Google delays Honeycomb indefinitely

[DakotaGuy]

Honeycomb tablets shut off before opening up

The flagship Honeycomb tablet, Motorola's Xoom, hasn't generated much interest in the premise of Android 3.0 being open, instead being ridiculed for its price, incomplete software and missing features it was advertised to have.

The company is reported to be sharply reducing manufacturing orders for the new tablet, with sources blaming its tapered off production on "the unclear market status of iPad-like tablet PCs."

Meanwhile, Motorola is also reported to be working on its own Android OS alternative, motivated by problems related to Android's platform fragmentation, issues with product differentiation and "issues related to Google's support for its partners."

Samsung has delayed its own plans to release a Honeycomb tablet after deciding that its original design was "inadequate" compared to the new iPad 2. It hopes to have its thinner models available by June.

-----------------------------------

The real reason the Xoom hasn't taken off? There isn't a wifi only model available yet. Not having a wifi only model ready to go from the start was a big mistake. I don't expect the Xoom to ever sell like the iPad does, but if it had a wifi only model at a lower price without needing a data plan it would be doing quite a bit better.

I doubt that Motorola is leaving Android anytime soon for their own "in house" OS. The only reason they are still in business today is because of Android and dumping it for their own OS without any application support would be a suicidal move.

 

[kdarling]

Which all neatly misses the point. Google have gone back on their word.

Please tell us all how.

"Open Source" means that anyone can use, modify and sell a version. (They can't call it Android x.x unless it meets compatibility tests, of course.) This is still true.

It doesn't mean that you have to contribute all your changes back to the AOSP (Android Open Source Project)... I'm sure Samsung, Moto and HTC wouldn't want to share their custom overlays... nor does it mean that the Project has to accept any changes given it by anyone.

It especially doesn't mean that AOSP/Google can't keep the next official version hidden until they and their partners are ready with it.

Edit: ah. I see in another post you said, "For me true open source software is developed in the open as well" and you mentioned WebKit.

Okay, for you that's what it means, and that's fine. Don't you think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to apply that to a situation like Android where random contributions could collide with plans to add future hardware. There has to be someone in charge. With WebKit it's W3C standards. With Android, it's the AOSP.

 

[SevenInchScrew]

I don't expect the Xoom to ever sell like the iPad does, but if it had a wifi only model at a lower price without needing a data plan it would be doing quite a bit better.

The wifi version goes on sale tomorrow here in the US....

http://www.staples.com/StaplesProductDisplay?fromUrl=home&catalogId=10051&productId=379607
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Motorol...1218305633252&skuId=1946197&st=xoom&cp=1&lp=1

.....though some people have already started receiving their preorders.

http://phandroid.com/2011/03/25/as-...ne-lucky-customer-got-his-early-from-staples/

 

[elppa]

I can't understand why this is causing so much confusion…

Please tell us all how.

Now Honeycomb is released, the source is not accessible.

"Open Source" means that anyone can use, modify and sell a version.

Actually your rights and the extend to which you can use/modify/sell depend on the license.

It doesn't mean that you have to contribute all your changes back to the AOSP (Android Open Source Project)... I'm sure Samsung, Moto and HTC wouldn't want to share their custom overlays...

Correct. But you can't compare a skin with the core OS. So this has nothing to do with the honeycomb situation.

nor does it mean that the Project has to accept any changes given it by anyone.

Correct. But again we all know all Google's changes will always be accepted.

It especially doesn't mean that AOSP/Google can't keep the next official version hidden until they and their partners are ready with it.

But Honeycomb is shipping in products.

Look, Rubin dug a whole for himself when he defined what open meant and now no matter how much digging is done by Google it won't get them out of this hole.

 

[SevenInchScrew]

I can't understand why this is causing so much confusion…

I can't understand why it is such a big deal.

 

[elppa]

I can't understand why it is such a big deal.

It's not. It is just funny watching Google “we are open” backtrack.


Just like the app store 'restrictions' are a complete non issue for the vast majority of iOS device owners.

 

[KnightWRX]

Edit: ah. I see in another post you said, "For me true open source software is developed in the open as well" and you mentioned WebKit.

Which is quite disingenuous if someone knows the history of Webkit's launch. They basically did the same thing with KHTML. They took the project, announced they would use it as the rendering engine for their then new browser project and promised the KDE developers that they would participate actively with them in making KHMTL better.

They disappeared off to god knows where for quite a long time, didn't contribute anything back and finally came out with Webkit, a fork of KHTML basically. When the KDE Developers tried to see if it was possible to merge both code bases, so much time had passed that it was literally impossible. Apple basically took the project and ran with it, keeping it closed for quite some time until they were ready with their thing, and failed to contribute back as promised.

Of course, the GPL allows them to do this, but they still broke their promise.

So much for "developed in the open".

 

[SevenInchScrew]

It's not. It is just funny watching Google “we are open” backtrack.

Previous code releases were destined for a single type of experience, but now that isn't the case. In order to ensure everything works properly in those various environments, they are holding it back until it is ready. So again, maybe I don't fully understand it, but I don't see how wanting to make sure the OS runs well on more than just tablets before releasing the code is "backtracking".