From CNET: Nexus 10 incoming!

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Can't they have their cake and eat it too? They're picking and choosing what elements to play, and here they have undercut the competition by a large margin but they still take a page from that same competitor's playbook to gain profit. Outside of the hardcore, they seem to have few complaints. Apple already conditioned people, and Google now can go "but the even the market leading iPad doesn't offer that!"

It seems like that's what they're trying to do, though I think the ultimate strategy is to get as many people as possible using Google services to generate mobile advertising revenue.

Have you heard of a browser extension called Privacyfix? It analyses your web activity on various online services and estimates your value to them in terms of ad revenue (and lets you turn off tracking, if you so desire). Apparently, I am worth $900 a year to Google. For that kind of contribution, Google ought to give me a tablet for free.

Originally Posted by pl001

This is mostly true. Google is ultimately responsible for their pricing. They aren't some white knight of goodness by any means. The point I was making is that if Apple had not made that memory pricing strategy acceptable to the masses, Google would probably not be doing it.

The correction I would make is that the Nexus devices are not targeting the population that rejected Apple's strategy. Samsung's Galaxy and HTCs EVOs do that. The Nexus models have always been positioned as Google's most direct competitors to Apple, which is probably a main reason why they are not the best selling Android devices. Or at least, the phones have not been in the past.

I don't think so. The Samsung Galaxy S3 is the clearest competitor to the iPhone.

Google's strategy with Nexus devices has been inconsistent, though, and therefore hard to follow. They began by trying to undermine the current cell phone business model by selling contract-free phones through their website. That failed for a variety of reasons and it seems that Google's more ambitious goals were supplanted by a desire to create a benchmark device that would pressure OEMs to move towards stock Android and upgrade their hardware. Now they are making a serious push for hardware market dominance by offering high-end products at rock-bottom prices, and yet they still charge premiums for things like memory, so they're not exactly selling at cost. And behind all this, remember that Google is not a hardware company, it is an advertising company. So is the play to make profits on device sales or on ad revenue from Google services? You can say "both" but in some respects they're mutually exclusive.

Then again, none of us has access to Google's balance sheets, so this is all speculation.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or not. They freely chose to go high-margin and pocket the difference.
They made that intention clear when they let the word out that they were doing a "premium" 10incher.

Similarly, consumers freely choose to submit to that kind of strategy. Or not.
It's *their* money and neither Apple nor Google has kneecappers running around to enforce their pricing schemes. (Unlike certain BPHs who shall remain nameless until found guilty in federal court for exactly that, among other things.)

It's all about appealing to different customers.
The problems only appear when people delude themselves into thinking everybody is like them.
(Recent DNA studies indicate we're pretty much *all* of us mutants. Nobody is really like anybody else.)
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...arities_abound


Kinda explains the monkey, doesn't it?

What is a BPH?

Which I'm glad of, since I have no way of defending from all the personnel you can command.

"No authopsy, no foul."
I wouldn't have put the smiley in the reply if I'd taken it as a personal attack. In fact, I wouldn't have even replied directly. So we're cool there.

For the record (and newcomers), I was merely answering the question of why Google would choose to do limited-storage devices. The answer is to me clear that they do it because there is more money to be made that way. (And that *is* the name of the game. Android is no corporate hobby.) With Apple setting the example, as long as they find enough people willing to go along, they'll be golden.

The rest of us will have to "make do" with NookHD, Surface, the Win8Tabs and the assorted expandable android devices.

"It's not personal; it's just business."

Actually, that was in response to darksaber (read the quoted passage for the full effect of my reply). But I'm glad we're cool.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by holymadness

It seems like that's what they're trying to do, though I think the ultimate strategy is to get as many people as possible using Google services to generate mobile advertising revenue.

Have you heard of a browser extension called Privacyfix? It analyses your web activity on various online services and estimates your value to them in terms of ad revenue (and lets you turn off tracking, if you so desire). Apparently, I am worth $900 a year to Google. For that kind of contribution, Google ought to give me a tablet for free.

Or at least at cost, as Amazon and Nook Media do.
Google's balance sheet is plenty big but so is their ambition. (Though they do waste a lot of money in "wild geese chasing". But a lot of money in Google-speak translates to sofa-cushion-money.)
They can easily afford to grow their share and protect their investment in generic Android by selling at cost but they do want to eat their cake and have it, too, just as Apple does.

As the saying goes, "what a man has done, a man can aspire to."
(Woman can aspire to better, but for guys, matching is enough of a reach. )

Oh, and BPH = Big.Publishing.House.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Ah, "Freewill" by Rush. One of my favorite songs.

[Hellmark]

One other thong people are forgetting is that by limiting storage capacity, dependency on cloud storage increases. What is Google if not a Cloud company?

[pl001]

Originally Posted by holymadness

I don't think so. The Samsung Galaxy S3 is the clearest competitor to the iPhone.

The Galaxy S3 is the closest competitor in terms of sales. But that's not what I was saying.

In terms of what the device is, the Nexus is most similar to the iPhone. It's a pure Android experience with no bloatware, no OEM skins, direct updates, and no expansion. That's not coincidence.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

One other thong people are forgetting is that by limiting storage capacity, dependency on cloud storage increases. What is Google if not a Cloud company?

I'm impressed that Google is now offering its digital music locker for free (sadly, still not in Canada). I expect Google Drive to be next.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by pl001

The Galaxy S3 is the closest competitor in terms of sales. But that's not what I was saying.

In terms of what the device is, the Nexus is most similar to the iPhone. It's a pure Android experience with no bloatware, no OEM skins, direct updates, and no expansion. That's not coincidence.

Wait! Is the inference there that Google is aping Apple?

I think I paraphrase Gandalf. ~Fly you fools, fly.~

""Fly, you fools! ' he cried, and was gone.
The fires went out, and blank darkness fell. The Company stood rooted with horror staring into the pit."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

One other thong people are forgetting is that by limiting storage capacity, dependency on cloud storage increases. What is Google if not a Cloud company?

An ad-selling company.

They *want* to be a cloud company but are quite aways from what Amazon, Salesforce.com, or Microsoft can offer. A few lightyears ahead of Apple, though. Apple barely registers in the cloud.

There is more to Cloud computing than webmail and online storage or even office-wannabe apps. Hosting services, remote management, corporate apps, and APIs for custom in-house apps are areas were Google still needs development.

Apple's problem is bigger: Cloud computing is about virtualizing computers whereas their whole mindset is about consumer *hardware* so their cloud dabbling only goes as far as adding resources to consumer hardware. Since the main focus of cloud computing adoption is in the corporate sphere...

Anyway, 99% of Google net income is from ad sales. Everything else is noise. (As in, lots of talk and visibility, low net income.)

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

One other thong people are forgetting is that by limiting storage capacity, dependency on cloud storage increases. What is Google if not a Cloud company?

Trust me; I never forget a thong.

[fjtorres]

CNET has a detailed review:
http://reviews.cnet.com/tablets/goog...5513295-2.html

There are... quirks...
The battery is superslow to charge and playing GPU intensive games while charging...doesn't. The battery still discharges despite being plugged-in.
Watching a 1080p movie while charging neither charges nor discharges.

Apparently the microUSB charger can't deliver enough current to match the tablet's energy appetite when it's working full-tilt. Charging looks to be an overnight endeavor.

Interesting point.
(The screen also has contrast issues when compared to other Premium tablets; blacks aren't as dark nor whites as bright as they could be. Only an issue for videophiles, I suppose. If you're a fan of Panasonic plasma displays this migh not be the tablet for you. )

[shenye]

Thanks for the link to the review, fjtorres. Much appreciated!

Bummer about the charging issue. Well, I heard some companies don't want you to use your device while charging, due to fear of overheating. Perhaps this is why they didn't bother to make it better than it is. Or perhaps it can be fixed with a stronger wall adapter charger...

I am not sure what to think about the display performance. Of course I wish it'd be the best display in the world. It would make it easier for me to decide.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

CNET has a detailed review:
http://reviews.cnet.com/tablets/goog...5513295-2.html

There are... quirks...
The battery is superslow to charge and playing GPU intensive games while charging...doesn't. The battery still discharges despite being plugged-in.
Watching a 1080p movie while charging neither charges nor discharges.

Apparently the microUSB charger can't deliver enough current to match the tablet's energy appetite when it's working full-tilt. Charging looks to be an overnight endeavor.

That's a common issue. Tablets take a lot more juice than a phone, microUSB just isn't enough. And people hate proprietary chargers.

B&N uses a nice compromise for this on the Nook with their extra-long microUSB connector that supplies extra power, yet will still accept standard microUSB cables. A better solution, of course, would be a new standard.

[shenye]

Originally Posted by pl001

A better solution, of course, would be a new standard.

microUSB is rated to carry up to 1.8 amps at 5VDC. 9 watts is the maximum. If your devices uses more than 9 watts while at use, you are in bad luck.

One solution is to buy a stronger charging unit and get a cable adapter. For instance the this charger provides 2.1 amps, and you could use it with this cable to hook it up with the Nexus 10. This gives you 10.5 watts, which may still not be enough in heavy duty scenarios, but it's worth a try. Is it safe use? I have no idea.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

CNET has a detailed review:
http://reviews.cnet.com/tablets/goog...5513295-2.html...

The screen also has contrast issues when compared to other Premium tablets; blacks aren't as dark nor whites as bright as they could be...

Hmm.

Does anyone know if this is the sort of thing that can commonly be fixed with a firmware upgrade? It seems to me it would be strictly a hardware issue and unfixable, but I don't really know. Just guessing, and hoping I'm wrong.

[shenye]

It'd be interesting to find out who manufactured the panel. Panels differ, and some manufacturer are considered more premium than others.

If you ever bought a LCD TV you know what I mean... "panel lottery" is the key phrase.