Google has given the world another peek at "Honeycomb", the next incarnation of Android designed specifically for tablets – such as the upcoming Motorola Xoom – and other devices with larger-than-handset screen sizes. In a blog post, head Android man Andy Rubin says that Honeycomb – aka Android 3.0 – will use a "truly virtual …
Nice to see..
Nice to see some funky videos of something that will definitely be available shortly rather than the usual shite vapourware that M$ keeps shovelling out.
It's about as funky as nails on a blackboard.
No wonder Apple have been lawyering-up so much lately.
The Exposé-"inspired" feature in particular looked practically identical to the GUI shown-off by Apple for their forthcoming OS X 10.7 ("Lion") release, and it isn't a million miles away from the one already in OS X 10.6 either.
I thought Microsoft were supposed to be the creatively bankrupt ones with a habit of photocopying the announcements of a certain, pomaceous, rival?
I shouldn't be so surprised, really. I've played with other Android devices, but it's nevertheless a shame to see a company capable of such genuine innovation stooping to such depths. I'd hoped for a genuine rival to iOS, but it appears we'll have to wait for ChromeOS to see what Google *really* thinks the future looks like.
I hope HP / Palm and Microsoft can keep plugging away at the market too. Both platforms have some intriguing design choices that are refreshingly different.
they are just paying homage to steve jobs manifesto
After all, he said good artists copy, great artists steal
What's the problem? Apple copied Xerox in the first place
Many readers are likely too young to remember that Apple knocked off Xerox Parc Research work years ago.
Since when has creating uniformity been an offence?
It's a good story. Unfortunately it's wrong.
According to the learned folks at Stanford University Apple did not knock off Xerox Parc Research work years ago.
Inspired by. Yes. But ripoff. No.
Unlike Google who did their best to make a carbon copy of iOS. All be it a bad, clunky, fragmented and insecure copy whose primary purpose is to act as spyware to promote their advertising business. It's a blatant copy non the less. One that would put the Chinese manufactures of fake Rolex watches to shame.
Apple put much more effort and innovation into developing the original Mac and the iPhone than Google ever did in developing Android. That work needs to be protected.
too young to remember ?
No, no, you meant to say "too young to know".
That little tidbit about Xerox is going straight to the "Obscure Origins Of Computer Things" history section.
Many readers may not know that Apple PAID Xerox for the information thanks to older fogies like you reiterating inaccurate information. Blame Xerox management for going against the wishes of their staff and letting SJ and his engineers have two detailed demos.
Apple had an agreement with Xerox, although much later Xerox sued Apple, but that was more than likely due to Xerox under-estimating how successful it would be and just wanted some cash:
Microsoft on the other hand just ripped it off and didn't have any agreement with anyone.
re: What's the problem? Apple copied Xerox in the first place
I know others have responded to this already, but it was known to Xerox PARC that Apple was accessing its research in order to work on a GUI - in return for this access, Apple gave it $1 million worth of pre-IPO Apple stock.
Also, there were quite a few differences between Xerox PARC's Smalltalk and Apple's user interface... here's what Bruce Horn (who worked on both) says:
"Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts: resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk accessories; and control panels, among others. The Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software. "
Although Xerox did attempt to sue Apple for infringing some copyrights that Xerox held over its own GUI – most of this was thrown out of court over the length of time that Xerox took to bring the case.
Xerox’s decision to bring the case was really down to the fact that Apple was attempting to sue Microsoft for the same thing – the reason being if Apple won, then it would be Xerox who would be the real winner.
"whose primary purpose is to act as spyware to promote their advertising business. "
As opposed to a bad, clunky, highly-vertical toy OS that doesn't do anything new, that was deliberately crippled for YEARS, and whose primary purpose is to corral you into a walled garden and THEN profile the shit out of you for the benefit of advertisers? Or do you think your favourite fruit-based company isn't trying hard to out-Google the Google right now? Or that Microsoft won't collate and share your information with their "partners", which effectively means everyone else on the planet? Do you think Apple doesn't want to be the next MicroBorg?
Get a grip. Get a life. Take a sledgehammer to your Mac.
"profile the shit out of you"
Yeah but who has the biggest incentive?
When all is said and done Apple/Microsoft make the bulk of their cash from flogging a combination of hardware and software. Google on the other-hand make the best part of their profits from ads.
Everyone wants to be King Borg but Google has far more incentive for intrusive profiling to achieve that goal than either Apple or Microsoft ever will.
Though it has been reported that Apple wants too much of the control over the campaign than the big advertisers want to give.
Clearly these words have changed their meaning since I last encountered them.
Quite agree. Unless of course Google has made a secret breakthrough with Honeycomb that they have not yet announced. Ie. That devices equipped with that os project a 3D picture in space in front of the equipment? No, like you, I am not holding my breath!
Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope
hope it runs on my advent vega...
Well that's a bloody awful presentation. Looks like really poor framerate bundled with god awful graphics (in both the presentation and on the device) and wtf is going on with that musak!? It's like something pulled from a 1980's commercial loops LP called "Abiance" or some such shite.
Oh wow look, book pages that turn. Gimme a break.
RE. Holographic title.
When producers proper holography make will punters interested be. Then the market will the Force feel.
Are false claims a sign of desperation?
A “…truly virtual and holographic user interface,” eh? So Google has some new laser display technology up their sleeves, given that holography relies on interference patterns from coherent light sources?
Apple's claims of “magical” are hard to refute logically, but this goes a step beyond, claiming a functionality that we may presume is utterly absent.
Raising Android Marketing to an Ever Higher level of BS.
Wow so much hate...
Personally I think it looked nice and I'd much rather put my ping toward something that wasn't 50% device and 50% royalties (or wank factor) that you get with Apple devices... So I get something that looks similar to an Uncle Steve device without being hog tied with restricted functionality... sounds like a whole bunch of win to me...
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200,000-ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad