Samsung Galaxy Tablet

[T_Frain_K]

Originally Posted by Sonist

..., regular TFT, which is inferior to the IPS screen on the iPad.

The used "Super-LCD" is supposed to be quite impressive. I'd still prefer S-AMOLED

[tubemonkey]

Samsung (and the others) should make a 4.3" WiFi only Android tablet with iPod touch pricing.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Samsung (and the others) should make a 4.3" WiFi only Android tablet with iPod touch pricing.

Hmm, I consider 5 inch the watermark between smart phone, PDA or mobile media player and a tablet. I know there is no official rule but 5 inch or 12.5 cm is a good line to draw between the two product group.

Or can you think of any other way to distinguish the media player iPod-Touch and the iPad? Ohh, wait - you consider the iPod-Touch a tablet and not a media player.

Martin

[petermillard]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Samsung (and the others) should make a 4.3" WiFi only Android tablet with iPod touch pricing.

I agree, an Android-based iPod Touch competitor would be very interesting. Don't you think though, that if they could do it at a similar price, they would have done it already? It's not like OEMs haven't had plenty of time to come up with something competitive, so maybe it just really isn't that easy??

Pete

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by krischik

Or can you think of any other way to distinguish the media player iPod-Touch and the iPad? Ohh, wait - you consider the iPod-Touch a tablet and not a media player.

Martin

Exactly; other than screen size, they're fairly similar in capabilities.

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by petermillard

I agree, an Android-based iPod Touch competitor would be very interesting. Don't you think though, that if they could do it at a similar price, they would have done it already? It's not like OEMs haven't had plenty of time to come up with something competitive, so maybe it just really isn't that easy??

Pete

Their already is a four inch version available in Korea that is just the Android tablet without the phone. I don't remember what it is called exactly. I don't think its going to be released internationally.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by petermillard

Don't you think though, that if they could do it at a similar price, they would have done it already? It's not like OEMs haven't had plenty of time to come up with something competitive, so maybe it just really isn't that easy??

Pete

It really is that easy. There have been enough teardowns to show that most smartphones cost less than $200 to make. The iPhone 4 costs Apple $188 to manufacture. Taking the phone radio out would make it even cheaper to produce.

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Samsung (and the others) should make a 4.3" WiFi only Android tablet with iPod touch pricing.

Archos is already doing it ...

[krischik]

Originally Posted by m-reader

Archos is already doing it ...

Right, everything from 2.8 inch to 10.1 inch in 5 fine tunes steps. A pretty nifty strategy. See: http://www.archos.com/products/ta/in...try=ch&lang=de

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by m-reader

Archos is already doing it ...

Too bad their quality sucks.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Too bad their quality sucks.

And they don't have access to the Android market.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Not really. All it needs is a cellular data connection, with the corresponding hardware identification codes, to qualify for market access. The article that I posted earlier seems to imply that they have negotiated Android Market access, even though the oddball screen size is going to be an issue. If anyone really wants voice with it, they could possibly try VOIP?

You may very well be right about Market access.

But all the other negatives about this tablet still stand. Pretty poor buy, IMO.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by Sonist

regular TFT, which is inferior to the IPS screen on the iPad.

I have looked up IPS. It is just a variation of TFT LCD. The full name would be “In-plane switching Thin film transistor liquid crystal display” (IPS-TFT-LCD).

Like all LCD it is optically passive (it does not emit photons by itself) and need additional light (usually build in). And it is a pretty old technology (1996).

Interestingly enough AMOLED too is a TFT technology. It would be “Thin film transistor organic light-emitting diode” (TFT-OLED) but I guess the manufactures decided against that as it would lead to confusion with the consumer and went for “Active matrix organic light-emitting diode” instead. But AM is only a more general term for TFT (TFT ∈ AM).

So long talk short meaning: The real difference is LCD vs LED no matter how many extra letters you put in front of the name.

Martin

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by krischik

And they don't have access to the Android market.

I still don't believe it will be that big an issue. Can't say until it's out though.

This is all pointless until 3.0 and hopefully a new marketplace not reliant on cellular data access.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by krischik

I have looked up IPS. It is just a variation of TFT LCD. The full name would be “In-plane switching Thin film transistor liquid crystal display” (IPS-TFT-LCD).

Like all LCD it is optically passive (it does not emit photons by itself) and need additional light (usually build in). And it is a pretty old technology (1996).

Interestingly enough AMOLED too is a TFT technology. It would be “Thin film transistor organic light-emitting diode” (TFT-OLED) but I guess the manufactures decided against that as it would lead to confusion with the consumer and went for “Active matrix organic light-emitting diode” instead. But AM is only a more general term for TFT (TFT ∈ AM).

So long talk short meaning: The real difference is LCD vs LED no matter how many extra letters you put in front of the name.

Martin