MS failed; why would others succeed now?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Jul 23, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
A while ago, this form factor was known as 'UMPC' / Poject Origami, and Microsoft made some groovy video's about it with 'guerrilla marketing' normally not associated with Microsoft. Why did it fail? I see several reasons: The time was not right (MS was too early) and of course some UMPC's ran Vista, the worst imaginable choice. But maybe customers aren't that fond of the form factor either. Intel rebranded UMPC to 'MID' and developed Atom, a product they didn't want to make at first. QualComm rebranded the UMPC platform to 'smartbook'. TI named its effort 'TI Zoom'. TI made some nice development efforts, and TI Zoom seems to run Android, Linux (UNR?), Symbian and WinCE. Probably NetBSD as well (doh), but that's not shown, but kuddos for the efforts anyway. FreeScale also likes to join (was called DragonBall, what's up with the dragons?), and nVidia as well. Curiously, Microsoft seems not to do any effort to join / advertise this platform, except through nVidia it seems. Note Bill Gates personally showed the OQO UMPC in 2007 at CES, but Microsoft only has software aimed at 'phones' (Win Mobile), 'Embedded' (WinCE) and 'fattops' (Vista). Nothing especially for netbooks, even no "WinXP OLPC edition". Some weird discrepancy I believe, touting new hardware without making software suited for it. Maybe that's why it failed. When you believe the other companies named above (TI, QualComm) watching HD on tiny screens with minimal software environment is the future. Anyway, why would the platform succeed this time? True, SoC with ARM means huge improvements over the sluggish 'legacy' Intel procs used in the 'original' UMPC's, together with OLED now arriving meaning up to 3x longer battery life (rough estimate). But I still have my doubts. |
| tracyanne Jul 23, 2009 5:38 PM EDT |
the qualcomm smartbook is about the size it's like. I've got an iPhone, and it's too small (apart from the need to pwn it just to get enough ownership to do anything really useful on it), the slightly larger size of the smartbook is much closer to what I'm looking for. |
| Libervis Jul 24, 2009 10:20 AM EDT |
Yeah, at the time of UMPC it seemed a bit clunky, and that it ran a tough OS like Vista doesn't really help (also I was pretty much an anti-MS zealot so I wasn't likely to give anything from MS much of a chance). But after the evolution of netbooks, this smartbook concept seems like a netbook without the keyboard and with a touchscreen. Given that the touchscreens are also a technology that evolved by now they can probably increasingly serve as a good replacement for keyboards. In short I think time may be right. It's a good alternative to netbooks. |
| vorbote Jul 24, 2009 10:22 AM EDT |
Tweens and young teens love their PSPs and not just for the games but reading their email, IMing their peers, watching HD movies and accessing internet services in general. Where does it lay the attraction? The form factor that gives mobility and independence. In 2-4 years time, when these kids enter the trendsetters age (16-24 year-old bracket according to the marketers), they will be more interested in owning a smartbook than a netbook because that's how their expectations will be shaped already. As well, let's wonder for a moment that those smartbooks are rather touchscreen datapads connected to the "cloud" 24/7 through HDSPA or whatever radio-based network connectivity available then. All the technology pieces of that puzzle exist already. |
| Libervis Jul 24, 2009 10:36 AM EDT |
The extreme similarity to Star Trek's typical PADDs too doesn't escape me. I think this touch screen computer is probably the most exact match to that old scifi idea. There's some geekworthiness in that. ;) Btw, http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/PADD |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 24, 2009 11:47 AM EDT |
Libervis!!! Stop it! How dare you use the word zealot when it's NOT self referencial? The congenitive dissonance is deafening, please, please have mercy ... As always, YBT |
| Libervis Jul 24, 2009 2:33 PM EDT |
lol.. it WAS self referential, only in the past tense. :D Poor YBT.. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!