AMD joins MeeGo

> 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. :)