Cisco To Challenge iPad With Cius 'Business Tablet' 217
GMGruman and several other readers noted Cisco's announcement of the forthcoming 7-inch Android-based iPad challenger, the Cius, which "... will offer multiple networking capabilities, keyboard and mouse support, and the ability to do videoconferencing. Cisco says it will cost less than $1,000, or about the same as an iPad. The Cius will come with a front-facing high-definition video camera that can record 720p video at 30 frames per second and a 5-megapixel camera at the back that can capture high-quality video and still images. Users will be able to engage in live video calls [most likely via WebEx] when the tablet is docked or being held. Some units will be available this fall, though general availability is not expected until early 2011."
Lot of space between $500 and $1k (Score:5, Insightful)
"Under $1k' (read $999) is what everyone thought the iPad would sell for.
But actually it's half that much, $500 for the base model (which I have and is fine).
It is interesting though they seem to be aiming this at video conferencing users, it could be a lot easier to set up and use than existing solutions.
Until the iPad 2 with Facetime comes out that is... 2011 seems like Cisco is cutting it close.
Re:Lot of space between $500 and $1k (Score:5, Insightful)
Under 1K ? Does Cisco sell anything other than parts that cheap? I mean other than the linksys line of products..
Looking at Cisco / Tandberg enterprise gear I would expect a device like this to cost 2K, after you licence all the functions on the device to make a call, and purchase some form of new CAL for your network gear to allow it to connect.
Re: (Score:2)
They will soon find out that their price point will have to be below that of an ipad, or they'll sell zero of them.
Re:Lot of space between $500 and $1k (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is the problem. Businesses hate changing software, but for a tablet you have to change software or have a custom UI set up. Existing business tablets are what? notebooks with swivel screens. why? because business software is horrible for UI design and anything beyond a keyboard and mouse is too much for them.
no apple did the tablet right. They said fsck businesses we go after the home owner, sitting on their couch. it is easier to get them to buy new software than businesses which will go fo
Re: (Score:2)
If the iPad gets the same cameras the iPhone4 just got, plus FaceTime, it would be as good as this tablet at a minimum. Add in the AppStore (or the SDK), and you're golden.
Re: (Score:2)
If the iPad gets the same cameras the iPhone4 just got, plus FaceTime, it would be as good as this tablet at a minimum.
Not quite; FaceTime is not HD and doesn't integrate with CallManager and all the other Cisco stuff that the enterprise has already bought.
Re: (Score:2)
Has you been able to make a business case to buy Ipod Touches? If not then why did you think there would be a business case for something larger and more expensive?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where I'm working, I-T does not know what to do with iPads but the users are showing them by bringing them in from home, logging in to Exchange, and then refusing to use their XP boxes anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So all people use their computers for at work is email?
Re: (Score:2)
Then, I'd say the software sucks not the iPad. Because viewing high resolution pictures, zooming in & out, etc on the iPad has got to be about the easiest thing there is. My 5 yr old can demo it, for fscks sake!
What software exactly did you look at? So I can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people actually hold individual video conferences? All the ones I've been involved in there have been numerous attendees at each location, so it really wouldn't be feasible for each person to be using their own device - usually it involves a projector and a (relatively) high-quality camera set up in a conference room.
I suppose it would be kind of fun/cool for video chatting, but don't really see much business use for it.
Wide camera perhaps? (Score:2)
I was thinking the camera on the device might be wide enough to accommodate three-four people... that seems like a pretty typical number for most video conferencing, and the fact that the camera is 720p speaks to it probably being able to include a number of people instead of just one.
Although come to think of it, any video conferencing we actually did was more on the order of 20 people with equipment as you described... perhaps Cisco is just trying to make it practical for smaller meetings to also
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... (Score:2)
Even then, the touch tablet ecosystem needs some competition so that consumers on the margins
Bizarre (Score:5, Interesting)
This is completely bizarre. Cisco doesn't have a history of making consumer grade products. And they decide to dive in with an Android tablet? WTF?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cisco doesn't have a history of making consumer grade products.
Linksys.
Re:Bizarre (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Meh ... they just bought an existing company.
They did the same thing with Pure Digital Technologies [wikipedia.org], the makers of the Flip Video cameras. Yes, they bought them after they were popular, but it is a sign that they are interested in selling consumer products. Their CEO said as much in a recent interview with Newsweek [newsweek.com]
Re:Bizarre (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, exactly the opposite is true: once Cisco completes an acquisition, they pull all development in-house. In the case of Linksys, which really was just a marketing company (everything was outsourced, from board layouts to software to case design), it was a real effort to get everything from the OEMs.
After that, all soft/hardware development is done internally. Cisco employs a vast number of engineers.
Also, they don't rename everything "IOS". IOS is very specific software that runs on certain systems. None of the Linksys stuff runs it, for example.
So I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all they ever do. Then rename whatever software it runs "IOS." Cisco is a marketing company, not a technology one.
I hope that's sarcasm. Cisco was founded by the people who basically invented the router. For many years, they've led the pack in developing reliable, high-capacity routers and related networking gear.
They also sell "lower end" stuff and capitalize on their good name, but they've earned that good name by offering highly capable routers and related equipment with telecommunications-grade uptimes.
From a capabilities standpoint, their gear is damned expensive. From a business continuity standpoint, the high pr
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but, Linksys doesn't make openly Cisco products. Yes, all tech people recognize that Linksys is Cisco but, the name Cisco usually means expense and quality in the IT world. I again assert that this is bizarre. How do you go from making $5000 routers to making Android tablets?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All those cheap Linksys routers, network devices and webcams now carry the Cisco brand name. They no longer say "Linksys" on them.
Sure, they had to buy a company to get into the home networking market, but they're there now.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but, Linksys doesn't make openly Cisco products. Yes, all tech people recognize that Linksys is Cisco but, the name Cisco usually means expense and quality in the IT world. I again assert that this is bizarre. How do you go from making $5000 routers to making Android tablets?
All the ones I've gotten lately have been heavily branded Cisco (along with the Linksys name)...
Re: (Score:2)
Linksys is not consumer grade. It's like a trap that people fall into and need a nerd to get them out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if this is all part of a grand plan, or just the sign of a company that needs to invest in something; but hasn't done anything more creative than slap firmware locks and gigantic price tags on OEM hardware in years...
This isn't a consumer product (Score:2)
This tablet is meant to replace IP phones, videoconferencing gear, and thin clients in businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely bizarre. Cisco doesn't have a history of making consumer grade products. And they decide to dive in with an Android tablet? WTF?
They make quite a lot of ip phones. You plug the phone into an ethernet jack, it connects to and gets its configuration information from a central server and works like a phone connected to a pbx system. Their phones even get power over ethernet so one cable is all you need. There's some other nice features as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The software is key. (Score:5, Funny)
They could probably duplicate the hardware, but I doubt Cisco could make anything like iOS.
Re:The software is key. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the best way to feel smart is to assume that everyone else is borderline retarded. Sometimes thinking about the Slashdot community as a whole makes me sad.
(Oh, and now one more smartass decided to keep score on the whole process)
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get the joke, but that is because I have no idea what they did :)
Re:The software is key. (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, it is not as if Cisco had prior history with the iphone name either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, sir!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Woooooooosh.
Re: (Score:2)
The world's first Shape-Hole interface! Reminds me of this [theonion.com].
Android? Should be ios (Score:4, Funny)
Why would Cisco use Android? If they seriously want to compete with the iPad, they need to make it run ios.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not informed.
http://cydia.saurik.com/package/mobileterminal [saurik.com]
This could easily work (Score:4, Insightful)
It's targeted to business users. Apple doesn't really enter into that market. So I could see this being a success.
Re: (Score:2)
However, this isn't a PC, this thing is being marketed as a Video-confere
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's entries into the business PC market are extremely limited
Another example - Let's say you want to put some kind of forms-based data collection application onto an iMaxiPad... How do you get the thing on there? There's been some vague talk of "enterprises" being allowed to put their own apps on an iPad, but it's all very nebulous...
Re: (Score:2)
You can deploy any native app you want to your own machines, even wirelessly now. You just can't deploy to machines you don't control. Apple's Xcode tools have been used to make enterprise apps for 20 years now, including NSA, DOD, and WWW.
But if you're collecting data with forms, you can also do HTML5, where the app installs to the device from any URL.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "nebulous"?
http://developer.apple.com/programs/iphone/enterprise/ [apple.com]
Nothing "nebulous" about it.
Test on iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch
See how your development application will perform in a real-world environment by installing and testing it directly on iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch.
This seems likely to go badly, or at least unwell. (Score:5, Interesting)
The iPad is a relatively mass-market consumer product, based on a weedy little ARM core(very closely shared with another mass-market consumer product they produce). No way will Cisco be beating them on price, unless they are willing to get hammered on margins. Further, it is a general-purpose computer, crippled only as much as Apple wants it to be(for instance, this Cisco thing supports a mouse and keyboard for doing remote desktop/virtual terminal stuff. If Apple felt threatened, they could have deals inked with Citrix and VMware for their thin-client computing protocols, plus RDP and X11 and maybe NX, all rolled up into an app inside a month(App slogan: "Tenfootpole: for when you need to work on a PC; but can't bear to touch one...). I'm guessing that support for bluetooth mice could be added to the present support for bluetooth keyboards in even less time, and made available privately to that app, so as not to slum up the "touch experience". If they were really feeling motivated, they could kick out a full desktop dock accessory(the camera connect kit shows that there is USB host support in there, so it would take about ten minutes to design a dock with a power brick and USB hub, that holds it at the right angle and lets you plug in your mouse, keyboard, and flash drive full of boring work.
Now, there is no evidence that Apple is thus motivated. If they don't find the corporate market interesting or sufficiently profitable, they just won't bother. Even so, announcing that you plan to release a product when your competitor already has a product that is one software update away from being cheaper and better than that product, seems like a rather dubious move. I certainly wouldn't want to be in Cisco's shoes here.
Re: (Score:3)
that is one software update away
I would like to see the software update that gives ipads front/back-facing video cameras...
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see the software update that gives ipads front/back-facing video cameras...
But it would be a magical update. And we all know magic can do aanything.. Like the one that was going to fix the antenna problem.. but because so many people complained. Steve is holding it back to teach the heretics a lesson.. He may never release it because we dared to question his great indefatigable wisdom... I'm sure it works perfectly for the truly faithful.. And when you have unicorns instead of icky old core functionality, there are no limits.
Finally something for executives (Score:2)
You know when the Man pulls this out he is saying he has very important video conferencing to do.
Hard or soft C? (Score:2)
Cius Baltar?
Or Toyota Cius?
But will it run IOS? (Score:2)
User Access Verification
Password:
sparky>enable
Password:
sparky# config term
sparky(config)# interface Gi0/44
sparky(config-if)#
Oh the fun I'd have with my Cisco tablet :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which one? Cisco IOS or Apple's iOS? Wait until a year or two from now and you're googling to solve a problem you're having with a switch or router and all you can find is info about iOS. Fun and Hilarity ensue :p
This is what has us excited (Score:3, Informative)
Lenovo's new Ideapad which will be out later this year:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/lenovo-ideapad-u1-hybrid-hands-on-and-impressions/ [engadget.com]
It was supposed to come out about now but they decided to replace the snapdragon OS with Android. I showed this to my manager, the IT staff and we all can't wait for it. Especially now that Android will be on it.
The price is supposed to be around 1K as well.
Wasn't that scrapped? (Score:2)
I thought the U1 was scrapped [notebooks.com]. Yes they said they were moving forward with Android but I didn't see anything anywhere about that form factor being resurrected.
One big part of why the U1 had that form factor, was that it was really a Windows system and a Linux system - which I personally thought would have made for a pretty awful transition when you detached (nothing against Linux, it's just that the systems were too different to switch to on the fly). Moving to Android means they would not have to go thro
Halfway there (Score:2)
Another failure in the making... (Score:5, Insightful)
If any of these companies learned anything at all from Apple, they wouldn't be announcing tablets to ship next year. They'd be announcing finished products that will be out this month. You can't build a product and aim at a moving target.
HP Slate with Windows 7? Dead, and HP bought Palm to recover. Lenovo Ideapad? Announced at CES, still not out, supposedly a new OS is coming. Cisco Cius? Looks cool, not out until next year.
iPad? Over 3 million of them shipped so far, they were in users' hands 10 weeks after they were announced, and by the time most of these competitors ship (if they do at all), Apple will have a second release of the shipping OS and may well have a second generation of the hardware out as well.
The only thing Apple's preannounced several months ahead of time in recent years was the original iPhone. For a reason - that froze the smartphone market for almost six months until the first one shipped.
Word to future iPad wannabes: Tell us about it when you're ready to ship. You're not going to freeze the market by announcing 6 months early. People aren't going to say "screw Apple, let's wait for the Cius to make tablets legitimate". You'll only look stupid when you don't ship the same product you announced 6 months ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If any of these companies learned anything from Apple they wouldn't be announcing tablets to ship next year, they'd be announcing something new to ship this month.
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco doesn't care because Cisco isn't competing directly with Apple here. This is a device that fits in with the rest of their VoIP/Video device offerings. I bet a lot of what it can do will also be available for the iPad, when v2 hits with a camera. So you can use the Cius and dock it with a Cisco VoIP phone or load an app on an iPad that you manage yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Network Administration apps? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if they load this sucker up with a special USB-to-RS232 for consoling, and a bunch of Cisco-made apps for plugging into CiscoWorks and other utilities network monitoring, remote management, VPN, and have it support similar 3G data networking?
If they toss one in with every order over $50k of network hardware, I think you'd be seeing these become standard Cisco enterprise management tools. All it has to do is interface with the other stuff Cisco sells, and it completely eliminates my need to haul a 15" laptop around for a console and network access.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Interesting)
More Android tablets? (Score:2)
There are already dozens and dozens of devices like this one, tablets running android based on ARM processors of various flavors, made by no-name Chinese manufacturers. Why buy from Cisco for $1000 something I can already get, right now, from various made-in-China web sites for a couple of hundred bucks?
Very User Friendly (Score:5, Funny)
Cius> enable t
...
Password:
Cius# conf t
Cius(configure)# addressbook
Cius(configure-addressbook)# phone bob 222-4343
^Z
Cius>dial bob
Cius>no dial bob
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot this very important step
# copy running-config startup-config
Not an iPad killer... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not an iPad killer. It's not meant to be one. I'm at Cisco Live right now and all the Cisco geeks are wetting themselves over it...but it's not even a competitor to the iPad. It's a niche product to work with Cisco's other technologies. Hospitals are going nuts over the iPad and Cisco wants a play in that market. They want these customers to buy the Cius just like they do Cisco wireless handsets now. Look at the promo pics, it's docked in a Cisco phone.
Different markets.
Carriers? (Score:2)
I have just one thing to say about this: (Score:2)
Cuil [slashdot.org]!
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these (Score:2)
On second thought, never mind.
Can the iPad support proprietary business apps? (Score:2)
If i want to deploy internal applications that aren't just a web interface to my CRM system, without jailbreaking the iPad can I load those on my iPad or do I have to go through the apple store? If I can have my own internal application repository maintained by my own IT staff, that would seem preferable than to load some app into apples store...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can. If your company is over 500 employees, you can have your own in house App Store, or rather, push apps down to your iOS devices and manage them all in house, with no need to go via the Apple App Store.
Less than 500 employees though, you are stuck.
http://developer.apple.com/programs/iphone/enterprise/ [apple.com]
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:5, Insightful)
I would bet everything I could turn to cash that this will fail. As in: Will have the same or less impact on the iPad as mp3 players had on the iPod during the last 10 years.
That's some confident gambling, but I'll put the contents of my billfold on this getting scrapped before it ships. A thousand-dollar video-conferenceing device? Get two netbooks and a coupla six-packs; a much better video-conferencing experience for less!
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you're not aware that Cisco sells $500,000 videoconferencing rooms to the DoD? Augmenting that with a tablet seems like a no brainer. Maybe they'll even go ruggedized and have that niche to themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you're not aware that Cisco sells $500,000 videoconferencing rooms to the DoD?
Pointing out gov't waste doesn't help.
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on what they're using the room for and how many people are expected to be in it, 500k doesn't seem to be all that ludicrous. VC setups aren't exactly cheap, and if you want to be able to connect to multiple locations without an external bridge, encrypt the content, have enough cameras, microphones and screens to cover the room properly, have more than one person participate in the meeting, and generally have anything that is even remotely like having a meeting with everyone being in the same room, it's even more expensive.
Just because you can spend a couple of grand and stick a camera on top of your television set and make someone feel like they're not being totally excluded from the meeting doesn't mean it's a functional solution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is pretty much it. I worked for a media company that moved premises and scrapped the old VC setups. When I saw the pricing for the new ones I was amazed until I saw the setup. 8 mics embedded in the roof, projectors capable of 1080p, multiple cameras, encryption, electronic frosted glass, etc. All coming to about $100 000 per room.
$500 000 isn't too bad if it's speced to government standards. This Cius actually looks like it may make it to market and do well. It's kind of like saying that Blackberry sh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are selling half a million videoconferencing rooms, but the government, after latest cuts in budgets, is only paying $3 million of them - LOL! So Cisco needs something else to make money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you even looked for ruggerdised laptops recently?
I did some research for a couple of field engineers (Geo's) and they are all 12-14" tablet PC's with touchscreens. Also they are all around $5K so if Cisco entered this market with a ~1K device they'd clean up. Even the semi-ruggerdised ones are $1K more expensive then their non-ruggerdised counterparts but the Australian outback would kill a semi-ruggaerised device in a matter of da
Cisco may have a niche but not an iPad killer. (Score:2)
I can see Cisco having a niche market to Cisco customers as they can integrate everything nicely. It doesn't sound like a real iPad contender though. To me it sounds bulky, with fragile parts, and a clumsy interface with no price improvement. It suffers from the problem most iPad contenders will have - it fails to understand why the iPad is better than a laptop. Ruggedized is great but why build it as a default? Better it be internally rugged (no fragile/moving parts) and slim enough to fit into a selection
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:4, Insightful)
A typical good videoconferencing setup already is going to cost at least a couple thousands bucks. Furthermore, a meeting with 10 people who make $60k/year is already costing $30/hr*10 = $300/hr. If the iPad like device really improves usability or provides additional utility, then the company can get a lot of value out of their investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's some confident gambling, but I'll put the contents of my billfold on this getting scrapped before it ships. A thousand-dollar video-conferenceing device? Get two netbooks and a coupla six-packs; a much better video-conferencing experience for less!
I have spent countless hours setting up videoconferencing. Put simply, there isn't a solution out there that doesn't suck horribly. If it's any good at all (software or hardware), if it doesn't require countless hours of setting up and it works through most firewalls without having to jump through hoops - I bet you anything you like the thing it sucks is "every penny from your bank account".
If it just requires a fair bit of setting up and quite a bit of firewall magic, it's almost certainly "just" stupidl
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
not aware that Cicso has ANY deep user interaction / UI design and implementation skills in house
People have been known to buy design skills on occasion. There are lots of design firms out there, the trick is finding a truly talented one.
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:4, Informative)
It's Android. The UI's already built.
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed when I saw this Cisco concept, especially the timeframe - Early to Mid 2011.
All Apple has to do is put the cameras from the iPhone 4 into the iPad, and put FaceTime on it, and the iPad will lock the consumer/low end business market.
Frankly, I think it's game over for Cisco on this concept - outside of the very large enterprise market.
Re:OH GOD MAKE IT STOP (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, they've already made a fairly large entrance into the teleconferencing market, so this is really just an extension of what they are already doing. If anyone could pull this off, I'd say it would be Cisco. At this point I'd give them an edge over Apple (in this market segment), but that could change if the device is released and it turns out to be a kludge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone could pull this off, I'd say it would be Cisco
I'm not real familiar with their teleconference stuff, but if it's like I remember it, it's a big jump from what they have to a general use business tablet. I'd like to be proven wrong as competition is good, but I just don't see it. Even if this thing is great at teleconferencing it will fail if it doesn't perform other business functions well. If it doesn't have a full exchange client and native support for PowerPoint it will be a complete failure. I mean, who are the users for this? it's not the avera
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, given the enormous amount of "fun" involved in setting up most VC solutions, I'd probably give serious consideration to buying a dedicated tablet that could be centrally configured, bolted to a wall and did nothing but VC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're probably right, though perhaps not for the reasons you think.
The iPad is a horrible productivity tool, moving files between applications requires iTunes and jumping through a few dozen hoops, its bluetooth is crippled, iWork sucks, and the prohibitions on running interpreted code(at least without express Apple permission), cuts into a lot of the areas where productivity tools can be particularly useful. Last I checked the iTunes ToS expressly prohibits business use of apps anyway. There is a market f
why does Apple always have to push an agenda (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses are moving to giving employees their own I-T budgets and letting them choose from approved lists, so they can buy Blackberry or iPhone, or Mac or Windows. The smartphone I-T is replacing the PC I-T.
If you work for Kodak you can buy your own Mac or an equivalent Intel Core 2 Duo Windows Ultimate PC.
Genentech is 100% Apple and Google is over 50% Apple and no longer deploying Windows. iPhone is in 70% of Fortune 500. The US military has the world's largest collection of iPod touch.
iPad at $499 is c
iPad is a pretty good productivity tool actually.. (Score:2)
You totally miss the point. You shouldn't have to move files around. They should just be there. Anywhere. Any device. That's where things are going. iWork is obviously going that way. iBooks too. iTunes is obviously neglected, and it sucks bad, but it's because Apple has all but abandoned it as they move away from it.
Apple clarified the rules. There is no prohibition on running interpreted code so long as the application isn't primarily composed of interpreted code.
The iPad works well as a business tool. We
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm buying an experience. I just used my iPad at Cisco Live all day. It worked great..it's exactly what I bought it for. I've owned other tablet devices and they sucked. The current Android offerings do the same. Right now there is no better OVERALL PACKAGE in tablet form than the iPad. Sure, it may not have 8 USB ports or 3 SD slots, but it works really damn well and that's what people want. Geeks want speeds and feeds, users want a tool that just works.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that's the case for some people, but when there are iPads EVERYWHERE amongst 12K network guys at a show like this, that tells you something and it's more than marketing. I have seen exactly one non-iPad tablet in the last 3 days at Cisco Live and that was an older Windows tablet. Poor guy. But if you choose to believe it's all marketing, go for it..but it's not. Same reason I carry an iPhone 4 right now. I looked at the Droid, EVO, and others before I bought this new one. No one had the usabi
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You're buying the support system - an OS and a large slate of applications which are tailored to the kind of things that tablet can do well. The iPhone would be useless (and, quite frankly - was) without the applications available. Everybody has some basic apps, but the odd things that make it fun/interesting/useful are what make it a success. The hardware matters little, except to be sure that it doesn't get in the way (good touch screen, enough res for 3", minimal and mostly self-evident buttons, r
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people so willing to show how dumb they are by posting endless tirades against different races?
Because the trolls know someone will *always* reply. The replies feed them, so they post again... If nobody every replied to trolls, they'd starve and die off, but that goes against human nature, so they continue to thrive.