Google's Android dominates the phone and tablet market worldwide, with over 80% marketshare. But Google seems to have been loathe to encourage use of the Android OS on a laptop or PC. I've never really understood this.
Instead, Google has been pushing Chromebooks. These are typically cheap laptops that require very undemanding hardware specs. Chromebooks runs on Chrome OS, which is essentially the bootable Chrome browser and little else. You cannot install much of anything on the laptop locally, which has only a tiny hard drive where not much of anything can be stored. The idea is that everything is in the cloud and there is no need for local storage.
Despite low prices, Chromebooks have met with only limited success. There are times when people need to work offline or do other things that cannot be done on Chrome. Therefore the laptop can be of extremely limited use. If low cost is the issue, one is probably better off with a used ten year old Windows XP laptop than a new Chromebook. Even an ancient Windows computer can install the Chrome Browser and access your online resources. In addition, it has the ability to run local programs and store files locally.
Google seems to have been hedging its bets. It has used Chromebook as a way of trying to drive users to the cloud, making the Chrome browser the gateway to all computer use. At the same time, the Android OS for phones and tablets used the App based approach. Most of what you wanted to do was not handled through a browser, but rather through dedicated apps designed for a specific purpose. Many of these apps would work offline, so a user had some functionality even when away from an Internet connection.
The market seems to have spoken clearly on this one. Chromebook sales are going to be a little over 7 million this year, while Android is on over 1 billion devices. Android, which contains a Chrome browser by default, can do pretty much everything a Chromebook can do. But a Chromebook is not capable of letting users run all the apps available on Android.
Rumors are that Google is looking to phase out Chromebook and adapt Android for better functionality on devices with a larger screen and keyboard, i.e. laptops and possibly even desktop PCs. This makes sense to me. I guess I don't understand what Chrome OS offers that Android does not. Sure, Android is not a full service OS like MS Windows, but neither is Chrome OS. Both of these products are designed for people who are willing to accept less functionality from an OS but who benefit from its lower hardware demands and the ability to operate faster with less computing power behind it.
By doing away with Chrome OS and making an adapted version of Android that looks better on a larger screen and works well with a traditional keyboard, Google should be able to combine these two separate tracks into one good OS that works well on phones, tablets, and computers - something Microsoft has been trying to do unsuccessfully for years.
Showing posts with label Android. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Android. Show all posts
Friday, November 27, 2015
Monday, May 19, 2014
Why do Apple and Google hate flash memory cards?
My kids got iPad minis for Christmas. Although I am firmly a fan of Android tablets, I bowed to their wishes based on the old standard argument that "all of their friends have them." To some extent, that argument carries more weight in this context since collaboration, use of the same apps and games often requires being on the same platform.
My experience with Apple in this limited context has only reaffirmed my wish to stay as far away from Apple as possible. All the accessories are overpriced. Repairs (one cracked his screen already) are impossible. Access to many very cool, innovative, and free apps seems much more limited. Also, the Apple "Geniuses" at the Apple store have not lived up to their name.
But one frustrating limitation of the iPad that annoys me most is the lack of a micro SD port. This omission makes it impossible to add additional storage space to your device. You re stuck with the limited amount of space you purchased with your device.
One might expect this sort of thing from Apple, since the company has always been averse to including any technology which Apple did not develop and does not control. It also does not like the possibility that owners might find a way to use the device that Apple did not anticipate. It's just Apple being Apple.
But I am also bothered by Google's refusal to include a Micro SD reader on its Nexus tablets. Google seems to be drifting from its traditional view of "make something the consumers will love" following the trend of Apple, to "make something which customers will accept but which benefits us more."
Both Apple and Google's refusal to include Micro SD creates real problems for users. It makes it much harder to transfer files between the tablet and other devices. It makes it much harder to recover important documents, pictures, music, etc. if the device fails. It limits users' ability to carry around media with them for offline use.
Similarly, the failure to have a full size USB port on the device which would allow for the easy connection of flash drives causes the same limitations. I'm not sure why some industrious manufacturer hasn't developed a flash drive with a micro USB interface to get around this problem. Update: Kingston has a solution to this with its Microduo line.
There are some ways around this, at least with Android. You can connect your tablet directly to your computer using a USB cable for transfers and backups. But it still doesn't help with carrying around extra data.
All of these limitations benefit Apple and now Google's apparent strategy to keep everyone connected to the Internet all the time. This allows both companies to track how customers use their devices and to gather more data on usage. It also keeps the user inside the company's sphere of influence, making them more dependent on the company's services for online storage, online documents, online backup, etc. If a user is working happily offline it is almost seen by the manufacturer as a failure. Further, it forces users to pay more for devices that have more base memory, which are sold at a huge profit by the manufacturers.
Fortunately, most third party manufacturers who build Google products included the Micro SD reader. This is the number one reason I am using them rather than the Nexus. I will continue to stay as far away from Apple as possible.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
iPad 3 - Disappointing
Apple announced its latest iPad yesterday. Many are singing its praises, but I continue to be disappointed.
The biggest new feature on the new device (Apple doesn't officially call it the iPad 3, but also does not give it any distinctive name to distinguish it from the last two) is the HD screen. Perhaps it sounds good, but was anyone really complaining about the graphics quality on the old iPads? Of course not. HD makes a difference when watching a movie or playing a video game on a 50" TV, but not on a less than 10" screen like the iPad. That extra detail is pretty much wasted. In exchange, we are stuck with a heavier device that demands more battery power.
The other big "improvement" is 4G support. This allows for faster download times for people who pay for 4G internet access from one of the big cell phone companies. Of course, such service is expensive. If you are really planning on making full use of streaming over a cell network, you will end up using many GB of data per month, leading to bills from your cell provider that could top $100 in charges on top of your normal cell phone charges. That is assuming you even travel in an area that has 4G. Most places don't. And many places that have 4G also have metro-wifi available anyway, which is faster and much cheaper, if not free. So what do most people get for 4G access? Well, your battery will drain about 10% faster.
Still missing from the iPad are any USB ports or ports for adding external memory. This makes it virtually impossible to add to the limited memory provided. It also makes it virtually impossible to add or remove photos, songs, or anything else unless you use the wireless connection. You also get no HDMI port so you cannot connect to your TV, where the HD might actually be useful. (Apparently, you can buy cables that convert the iPad's proprietary ports for use with other devices, but these are needlessly expensive - with the extra cost based on the fact that they are proprietary and not subject to competition).
Also still missing is flash support. Although I've never been a big fan of flash either, many web sites use it and rely on it. If you want to use any of those sites, your only choice is to dump your iPad and break out your laptop.
Why is Apple so hostile to interoperability? The main answer is that Apple wants you to use the device only they way they want. Apple has decided the best way to control media is to force you to stream it over the Internet. By limiting device memory and refusing to add input ports, it becomes very inconvenient for a user simply to store media on the device and view or listen to it even when not connected to the Web. That is the most cost effective way to use the device since you avoid paying expensive download fees to your cell phone provider. It is also usually the most convenient since wireless streaming viewers will tell you that they face regular interruptions caused by slow downs or interruptions in Internet access. The 4G technology attempts to address this but will prove inadequate as access is limited, and where available will likely be overwhelmed.
Having said all this, I am sure many people will enjoy the new iPad. Apple's reputation for making the user interface easy and bug free still gives it great appeal to many people who are willing to pay for that experience. But for me? I remain much happier with my year old Android Tablet from Toshiba.
The biggest new feature on the new device (Apple doesn't officially call it the iPad 3, but also does not give it any distinctive name to distinguish it from the last two) is the HD screen. Perhaps it sounds good, but was anyone really complaining about the graphics quality on the old iPads? Of course not. HD makes a difference when watching a movie or playing a video game on a 50" TV, but not on a less than 10" screen like the iPad. That extra detail is pretty much wasted. In exchange, we are stuck with a heavier device that demands more battery power.
The other big "improvement" is 4G support. This allows for faster download times for people who pay for 4G internet access from one of the big cell phone companies. Of course, such service is expensive. If you are really planning on making full use of streaming over a cell network, you will end up using many GB of data per month, leading to bills from your cell provider that could top $100 in charges on top of your normal cell phone charges. That is assuming you even travel in an area that has 4G. Most places don't. And many places that have 4G also have metro-wifi available anyway, which is faster and much cheaper, if not free. So what do most people get for 4G access? Well, your battery will drain about 10% faster.
Still missing from the iPad are any USB ports or ports for adding external memory. This makes it virtually impossible to add to the limited memory provided. It also makes it virtually impossible to add or remove photos, songs, or anything else unless you use the wireless connection. You also get no HDMI port so you cannot connect to your TV, where the HD might actually be useful. (Apparently, you can buy cables that convert the iPad's proprietary ports for use with other devices, but these are needlessly expensive - with the extra cost based on the fact that they are proprietary and not subject to competition).
Also still missing is flash support. Although I've never been a big fan of flash either, many web sites use it and rely on it. If you want to use any of those sites, your only choice is to dump your iPad and break out your laptop.
Why is Apple so hostile to interoperability? The main answer is that Apple wants you to use the device only they way they want. Apple has decided the best way to control media is to force you to stream it over the Internet. By limiting device memory and refusing to add input ports, it becomes very inconvenient for a user simply to store media on the device and view or listen to it even when not connected to the Web. That is the most cost effective way to use the device since you avoid paying expensive download fees to your cell phone provider. It is also usually the most convenient since wireless streaming viewers will tell you that they face regular interruptions caused by slow downs or interruptions in Internet access. The 4G technology attempts to address this but will prove inadequate as access is limited, and where available will likely be overwhelmed.
Having said all this, I am sure many people will enjoy the new iPad. Apple's reputation for making the user interface easy and bug free still gives it great appeal to many people who are willing to pay for that experience. But for me? I remain much happier with my year old Android Tablet from Toshiba.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Do Not Buy a Tablet Now
The iPad has remained the dominant tablet for almost a year now. There had been tablets in past years, but the iPad's user interface made it the cool product of 2010. Personally, I think the iPad holds little benefit over a netbook, and has the big negative of not having a keyboard. But I can certainly see why the large screen like a computer, combined with the highly nimble and responsive screen of a smart phone, has captured the imagination of the masses.
That said, I still think the iPad is doomed to fall to a niche portion of the tablet market over the next few years, much like the Mac computer did in an earlier generation. The number one reason for this is Apple's greed. Apple has near total market share right now because it is the only game in town. The company is to be commended for bringing a great program to market that had no equal. But that cannot last. As dozens of competitors seek to take on Apple in the Tablet arena, there are plenty of weak spots for them to attack.
Number one is the price: at around $500-800 depending on the model, the iPad can cost twice what a decent low end netbook costs. This is probably justified given the cool OS and new features. But competitors will soon match those features and sell a similar product for half the price. Apple could engage in a price war, but if past practice is any guide, it will not. Apple will come out with cool new features and offer an iPad 2 at a similar cost. Competitors will offer better deals and pick up more market share, much like Microsoft did in the PC market of the 1980's.
Apple is going to keep its prices for the device high, meaning that many people will not want to go in that direction. In addition, Apple is proving equally greedy in its App Store. It's 30% commission is far higher than the market will bear for very long. It if it wants to make its money on Apps, it should sell the iPad for half the price as a loss leader. If it did that now, it would gut the competition and make itself the market leader for years to come. But trying to make so much money on both the front end and back end is simply not sustainable over the long term. Eventually, other App stores will take a majority of the market, offer better terms to developers, and win the sales war.
Similarly, Apple refuses to share the wealth with other companies. Its refusal to support Flash, or to provide ports on the iPad to let third parties add their own creativity and imagination to the product will stifle its uses. Many users will find the iPad limiting. Apple tries to control how its device is used, rather than leaving that up to the user. That is a major mistake.
So who will emerge the winner? Probably not other players like Blackberry or HP with its WebOS. They are late arriving to the market, unwilling to make serious price concessions, and unable to develop the large App selection needed to build critical mass. They may be very nice products, but that is not enough. Anyone remember the Amiga PC of the 1980's? It was an amazing computer for its time, with many very cool features far ahead of anything else available at the time. But its high price and the inability to build sufficient market share to encourage software developers to build a large stable of programs sealed its fate. Instead, the far less evolved but cheaper and more widely available MS-DOS took over the PC world.
So who will be in the position to be the next Microsoft? Certainly not Microsoft, which has not developed a truly ground breaking program since it introduced MS-Office a couple of decades ago. To me, the winnner appears to be Google. The Android OS, with the Honeycomb version being developed for tablets, looks to be the favorite. Just like MS-DOS in the PC world of the 1980's, Android is a widely available and cheap OS for developers of phones and tablets. It is a high quality OS with enough flexibility to let third parties develop and create new and innovative ways to use it. It is available to a wide number of hardware developers, meaning it will much more easily push its way into a large market share, thus encouraging more App developers, which only continues the cycle up to market domination. The fact that App developers are not shaken down for as much money as possible will also earn Android good will and devoted supporters in the developer community.
This leads me to the title of this piece. Do not by any tablet now. If you wanted to be an early adopter of the iPad, you should have bought six months ago. At this point, you should wait for the iPad 2 to be released in April. Even if the iPad original is all you need, the prices on that will drop considerably as soon as the iPad 2 hits the market.
If you are considering any other tablet, there is not much out there. Google's Honeycomb, Blackberry's Playbook and HP's WebOS are all still months away from release. When they are first released, you will likely see more bugs in first releases than we saw with the iPad. Apple is one of the best in beta testing and getting rid of glitches before going to market, despite its other faults. I would say Christmas 2011 is probably the earliest to consider such a purchase.
If you are concerned about getting value, you will probably have to wait until well into 2012 or even 2013 before the "bleeding edge" pricing goes away and competition forces tablets down into the sub $300 or even $200 level.
If you want something right now that is cheap, reliable and that is small and easy to carry around, buy a netbook. You can get a pretty good one for around $250. It will have a screen as big as the iPad, an OS as good as any PC, and it will even have a keyboard to make writing much easier.
Ten years from now, we will look at an $800 tablet the way we look at the $5000 PCs or $1000 CD players that were sold in the 1980's. A device made in 2021 will be much cheaper (probably under $150 in today's dollars) and will do much more. Sure, most of us won't wait until then since life is short and we want to enjoy the latest technologies now. But the next two years will see the largest decreases in price and the highest growth in improvements. Patience is well worth it.
That said, I still think the iPad is doomed to fall to a niche portion of the tablet market over the next few years, much like the Mac computer did in an earlier generation. The number one reason for this is Apple's greed. Apple has near total market share right now because it is the only game in town. The company is to be commended for bringing a great program to market that had no equal. But that cannot last. As dozens of competitors seek to take on Apple in the Tablet arena, there are plenty of weak spots for them to attack.
Number one is the price: at around $500-800 depending on the model, the iPad can cost twice what a decent low end netbook costs. This is probably justified given the cool OS and new features. But competitors will soon match those features and sell a similar product for half the price. Apple could engage in a price war, but if past practice is any guide, it will not. Apple will come out with cool new features and offer an iPad 2 at a similar cost. Competitors will offer better deals and pick up more market share, much like Microsoft did in the PC market of the 1980's.
Apple is going to keep its prices for the device high, meaning that many people will not want to go in that direction. In addition, Apple is proving equally greedy in its App Store. It's 30% commission is far higher than the market will bear for very long. It if it wants to make its money on Apps, it should sell the iPad for half the price as a loss leader. If it did that now, it would gut the competition and make itself the market leader for years to come. But trying to make so much money on both the front end and back end is simply not sustainable over the long term. Eventually, other App stores will take a majority of the market, offer better terms to developers, and win the sales war.
Similarly, Apple refuses to share the wealth with other companies. Its refusal to support Flash, or to provide ports on the iPad to let third parties add their own creativity and imagination to the product will stifle its uses. Many users will find the iPad limiting. Apple tries to control how its device is used, rather than leaving that up to the user. That is a major mistake.
So who will emerge the winner? Probably not other players like Blackberry or HP with its WebOS. They are late arriving to the market, unwilling to make serious price concessions, and unable to develop the large App selection needed to build critical mass. They may be very nice products, but that is not enough. Anyone remember the Amiga PC of the 1980's? It was an amazing computer for its time, with many very cool features far ahead of anything else available at the time. But its high price and the inability to build sufficient market share to encourage software developers to build a large stable of programs sealed its fate. Instead, the far less evolved but cheaper and more widely available MS-DOS took over the PC world.
So who will be in the position to be the next Microsoft? Certainly not Microsoft, which has not developed a truly ground breaking program since it introduced MS-Office a couple of decades ago. To me, the winnner appears to be Google. The Android OS, with the Honeycomb version being developed for tablets, looks to be the favorite. Just like MS-DOS in the PC world of the 1980's, Android is a widely available and cheap OS for developers of phones and tablets. It is a high quality OS with enough flexibility to let third parties develop and create new and innovative ways to use it. It is available to a wide number of hardware developers, meaning it will much more easily push its way into a large market share, thus encouraging more App developers, which only continues the cycle up to market domination. The fact that App developers are not shaken down for as much money as possible will also earn Android good will and devoted supporters in the developer community.
This leads me to the title of this piece. Do not by any tablet now. If you wanted to be an early adopter of the iPad, you should have bought six months ago. At this point, you should wait for the iPad 2 to be released in April. Even if the iPad original is all you need, the prices on that will drop considerably as soon as the iPad 2 hits the market.
If you are considering any other tablet, there is not much out there. Google's Honeycomb, Blackberry's Playbook and HP's WebOS are all still months away from release. When they are first released, you will likely see more bugs in first releases than we saw with the iPad. Apple is one of the best in beta testing and getting rid of glitches before going to market, despite its other faults. I would say Christmas 2011 is probably the earliest to consider such a purchase.
If you are concerned about getting value, you will probably have to wait until well into 2012 or even 2013 before the "bleeding edge" pricing goes away and competition forces tablets down into the sub $300 or even $200 level.
If you want something right now that is cheap, reliable and that is small and easy to carry around, buy a netbook. You can get a pretty good one for around $250. It will have a screen as big as the iPad, an OS as good as any PC, and it will even have a keyboard to make writing much easier.
Ten years from now, we will look at an $800 tablet the way we look at the $5000 PCs or $1000 CD players that were sold in the 1980's. A device made in 2021 will be much cheaper (probably under $150 in today's dollars) and will do much more. Sure, most of us won't wait until then since life is short and we want to enjoy the latest technologies now. But the next two years will see the largest decreases in price and the highest growth in improvements. Patience is well worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)