Jobs is right but for the wrong reasons. The 7" tablet was a compromise. They brought out an iPad device with Android so not to make it look so bad as a 9" form factor would be. Samsung and the rest are really waiting for Chrome OS to come out then they'll abandon the 7" Android tablet market then. I pity the people that buy the Android tablets.
Google basically shot themselves in the foot by choosing JAVA as a development platform for their phones and tablets!
Baaad decision!
Actually, no. Both from a business and technology perspective, a very good decision. The primary programing language for phones for most of this decade has been Java ME, so there is a very large pool of experienced developers knowledgeable about developing for a small screen, limited power device.
On the technology side, any decent JIT JVM with dynamic optimization can out perform a statically optimized "native" application. The reason that Java has been slow on phone devices is that no manufacturer has bothered to put a decent JVM into their devices - and from a business perspective under the carrier dominant model, that actually made sense. Google on the other hand does have a reason to build a better JVM, and is doing so (slowly - possibly in part due to patent issues).
(Please do not claim C is a better high level development language - it is basically a variation of the PDP 8 & 11 assembly language with some syntactic sugar. As such, it is a great low level language, but has no high level language constructs.)
But I thought Java was just one of many options for writing apps for Android, and that one can use C++ if they prefer, no?
Yes, you can write C/C++ for Android, but you'd need to compile and link against an NDK (native development kit), producing a binary that will only run on supported devices, and no NDK will support each and every Android device. You can't run armv7 code on older armv6 CPU's for example. The NDK would have to be compatible with the Android version running on the device as well, so if the vendor doesn't support it anymore, your application will be stuck at the last supported version. Last but not least all the Android SDK tooling is geared towards Java development, so writing C/C++ is a pretty rough ride. So in theory it's all possible but there will be all kinds of issues related to hardware compatibility, which is why a lot of professional game developers stay away from Android: too much effort, too many risks the investment won't pay off. I've evaluated Android as a target for a game I'm writing and even though I think I could easily get away just using Java, I decided not to risk wasting time on it only to find out the final product doesn't work quite like I intended it to, and/or doesn't sell because Android users appear to like free stuff a little too much.
Apple doesn't have this problem, because they are the only ones making hardware that runs iOS, they can ensure the devices are compatible and the development tools can target all of them without any effort from the developer (which is why iOS 3 introduced universal binaries to support armv6 and armv7 tuned code that runs on any device from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 in the same binary, for example).
Well, yes, price has always been one of the main selling points of netbooks. Size and weight are some others.
However, I thought that the context of tjw's post was that he would consider a Chrome powered netbook for content production. To me, "content production" implies a significant amount of time either developing code or multimedia stuff, or both. Can one really do that to great effect on a little bitty screen and with a Web OS, which seems like it was designed for content consumption? That seems strange to me, but I don't really know much about netbooks or Chrome, hence the question. For your part, MacRulez, do you actually use that netbook for content production? And if so, what does that even mean to you?
Thompson
So long as I can write documents on a chrome OS netbook and touch type I will be happy. I also believe web browsing is better on any kind of laptop, simply because it is much faster unless all you are doing is clicking links.
I would love to have the ability to code on a chrome OS netbook, ie superfast device and a cloud based compiler and dev tools but I expect that is a long long way off.
Just remember that the first Android phone wasn't all that at all, but has quickly matured into the powerhouse that it is now.
"Powerhouse"? Seriously?
Android is never going to be finished and never going to be as good as iOS. It's always going to be what it was actually designed as, which is a "good enough" copy/alternative to iOS.
Android is open source. Open source is "design by committee," and has all the inherent problems of that methodology (i.e. - crap design). It will end up the same as it's open source desktop cousin in the Linux family. Desktop Linux always was and always will be "almost there" in terms of having a finished working UI, and "just around the corner" from true popularity. It will never be popular with "regular" folks who aren't interested in getting involved in the coding process. The only folks that truly *love* Linux are those that contribute to it's creation, the average person doesn't give a crap about it or Android.
Android is the same but for mobile devices. It will have all the same problems and it will all end the same way. The only reason people are buying Android devices in droves right now is that they are being marketed to them in huge numbers, (and given away for free), but mainly because the excitement around the new emerging mobile platform is driving sales of all similar devices. It's the same as when the desktop came out. There were many, many contenders that rode the initial wave of device types, but the IBM compatible won out. There is a lot of excitement right now, and a lot of different competing devices, but at the end of the day there will be either a standard (or a couple of standards), and most of the devices coming out now will be history in a few short years.
Android will always be like OpenOffice (a bad copy of Office), or Linux (a bad copy of Unix/Apple/Windows). It can't be anything else as long as it's open source software, and the average person doesn't buy, like, need, or get anything out of open source junk.
Jobs is right but for the wrong reasons. The 7" tablet was a compromise. They brought out an iPad device with Android so not to make it look so bad as a 9" form factor would be. Samsung and the rest are really waiting for Chrome OS to come out then they'll abandon the 7" Android tablet market then. I pity the people that buy the Android tablets.
Yeah, 7" is probably about the maximum size the phone UI would not look totally stupid on, or maybe slightly larger than the maximum size. But, looking at what these things are selling for, I think it was also a cost based decision. 7" was probably the maximum size they could produce and be anywhere near the iPad price.
... Android is open source. Open source is "design by committee," and has all the inherent problems of that methodology (i.e. - crap design). ....
Android is really faux open source, with development tightly controlled inside Google. It's only open source in the sense that they can say, "Look, here's the code for the last version we released, for the non-proprietary, closed source parts, that is." The last part spoken in a quiet whisper.
The main problem is that Google doesn't seem to have anyone who knows anything, or even really cares, about UI design.
Jobs is right but for the wrong reasons. The 7" tablet was a compromise. They brought out an iPad device with Android so not to make it look so bad as a 9" form factor would be. Samsung and the rest are really waiting for Chrome OS to come out then they'll abandon the 7" Android tablet market then. I pity the people that buy the Android tablets.
I don't understand why it would be smarter to market a 9 inch Chrome device than a 9 inch Android device, assuming Google does what it says it will do: make a version of Android that supports the larger size.
On a netbook, for me it means what amounts to touch-up work.
No mobile device short of a 17" laptop is going to provide the screen real estate or horsepower to do serious web development.
But when I'm on the road with a netbook I'm not focusing on work anyway. Serious work is done on my 2400x1600 screen with an i7 driving it, and I do a fair amount on my 17" MBP, but the times I have my netbook with me are the times I get phone calls from clients who need some quick repair to something they've messed up at their site. The Atom processor is no i7, and the netbook screen is certainly much smaller than the one I use the most, but it's enough to let me dive in, made whatever changes are needed, and move on with my day.
And the iPad is "out" because of what you mentioned earlier: at the higher price, you would worry about it while on the go. Right? Also, perhaps it doesn't have the tools to do your "touch-up work"?
So long as I can write documents on a chrome OS netbook and touch type I will be happy. I also believe web browsing is better on any kind of laptop, simply because it is much faster unless all you are doing is clicking links.
I would love to have the ability to code on a chrome OS netbook, ie superfast device and a cloud based compiler and dev tools but I expect that is a long long way off.
OK, based upon your answer, it seems like it's mostly about having a real keyboard. So that leaves me with the question: why are you specifying "Chrome" over "Android" or "Windows" or whatever other OS's will certainly be available on devices that would fit your requirements.
I'm struggling to see what benefits "Chrome" is going to bring to the landscape. Can anyone enlighten me why the consumer needs yet another OS, and why manufacturers should promote it? Looking at tjw's response here, I presume it has something to do with Chrome being more conducive to a "superfast" device. Because it is lightweight (from code footprint standpoint)? Because it can leverage the cloud better than Android or iOS? Note that Apple has done a great job of building an ecosystem upon which applications can run across numerous devices (iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad). This is great for the user and the developer. By promoting Chrome along with Android, isn't Google failing to leverage a similar advantage?
Also, even if the dev tools and compiler reside in the cloud, the super small screen sizes of netbooks would drive me mad if I were doing actual development on them. Is this not something that would bother you, tjw?
A bit of both, plus it's a bear to type on - not just because of the virtual keyboard, but because its curved back makes it wobbly on a table, so the only halfway comfortable way to use it is in my lap.
MacRules, you absolutely MUST get the Apple case if you have an iPad. It not only protects the iPad, but it also addresses the concerns you put here and others you didn't: multiple configurations and orientations, and easier to grasp without slippage. Also, slim, lightweight, classy.
A colleague at work has explained to me his motivation behind wanting a "Chrome" netbook, and it goes something like this:
? He wants a real keyboard and a screen bigger than smartphones, and he wants it to be really inexpensive. That forces him to a netbook. He is OK with the small screen (barely).
? He has observed that current OS's seem to overburden the minimal hardware that comes with netbooks, and he thinks that Chrome will not.
That appears to be his complete motivation. It is driven by a requirement of real keyboard and low price, with some compromises made in order to have satisfactory (but not satisfying) performance. He has no desire to perform real content creation on it, and can't imagine how that would be satisfactory. (Nor can I.)
I also believe web browsing is better on any kind of laptop, simply because it is much faster unless all you are doing is clicking links.
I have an iPad (two actually) and a laptop. Nine times out of ten, when I am surfing the web, I actually prefer the iPad, because it's where I want to be and touch navigation is preferable to using a mouse (in my opinion). I suspect that would become ten out of ten if my laptop were a netbook with a cramped vertical viewing space.
Also, my iPad is wicked fast at web browsing. I guess that I don't understand what is "much faster" about web browsing on any kind of laptop.
Comments
Google basically shot themselves in the foot by choosing JAVA as a development platform for their phones and tablets!
Baaad decision!
Actually, no. Both from a business and technology perspective, a very good decision. The primary programing language for phones for most of this decade has been Java ME, so there is a very large pool of experienced developers knowledgeable about developing for a small screen, limited power device.
On the technology side, any decent JIT JVM with dynamic optimization can out perform a statically optimized "native" application. The reason that Java has been slow on phone devices is that no manufacturer has bothered to put a decent JVM into their devices - and from a business perspective under the carrier dominant model, that actually made sense. Google on the other hand does have a reason to build a better JVM, and is doing so (slowly - possibly in part due to patent issues).
(Please do not claim C is a better high level development language - it is basically a variation of the PDP 8 & 11 assembly language with some syntactic sugar. As such, it is a great low level language, but has no high level language constructs.)
But I thought Java was just one of many options for writing apps for Android, and that one can use C++ if they prefer, no?
Yes, you can write C/C++ for Android, but you'd need to compile and link against an NDK (native development kit), producing a binary that will only run on supported devices, and no NDK will support each and every Android device. You can't run armv7 code on older armv6 CPU's for example. The NDK would have to be compatible with the Android version running on the device as well, so if the vendor doesn't support it anymore, your application will be stuck at the last supported version. Last but not least all the Android SDK tooling is geared towards Java development, so writing C/C++ is a pretty rough ride. So in theory it's all possible but there will be all kinds of issues related to hardware compatibility, which is why a lot of professional game developers stay away from Android: too much effort, too many risks the investment won't pay off. I've evaluated Android as a target for a game I'm writing and even though I think I could easily get away just using Java, I decided not to risk wasting time on it only to find out the final product doesn't work quite like I intended it to, and/or doesn't sell because Android users appear to like free stuff a little too much.
Apple doesn't have this problem, because they are the only ones making hardware that runs iOS, they can ensure the devices are compatible and the development tools can target all of them without any effort from the developer (which is why iOS 3 introduced universal binaries to support armv6 and armv7 tuned code that runs on any device from the first iPhone to the iPhone 4 in the same binary, for example).
Well, yes, price has always been one of the main selling points of netbooks. Size and weight are some others.
However, I thought that the context of tjw's post was that he would consider a Chrome powered netbook for content production. To me, "content production" implies a significant amount of time either developing code or multimedia stuff, or both. Can one really do that to great effect on a little bitty screen and with a Web OS, which seems like it was designed for content consumption? That seems strange to me, but I don't really know much about netbooks or Chrome, hence the question. For your part, MacRulez, do you actually use that netbook for content production? And if so, what does that even mean to you?
Thompson
So long as I can write documents on a chrome OS netbook and touch type I will be happy. I also believe web browsing is better on any kind of laptop, simply because it is much faster unless all you are doing is clicking links.
I would love to have the ability to code on a chrome OS netbook, ie superfast device and a cloud based compiler and dev tools but I expect that is a long long way off.
Just remember that the first Android phone wasn't all that at all, but has quickly matured into the powerhouse that it is now.
"Powerhouse"? Seriously?
Android is never going to be finished and never going to be as good as iOS. It's always going to be what it was actually designed as, which is a "good enough" copy/alternative to iOS.
Android is open source. Open source is "design by committee," and has all the inherent problems of that methodology (i.e. - crap design). It will end up the same as it's open source desktop cousin in the Linux family. Desktop Linux always was and always will be "almost there" in terms of having a finished working UI, and "just around the corner" from true popularity. It will never be popular with "regular" folks who aren't interested in getting involved in the coding process. The only folks that truly *love* Linux are those that contribute to it's creation, the average person doesn't give a crap about it or Android.
Android is the same but for mobile devices. It will have all the same problems and it will all end the same way. The only reason people are buying Android devices in droves right now is that they are being marketed to them in huge numbers, (and given away for free), but mainly because the excitement around the new emerging mobile platform is driving sales of all similar devices. It's the same as when the desktop came out. There were many, many contenders that rode the initial wave of device types, but the IBM compatible won out. There is a lot of excitement right now, and a lot of different competing devices, but at the end of the day there will be either a standard (or a couple of standards), and most of the devices coming out now will be history in a few short years.
Android will always be like OpenOffice (a bad copy of Office), or Linux (a bad copy of Unix/Apple/Windows). It can't be anything else as long as it's open source software, and the average person doesn't buy, like, need, or get anything out of open source junk.
Jobs is right but for the wrong reasons. The 7" tablet was a compromise. They brought out an iPad device with Android so not to make it look so bad as a 9" form factor would be. Samsung and the rest are really waiting for Chrome OS to come out then they'll abandon the 7" Android tablet market then. I pity the people that buy the Android tablets.
Yeah, 7" is probably about the maximum size the phone UI would not look totally stupid on, or maybe slightly larger than the maximum size. But, looking at what these things are selling for, I think it was also a cost based decision. 7" was probably the maximum size they could produce and be anywhere near the iPad price.
... Android is open source. Open source is "design by committee," and has all the inherent problems of that methodology (i.e. - crap design). ....
Android is really faux open source, with development tightly controlled inside Google. It's only open source in the sense that they can say, "Look, here's the code for the last version we released, for the non-proprietary, closed source parts, that is." The last part spoken in a quiet whisper.
The main problem is that Google doesn't seem to have anyone who knows anything, or even really cares, about UI design.
Jobs is right but for the wrong reasons. The 7" tablet was a compromise. They brought out an iPad device with Android so not to make it look so bad as a 9" form factor would be. Samsung and the rest are really waiting for Chrome OS to come out then they'll abandon the 7" Android tablet market then. I pity the people that buy the Android tablets.
I don't understand why it would be smarter to market a 9 inch Chrome device than a 9 inch Android device, assuming Google does what it says it will do: make a version of Android that supports the larger size.
Thompson
On a netbook, for me it means what amounts to touch-up work.
No mobile device short of a 17" laptop is going to provide the screen real estate or horsepower to do serious web development.
But when I'm on the road with a netbook I'm not focusing on work anyway. Serious work is done on my 2400x1600 screen with an i7 driving it, and I do a fair amount on my 17" MBP, but the times I have my netbook with me are the times I get phone calls from clients who need some quick repair to something they've messed up at their site. The Atom processor is no i7, and the netbook screen is certainly much smaller than the one I use the most, but it's enough to let me dive in, made whatever changes are needed, and move on with my day.
And the iPad is "out" because of what you mentioned earlier: at the higher price, you would worry about it while on the go. Right? Also, perhaps it doesn't have the tools to do your "touch-up work"?
Thompson
So long as I can write documents on a chrome OS netbook and touch type I will be happy. I also believe web browsing is better on any kind of laptop, simply because it is much faster unless all you are doing is clicking links.
I would love to have the ability to code on a chrome OS netbook, ie superfast device and a cloud based compiler and dev tools but I expect that is a long long way off.
OK, based upon your answer, it seems like it's mostly about having a real keyboard. So that leaves me with the question: why are you specifying "Chrome" over "Android" or "Windows" or whatever other OS's will certainly be available on devices that would fit your requirements.
I'm struggling to see what benefits "Chrome" is going to bring to the landscape. Can anyone enlighten me why the consumer needs yet another OS, and why manufacturers should promote it? Looking at tjw's response here, I presume it has something to do with Chrome being more conducive to a "superfast" device. Because it is lightweight (from code footprint standpoint)? Because it can leverage the cloud better than Android or iOS? Note that Apple has done a great job of building an ecosystem upon which applications can run across numerous devices (iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad). This is great for the user and the developer. By promoting Chrome along with Android, isn't Google failing to leverage a similar advantage?
Also, even if the dev tools and compiler reside in the cloud, the super small screen sizes of netbooks would drive me mad if I were doing actual development on them. Is this not something that would bother you, tjw?
Thompson
A bit of both, plus it's a bear to type on - not just because of the virtual keyboard, but because its curved back makes it wobbly on a table, so the only halfway comfortable way to use it is in my lap.
MacRules, you absolutely MUST get the Apple case if you have an iPad. It not only protects the iPad, but it also addresses the concerns you put here and others you didn't: multiple configurations and orientations, and easier to grasp without slippage. Also, slim, lightweight, classy.
Thompson
... the super small screen sizes of netbooks would drive me mad if I were doing actual development on them. ...
Yeah, lack of vertical screen real estate is a real productivity killer when working on code.
? He wants a real keyboard and a screen bigger than smartphones, and he wants it to be really inexpensive. That forces him to a netbook. He is OK with the small screen (barely).
? He has observed that current OS's seem to overburden the minimal hardware that comes with netbooks, and he thinks that Chrome will not.
That appears to be his complete motivation. It is driven by a requirement of real keyboard and low price, with some compromises made in order to have satisfactory (but not satisfying) performance. He has no desire to perform real content creation on it, and can't imagine how that would be satisfactory. (Nor can I.)
Thompson
I also believe web browsing is better on any kind of laptop, simply because it is much faster unless all you are doing is clicking links.
I have an iPad (two actually) and a laptop. Nine times out of ten, when I am surfing the web, I actually prefer the iPad, because it's where I want to be and touch navigation is preferable to using a mouse (in my opinion). I suspect that would become ten out of ten if my laptop were a netbook with a cramped vertical viewing space.
Also, my iPad is wicked fast at web browsing. I guess that I don't understand what is "much faster" about web browsing on any kind of laptop.
Thompson