I'm with LarryM99. I want something like the new Motorola Xoom, but with WiFi only internet access. Apple makes WiFi only ipads. Why not have the Android equivalent? Or even the choice to change the OS to Linux or whatever else I fancy?
Yeah, Frank, I recognize that I am in the minority. Anymore that seems to be the case more often than not - I've learned to live with it :-). That being said, vertically integrated solutions tend to go in and out of favor. Right now I see the clamps being put down on products to the detriment of innovative application providers. The massive disintermediation that happened as a result of the open Internet is slowly being undone. Maybe that is part of the normal business cycle, but it bothers me nonetheless.
Larry, I get where you're coming from, but I think you are in the minority. The mass market of consumers actually want that seamless vertical solution. They know they're going to pay a monthly fee of some sort to one wireless carrier or another, so why not get the subsidized hardware for cheap and just go with the apps environment that the carrier and it's partner support?
True hackers jailbreak their phones anyway, to get that extra 'whatever' they are seeking. But that isn't the mass market. Ask yourself, what would your 18-year old niece want to buy and what does she expect from it? That's what determines the mass market product offerings.
The name of the game is seamless simplicity, not "I want a C:\ prompt and then I will decide what happens next."
The problem with those "seamless" vertical solutions is that the vendors that create them concentrate more on how to lock onto my wallet than how to make something that does what I want it to do. I would rather use an external Mifi or other solution for Internet access so that it is not locked to a carrier. I want to be able to run eReader software from B&N, Amazon, or whoever (although I'd rather use open platforms there as well). I want to run whatever app I want whether Apple blesses it or not. Granted, if I were specifying a corporate platform I might want to lock it down more (this is where HP should be and probably is aiming) but I would expect my company to pay for that. This is what I personally am looking to buy.
And I think you should set your sights higher. In HP's case they want to provide a more seamless solution set for computing up and down the stack. This, I think, is a move in the right direction... but still falls short.
Apple, Motorola, and now HP are all creating expensive specialized devices. I am looking for an unpretentious clone with decent specs that I can use the way that I see fit. A Tegra 2 CPU, a good 10" screen, 32 GB or so of storage, Android 3.0, and fast Wifi with no carrier entanglements. That's what I'm looking for.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.