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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
*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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
*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.
"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.
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).
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.
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
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
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a great point.
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?
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.
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.
*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"
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
the iPad... [is] just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.