Still those are good numbers, considering it is first Android tablet, very expensive and one even Google is not supporting/advertising much (if at all).
I always think of that in light how Android phones were selling at their introduction, and how they are selling now. I would expect that Android tablets will, more or less, follow the same path. This time next year, Android tablets will be huge.
One thing about Apple is - with their marketing approach, even if they are attracting big number of people, they are alienating even more. And that number will go for competing product just out of defiance, even if product is not offering more for the money.
By now I have more than couple of people around me who do have iPhone (and are in general happy with it) but neither wants to have another Apple product. It is not that all of them are/will be in market for tablet, but if they are, it is not going to be Apple tablet.
Still those are good numbers, considering it is first Android tablet, very expensive and one even Google is not supporting/advertising much (if at all).
The iPad numbers were even better, considering it was Apple's first iOS tablet. And it sold better than the first Android tablet.
And Apple have only just got ahead of the demand for them.
Like many things, it's complex. I expect Android tablets to sell in total. But this isn't the first Android tablet. It's the fourth, or eighth. It's just the most well known. But where the iPad's sales went up each month, this went down significantly. That could prove a problem. They will have to figure out why. If it was bought by "Android fan/I hate Apple" buyers, then that's trouble for them.
It's also got a dual CPU chip. The iPad will get one next year. It's got two cameras. Apple will follow. Whatever the iPad,s sales will be this quarter and next, it will ratchet up with the new line.
I recently played with an actual Galaxy Tab to see what it was like. Let's just say that I was "underwhelmed." Android isn't anywhere near as polished as iOS, and the whole experience was, well, it was like testing a pre-release product in the lab. In a number of ways, it responded quite slowly as well, plus the interface and interactivity feel disjointed.
As for the device, it's too small to be an effective tablet, and it's too big to be a phone, so I'm not sure... okay, it's size is acceptable for an e-book reader. The build quality was, well it was plastic - not bad for a run-of-the-mill cheap consumer product, but since the price is just as expensive as an iPad, I would expect the build quality of an iPad, and that's simply not the case. It's also twice as thick as an iPad.
If the Galaxy Tab had been the first device of it's kind to market, it probably would have garnered the "most awesomeness" status, but alas, Apple has set the bar, much, much higher.
How are all those Flash "mouse over" events working for you on your Galaxy Tab?
How about Flash games? Have you managed to finish one before your battery dies?
Unlike what DED thinks since he just makes stupid assumptions instead of doing actual testing, Flash for mobile phones was designed with touch in mind and has no issues with "mouse overs."
Unlike what DED thinks since he just makes stupid assumptions instead of doing actual testing, Flash for mobile phones was designed with touch in mind and has no issues with "mouse overs."
And you're entirely missing the point because nearly all Flash content (especially the games) were NOT created with Flash Mobile in mind (mainly because it didn't exist. They were made specifically for the desktop with a mouse.
And you're entirely missing the point because nearly all Flash content (especially the games) were NOT created with Flash Mobile in mind (mainly because it didn't exist. They were made specifically for the desktop with a mouse.
True, but neither was youtube or anything else. Apple, Android and others use mobile/non flash versions of it, or their games are optimized for each platform.
Whether or not people move to HTML5, they will still be presented with the same exact issue.
True, but neither was youtube or anything else. Apple, Android and others use mobile/non flash versions of it, or their games are optimized for each platform.
Whether or not people move to HTML5, they will still be presented with the same exact issue.
This is a very interesting question. as I don't have a Flash capable tablet or phone, i can't check this out. HTML 5 has its own problems right now, and it will take some time before it can do everything Flash can do.
But most people want Flash for video, and there, HTML 5 is rapidly catching up. I expect that by mid 2011 the percentage of HTML 5 video will be at the same percentage as Flash video, which is about 75%. But video based on Flash delivery hasn't risen for years, while that using HTML 5 has risen from 16% earlier this year to 54% a couple of months ago, and it likely closer to 60% now. I assume that doesn't include YouTube video.
This is a very interesting question. as I don't have a Flash capable tablet or phone, i can't check this out. HTML 5 has its own problems right now, and it will take some time before it can do everything Flash can do.
But most people want Flash for video, and there, HTML 5 is rapidly catching up. I expect that by mid 2011 the percentage of HTML 5 video will be at the same percentage as Flash video, which is about 75%. But video based on Flash delivery hasn't risen for years, while that using HTML 5 has risen from 16% earlier this year to 54% a couple of months ago, and it likely closer to 60% now. I assume that doesn't include YouTube video.
Kinda hard to say. Having the phone directly play mpeg4-avc video for mobile platforms (say baseline profile) can be done via HTML5 or an app, as iOS has shown. It isn't as feature rich (not a big deal), nor has the DRM thing been worked out, so there still is a need for flash video.
But video is such a small portion of what flash does. Sure, homestarrunner can move on to HTML5, but what about now?
The only reason Android 2.2 is faster as Sunspider is because the benchmark is performed multiple times. Therefore the JIT-compiler will have a nice version of it cached for every subsequent run. Making everything but the first run, a lot faster. I believe on the less repetitive, the Javascript engine is actually slower (this is PROVEN generally by the massive error margin of Android 2.2 results), but hey can't be bothered to dig around, it's too early. That evidence enough for you?
Is the evidence above enough for you? Ignore the red circle's of this borrowed image, the +/- percentages basically prove my point regarding the JIT-compiler
And basically, there is no guarantee that JS will be faster on Android 2.2, unless it's used a lot, and in a short space of time.
Your results mirror already what was already posted above, and lower is better.
By your last line of the post it sounds like your conclusion is that mobile safari is still going to be faster.
Guys, compare the lastest alphas and beta's of safari, chrome and firefox. Everytime apple and mozilla get faster, chrome does as well, and maintains its superiority each time. It's almost a moot point now on the desktop, but still, as of right now, nothing can touch Google's javascript engine.
This is a very interesting question. as I don't have a Flash capable tablet or phone, i can't check this out. HTML 5 has its own problems right now, and it will take some time before it can do everything Flash can do.
But most people want Flash for video, and there, HTML 5 is rapidly catching up. I expect that by mid 2011 the percentage of HTML 5 video will be at the same percentage as Flash video, which is about 75%. But video based on Flash delivery hasn't risen for years, while that using HTML 5 has risen from 16% earlier this year to 54% a couple of months ago, and it likely closer to 60% now. I assume that doesn't include YouTube video.
If your conjecture is true then Flash really has lost its purpose, particularly in the mobile space.
However, I always hear that Flash can do so much more than just play video. Flash supporters are always talking about "coding" in Flash and I've even played games done entirely in Flash. So it would appear that the value of Flash is not that it can deliver video, but that it can do far more than HTML 5 or other video delivery technology.
It is in those areas where Flash seems to have value, but it's in precisely those areas where developers write for desktop Flash not the mobile version.
If many of those things that make Flash more capable than HTML 5 don't work in the mobile version then why bother supporting it?
Many people don't like the fact that Apple makes arbitrary decisions to stop supporting hardware and software. I understand that. I currently run three very useful applications (and a number of simple, but enjoyable games) that were coded for PowerPC rather than the Intel CPU my current Mac uses. Next summer Apple will most likely pull the plug on the tool that makes that possible: Rosetta.
At that point I'm going to have to make a decision about what is more important: the software I currently run or having the latest version of Mac OS X. Right I'm thinking that even if I get a new Mac next year I will likely skip Lion and continue to use my existing software until the next OS X revision comes out. By then I'll be able to justify buying new software and I should be thoroughly bored of the games.
Your results mirror already what was already posted above, and lower is better.
By your last line of the post it sounds like your conclusion is that mobile safari is still going to be faster.
Guys, compare the lastest alphas and beta's of safari, chrome and firefox. Everytime apple and mozilla get faster, chrome does as well, and maintains its superiority each time. It's almost a moot point now on the desktop, but still, as of right now, nothing can touch Google's javascript engine.
You still missed my point. The wild variation in the +/- figures on the Desire 2.2 say that the javascript engine is worse than Safari's when it comes to executing some code for the first time. However by using JIT-compilation they are able to improve subsequent runs of the same instructions as long as it's over a short period of time (leading to a much lower average "time taken" than would otherwise have been achieved).
Okay, I stand corrected. In most cases JS on Chrome kicks Safari's ass, even worst case.
Just wanted to mention I installed Android (iDroid) on my iPhone 3G. Of course it is just a glimmer of a full-running Android on say Samsung Galaxy or what not.... but...
Only those who don't like Apple, iOS or those who can't purchase an iPhone for whatever reason would be going for Android. It's quite simple.
Android really is, at first impression, a huge copy of iOS, there's no denying this.
It has some cool bits I would be keen to explore, if I had the time and the budget to play around with an Android device. Some parts look interesting, but some parts are more confusing than they need to be for the average user. The user interface is quite pleasant, actually, though iOS is very close to the mark on "easy, elegant and intuitive".
For tech enthusiasts I can see them wanting to have one iPhone and one Android phone so they can have the best of both worlds.
Again, for me though, I don't have the time nor spare $300 lying around to get a nice Android phone just to play with it. Got to save up for my Xbox360 (very close to throwing my whole gaming PC in the rubbish bin), MacBook Air 15" Core i5 320GB SSD and iPad 2.
If your conjecture is true then Flash really has lost its purpose, particularly in the mobile space.
However, I always hear that Flash can do so much more than just play video. Flash supporters are always talking about "coding" in Flash and I've even played games done entirely in Flash. So it would appear that the value of Flash is not that it can deliver video, but that it can do far more than HTML 5 or other video delivery technology.
It is in those areas where Flash seems to have value, but it's in precisely those areas where developers write for desktop Flash not the mobile version.
If many of those things that make Flash more capable than HTML 5 don't work in the mobile version then why bother supporting it?
Flash circa 2000-2005 enabled a lot of cool stuff on the web. From a lot of the AJAX cloud-computing stuff, to gaming, to really new forms of interactivity.
The mobile and laptop explosion however meant a shift from "doing cool stuff on a desktop" to "doing cool stuff where I want to, fast and easy".
Hence we find ourself now in a situation where the dominators are:
Games (Mobile) - PSP, Nintendo DS, iOS apps, Android apps
Games (Premium) - Consoles and PC gaming
Cool Interactivity - iOS, Android - apps, not websites
Which really whittles everything down to 2005-2010 whereby Flash is used most importantly for *video*. And that, is eroding fast.
Cool moving stuff on a web page and ads, Flash's former area of dominance, has been abused so extensively nobody wants that anymore.
If you look at the "best" websites of 2006-2010 some actually are "uglier" than the great designs of 2000-2005.
I mean, just look at Facebook. The user interface is pretty horrible. But the functionality transcends a lot of the aesthetics, as is the case with any major website nowadays.
Comments
Still those are good numbers, considering it is first Android tablet, very expensive and one even Google is not supporting/advertising much (if at all).
I always think of that in light how Android phones were selling at their introduction, and how they are selling now. I would expect that Android tablets will, more or less, follow the same path. This time next year, Android tablets will be huge.
One thing about Apple is - with their marketing approach, even if they are attracting big number of people, they are alienating even more. And that number will go for competing product just out of defiance, even if product is not offering more for the money.
By now I have more than couple of people around me who do have iPhone (and are in general happy with it) but neither wants to have another Apple product. It is not that all of them are/will be in market for tablet, but if they are, it is not going to be Apple tablet.
Yes, two of your friends think like you.
Figure that out.
Not really difficult!
Still those are good numbers, considering it is first Android tablet, very expensive and one even Google is not supporting/advertising much (if at all).
The iPad numbers were even better, considering it was Apple's first iOS tablet. And it sold better than the first Android tablet.
And Apple have only just got ahead of the demand for them.
Like many things, it's complex. I expect Android tablets to sell in total. But this isn't the first Android tablet. It's the fourth, or eighth. It's just the most well known. But where the iPad's sales went up each month, this went down significantly. That could prove a problem. They will have to figure out why. If it was bought by "Android fan/I hate Apple" buyers, then that's trouble for them.
It's also got a dual CPU chip. The iPad will get one next year. It's got two cameras. Apple will follow. Whatever the iPad,s sales will be this quarter and next, it will ratchet up with the new line.
The Tab has a single core Hummingbird chip.
As for the device, it's too small to be an effective tablet, and it's too big to be a phone, so I'm not sure... okay, it's size is acceptable for an e-book reader. The build quality was, well it was plastic - not bad for a run-of-the-mill cheap consumer product, but since the price is just as expensive as an iPad, I would expect the build quality of an iPad, and that's simply not the case. It's also twice as thick as an iPad.
If the Galaxy Tab had been the first device of it's kind to market, it probably would have garnered the "most awesomeness" status, but alas, Apple has set the bar, much, much higher.
Meanwhile flash on Apple iPad is "disappointing" vs Android Samsung Galaxy Tab
How are all those Flash "mouse over" events working for you on your Galaxy Tab?
How about Flash games? Have you managed to finish one before your battery dies?
How are all those Flash "mouse over" events working for you on your Galaxy Tab?
How about Flash games? Have you managed to finish one before your battery dies?
Unlike what DED thinks since he just makes stupid assumptions instead of doing actual testing, Flash for mobile phones was designed with touch in mind and has no issues with "mouse overs."
Unlike what DED thinks since he just makes stupid assumptions instead of doing actual testing, Flash for mobile phones was designed with touch in mind and has no issues with "mouse overs."
And you're entirely missing the point because nearly all Flash content (especially the games) were NOT created with Flash Mobile in mind (mainly because it didn't exist. They were made specifically for the desktop with a mouse.
And you're entirely missing the point because nearly all Flash content (especially the games) were NOT created with Flash Mobile in mind (mainly because it didn't exist. They were made specifically for the desktop with a mouse.
True, but neither was youtube or anything else. Apple, Android and others use mobile/non flash versions of it, or their games are optimized for each platform.
Whether or not people move to HTML5, they will still be presented with the same exact issue.
True, but neither was youtube or anything else. Apple, Android and others use mobile/non flash versions of it, or their games are optimized for each platform.
Whether or not people move to HTML5, they will still be presented with the same exact issue.
This is a very interesting question. as I don't have a Flash capable tablet or phone, i can't check this out. HTML 5 has its own problems right now, and it will take some time before it can do everything Flash can do.
But most people want Flash for video, and there, HTML 5 is rapidly catching up. I expect that by mid 2011 the percentage of HTML 5 video will be at the same percentage as Flash video, which is about 75%. But video based on Flash delivery hasn't risen for years, while that using HTML 5 has risen from 16% earlier this year to 54% a couple of months ago, and it likely closer to 60% now. I assume that doesn't include YouTube video.
This is a very interesting question. as I don't have a Flash capable tablet or phone, i can't check this out. HTML 5 has its own problems right now, and it will take some time before it can do everything Flash can do.
But most people want Flash for video, and there, HTML 5 is rapidly catching up. I expect that by mid 2011 the percentage of HTML 5 video will be at the same percentage as Flash video, which is about 75%. But video based on Flash delivery hasn't risen for years, while that using HTML 5 has risen from 16% earlier this year to 54% a couple of months ago, and it likely closer to 60% now. I assume that doesn't include YouTube video.
Kinda hard to say. Having the phone directly play mpeg4-avc video for mobile platforms (say baseline profile) can be done via HTML5 or an app, as iOS has shown. It isn't as feature rich (not a big deal), nor has the DRM thing been worked out, so there still is a need for flash video.
But video is such a small portion of what flash does. Sure, homestarrunner can move on to HTML5, but what about now?
The only reason Android 2.2 is faster as Sunspider is because the benchmark is performed multiple times. Therefore the JIT-compiler will have a nice version of it cached for every subsequent run. Making everything but the first run, a lot faster. I believe on the less repetitive, the Javascript engine is actually slower (this is PROVEN generally by the massive error margin of Android 2.2 results), but hey can't be bothered to dig around, it's too early. That evidence enough for you?
Is the evidence above enough for you? Ignore the red circle's of this borrowed image, the +/- percentages basically prove my point regarding the JIT-compiler
And basically, there is no guarantee that JS will be faster on Android 2.2, unless it's used a lot, and in a short space of time.
Your results mirror already what was already posted above, and lower is better.
By your last line of the post it sounds like your conclusion is that mobile safari is still going to be faster.
Guys, compare the lastest alphas and beta's of safari, chrome and firefox. Everytime apple and mozilla get faster, chrome does as well, and maintains its superiority each time. It's almost a moot point now on the desktop, but still, as of right now, nothing can touch Google's javascript engine.
This is a very interesting question. as I don't have a Flash capable tablet or phone, i can't check this out. HTML 5 has its own problems right now, and it will take some time before it can do everything Flash can do.
But most people want Flash for video, and there, HTML 5 is rapidly catching up. I expect that by mid 2011 the percentage of HTML 5 video will be at the same percentage as Flash video, which is about 75%. But video based on Flash delivery hasn't risen for years, while that using HTML 5 has risen from 16% earlier this year to 54% a couple of months ago, and it likely closer to 60% now. I assume that doesn't include YouTube video.
If your conjecture is true then Flash really has lost its purpose, particularly in the mobile space.
However, I always hear that Flash can do so much more than just play video. Flash supporters are always talking about "coding" in Flash and I've even played games done entirely in Flash. So it would appear that the value of Flash is not that it can deliver video, but that it can do far more than HTML 5 or other video delivery technology.
It is in those areas where Flash seems to have value, but it's in precisely those areas where developers write for desktop Flash not the mobile version.
If many of those things that make Flash more capable than HTML 5 don't work in the mobile version then why bother supporting it?
Many people don't like the fact that Apple makes arbitrary decisions to stop supporting hardware and software. I understand that. I currently run three very useful applications (and a number of simple, but enjoyable games) that were coded for PowerPC rather than the Intel CPU my current Mac uses. Next summer Apple will most likely pull the plug on the tool that makes that possible: Rosetta.
At that point I'm going to have to make a decision about what is more important: the software I currently run or having the latest version of Mac OS X. Right I'm thinking that even if I get a new Mac next year I will likely skip Lion and continue to use my existing software until the next OS X revision comes out. By then I'll be able to justify buying new software and I should be thoroughly bored of the games.
Your results mirror already what was already posted above, and lower is better.
By your last line of the post it sounds like your conclusion is that mobile safari is still going to be faster.
Guys, compare the lastest alphas and beta's of safari, chrome and firefox. Everytime apple and mozilla get faster, chrome does as well, and maintains its superiority each time. It's almost a moot point now on the desktop, but still, as of right now, nothing can touch Google's javascript engine.
You still missed my point. The wild variation in the +/- figures on the Desire 2.2 say that the javascript engine is worse than Safari's when it comes to executing some code for the first time. However by using JIT-compilation they are able to improve subsequent runs of the same instructions as long as it's over a short period of time (leading to a much lower average "time taken" than would otherwise have been achieved).
Okay, I stand corrected. In most cases JS on Chrome kicks Safari's ass, even worst case.
Only those who don't like Apple, iOS or those who can't purchase an iPhone for whatever reason would be going for Android. It's quite simple.
Android really is, at first impression, a huge copy of iOS, there's no denying this.
It has some cool bits I would be keen to explore, if I had the time and the budget to play around with an Android device. Some parts look interesting, but some parts are more confusing than they need to be for the average user. The user interface is quite pleasant, actually, though iOS is very close to the mark on "easy, elegant and intuitive".
For tech enthusiasts I can see them wanting to have one iPhone and one Android phone so they can have the best of both worlds.
Again, for me though, I don't have the time nor spare $300 lying around to get a nice Android phone just to play with it. Got to save up for my Xbox360 (very close to throwing my whole gaming PC in the rubbish bin), MacBook Air 15" Core i5 320GB SSD and iPad 2.
If your conjecture is true then Flash really has lost its purpose, particularly in the mobile space.
However, I always hear that Flash can do so much more than just play video. Flash supporters are always talking about "coding" in Flash and I've even played games done entirely in Flash. So it would appear that the value of Flash is not that it can deliver video, but that it can do far more than HTML 5 or other video delivery technology.
It is in those areas where Flash seems to have value, but it's in precisely those areas where developers write for desktop Flash not the mobile version.
If many of those things that make Flash more capable than HTML 5 don't work in the mobile version then why bother supporting it?
Flash circa 2000-2005 enabled a lot of cool stuff on the web. From a lot of the AJAX cloud-computing stuff, to gaming, to really new forms of interactivity.
The mobile and laptop explosion however meant a shift from "doing cool stuff on a desktop" to "doing cool stuff where I want to, fast and easy".
Hence we find ourself now in a situation where the dominators are:
Games (Mobile) - PSP, Nintendo DS, iOS apps, Android apps
Games (Premium) - Consoles and PC gaming
Cool Interactivity - iOS, Android - apps, not websites
Which really whittles everything down to 2005-2010 whereby Flash is used most importantly for *video*. And that, is eroding fast.
Cool moving stuff on a web page and ads, Flash's former area of dominance, has been abused so extensively nobody wants that anymore.
If you look at the "best" websites of 2006-2010 some actually are "uglier" than the great designs of 2000-2005.
I mean, just look at Facebook. The user interface is pretty horrible. But the functionality transcends a lot of the aesthetics, as is the case with any major website nowadays.