The Google TV concept and software is fine - it really doesn't need Flash since the version 2.0 release - with Android app support - a couple of weeks ago . What it does need is more content providers. And decent hardware. I don't think there's any doubt that it will be built into Motorola's STBs next year.
When your remote looks like this, I hardly think your product can be considered "fine."
My new 2011 Charger came with its owner's manual on CD. It required AIR to view it, so I downloaded it. While viewing a STATIC page in the manual, AIR had one core of 8 running at 100%. Just to view text. So how is AIR any different than Flash? (And yes, I removed AIR and got a printed manual.)
Adobe hasn't really abandoned Flash - they've just abandoned development of the mobile Flash player. They intend to keep pushing their crappy technology as a development platform.
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me, so who are these 200,000 people that buy these things, and who are the handful of people that buy Android tablets without hardly any software? Are these cutting edge early adopters or people who just haven't the faintest idea what they are buying?
My local Staples still has a Playbook display, and it still has a printed notice warning customers that they will need to download the OS before they can use the Playbook.
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me, so who are these 200,000 people that buy these things, and who are the handful of people that buy Android tablets without hardly any software? Are these cutting edge early adopters or people who just haven't the faintest idea what they are buying?
Playbook buyers = Super hardcore Blackberry fans.
Android tablet buyers = Linux nerds, geeks in general (got root?), people who hate anything sporting an Apple logo.
As with nearly every other commenter who has shared their opinion on this, I am floored by RIM's decision. It signals a compete lack of vision and understanding about the future of the web.
Adobe's decision is another sign the that "post-pc era" is a real phenomenon, and that the future of online content consumption lies in "mobile" devices. By extension, online content creation will increasingly focused on those technologies that are supported by mobile browsers. This means it will be more efficient for web developers to avoid Flash altogether and create content that can be universally consumed. The "full web experience" of the near future will not include Flash. This is already happening. How did RIM miss it?
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me, so who are these 200,000 people that buy these things, and who are the handful of people that buy Android tablets without hardly any software? Are these cutting edge early adopters or people who just haven't the faintest idea what they are buying?
The only person I know who owns a Xoom said he "wanted to like Honeycomb", but he also owns an iPad and uses it more often than the Xoom, because it works better and is ultimately more useful. So, +1 for Apple. The irony is that, in January 2010, he swore up and down that the newly announced "giant iPod Touch" was doomed to FAIL. He's a typical tech type: he likes toys and he's got a bit of "spec whore" in him, (but I didn't get the impression that the Xoom was about specs or benchmarks for him), it was more about the ideological differences he has with Apple.
He gets extremely worked up about it, and he spouts things like, "I don't want Steve Jobs telling me what I can put on my tablet, blah blah," and he points to some case where some app was rejected from the App Store for what he claims are spurious reasons, ignoring the fact that a curated store strengthens the entire iOS ecosystem more than it's ocassional rejection of an app for spurious reasons weakens it. His claim at the time was that talented ISVs would abandon iOS because of App Store rejections, and that all that would be left would be a million get-rich-quick fart apps written by high schoolers or some hyperbolic claim.
But today he carries his iPad nearly everywhere and while I don't think he's spouting the same "down with central authority let's liberate the App Store from oppressors and bring forth the age of app anarchy" statements (especially after he found some really nice iPad apps), he still holds his ideological grudge against Apple Inc. But it's hard to hold ideological grudges against the iPad when it's clearly a better product and better user experience. FWIW.
Comments
It is sad to see a company like RIM in a death spiral...
...On the brighter side, they'll soon have the company down to a manageable size -- where 1 CEO can do the job
The Google TV concept and software is fine - it really doesn't need Flash since the version 2.0 release - with Android app support - a couple of weeks ago . What it does need is more content providers. And decent hardware. I don't think there's any doubt that it will be built into Motorola's STBs next year.
When your remote looks like this, I hardly think your product can be considered "fine."
My new 2011 Charger came with its owner's manual on CD. It required AIR to view it, so I downloaded it. While viewing a STATIC page in the manual, AIR had one core of 8 running at 100%. Just to view text. So how is AIR any different than Flash? (And yes, I removed AIR and got a printed manual.)
Adobe hasn't really abandoned Flash - they've just abandoned development of the mobile Flash player. They intend to keep pushing their crappy technology as a development platform.
What can possibly go wrong with that strategy? :-)
When your remote looks like this, I hardly think your product can be considered "fine."
Gotta love the colored buttons labeled with the name of the color.
Gotta love the colored buttons labeled with the name of the color.
For colorblind users.
Not that they've given any consideration to users with other disabilities, but hey.
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me, so who are these 200,000 people that buy these things, and who are the handful of people that buy Android tablets without hardly any software? Are these cutting edge early adopters or people who just haven't the faintest idea what they are buying?
Playbook buyers = Super hardcore Blackberry fans.
Android tablet buyers = Linux nerds, geeks in general (got root?), people who hate anything sporting an Apple logo.
The rest of the world uses iPads.
Then they can abandon (or sell if they find a sucker) the so-called consumer division and rake-in the profits from their core business.
Remember they are still selling a lot of phones and they have no debt !!
That's the only explanation that make sense in RIM's recent behavior !!
Adobe's decision is another sign the that "post-pc era" is a real phenomenon, and that the future of online content consumption lies in "mobile" devices. By extension, online content creation will increasingly focused on those technologies that are supported by mobile browsers. This means it will be more efficient for web developers to avoid Flash altogether and create content that can be universally consumed. The "full web experience" of the near future will not include Flash. This is already happening. How did RIM miss it?
It is sad to see a company like RIM in a death spiral...
...On the brighter side, they'll soon have the company down to a manageable size -- where 1 CEO can do the job
The next CEO of RIM will be a trustee in bankruptcy.
The 2 bozos running the company are just driving the price down so that early in 2012, they buy back ALL the shares and take RIM private.
Then they can abandon (or sell if they find a sucker) the so-called consumer division and rake-in the profits from their core business.
Remember they are still selling a lot of phones and they have no debt !!
That's the only explanation that make sense in RIM's recent behavior !!
At least your theory makes some sense. At this stage, that is RIM's only option.
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me, so who are these 200,000 people that buy these things, and who are the handful of people that buy Android tablets without hardly any software? Are these cutting edge early adopters or people who just haven't the faintest idea what they are buying?
The only person I know who owns a Xoom said he "wanted to like Honeycomb", but he also owns an iPad and uses it more often than the Xoom, because it works better and is ultimately more useful. So, +1 for Apple. The irony is that, in January 2010, he swore up and down that the newly announced "giant iPod Touch" was doomed to FAIL. He's a typical tech type: he likes toys and he's got a bit of "spec whore" in him, (but I didn't get the impression that the Xoom was about specs or benchmarks for him), it was more about the ideological differences he has with Apple.
He gets extremely worked up about it, and he spouts things like, "I don't want Steve Jobs telling me what I can put on my tablet, blah blah," and he points to some case where some app was rejected from the App Store for what he claims are spurious reasons, ignoring the fact that a curated store strengthens the entire iOS ecosystem more than it's ocassional rejection of an app for spurious reasons weakens it. His claim at the time was that talented ISVs would abandon iOS because of App Store rejections, and that all that would be left would be a million get-rich-quick fart apps written by high schoolers or some hyperbolic claim.
But today he carries his iPad nearly everywhere and while I don't think he's spouting the same "down with central authority let's liberate the App Store from oppressors and bring forth the age of app anarchy" statements (especially after he found some really nice iPad apps), he still holds his ideological grudge against Apple Inc. But it's hard to hold ideological grudges against the iPad when it's clearly a better product and better user experience. FWIW.