or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones

post #1 of 158
Thread Starter 
Google has closed availability of the source code to Android 3.0 Honeycomb, explaining that the tablet-oriented software was not ready for use on smartphones and that the company didn't want outside developers or enthusiasts experimenting with it in unauthorized ways.

Google redefines open source as closed

Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb platform was designed exclusively for tablet devices, running initially on Motorola's Xoom and later this summer on Samsung's redesigned Galaxy Tab and similar offerings from Toshiba and Acer. New Honeycomb tablets compete not just against Apple's iPad 2 but also RIM's Playbook and HP's webOS TouchPad.

Honeycomb tablets' key advantage over the iPad 2, Playbook and TouchPad is often cited to be the "openness" of Android, yet Google has decided to suspend open access to Android 3.0 source code for "the foreseeable future," explaining that it "is not yet ready to be altered by outside programmers and customized for other devices, such as phones," according to a report by BusinessWeek.

Google's Andy Rubin still maintains that "Android is an open-source project," saying, "we have not changed our strategy," while also saying that the company "took a shortcut" in deciding that it should prevent developers from putting the software on phones "and creating a really bad user experience. We have no idea if it will even work on phones."

Of course, the primary allure of open source is that other companies can do things that the vendor has "no idea" about, such as when Apple took the KHTML source and created the Safari browser, or when Nokia, RIM and Google took Apple's resulting WebKit browser engine and created subsequent, unanticipated new products based on it.

Google closes open source as needed

Google has regularly taken the leading edge of Android development offline to work exclusively with select partners, leaving the larger community to wait until after a release to observe or contribute to the project. This was done at the original release of Android, again with the release of Android 2.0 (in conjunction with Motorola), and at the release of Android 3.0, which surprised the "community" with software that was developed internally, not in the manner of an community led open source project like Mozilla or Linux.

Apple has similarly delayed releases to its Darwin open source kernel project as it prepares major reference releases of Mac OS X, but Apple doesn't pretend that Darwin is a collaborative, community driven project. Instead, Apple is largely sharing its code with developers so they can better understand how it works and provide feedback.

At the same time, Apple also runs more collaborative open source projects such as the aforementioned WebKit, CUPS, and its Address Book, Calendar and Wiki Severs, which are all openly maintained by a development community larger than Apple itself. Apple does not close down WebKit development to prevent the community from doing things whenever it has "no idea if it will even work."

Rubin's "definition of open" doesn't apply to Android 3.0

Rubin's defense of taking the "open source" Android 3.0 offline is particularly comical given his previous definition of "open," a tweet directed at Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs that said "the definition of open: 'mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make' meaning that "open" explicitly meant being able to download the source code and freely do anything with it.

Jobs had pointed out that "Google loves to characterize Android as 'open' and iOS and iPhone as 'closed.' We find this a bit disingenuous and clouding the real difference between our two approaches."

He added that "many Android OEMs, including the two largest, HTC and Motorola, install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user's left to figure it all out. Compare this with iPhone, where every handset works the same."

Jobs also described various Android app stores as "a mess for both users and developers" and noted that "many Android apps work only on selected handsets, or selected Android versions," alluding to the fact that most Android phones still run an OS release roughly a year old, and often can't be updated for 3 to 6 months after Google makes an update available.

Honeycomb tablets shut off before opening up

The flagship Honeycomb tablet, Motorola's Xoom, hasn't generated much interest in the premise of Android 3.0 being open, instead being ridiculed for its price, incomplete software and missing features it was advertised to have.

The company is reported to be sharply reducing manufacturing orders for the new tablet, with sources blaming its tapered off production on "the unclear market status of iPad-like tablet PCs."

Meanwhile, Motorola is also reported to be working on its own Android OS alternative, motivated by problems related to Android's platform fragmentation, issues with product differentiation and "issues related to Google's support for its partners."

Samsung has delayed its own plans to release a Honeycomb tablet after deciding that its original design was "inadequate" compared to the new iPad 2. It hopes to have its thinner models available by June.
post #2 of 158
If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?
post #3 of 158
Isn't that what Xoom and the other newer Androids are touted to be using? [Edit: works for tablets but not yet ready for other Android devicces).


Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?

That shows you it is not really as open as touted. But, bear in mind that Open Source initiatives still has a "Core" team that serves as a gatekeeper on what gets included in the final code. If someone begs to disagree, they can fork it and create a different version.

That being said, it is actually prudent of Google to take that step. If it is not ready, why bring it to consumer products. Imagine the impact if some features malfunction. Android detractors would have a field day. Look at how MacDaily News may put a spin on this news.

CGC
post #4 of 158
"... creating a really bad user experience..."

Maybe they should have thought about this with Android 1.0 :-)

Okay, troll bait, I know it.
post #5 of 158
Thank goodness for the internet and quoted text everybody can see how foolish some people are. The louder they speak, the bigger fool they are.
post #6 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?

To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.
post #7 of 158
Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?

Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
post #8 of 158
Open is the new closed!
post #9 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjq View Post

Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?

Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.

Who is arguing tha apple isn't closed in some ways? No one. Next!
post #10 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjq View Post

Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?

Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.

Has Google ever open sourced, or even allowed anyone to see, their search algorithms? How they do rankings? The particulars of how they harvest user info, and what they do with it?

Apple is "closed" in matters where not to do so would cost them money. Just like Google.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #11 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjq View Post

Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?

Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.

Except for the open bits.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #12 of 158
Smart move...

Honeycomb was specifically designed for tablet/larger screen use, and many of the UI features just don't adapt well on these 3.5 to 4.3 inch devices.

Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #13 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Smart move...

Honeycomb was specifically designed for tablet/larger screen use, and many of the UI features just don't adapt well on these 3.5 to 4.3 inch devices.

Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.

Do you mean the Galaxy Tab?
post #14 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Open is the new closed!


It's open those closed doors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Has Google ever open sourced, or even allowed anyone to see, their search algorithms? How they do ranki.

Well, Google is sure very open with your personal information -- they were willing to share your personal info to advertisers, and then now they will share your personal info also with publishers.

Not sure if the story is true, but one guy was so mad about this Google policy so what he did was published the personal info of Schmidt, and the "latter wanted his head".


CGC
post #15 of 158
On a side note, I think I've seen three different faces of DED today
post #16 of 158
Sooooo, Android while scalable, isn't flexible enough to assess the hardware it's on and adjust accordingly? Seems fishy to me. Either Google is keeping the Android dev team from properly coding these updates or Honeycomb is being positioned to be replaced by ChromeOS once the Chrome team has a touch GUI coded.

DaHarder:
Quote:
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.

Weren't you one of the ones who were declaiming that Android was more powerful, scalable and useable than iOS?? Whence the scalability? Why, especially when they could have built Honeycomb as scalable and not gone down the momentary divergent OS path that Apple took when they introduced the iPad and then had to re-converge with a later update, did they do this?? I'll bet you have some excuse but no real information...

I expected a huge inrush of Android apologists here blazing in to defend the platform - but heck - it's still early and we haven't yet heard frm all the DED detractors yet...
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #17 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.

So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?


CGC
post #18 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Smart move...

Not so smart after talking up Android as the open alternative. They don't want SmartPhone makers to use Honeycomb, which none of them are doing anyway, but they don't seem interested in intervening when users get screwed with locked boot loaders and non-existant updates. Big time double standard there. I will hold out some faith this is a sign that Google will be more assertive in controlling Android in the future and stop some of the carrier/manufacture abuses.
post #19 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?

CGC

That's his point. Fandroids like to pretend that Honeycomb was "designed from the ground up for tablets" (as they have been instructed to say by Google's PR) despite being nonsense on the face of it.

Whereas iOS, despite being generally understood to have originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones, and which is basically a subset of a desktop OS tailored for the touch implementation at hand, is somehow "lightly adapted" for the iPad.

Apparently consumers are pretty cool with that, daHarder's rules notwithstanding.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #20 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.

Google regularly submits the patches to the Linux kernel, even for the changes that've gone into Honeycomb. Similarly, all of the modifications they make to Webkit are made available also.

The parts they're not yet releasing are not GPLed code, but the other "Android" parts of the OS (dalvik, the APIs, etc).
post #21 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.

This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?

I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.

If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.
post #22 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe View Post

Not so smart after talking up Android as the open alternative. They don't want SmartPhone makers to use Honeycomb, which none of them are doing anyway

Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.

I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.


Quote:
but they don't seem interested in intervening when users get screwed with locked boot loaders and non-existant updates. Big time double standard there.

Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.

Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.

If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.

I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
post #23 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?

I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.

If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.

Only if you statically link or otherwise embed other GPL code does it constitute a violation. You're allowed to dynamically link (some people contest this, but it's never been proven in court that dynamic linking is covered). You can most certainly build full-on, 100% proprietary software that simply uses the Linux kernel. You just need to submit any modifications you've made to the kernel itself back to Linux.
post #24 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?

I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.

If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.

I can't believe how much confusion can exist on such a simple topic. I mean, really, who are the nazi's here?
post #25 of 158
I pity the fool that buys an Android tablet.
post #26 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?

I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.

If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.

If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.

1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)

Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.

It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.
post #27 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Google regularly submits the patches to the Linux kernel, even for the changes that've gone into Honeycomb. Similarly, all of the modifications they make to Webkit are made available also.

The parts they're not yet releasing are not GPLed code, but the other "Android" parts of the OS (dalvik, etc).

Do they now? It seems to me, according to a large number of my friends in the Linux developers community, that Google has not been sharing nicely and in fact only recently has that rift been addressed in the upcoming Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit. It looks like the Linux community is willing to allow the red-headed stepchild back in the fold? Will Google respond in kind and share nicely with the rest of the community they have shunned so far?

For example, Android doesn't root access like normal Linux system would - on sudo. You have to hack your own device to get control of your phone. Now with Maemo, you just install a package from repository, and you are good to go. No hacking required to get root access, but hacking is there (if you want to do it for some other reason) and no DRM!

Android is designed to allow easy tivoization by manufacturers and carriers. Android, unlike Linux, literally requires you to hack your device to get that "freedom" the Android proponents are so on about, but then some manufacturers make that impossible by DRM. It will be interesting to see just how the Linux community will deal with the *interesting* decisions that Google has forced into Android development. And just how hearty those handshakes and welcoming slaps on the back will be at the conference. Android needs desperately to be rescued from Google's agenda.

Seriously Asherian - why is every post you offer in defense of ANdroid replete with "coming soon", or "the next great version will do this?" Why can't the Android team learn their lessons from something other than following the path that Apple has already blazed? Where is the out-in-front breaking new ground part of Android that was so strong pre-Google ownership? Or is the fact that Google sweet-talked the "Android "girl-next-door into to dressing up and standing on the street corner, turned Android into a hot but dumb bimbo?
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #28 of 158
You don't see the contradiction in all of this? Google has some control over some parts, but has no control over other parts of the Android system. That is a lot of chaos and confusion.

While you talk about Apple being locked down. The whole point of why Apple has such control over iOS to avoid the problems Google is facing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited form factors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.

Quote:
Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.
post #29 of 158
Is this website Android Insider or Apple Insider?
post #30 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.

I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.



Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.

Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.

If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.

I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.

The above I think says it all. Google on one hand has no control, on the other Android is the best thing since sliced bread - you are definitely in the wrong forum here. Why do you even bother? We like discussion but you offer nothing but a full-on hardcore Android defense here without ceding any ground, despite sound facts being presented.

Android has been bastardized by Google to give them a foothold in mobile advertising, and will be the best babe for Google until something better comes along (ChromeOS) and they put Android out to pasture and languish. It s that simple Google doesn't WANT to own Android - it HAS to own Android - for the time being. And as soon as Google's millions are flowing elsewhere Android's great ideas will become just another footnote in Linux history.

The point of the article is simply a counterpoint to all the diatribe flung at Apple for a curated approach to the user experience - which has proven conclusively to be immensely popular to the average user. Based on your other posts, you simply have no idea what the average user wants or likes and could not frankly care less. And that's fine but it undermines any other offer of information you make because this whole mobile paradigm shift is precisely about the average user - which Apple has nailed down cold. Which is why Android proponents struggle to trumpet big numbers, marketshare, PC vs. Mac, open vs. curated, and then piss and moan when someone simply asks why, when your hallmark of evangelism for the platform is openness, Google executes controls and restrictions arbitrarily and allows the carriers and handset makers to lock-down devices. You apparently have different definition of "open" than the whole rest of the english-speaking world.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #31 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andykemp View Post

Is this website Android Insider or Apple Insider?

*sigh* does the happy face obligate acceptance of this?? Just wondering, because I have a pocketful of obviously mal-formed and otherwise worthless commentary to offer in a similar vein.


If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #32 of 158
As someone who sincerely does want Android to succeed and do well. I believe in vibrant and robust market.

This is a great point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

Seriously Asherian - why is every post you offer in defense of ANdroid replete with "coming soon", or "the next great version will do this?" Why can't the Android team learn their lessons from something other than following the path that Apple has already blazed? Where is the out-in-front breaking new ground part of Android that was so strong pre-Google ownership? Or is the fact that Google sweet-talked the "Android "girl-next-door into to dressing up and standing on the street corner, turned Android into a hot but dumb bimbo?
post #33 of 158
This underscores the whole problem with open source. Investment in hardware must net a return or why do it and the size of the return depends on differentiation. Hardware differentiation is weak at best. If open source makes all hardware look and feel the same, then it's a race to the bottom for the hardware guys (do you really think open source would be anywhere without the wintel monopoly that existed first?).

Google must let hardware manufacturers customize the software to make their products differentiated but that weaken's google's position and will keep the android market fragmented. If google tries to reel it in, hardware people will move away from the google controlled android even faster. Why on earth would MOT or Samsung want a business model that lets people drop them when the next cheapest/faster thing comes out and take their apps with them?

I gotta say it's kind of fun to watch this play out. Apple appears to be the next wintel since wintel missed the boat on post pc devices.
post #34 of 158
When its touted how open Android is. There is no talk of some parts of Android being open and other parts being closed. Its simply said to be open.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by xpaulso View Post

Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.
post #35 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

*sigh* does the happy face obligate acceptance of this?? Just wondering, because I have a pocketful of obviously mal-formed and otherwise worthless commentary to offer in a similar vein.



Whats new? The comment section here is full of mal-formed and otherwise worthless commentary.

"Sent from my Magical iPony"
post #36 of 158
"Samsung has delayed its own plans to release a Honeycomb tablet after deciding that its original design was "inadequate" compared to the new iPad 2. It hopes to have its thinner models available by June."

ok ... so the "10.1" Galaxy tablet that was unveiled at some trade show in February will never come to market, right? even tho it was hyped on the web a lot and then Samsung denied there would be any delay despite its boss guy commenting that they needed to make changes. now, a new thiner version of that "10.1" Galaxy tab will be released this summer instead.

somehow no one else in the blogsphere seems to have figured this charade out ... or wants to.
post #37 of 158
It does make sense.

From what I've seen of Honeycomb it still looks a bit beta. I wouldn't be surprised if Google needs to re-write some pretty large chunks of code before they get a proper v1 release.

It's not like Google can come out and say that Honeycomb is still in beta and hardware vendors shouldn't start designing hardware for it.

Even if they did do that, no doubt there would be vendors that would go ahead and release Honeycomb tablets anyway (I seem to remember Google saying Gingerbread was not a tablet OS... and we know how that turned out).
post #38 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post


Whereas iOS, despite being generally understood to have originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones, and which is basically a subset of a desktop OS tailored for the touch implementation at hand, is somehow "lightly adapted" for the iPad.

Apparently consumers are pretty cool with that, daHarder's rules notwithstanding.

Hmm?

If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?

Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #39 of 158
Since when is Google the new Apple?
post #40 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

ok ... so the "10.1" Galaxy tablet that was unveiled at some trade show in February will never come to market, right?

I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

even tho it was hyped on the web a lot

Just to put this into perspective (in a very unscientific way! )

I subscribe to a bunch of news feeds. This is the only Apple specific feed I subscribe to. The others are general news or tech news.

When I search for the 10.1" Galaxy Tab I receive 45 news articles about it. 22 are about the actual tablet, the other 23 are either about how Samsung said the Galaxy Tab is "inadequate" or about the new thinner 10.1" Galaxy Tab.

When I search for iPad 2 I get 397 hits. So when you say it was hyped on the web a lot it's actually receiving maybe one article for every 18 that are written about the iPad 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

somehow no one else in the blogsphere seems to have figured this charade out ... or wants to.

Based on the stats above one could potentially conclude that it simply isn't news worthy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones