Posts by DrXym 5327 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jul 2007
Ebay is filled with items like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1G-MK802-Mini-PC-android4-0-Google-Tv-smart-Android-4-0-Box-allwinner-A10-Model-/271011214241?pt=US_Internet_Media_Streamers&hash=item3f1986f3a1
Bid at the low end and eventually you'll get one, or buy direct from Alibaba.com
You'd probably have to buy a usb hub and wifi dongle to use it (and mouse + keyboard) but then you have a perfectly adequate web browser.
You can do a lot better than the Raspberry Pi for 65 pounds. Type "android tv box" into Alibaba.com or Ebay.com and see the amount of Android based devices your money could buy. Most of these are built around the Allwinner A10 so they are hackable, and the CPU / RAM is more powerful than the Pi. They also sell with the case, remote and PSU.
Where the Pi has the advantage is it's a single platform which has gained a lot of interest from hobbyists. It means it might attract a critical mass of development which might permit XMBC or similar to work quite well as a dedicated media player. There are DLNA players for android and VLC like media players but I doubt the experience is quite so seamless.
What's up with Samsung and ripping off Apple designs? There are a multitude of shapes their devices could take, so it's mysterious how often they come to resemble rival companies' designs.
As for chrome OS, Google ffs just dump this thing and fold the best things into Android.
What sort of people want free broadband with such horrible terms. Freeloaders, the unemployed and foreigners. I don't see any of those being lucrative to advertisers. Aside from that, forcing people to watch ads to use broadband is self defeating. People will simply the device upside down, the volume down, develop tools to defeat the advertising, or develop browsing strategies to minimize interference (e.g. open multiple tabs so the advertising tab can be ignored until it is finished). And when that happens an arms race will begin, advertising rates will plummet and the whole scheme will collapse. It's a waste of time.
"Read an interesting reason to exclude it was that by having it there, it opens them up to MS knocking on their door asking for royalties for FAT, something the Nook fell foul of. Not having that in reduces costs a fraction, gets people going for the bigger tablet, and stuffs MS asking for cash. It's a pain it's not there, but with that point, understandable."
It's a fair point but if the Nexus 7 supports mass storage through USB host mode I don't see how they would be avoiding a patent by excluding SD. The device would still be capable of reading and writing FAT and possibly NTFS files.
I still believe it's a cynical attempt to "sell up" to people - to advertise that the Nexus 7 is $199 while ensuring that most people end up spending $249 to get a model with acceptable storage. I just hope by seeding the market like this that we start seeing other tablets come along which offer those things.
"I'm sure the quad core CPU, GPU and screen in your el cheapo tablet are entirely equivlent, too, giving an almost identical Bill Of Materials."
I wasn't comparing the performance of the devices just the fact that a really cheap tablet can manage to include an SD slot. The only reason I can think of for Google excluding a slot is so they can rip people off for another $49 to get more memory but it's not an acceptable one from a consumer standpoint and they should be called out for it.
I don't personally like things about the tablet but I think it will offer a superlative experience within its limitations and at a price which is pretty compelling.
Whether it sells well or not is up to Google. Previously they've sold hardware through crappy website which were hard to find and actively discouraged buyers by telling people to get lost if they were outside the sales region.
If they want to sell the device in large quantities they'll have to sell through retail chains like Tesco. It has the qualities that would make it a great impulse buy but it needs to be seen in order to do this.
It's a nice looking tablet. It's just too bad Google cynically omitted a SD slot card so people who want more memory are compelled to pay a ludicrous $49 or more to get it. $49 for an extra 8GB is taking the piss.
Even my el-cheapo Chinese tablet manages to include an SD slot, and a mini HDMI port in a tablet selling for $55 wholesale. If they can do it then there really is no excuse for Google or any other brand from deliberately excluding these ports for something costing a lot more money.
So while I think the tablet looks excellent in other regards, the base model's poor 8GB storage , lack of expansion and lack of HDMI just sours the experience.
I have two 7" tablets. A really cheap (but not too nasty) Android tablet and a Playbook. I think the form factor is really quite good for casual browsing. I'm not sure I'd want to be hammering out a message without the aid of a physical keyboard with these devices, but they're good enough for browsing and games. The Playbook in particular has an excellent screen and speakers so it's just a shame it's running an OS that is on life support.
I can't think of any reason for anyone in the UK to buy a Kindle Fire when there is a more open, faster device at the same price point. Most of Amazon's apps and their app store are available for other Android devices.
I suppose if you used their video streaming it might not be so simple but that reason barely applies in the UK.
"What aids usability the most is not changing the UI."
With that attitude we'd all be using punched cards. The assumption that what is there now is perfect in every way and cannot be done better is always wrong. Even a "usable" UI can be improved. e.g. making the UI more discoverable, giving frequently used functionality greater prominence, adding new functionality which replaces previously cumbersome tasks, and aligning the UI to the tasks people use it for.
This can be seen in the evolution of the Windows task bar and start menu. Every release has added substantially to the behaviour of these key components. e.g. the task bar now lets apps be pinned to it so it doubles up as a launcher. It also shows thumbnails of running apps which can prove useful at times. The start menu tries to show apps that were used recently and does away with the hideous cascade of popup menus that users needed to navigate through in older versions to launch.
Not changing the UI or claiming it's usable is a cop out. If you don't want the UI to change, don't upgrade your OS.
Now onto Metro. The issue I have with Metro is not that it has changed. I couldn't care less if my launcher was tiles or a start menu providing that the tiles were functionally rich and useful as what it replaces. But it isn't. Metro doesn't do folders so it is kludged to hides icons for readmes, help, uninstallers etc., and to dump the rest of the icons in some linear tile arrangement that spans out horizontally over several virtual screens, losing all order in the process. And the tiles are massive making it a pain in the arse to use with a mouse. It's simply not designed to work with a desktop environment.
Some simple things could improve the experience immeasurably:
1. Implement tile folders and use for existing program folders. There really is no excuse for this omission even now.
2. Let users zoom in or out of metro to pack more tiles into their screen real estate.
3. Provide sort and multi select functionality so groups can be ordered around
4. Provide a compact mode which either overlays the screen so users don't lose context whenever they open a window
I expect that someone in MS land has plans to make it usable in Windows 9 but that is cold comfort for this release. Metro sucks.
The iPad is an extension of the iPhone which is an extension of the iPod. I think the danger of confusion in people's minds is quite low since there was never any believe that they were derived from the Mac.
When someone sees a Windows tablet, one launched at the same time as some other Windows tablet there is obviously going to be huge scope for confusion over compatibility between these devices and backwards compatibility between previous versions of Windows. Windows "RT" is an utterly meaningless distinction and its bound to cause confusion.
I think Microsoft are right to redesign their UI if it aids usability and makes their product more discoverable and accessible. Providing that it is functionally equivalent to what it replaces. I don't think that to be the case with Metro at all. It's a horrible replacement for the start menu in its current form.
Metro is primarily designed for touch users with enormous icons for people to stab at with their fat fingers and little concern of how it functions with a mouse and keyboard. This is quite obvious just from using W8 for even a short period of time. So yeah Windows 8 can be used on the desktop but the experience is breathtakingly awful. I don't see Windows 8 being popular with business or personal users.
It's also worth remembering that devices sold as Windows RT aren't really Windows 8 at all. They're gimped subsets of Windows that host a metro shell and other core bits. They lack a "classic" desktop and due to their different processor instruction set are totally incompatible with x86 apps even if they had one.
I think there will be a lot of pissed off people who buy "Windows" tablets and discover they are nothing of the sort.
I visited one in San Francisco in a place called the Metreon. It didn't do very well. I expect if they launch more stores they'll probably be an Apple Store ripoff. I have to wonder if they have enough products to actually fill it and do so in a coherent way. Or whether the custom is even there to support a store which is likely to command high premiums versus all the online sites you can buy stuff. Microsoft doesn't control the retail channels as tightly as Apple so they can't stop themselves from being undercut for most of the stuff they'd sell.
Are just begging for a reasonably open two way, OS agnostic, low power protocol over bluetooth which allows a device such as a watch, remote control, car dash etc. be able to display an interface to an app running remotely somewhere else.
Watches are just one niche example. Smart remotes are where the action is. Imagine a remote control which shows a mini EPG, or shows you a chapter selection from a DVD, or lets you turn your thermostat down. Car dashboards could benefit too (safety permitting) by allowing users to see their contacts, view maps, or other apps which operate remotely that run on their phones.
Porting to Android would at least relieve them of a gatekeeper arbitrarily delisting the app regardless of the legal merits of a lawsuit and being left with no other avenues of sale.
Even if they ported to Android and Google took a similar course, it would not prevent them from hosting and selling the app from their own website if they so wished.
Anthropology studies have been using a similar arrangement for decades for testing chimp / gorilla languages.
e.g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM7vTrIIis
I really don't see what is novel or patentable about a picture representing a word regardless of it being in a book, on a computer screen or a tablet.
Perhaps the issue is deeper than that but knowing the absurdity of the US patent system I doubt it.
I apply the same criteria regardless of the topic, and in the context of the place in which it is being said. As I'm quite aware Slashdot contains trolls and I suggested that is one possibility. However I don't think so in this case.
As for pro-Google / pro-Apple comments, I think in both cases it comes down to both companies fostering genuine support far more than Microsoft ever did. They have fanboys in other words. I'm favourable to Google myself but I don't find myself holding back when I'm slagging them off for something I really don't like such as ChromeOS, Wave or various other things.
Uncritical adoration of any company isn't as bad as astroturfing but it's not rational either.
I'm not talking of people defending Microsoft as part of their held opinion. I am talking about astroturfers who by definition are professional liars, who hold no opinion that they are not paid to hold. I don't call people shills or astroturfers and I'm not paranoid to think they're lurking in every thread.
However the number of posters on Slashdot of late who have low, throwaway histories who have only positive things to say about Microsoft products IS suspicious. It's reasonable to believe they are either astroturfers or trolls posing as astroturfers. Personally I think they are genuine astroturfers given recent launches by Nokia and the build up to Windows 8.
It's certainly not hard to find other people voicing suspicious about astroturfers. Look at this one about Amazon reviews for the Lumia 900 for example.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/7/3004523/beat-em-up-astroturfing-or-fanaticism-with-lumia-900-reviews
I think there is a bit of that going on. Slashdot has been infected by a number of new users who leap on any Nokia and Microsoft article with unusually positive things to say. So much so they're getting called out for it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's going on elsewhere.
I wonder how customers will feel when they discover their $600 Windows tablet doesn't even run Windows software. I see more appeal in the more expensive actual Windows 8 version but then again for that price (which almost certainly does not include the keyboard), the question is why not just buy an ultrabook.
"My 7inch tablet has been everywhere with me, it's been up mountains, kayaking, cycling, golfing and done lots of kms in the car. Yes 3G and GPS were an absolute requirement"
Then you're in a tiny minority. Anyone who wanted those things probably already has a smart phone that would provide them. 3G is available with mifi devices too and for much cheaper than tablets that bundle the 3G modem. Some tablets even support 3G dongles in USB master mode.
Capacitive, 1GB RAM, 8GB flash, 1.2ghz ARM, 7" display, HDMI output, USB, SD micro, VGA camera - £57 plus postage. The screen is a fairly crappy 800x400 resolution affair and the flash is a bit slow but for the price I can't complain and works well enough with most apps. I was able to flash it with a custom rom which so far is working admirably.
I would therefore expect that a branded tablet using higher grade components could comfortably sell for $200 or less.
GPS is largely irrelevant in a tablet since they are used almost exclusively indoors. 3G is largely irrelevant too because most people will use them with wifi and if they needed 3G could turn their phone into a portable hotspot, or buy a mifi device and probably for less than integrated 3G.
It will have to offer USB in some form even if its through an adapter. More serious is lack of micro SD if it lacks one of those. I think it's incredibly cynical to charge $49 extra for a poxy 8GB extra RAM.
Two dozen streaming / download platforms all implementing their own proprietary DRMs, all with proprietary software / apps, all with a subset of all available content and a mess of rights which allow them to stream or not stream certain content.
While ultraviolet may be seriously flawed in some ways at least it's a standard with fairly wide industry support.
My main issue with it is by its very existence it demonstrates that it is possible to impose the concept of property and ownership onto digital content through a vendor neutral. But it does not enforce those concepts and content owners are free to impose any sort of odious terms and limits on the content. I think digital property should come with the same rights as physical property. That necessitates a platform neutral DRM (similar to Ultraviolet) but it should not be one which prevents users from selling, loaning, donating or even disposing their content in any way they that the law provides for physical content.
"Rubin's quote says nothing about Java code, it is referring to Java the programming language. Google did not want the Java VM because it is not suited for mobile devices - fact."
Java VM has run on mobile devices and has done so for a long time. So it's emminently suited but it's age is part of the problem. J2ME (the VM in question) has barely changed in all the last decade and programming is an exercise in pain and suffering. Imagine programming Java 1.3 with an extremely subset of the Java APIs and that's J2ME.
If Sun / Oracle had continuously revamped J2ME and kept it up to date with J2SE / EE and had built out a bunch of OS service interfaces then there would have been no need for Google to do what they do. My feeling is that Google took one look at the mess that was J2ME and instantly decided they could and had to do better to stand any chance of pulling off a smart phone. There is actually a J2ME framework for Android developed by a 3rd party though I don't know what use it would be.
JavaFX is a scripting language that sits on top of Java. Dalvik can host Groovy, Scala etc. so it could probably host JavaFX.
The reason Google might see merit in it is because it's a very good language for writing graphical apps. Think along the lines of Flash but integrated with Java. It would serve an important role for producing widgets and apps like Currents when you want a slick UI but programming that slick UI with Android's layout model, or in Open would be a pain in the arse to say the least.
Anyway it's all academic. Google would probably piss themselves with laughter if Oracle tried to strike a deal now.
Google didn't sign a contract with Oracle, didn't pass off Android as Java, didn't use any Sun / Oracle code aside from one small snippet and didn't infringe on any patents of note (certainly not tried in a court).
It amazes me it was taken this far. I think it would have been more productive for Oracle to work with Google, to cross licence stuff such as folding Dalvik work back into J2ME in exchange for JavaFX going into Android and so on. That might have worked out quite favourably for everyone concerned. As it is Oracle gets nothing but a large legal bill and Android steamrollers on.
"What's the developer making on the normal Android market place?"
70% after tax. Furthermore it's 70% of the price the developer sets. So you charge a quid, 58p goes to you, 25p to Google and the other 17p to the taxman.
Amazon's terms mean they can discount your app to any amount they like and give you anywhere between 70% of the sale price or 20% of the list price, whichever is greater. It means your £1 app might sell for 50p and you only see half the profits. You can't even jack up the list price to compensate for this.
On top of that Amazon charge $100 anually to be their developer program vs the $25 lifetime registration for Google marketplace.
So it's really not a good deal unless you know for certain you'll sell thousands of apps to cover the costs.
The victims of these scams are idiots but they're still victims. These scammers are parasites and criminals that deserve to feel the force of the law. In many instances operate from jurisdictions outside of Nigeria where more could be done to catch and prosecute them.
And you're bound to find some idiots. I don't think there is anything sophisticated about Nigerian scams. They're just applying a tried and tested scam over and over again because they know that if you sample enough people you will find someone dumb enough to fall for it. Meanwhile other scammers are selling penis enlargers, fake rolexes, pump and dump stocks and all the rest on a similar principle.
"Neither of these countries would ever extradite if there was a remote possibility of capital punishment. And none of them has been asked to either so it's all academic."
As I said I don't think he would be up for the death sentence, but it wouldn't stop the US trying with a non-capital charge which instead would see him locked away forever. Either way, if it was me facing the risk I'd do everything in my power to avoid it too.
The fear is that if he sets foot in Sweden that it is far easier to extradite him the US where potentially he could be looking a death sentence. I doubt he would be facing a death sentence but he could still be looking at life in jail. I think anyone faced with that possibility would try every trick in the book to avoid ending up in Sweden regardless of their innocence or not.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
