Finally something we can work with. While both the iPad and the Joo Joo are technically still vapourware, people have at least had the opportunity to play with the former, while the latter remained somewhat illusive. Now that the device has been set to ship at the end of this month, Ars Technica finally had some time to play with the Joo Joo and talk to Fusion Garage's CEO, Chandra Rathakrishnan. There's good news, and there's (potentially) bad news.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-10-28
It does have a bigger screen, making room for more pixels (at the same density), and it does have a camera. However, it is bulkier and heavier than the iPad, has not 802.11n, no 3G, tiny 4GB internal memory, half the battery life, and worst of all is completely dependent on the internet and web apps. Want music? It must be streamed from the net. Want to read things? Must be read from websites only. Want to make documents? Only dumbed down web office suites allowed. Want to use it outside a WiFi hotspot? Sorry, you can't.
The iPad is somewhat crippled software wise, but this is just completely useless in comparison. Why would you prefer a Joo Joo Thom?
Edited 2010-02-05 00:07 UTC
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2008-07-15
This is OSnews after all.
And you know this will be possible... how? Some people read the word "Linux" and automatically jump to the conclusion that it is a completely open device. Didn't Tivo and Android teach us anything? Just having a Linux-based os is no guarantee of openness.
If it is open, all well and good. If not, it'sa whole lot less useful than the iPad would be, and I'm not too big on the iPad myself.
Member since:2005-06-29
If it is open, all well and good. If not, it'sa whole lot less useful than the iPad would be, and I'm not too big on the iPad myself.
Did you read the article, at all? It's clearly stated that IF the Joo Joo is open. IF.
IF.
Member since:2006-01-04
I think it is a safe bet. That small company had enough trouble with the touchscreen and the UI software. I am sure that they haven't strayed from your standard Atom ref design, which is totally supported by Linux and you will not have to jailbreak anything.
I am willing to take bets on that one. Any takers?
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-27
Member since:2005-06-29
Another one incapable of reading.
As the article states remarkably clearly: if I can extend the functionality - i.e., the device is open, contrary to the iPad's illegal-to-hack - then yes, I'd MUCH rather have the Joo Joo. Hack SAMBA access to it, and it'll have access to all the data I have. I'll be able to add codec support, remove stuff I don't need, and so on. It'd be one heck of an entertainment machine.
I'd not take it on the road - I mean, I have a real computer for that (a netbook).
But, as I said, the tablet concept in and itself is a hard sell at this point. There is no tablet market. Nobody knows if this stuff will sell, and I'd probably not buy one anyway. however, if you make me choose, then yes, IF the device is "open", then I'd certainly go for the Joo Joo.
And put a sticker over the name tag, of course. Because dear lord, what a retarded name.
Edited 2010-02-05 00:49 UTC
Member since:2006-10-28
Even if it is hackable, the Joo Joo is still pretty useless. One cannot expect a big ecosystem of polished hacks to be available for it, so even hacked extensions (such as samba and codecs) will probably just make the device unstable and slow.
At least for now, it's not 'illegal' to 'hack' your own device as long as it doesn't infringe on others property (i.e. don't hack on pirated sofware). Even if the Joo Joo is hackable, it'll still be less useful than an iPad. Don't expect hacks to be polished like the iTunes app in the iPod and don't expect major commercial vendors to create hacks for the Joo Joo.
At least the iPad is designed for local storage, can run outside WiFi hotspots, and can do most things netbooks do in a fun touchscreen package. I'd certainly appreciate openness in the iPad, but at least the closed product is more polished and useful than any fringe market Joo Joo hack may become. I don't get why anyone would want a Joo Joo over an iPad, or even justify the $500 price tag even if the iPad didn't exist.
Member since:2007-03-26
Hardly. The whole point of hacking devices like these is to /add/ functionality.
So to say it would still be useless is somewhat pessimistic
That's what a community is there for. IF the Joo Joo is hackable, then a community will spring up.
That's a somewhat unfair assumption given how little we know about the device and how good many hacked devices are (eg XBMC on the XBox).
Perhaps you should save that kind of FUD until the device has actually been hacked, let alone released.
At least for now, it's not 'illegal' to 'hack' your own device as long as it doesn't infringe on others property (i.e. don't hack on pirated software). Even if the Joo Joo is hackable, it'll still be less useful than an iPad. Don't expect hacks to be polished like the iTunes app in the iPod and don't expect major commercial vendors to create hacks for the Joo Joo.
Again, you're making huge and unjust assumptions (for the reasons stated above).
At least the iPad is designed for local storage,
The Joo Joo has USB so you can add local storage - even if it's just a pen drive.
You're only good point.
So can the Joo Joo.
I'd certainly appreciate openness in the iPad, but at least the closed product is more polished and useful than any fringe market Joo Joo hack may become.
Now you're comparing the corporate release of an integrated OS with a hack project that doesn't exist.
Please at least compare like for like.
Because not everybody likes Apple products - and this is something you'll just have to accept.
And, for me, the Joo Joo would work out cheaper as I don't own a Mac and I'm not about to install iTunes on the only Windows install I have (due to it being a streamlined real time system).
So if I want an iPad, then I'd either need to buy a new Mac or buy a new Windows license - either of which would work out more expensive in the long run than buying a Joo Joo.
Edited 2010-02-05 11:44 UTC
Member since:2006-03-30
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2008-07-15
Member since:
2006-01-01
Thom, I realise many people on here are down on the iPad, but it is not vapourware by any stretch of the imagination. It has been seen in public and real people have used it in informal settings. It has an SDK with a simulator. It has an entire OS revision (3.2) that is specifically geared towards it at the moment (and iPhones have no 3.2 at all..) It would be vapourware if Steve Jobs had mentioned it, held up a non working prototype and showed a concept video.
The Joojoo on the other hand, is still quite an enigma, which I would consider bordering on vapourware.
By all means, if Apple don't ever release an iPad, please feel free to call me out, but that would be a pretty unlikely turn of events.
If the Joojoo actually makes it to market in any great volumes and makes any kind of impact past novelty Geek toy, I'll be pretty amazed.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-11-11
Well sure, if you want to redefine vaporware. It's always carried a connotation of late to extremely late to unlikely to ever come out. "Not released yet" does not mean vaporware.
Wikipedia is terrible at times, but I don't disagree with them in this:
None of this applies to the iPad, and you look a little petty trying to shoehorn the term in. And from the editor in me: the word is "elusive"
Member since:
2008-07-15
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:2008-07-15
Well, I don't own nor plan to own a Wii or an iPad either. I agree about the Wii, at least iPad (while stupid and unoriginal) makes a sort of Apple sense, the iEverything line. It just doesn't sound as comical, somehow. Too bad Apple won't come out with a vacuum cleaner, the iSuck. Now, that'd be even funnier than Joo Joo.
Member since:2006-07-14
I totally forgot how bad the joojoo name was after the iPad was announced. joojoo just sounds stupid, but not "oh my dear lord, why didn't a woman tell them not to name it that", bad. I mean, the jokes wrote themselves years ago *before* the product was conceived. But yeah, joojoo as a name sucks. I think I've been pretty consistent about expressing my displeasure for both devices, and I'll stick to that.
They both suck, can we talk about some Operating Systems now? Or at least yell at intel for their confusing as hell processor feature support?
Member since:2005-07-06
Literally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx449r1vhos
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2009-08-26
Member since:
2009-03-17
The issue is not the size of the market they (fusion garage) are entering, but the size of the player they are going against.
The argument seems to be a red herring addressed to an unasked question. Unless they were trying to assure their investors that the market is big enough to afford them to subsist as a nice player.
Edited 2010-02-05 03:54 UTC
Member since:
2006-02-06
Who wouldn't want to support a company that is a "nice player"? :-)
I hope this company is successful as I don't want a tablet monopoly. Let's see OSX tablets, Android tablets, Windows 7 tablets, Chrome OS tables, ubuntu tablets and WebOS tablets. The more choice there is the better off we'll all be.
In the end what we really don't want is any one company being the sole significant distributer of electronic books, magazines and papers.
Member since:2009-03-17
Wooops "nice" -> "niche"
Well, unfortunately most customers don't tend to apply charitable ends as part of their purchase-making decision process.
If anyone is going to challenge apple in the tablet arena, it will probably be another big player. Unfortunately the success/failure of these devices may depend upon the volume of content and its distribution model. And just the hw/sw combo, and the quality of it, may not be enough to combine customers. And I am sure content publishers are not going to offer good deals or even support niche platforms. Oh, well...
