TechCrunch Wants To Create an Open Source Tablet 160
RKo618 writes "TechCrunch announced that they are planning to design their own $200 web tablet device. Quoting: 'The idea is to turn it on, bypass any desktop interface, and go directly to Firefox running in a modified Kiosk mode that effectively turns the browser into the operating system for the device. Add Gears for offline syncing of Google docs, email, etc., and Skype for communication and you have a machine that will be almost as useful as a desktop but cheaper and more portable than any laptop or tablet PC.' The aim is for the tablet to run on modified open source software, which will be released back to the community along with the specifications for the hardware."
Re:Hopefully they will get it right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So, Let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
That $199 on the iphone is just a down payment.
Re:Maybe I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
On screen keyboards maybe? They've only been around for a few years, so you might have missed them, but it's hardly rocket science.
ducked the most important specification (Score:4, Insightful)
We know PDA-sized screens are no good for web-browsing (especially when the mocked-up picture implies showing print-sized text). So it follows that the screen will have to be at least the size of a paperback and preferably the size of an A4 sheet to get any kind of mass market take-up (with, of course the battery capacity to match). If you plan to do this for $200, you must know something that the rest of the world has missed.
Even the book readers that appeared last year didn't manage that - and they seem to have sunk without trace. Without this, the project is nothing more than pie in the sky.
I'll keep an eye out for the end product, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Good luck with that! (Score:5, Insightful)
You want a Macbook-air thin wireless touch screen tablet device for $200? I want world peace, Dick Cheney's head on a pike, and a pony... good luck with that!
I'll admit what they are talking about sounds really cool, but the real world limitations of battery technology, thin electronics, and design prowess that only companies like Apple seem to have will make this thing cost $2000-3000 when it's finally done. Sorry, you just can't cram all of that good stuff into a 0.5 inch enclosure for $200.
Re:You forget the iPod Touch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You forget the iPod Touch (Score:3, Insightful)
The only point that the Maemo operating system scores relatively low on right now is user friendliness, since a number of apps need non-default repositories.
Also, the N-series tablets beat this plan to make something as it's already in production, and sold at or close to the 200 price point, not to mention that again, it is much easier to use and install real applications rather than just the default environment being a web browser...
Re:Skype isn't Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Asterisk is to internet telephony as Apache is to web browsing..
As much as I'm a fan of open source, I'm also a very big fan of Just F****ing Works, so I'd include Skype.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Augmentative and alternative communication device (Score:3, Insightful)
I like the Idea. For the simple reason that if it were truly open it could be used for other purposes. Like alternative communications devices for the speech impaired (i.e. autistic, cerebral palsy, kids, with motor speech problems).
Currently the only thing available to my knowledge is the Prentkey Romich [prentrom.com] tablets at about $6,000 US a pop.
It would be nice to be able to have the ability to develop an open source low cost alternative. Something with maybe only one button besides the screen. For people that cannot afford these devices for one reason or the other.
Re:Where have all the PDAs gone? (Score:4, Insightful)
I just replaced my cherished, precious Palm Tungsten T3 this Spring after I received an iPod Touch for Christmas.
It is absolutely the best PDA ever. I thought that even before I upgraded to the 2.0 firmware. I can now access my work's Exchange server plus all of my personal accounts. The apps are a mixed bag, but OmniFocus is the best Getting Things Done app on any platform, if you're into that.
A device this size is not the proper tool for remote support. For that I strongly recommend a ThinkPad X-series with a Verizon data card in a messenger bag or briefcase. People who use their handheld device (smartphone, PDA, Nokia Internet tablet, whatever) to do support are out of their minds.
Why these things keep failing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time these ideas come around, they simply boil down to lightweight desktop interfaces. Just taking interfaces people are used to elsewhere and dumbing them down is not going to solve any problems. First, determine if the product solves any problems, then make the solution fit those specific needs.
Windows Mobile demonstrates this pattern exactly, which is one reason the iPhone dominates it. Apple realized that the form factor, the input devices, and usage scenarios are radically different from the desktop. Microsoft used hierarchical menus, scroll bars, and other common metaphors that break-down on handhelds. Apple opted for user interfaces that give powerful visual clues where pixels and real estate are hard to come by. The different is, as millions of people will tell you, striking.
This “yet another tablet PC” is not going to catch on or provide any value if the designers simply repackage the laptops we already have (never mind other flops like Windows XP Tablet Edition). Figure out what users actually need and develop to those needs. Have they solved handwriting recognition? How are they going to deal with small screens? Will essential functions be quickly accessible? Do they have any concrete use cases? Have they considered that people dislike stylus input? Any ideas for one-handed keyboards perhaps?
Sorry, but trimming down the web browser and preserving constrained desktop functionality elsewhere is not going to make waves. This strategy has failed many times in the past, and I am surprised that we are still trying it so many years after the QBE.
Re:You forget the iPod Touch (Score:3, Insightful)
And the $200 bit...
the iPod Touch *sucks ass* for usability (Score:1, Insightful)
I just got an iPod touch 8GB and I simply do not understand the reputation it has received as being "usable". I've had mp3 players in the past (my last was an iRiver T60) and have had no trouble using them, but the iPod has been nothing but a head ache since I got it. It was difficult to get it to detect my wireless network, it was difficult to get it to play a proper playlist of music, it was difficult to get it play my movies (of course Apple doesn't even support many common formats, and you don't learn this until you actually go to play the fucking things). For christ sakes, I had to GOOGLE HOW TO TURN THE FUCKING THING OFF, god help Apple if they were to be so bothered to put a users manual in the box. Instead, all you get is this 5 page "quick start" guide that just tells you to install iTunes. Oh but they make it plenty clear that it was "designed in california!!!", like this is supposed to be some kind of a feature. And I love how you have this ONE button at the bottom that you have to press to switch from one function to another, because putting an icon on the screen in a standard location where it would be obvious would have been just too difficult for those california designers!
And to top it all off, there appears to be absolutely no way to transfer files to the thing on Linux unless you "jailbreak" it using some obnoxious looking (and probably warantee breaking) instructions. So now I have to always be near my Windows computer (my laptop runs only linux) if I want to be able to manipulate the play list. So much for the portability factor. I guess Apple expects you to buy a Windows or Mac computer specifically to use their MP3 player. And this is what people fawn over, calling it the standard of "usability"? What a load of crap. It is amazing how far Apple has come on fanboy generated hype.
The reason no one is doing one NOW... (Score:5, Insightful)
... is that it's not possible.
Look at the specs - if you want decent battery life, a decent screen (with decent resolution), decent RAM and storage (specced at 512MB and 4GB), and to all go for $200, it's hard.
The only thing on the market NOW that's even remotely close is the XO-1, but it only has 256MB of RAM and 1GB storage. And it's BOM costs are quite high already, even with its anemic CPU. If you want to mass-produce it and sell for $200 retail, after taking out everyone's profit and overhead, you're looking at a manufactured unit cost of around $100. Maybe $125, if you can squeeze profit margins from retailers and the like. (Figure in profit/time for doing the software, as asll as distribution costs to get it to retailers - you'll probably want wholesale to cost around $150-160). Of that, the screen, RAM and flash are the big budget items, and a good CPU can be pricey in quantity ($10-ish, nominally for a high-end ARM processor from the big companies - Samsung/Marvell/Freescale).
It's a tight squeeze, add in the other costs like warranty and support, and you'll find not many people are willing ot take on such a high-risk project with such little returns. You can try to sell it online like the OLPC guys with their "give one get one" thing, which lets you raise the manufactured cost more, but then have to deal with all the issues of distribution to end users.
It's not that no one wants to do it, it's just that it's really hard to do a good job in very tight constraints. Give it a year, and you'll probably be able to do it with last year's CPUs, last year's RAM, and last year's storage. But if you up the requirements next year, well.
The original Eee PC had a crappy screen, crappy battery life, OK CPU, as-required RAM and as-required storage, and still cost $400, even though the screen was bulk leftovers from portable DVD players, and the CPU was more or less "hey, I found a box of these things sitting on the shelf".