Full Linux Tablet Coming
-
Metro = universal
-
@Dashrender said:
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS.
That's only useful for defining a mobile device versus a non-mobile device.
-
For me - I really don't care about the OS either - but I have found for me personally, the format of a tablet is pretty close to useless.
I do consume, but I think I create nearly as much as I consume. My creation is limited almost exclusively to postings here, on FB, emails, etc - basically typing. But doing more than 3 or 5 words on my phone drives me nuts. I couldn't imagine writing this single post on my phone or an iPad/Android tablet/Windows Surface Pro 3 without keyboard. Voice to text would take this a long way, but then I run into the problem with not liking to talk/think out loud as I'm creating a post like this. I could only image what others around me would thing hearing me say what I type into these posts.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS.
That's only useful for defining a mobile device versus a non-mobile device.
which furthers my point - it doesn't matter any more. If Apple created a high powered desktop/laptop device with iOS on it.. and the apps where there to let people do what they want, it would probably sell like crazy. A perfect example of that already in place is the Chromebook.
-
@Dashrender said:
I do consume, but I think I create nearly as much as I consume.
I lean to the content creation side and would never "do without" a content creation-focused machine, but I don't create continuously and really like the tablet format for when I am reading, surfing or do other casual activities where I want to stay well connected but am not actively creating content. It fills in the gaps where I would otherwise have nothing.
-
I actually use a tablet very little these days. Laptop and phone nearly always and a Kindle (semi-tablet, but not a Fire) for reading.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS.
That's only useful for defining a mobile device versus a non-mobile device.
which furthers my point - it doesn't matter any more. If Apple created a high powered desktop/laptop device with iOS on it.. and the apps where there to let people do what they want, it would probably sell like crazy. A perfect example of that already in place is the Chromebook.
They are nearly there. The AppleTV, now that it plays games and has a touchpad input, is essentially a special-purpose desktop. They are only an input-device away from turning it into one.
There is also a lot of talk of OSX and iOS merging in the near future as they slowly turn into one and the same thing and they already share tons of code.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I do consume, but I think I create nearly as much as I consume.
I lean to the content creation side and would never "do without" a content creation-focused machine, but I don't create continuously and really like the tablet format for when I am reading, surfing or do other casual activities where I want to stay well connected but am not actively creating content. It fills in the gaps where I would otherwise have nothing.
Those gaps in my opinion should be able to be filled by an individual operating system. The functionality for each is generally already there in any operating system you look at. From Windows to Apple to Android and *Nix.
Each gap, should be easily filled with the same operating system already on that device. By simply "flipping a switch" go from content creation to content consuming mode.
That would be an ideal platform, a device that can be a desktop computer (content creation), tablet for mild creation / consumption, and lastly a consumption only function for reading / watching / listening to content.
-
It's a good discussion... what does a mobile OS really imply? There are a lot of assumptions, but no one is completely sure.
Some common assumptions that I doubt any or most of us would universally agree with:
- Mobile means ARM (so what about mobile Intel procs or low powered PowerPC?)
- Mobile means single user (but what if you enable users on Android?)
- Mobile means specialized touch interface (mostly acceptable I think.)
- Mobile means limited apps (how do we define limited, the apps are just apps.)
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Each gap, should be easily filled with the same operating system already on that device. By simply "flipping a switch" go from content creation to content consuming mode.
It's all about form factor, though, not the OS. The OS can't make a keyboard appear, for example, which is the primary problem.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
That would be an ideal platform, a device that can be a desktop computer (content creation), tablet for mild creation / consumption, and lastly a consumption only function for reading / watching / listening to content.
That's a theory long debated. Is something that "converts" a better (more ideal) platform than multiple, specialized products? Apple things no. Microsoft thinks yes.
-
@scottalanmiller Sure the OS can make a keyboard appear, on screen.
If you need a physical one, then you'd go and add it to the device, either with Bluetooth or USB.
-
The peripherals will always been existent. As we want a device to be / do more will we find that we need either better tech to create a peripheral such as a projected keyboard (which do exist) or a device that connects to the main system in one way or another.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I lean to the content creation side and would never "do without" a content creation-focused machine, but I don't create continuously and really like the tablet format for when I am reading, surfing or do other casual activities where I want to stay well connected but am not actively creating content. It fills in the gaps where I would otherwise have nothing.
I am solidly interested how much the new iPad Pro would be used by this type of person.
It can handle content creation if the content you are creating can be done with the tools available on the device.
-
Something like this I/O Magic MagicTouch Bluetooth Virtual Keyboard built into a tablet would be an amazing step in the right direction for consolidating the hardware platforms into 1 device.
As this device is now, its just another peripheral device. It may fill a need, but seems rather wasteful by it's representation. Of a persons hands only a few feet from it.
A better explanation of what I mean is, this device certainly fills the need of a keyboard on a device, but it seems ridiculous to have to carry yet another device around for the keyboard. It should be integrated.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I do consume, but I think I create nearly as much as I consume.
I lean to the content creation side and would never "do without" a content creation-focused machine, but I don't create continuously and really like the tablet format for when I am reading, surfing or do other casual activities where I want to stay well connected but am not actively creating content. It fills in the gaps where I would otherwise have nothing.
Why would you have nothing? you have your creation-focused machine.
I love my Yoga 2 Pro (well expect for the ultra high res, I could do without that). It's right around 3 lbs, so it's heavy to use as an ebook reader, but really I find myself mainly doing that while on the treadmill, so I'm not holding it anyhow.
My friends use their tablets mostly to play Clash of Clans and other games of that ilk. They also watch a lot of YouTube videos on it. two things I do very little of.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I actually use a tablet very little these days. Laptop and phone nearly always and a Kindle (semi-tablet, but not a Fire) for reading.
This, This 1000 times, this!
-
@Dashrender said:
Why would you have nothing? you have your creation-focused machine.
Like when I am on the couch or on an airplane and don't have my content creation machine(s). It fills a gap for the times when I would otherwise not have a device with me.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's a good discussion... what does a mobile OS really imply? There are a lot of assumptions, but no one is completely sure.
Some common assumptions that I doubt any or most of us would universally agree with:
- Mobile means ARM (so what about mobile Intel procs or low powered PowerPC?)
- Mobile means single user (but what if you enable users on Android?)
- Mobile means specialized touch interface (mostly acceptable I think.)
- Mobile means limited apps (how do we define limited, the apps are just apps.)
Interesting -
why does mobile mean ARM? Consumers have no clue what that means, so that would only be a techie thing.Single user - OK I'll give this one to you, only because the device makers (until the Surface devices) have given no way to easily switch between users (missing from UI)
Touch interface - yeah, you're right.
limited apps - this is a perception issue, not a real one. With so much being done in the cloud these days there is little reason that you can't have full normal business access to things that don't require a ton of horse power to utilize (i.e. video editing, possibly graphics editing, etc)
-
@Dashrender said:
Interesting -
why does mobile mean ARM? Consumers have no clue what that means, so that would only be a techie thing.Yes, but it is often used as part of the definition. Why does ARM mean "Real Time?" Windows RT (real time) was the name of their ARM build. Why? What strange association people make with something that is simply a different architecture.
ARM gets associated with mobile because all major consumer mobile devices are ARM and nothing else that they see is. Even though you've been able to get ARM desktops for decades.
