Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#31

Post by ssharp »

I wonder how other companies making quality Android products feel about this. I'm not sure how ubiquitous the term "Android" is in the cell phone market (obviously the more informed consumers know, but what about more casual users?) but it seems like a lot of the commercials for the phones in the higher end mention that the phone runs Android.

Can the casual consumer differentiate between a terrible device that runs Android and a great device that runs Android? Would one bad experience with Android on a horrible device preclude that person from buying another Android product, even if the other product provides a quality UX?

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#32

Post by mortenjorck »

nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #2

I pity all the uninformed consumers who buy this, or even worse, people who receive this as a gift from those uninformed consumers...

"I don't get all this talk about the I-Pad. I bought a pad of some sort at Walgreens and had to return it. Pads aren't very good for anything."

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#33

Post by hvs »

frb wrote: post #30
nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #2

I pity all the uninformed consumers who buy this, or even worse, people who receive this as a gift from those uninformed consumers...

Devices like these can be very harmful to Android's image in the public, especially if their only feature/selling point is "powered by Android". My brother bought a Samsung Galaxy cellphone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ). The half-baked combination of hardware and software, with no updates available, made him soon regret the purchase. He was angry at Samsung and Google/Android for "producing such cra…

Conversely, the Samsung Galaxy S class of phones (I have the Captivate from AT&T) is a wonderful device. The only limitation is that it is still on 2.1, but it is supposed to be upgrade "sometime". That's AT&T's fault, though.

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#34

Post by watty »

trotsky wrote: post #25

Wow, unabashed apple fluffer arstechnica finds and reviews cheapest example of shenzhen style knockoff tech with expectations of terribleness, and confirms they don't like it a bit, no sir, not at all. In other news, there is a lot of water in the pacific ocean.

I disagree, Ars Technica is one of the least biased tech blogs I've found. If anything they're biased against Apple.

Like it or not the products sucks and runs Android.

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#35

Post by trotsky »

watty wrote: post #34
trotsky wrote: post #25

Wow, unabashed apple fluffer arstechnica finds and reviews cheapest example of shenzhen style knockoff tech with expectations of terribleness, and confirms they don't like it a bit, no sir, not at all. In other news, there is a lot of water in the pacific ocean.

I disagree, Ars Technica is one of the least biased tech blogs I've found. If anything they're biased against Apple. Like it or not the products sucks and runs Android.

ars? biased against apple? surely you troll.

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#37

Post by blhack »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #17

I'd be tempted to use one of these as a device which simply displays a custom written webpage which fetches and displays information. Once you've got it running it does nothing other than display a webpage. Put it on the desk, plugged in constantly. It could show my calendar or weather/traffic data.

What's a small LCD panel cost instead?

Re: Worst gadget ever? Ars reviews a $99 Android tablet

#38

Post by frb »

hvs wrote: post #33
frb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devices like these can be very harmful to Android's image in the public, especially if their only feature/selling point is "powered by Android". My brother bought a Samsung Galaxy cellphone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy ). The half-baked combination of hardware and software, with no updates available, made him soon regret the purchase. He was angry at Samsung and Google/Android for "producing such cra…

Conversely, the Samsung Galaxy S class of phones (I have the Captivate from AT&T) is a wonderful device. The only limitation is that it is still on 2.1, but it is supposed to be upgrade "sometime". That's AT&T's fault, though.

I think they've learned their lessons since the first Galaxy.

It seems that there's much dependency on carriers and manufacturers in the Android world.

What if security related bugs are discovered? Are there minor updates to fix these? And how fast are they deployed by the carrier or manufacturer?

Post reply on HN