|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

AMD joins MeeGo

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 15, 2010 21:42 UTC (Mon) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
In reply to: AMD joins MeeGo by endecotp
Parent article: AMD joins MeeGo

No, absolutely not! A low end device does not need to compete with the ipad. An ipad is a $500 plus device, it will never be something you let your 4 year old handle roughly. A ubiquitous tablet is not a pc, it does not need high end capabilities. Thinks star trek NG. It just needs to give me access to basic info. Sure, there is plenty of room for the high end devices also, and if all the features of the high end device could be provided for $100, then yeah, they would need to compete with the ipad. But the ipad has priced itself into a completely different category than the ubiquitous one (for good reason).

You really have to think: "what would I do with a device (how many would I buy) if it cost $100?" - instead of: "what fancy things would I like it to do (since I am spending a boatload?)"


to post comments

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 0:21 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

In the long run The most powerful computer people generally own is something that will fit inside a shoebox and cost less then a pair of Nike basket ball shoes.

This is just reflecting Moore's law.

Moore's law says that the amount of transistor's that can be economically put into one device doubles ever 2-3 years.

There are only so many general purpose CPU cores you need to run a computer. Sure you can keep stuffing them in... like 4 cores, 8 cores, 16 cores, 32 cores. But after probably about 4-8 CPU cores you run out of any sort of benefit a normal consumer device can benefit from.

But you keep having more transistors. Making the CPUs bigger and bigger makes them slower and slower. Pentium 4 proved that. RISC has won. x86 is just a thin layer of ISA compatibility logic over what is fast reduced instruction cores.

So you move the memory controller into the processor.

Then you move north bridge into the processor.

Then you move the GPU into the processor

Then you move the south bridge into the processor.

In a few years all a computer is going to be is just one big hunk of modular silicon clamped to a break out board that is little more then some voltage regulators and I/O ports.

It's going to be dirt cheap, fast, rugged, and very efficient.

Windows Desktop is just ill suited to small devices and Microsoft fucked up royally by not moving to NT for Windows Mobile.

As long as hardware vendors learn to work with one another and share developmental burden and resources, then they can compete very effectively on who is the cheapest, fastest, and most efficient.. even if they all use the same basic software.

Meego, however, is TOO F-NG SLOW.

They need to get a product out _RIGHT_NOW_. They should of been done with the initial release LAST YEAR.

They are losing time and time is the most precious resource they have. If they don't move their asses they are going to be dead on arrival.

This is the #1 problem with Meego.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 0:34 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

> They need to get a product out _RIGHT_NOW_. They should of been done with the initial release LAST YEAR.

> They are losing time and time is the most precious resource they have. If they don't move their asses they are going to be dead on arrival.

I think that you are probably right for high end devices, but right now, low end device manufacturers will put anything that runs on their devices on it. So, perhaps Nokia and Intel (and AMD) will lose with MeeGo, but it still might have a chance to run on some low end imports. Of course, if MeeGo itself dies because it is only supported by these high end device manufacturers, you aren't likely to see it on low end devices either. These low end manufacturers are not pushing android development, so they are unlikely to push MeeGo development either. But, perhaps Nokia could figure out the low end reliable market (they are good at that), but I suspect they do not see MeeGo that way, I wouldn't hold my breath.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 22:38 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

They are losing time and time is the most precious resource they have. If they don't move their asses they are going to be dead on arrival.
And right when they should be doing releases and putting their OS on devices -- and those devices in the hands of people, they switch both packaging system (to RPM) and graphical toolkit (to Qt). Even if it somehow made sense (it doesn't), they should probably just have stuck to their previous choices and went ahead with that; afterwards they might have transitioned away to whatever weird choices if they really wanted to, but not before they had polished the user experience.

I am not implying that RPM and Qt are bad choices, just that APT and Gtk should be good enough. I have tried a Nokia N770 and a SmartQ5, and the problems with both were not the packaging system or the toolkit.

Right now I don't know if there is anyone left excited by what MeeGo may have to offer. The last ones were probably the guys who tried to create a derivative and were told to change the name.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 1:05 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] (7 responses)

> An ipad is a $500 plus device, it will never be
> something you let your 4 year old handle roughly.

No, not "never". Last night I visited a friend who has given his 3 year old a cheap digital camera. It probably cost less than many of the other presents she'll get for Christmas, yet has a resolution and general quality that would have cost hundreds of dollars just a very few years ago.

The most important issue is the cost of the high-quality screens. The difference between a good touchscreen (like the Galaxy Tab) and a poor one (like the Always Innovating TouchBook) is enough to change the device from something that you actually enjoy using into something that you will use only when you have to. It's a visceral thing, like how people put more effort into cooking when they have nice stuff in the kitchen.

> what would I do with a device (how many would I buy) if
> it cost $100?

I would buy only one, and it would sit in a corner and decay. Other people would return it - like the Folio 100 that I linked to above - and keep saving until they could afford something better.

What to do with a $100 web pad?

Posted Nov 16, 2010 1:23 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

I'd put one in the kitchen and save more than $100 in food spill damage to people's (not saying whose) nice laptops.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 1:41 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (5 responses)

>> An ipad is a $500 plus device, it will never be something you let your 4 year old handle roughly.

> No, not "never". Last night I visited a friend who has given his 3 year old a cheap digital camera. It probably cost less than many of the other presents she'll get for Christmas, yet has a resolution and general quality that would have cost hundreds of dollars just a very few years ago.

Hmm, seems to be the same point I am making, no? If the device is cheap, you will give it to your 3/4 year old. Cameras are an excellent example. When we got our first digital camera ~$350, we did protect it and treat it well. Eventually it broke, the replacement was way better and cost $200. We no longer feared the kids holding it. The kids got a cheaper one too... Cameras are now on our phones (despite having and still often using the better one). The low end device is ubiquitous despite higher end ones being owned by the same people.

I was not implying that ipads will never get cheaper (although, it is an apple device, obsolete ipods still cost a bundle). I was implying that you would not give a currently priced Ipad to your 4 year old.

> The most important issue is the cost of the high-quality screens. The difference between a good touchscreen (like the Galaxy Tab) and a poor one (like the Always Innovating TouchBook) is enough to change the device from something that you actually enjoy using into something that you will use only when you have to. It's a visceral thing, like how people put more effort into cooking when they have nice stuff in the kitchen.

There will be some of that, that is why I specified a higher res screen. The 10inchers today have 1024x600 and they are useable for browsing. The 7 inch 800x480 can be painful. But the 7inch size is nice and certainly can handle a higher resolution without being unreasonably small. That resolution increase will cost more, perhaps even doubling the price (but not a year from now,) but it will not cause a device to go from $100 (today's low end) to $600 (Galaxy). That sorta high pricing is ridiculous and naturally will not yield ubiquity.

> I would buy only one, and it would sit in a corner and decay. Other people would return it - like the Folio 100 that I linked to above - and keep saving until they could afford something better.

Afford something better than the Folio100, that was a $1000 device? Of course, it was going to fail. It is exactly the kind of device that has no chance of ever competing with the ipad! It was a piece of junk compared to cheaper laptops. If you are looking for a laptop, forget it, a $100 tablet won't do it. But if you want a picture frame and weather station, perhaps, maybe it controls your stereo and thermostat... and, of course, it could allow you to read that email that just came in easily without squinting on your phone (likely in its cradle, not your pocket) when you are on your couch... it will allow you to show that Xmas present you are thinking of buying the kids to your wife while she cooks dinner... the kids will watch youtube on it at the airport. These device are infinitely more useful than TVs (since they can act as TVs even), yet TVs are everywhere, where is the household with only 1 TV? The TV aspects of these devices alone ensure their success.

I suspect that even those who buy quality devices will find use for the cheaper ones. It is easy to underestimate the uses people will find for something cheap. It has no relation to the failure of people to buy expensive better devices. It will become easier to own two devices and swap them in and out the charger while the other one is charging than it will be to exchange batteries. :)

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 9:29 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] (4 responses)

> I was implying that you would not give a currently
> priced Ipad to your 4 year old.

So why did you write "An ipad is a $500 plus device, it will NEVER be something you let your 4 year old handle roughly."? (Emphasis added)

> the Folio100, that was a $1000 device? Of course, it was
> going to fail. It is exactly the kind of device that has
> no chance of ever competing with the ipad!

No, it was selling for £329 I think.

> if you want a picture frame

A picture frame is the perfect example of something that needs a good quality screen, which the cheap devices do not offer.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 9:47 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

sales of current picture frame devices would seem to contradict your opinion.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 16:17 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] (2 responses)

Do you actually see those picture frames in peoples' homes, being used? I don't.

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 16:59 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

> Do you actually see those picture frames in peoples' homes, being used? I don't.

I see them used both at homes and at work, more than I would guess since they can actually be a bit annoying. ;) I think that people think they make good gifts.

> > I was implying that you would not give a currently priced Ipad to your 4 year old.
> So why did you write "An ipad is a $500 plus device, it will NEVER be something you let your 4 year old handle roughly."? (Emphasis added)

Because an ipad is currently priced around ~$500 (or above). Emphasis or not, read the sentence, it certainly fits with my explanation of what I meant, and it does not fit with your scenario (a device which does not cost > $500). Please explain why you don't think it does, and how your scenario relates to an ipad which costs > $500.

>> the Folio100, that was a $1000 device? Of course, it was going to fail. It is exactly the kind of device that has no chance of ever competing with the ipad!
> No, it was selling for £329 I think.

Well, from your first link, first sentence:

"£999.99 ($1,612) for a Toshiba Folio 100?! That's a fair bit more expensive than its original $560 price point"...

From your second link:

"Dixons stores this weekend began charging a bonkers £999 for Toshiba's £329 Folio 100 Android tablet, apparently in an attempt to dissuade punters from buying the product."

Apparently it never actually sold at your price point. Vaporprice?

AMD joins MeeGo

Posted Nov 16, 2010 19:13 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

I don't see the high-end ones used in people's homes either.

however I do see a lot of the low-end ones used in people's offices. some of them with resolutions as low as 640x480. On a 5" screen at 3' that's not a bad resolution, and that's a normal viewing range for pictures on someone's desk.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds