Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

Dude. If there are 3 different devices, you pick the one that fits your needs, ie, in this case the general N800. I fail to see how offering MORE choices is a problem...? You seem to think I advocate eliminating a multiuse device to have nothing but specialty tablets. Nope.

No one is talking about crippling anything-- just extending the line (which is inevitable). And specialization doesn't degrade the goal. If it did, we'd be selling only one type of phone. ;)

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

With the external MMC positioned on the bottom the N800 does lend itself to the idea of slip on, specialty use, jackets...

If the MMC cover was removed and the a software switch is used I could see a gamers jacket with side controls, a USB host jacket, a port replicator jacket, and even a cell phone or other Wireless connection jacket... all using SDIO to interface with the dang thing.

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

It might be a problem if certain applications (eg PIM tools) were only available on one of the hardware platforms. Given the current nature of the way applications can be downloaded and delivered, I suspect it would be possible to get the apps installed on the other devices. However, not offering that level of flexibility would concern me.

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

...

I still fail to see the problem.

If you continue producing a general purpose device like the N800, and then add some slightly or highly specilaized devices to the product line, so what if one device has difficulties running an application not intended for it?

Also, who said the OS wouldn't be platformed? That was actually part of the idea. So if an application couldn't run on one variant, it would likely be due to a hardware limitation, such as a camera missing from the enterprise version.

Some of the responses to expanding the product line quite frankly mystify me. The sort of thinking espoused would have certainly restricted cell phone offerings...

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

Specialization REQUIRES that not every device have all the functionality of the platform. Unless, that is, your: device is actually the most expensive of the bunch and offers all the features of the two other devices (which doesn't seem to be the case, as "General multimedia" is not the same thing as "ultimate, unlimited super device" ;)). What seems to be implied by your post, though, is that each device would have a specific set of hardware and software features that would lend it to gaming, multimedia, or business usage, but, I want the device that can do all 3 without a lot of compromises.

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

Indeed, and Texrat - this was my point in general. I understand the hardware limitations can easily play a part, but I don't understand your "let's put a different OS into each device" - why not use a common OS, have common application repositories (or at least continue the easy cross compile capabilities), and allow the user to choose what additional apps they install or don't install...?

eg Out of the three types listed, I would want a combination of the Enterprise and Communications (General) versions, and could easily sacrifice some Multimedia (Gaming) capabilities. If I had to choose between Enterprise and Communications, then I might be inclined to choose a different manufacturer who provided what the consumer (or at least this consumer) wants.

I think I was possibly thinking of it the other way round to you - say Nokia produced an Enterprise version with PIM capabilities - it would seem wrong to me to not allow the other devices in the range to have PIM capabilities installed, although it might need payment of a license fee. Saying "you can either have a camera, video calling and Skype OR you can have PIM apps" would encourage those who want both to look elsewhere (in my opinion).

I see no harm in Nokia expanding the range, and it's free to do so however it likes, but it can either make it easier for itself, or make it harder.

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

As long as more devices doesn't fracture the platform, I think it's a good idea. I want a N800 with gaming controls, and games, damnit. ;p

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

Which is interesting, as I don't :)

So, expanding the range makes sense to capture a greater range of users, as long as existing ones aren't alienated :)

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

From UI perspective I think that there should be at least two interface models. One for simple "do one thing well" type of programs, and other for complex programs like spreadsheet. The simple one could be optimised for use without stylus, and the other one with stylus in mind. If a program doesn't fit well in either category, it could have both interfaces with some features hidden in the simple version. That way the interface wouldn't have to compromise between these two worlds.

Oh, and I'm definitely for the right hand hardkeys. They would enable gaming on a totally different level, but could be programmed to bunch of things in regular programs too.

Re: Tablet Advocacy
 

You guys are killing me. You are really, really reaching to try to discredit my suggestion. So far not a single contradiction has held any water, though.

I never once said the general tablet should be affected by expansion.

I never once suggested different OS on each device.

I also never implied that a general purpose tablet (ie N800) should go away altogether, just in case that turns out to be another bizarre interpretation of my statements.

We have the N800 now. If you're happy with that device, GREAT! So am I. But just because you may not want a new variant created, why deny other customers that privilege. Arnim was once again on target: more variation/functionality means more customers, which means larger base, which make sit easier for Nokia to provide resources for the platform, etc etc etc.

But if any of you truly believe that ADDING devices to the family will automatically be a bad thing, you're gonna have to scrape up some better arguments than the ones so far...