Its not a critism of the design.
I'm just amused at how the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" to some folk and yet this new device, which looks like a "big iPod Touch", is a beautiful thing. The tribalism makes fascinating reading.
Man, this looks great. I look forward to the WiFi-only models.
I was really looking forward to the Samsung Tablet after buying the Vibrant. I'll have to see it to make a decision, but at the moment it looks like it's not going to replace my iPad.
1. Apple got the dimensions right. 7" is too small.
2. It's got proprietary jacks like the iPad. No standard mini USB
3. It doesn't have the fantastic SAMOLED screen. I guess the price would have been prohibitive.
4. It may not run beyond Gingerbread according to a Samsung exec at the inauguration launch.
5. The European cost is insane! And it will be a code day in hell before I sign up for yet another data plan. If the wifi only model is not around $300, it will be too pricey. Adding a useless rear camera isn't helping the price.
They did get a couple of things right. The weight. The iPad is simply too heavy. And it's got Android.
At 11.98mm against 12.7mm of iPad's thickness, it's 0.72mm thinner than the iPad.
Yes, but the ratio of xy:z is significantly higher (~ 3.5 vs. 2.0) for the iPad vs. Galaxy Tab, making the iPad much thinner, relative to itself, than the Galaxy Tab, relative to itself. Despite all the nonsense in this thread, this is the important metric when discussing the thinness of a device. The absolute dimension (which, for the iPad is 13.4mm, btw, not 12.7) is meaningful if you are making cases, but in terms of how it will feel in one's hand, it's the overall size (xy) compared to the thickness (z) that matters.
Even Samsung admits they're aiming to copy a rumored 7" iPad. (Which I'd love to have myself... ;o)
Exactly! And as soon as Apple launches a 7" iPad in a few months, we can all see how Samsung copied it from Apple.
I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.
They shouldn't be looking the other way because its nothing more then a larger version of an Android phone.
People always take the comment the iPad is nothing more then a larger version of the Touch as a negative comment. Its not a negative comment as long as someone understands what the iPad can do and its limitations.
I have an iPad and I have no problem with what it is, however like most I look forward to seeing the product mature.
I think, being late to the troll, extremeskater is just engaging in schmuckenfreude.
.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most Tablets that come to market at least when they are first generation are going to be nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists.
As I posted above this the Samsung is nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists. In turn the iPad is still nothing more then a larger version of the Touch.
I would expect as all Tablets mature that will not be the case but you have to start somewhere.
There isn't anything about my statement that can be confused with trolling. That term is used on this form so often it has no meaning at all, its hard to believe at times this is a forum with adults.
It?s interesting that the two newest Android tablets from different vendors I?ve read about in the last day have a wonky 1024x600 resolution (1:71 aspect ratio) with one being a 7? display and the other 10?, but I am under the impression that Android v2.2 ?Froyo? only natively supports resolutions up to 854×480. So are these some add on that will make 3rd-party apps not work right, is there a 1024x600 option built in, or will these be using a version of Android newer than 2.2?
There are some preset sizes out of which 854x480 is the largest. But if you use device independent resources and layouts, the apps should work just fine. Out of curiosity, I just fired up the emulator and punched in 1024x600 and tested my app. It works just fine. Good to know :-)
Tim Bray had a post on this recently
http://android-developers.blogspot.c...metry-fun.html
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most Tablets that come to market at least when they are first generation are going to be nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists.
As I posted above this the Samsung is nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists. In turn the iPad is still nothing more then a larger version of the Touch.
I would expect as all Tablets mature that will not be the case but you have to start somewhere.
There isn't anything about my statement that can be confused with trolling. That term is used on this form so often it has no meaning at all, its hard to believe at times this is a forum with adults.
It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.
But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.
Yes, but the ratio of xy:z is significantly higher (~ 3.5 vs. 2.0) for the iPad vs. Galaxy Tab, making the iPad much thinner, relative to itself, than the Galaxy Tab, relative to itself. Despite all the nonsense in this thread, this is the important metric when discussing the thinness of a device. The absolute dimension (which, for the iPad is 13.4mm, btw, not 12.7) is meaningful if you are making cases, but in terms of how it will feel in one's hand, it's the overall size (xy) compared to the thickness (z) that matters.
I don't even think that the ratio of xy:z is applicable to the "fatness".
According to your logic, the iPhone 4 should be "fatter" than the iPad.
Dimensions (iPhone 4) (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html):
Height: 4.5 inches (115.2 mm)
Width: 2.31 inches (58.6 mm)
Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)
(115.2 * 58.6) / 9.3 = 725.88
Dimensions (iPad) (http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/):
Height: 9.56 inches (242.8 mm)
Width: 7.47 inches (189.7 mm)
Depth: 0.5 inch (13.4 mm)
(242.8 * 189.7) / 13.4 = 3437.25
Dimensions (Samsung Tab) (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/3522...ung-galaxy-tab):
Height: 190.09mm
Width: 120.45mm
Depth: 11.98mm
(190.09 * 120.45) / 11.98 = 1911.21
CONCLUSION: The higher the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.
But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.
I Agree.
When the rumors first appeared about an Apple tablet, I speculated on the optimal size-- anywhere from a 3x5 index card (would fit in some pockets), size of a VCR Cassette w & h, 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper (folded in half vertically), 8 1/5 x 11 full page.
At first I was put off by the iPad's display size... until I used one.
Then it became apparent that a lot of thought went into the display size.
It is big enough that the device "gets out of the way" (doesn't get between you and what you are viewing). With the virtual keyboard showing there is enough size to type comfortably, while enough display area to see the data being typed or browsed.
That's the magic of the iPad.
This is no way true on an iPod Touch-size display (or any mobile phone)-- there's no magic!
I have a 17" AluBook that sits idle... I am more productive on the iPad.
I have a 17" iMac on my nightstand... I prefer surfing, reading, watching movies, etc. on the more "personal" iPad. (ever tried to watch a movie with a Mac or Laptop on your stomach).
When I go out and about, I take my iPad and my iPhone.
When I am around the house/yard, same thing-- while watching TV I surf and browse/post the forums, etc.
I just wouldn't do that on a small iPod Touch-size screen/kb.
I do not know if the 7" form-factor will be good enough for these things-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do not know if a larger (than the iPad) screen or a different aspect ratio is better or worse-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do my heavy lifting on an iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display.
But, whenever I can, I use the iPad.
Maybe the best way to say this is: the iPad is the baseline standard that I use to measure other devices, rather than the converse.
.
I don't even think that the ratio of xy:z is applicable to the "fatness".
According to your logic, the iPhone 4 should be "fatter" than the iPad.
Dimensions (iPhone 4) (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html):
Height: 4.5 inches (115.2 mm)
Width: 2.31 inches (58.6 mm)
Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)
(115.2 * 58.6) / 9.3 = 725.88
Dimensions (iPad) (http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/):
Height: 9.56 inches (242.8 mm)
Width: 7.47 inches (189.7 mm)
Depth: 0.5 inch (13.4 mm)
(242.8 * 189.7) / 13.4 = 3437.25
Dimensions (Samsung Tab) (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/3522...ung-galaxy-tab):
Height: 190.09mm
Width: 120.45mm
Depth: 11.98mm
(190.09 * 120.45) / 11.98 = 1911.21
CONCLUSION: The higer the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
My iPhone feels "fatter" in my hand than my iPad, so, yes, I think it's a valid metric, although, perhaps not interpreted linearly.
It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.
But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.
Yet you don't give one example why I am wrong which is typical for you. I own both products and its my opinion that the difference is minor at best.
And Mouse I hate to tell you what your attitude gets you labeled as.