[tdawg00]

Besides Gmail.

Why is it that Google doesnt release concurrent apps for both phones and tablets?
There arent that many apps for Honeycomb and you would think the company who invented the software would have lateral apps to match.

And at least make a tablet only section for apps. Not "Feature tablet apps". Its hard enough to search for apps.

On Honeycomb :

Google + = Works but not tablet optimized
Google voice = Doesnt exist at all
Google translate = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Googles = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Docs = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Shopper = Works but not tablet optimized
Google reader = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Finance = Works but not tablet optimized


I dont believe the "stretch or super zoom" features are a good band-aid. I just find it odd.


Just saying

[jsls]

I couldn't agree more! Google gestures is missing too, I use that all the time on my cell phone.

[robm15]

+1 I'm was very disappointed to realize that not even Google in very interested in supporting their own OS for tablets.

[Xm_jdm]

Plus one. Google should be all over this. I was really surprised that Google plus isn't optimized.

[tdawg00]

By now, they should have something for most of their apps. Scratch that. 100 percent of their apps.

I really want Google voice.

[Maikai.Guy]

Besides Gmail.
Why is it that Google doesnt release concurrent apps for both phones and tablets?
There arent that many apps for Honeycomb and you would think the company who invented the software would have lateral apps to match.
And at least make a tablet only section for apps. Not "Feature tablet apps". Its hard enough to search for apps.
On Honeycomb :
Google + = Works but not tablet optimized
Google voice = Doesnt exist at all
Google translate = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Googles = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Docs = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Shopper = Works but not tablet optimized
Google reader = Works but not tablet optimized
Google Finance = Works but not tablet optimized
I dont believe the "stretch or super zoom" features are a good band-aid. I just find it odd.
Just saying

I agree with some of what you're saying, but you're going off the deep end with most of it.

Several of these "apps" shouldn't even be run on a tablet. You should just interact with the website. I'm talking about Google+, Google Docs, Google Finance in particular. It seems silly that you'd want Google to support a a full featured tablet version of Google Docs, when you can simply access the full featured version through the web... on the tablet.

Google Goggles? Really? I use that to identify stuff (brings me to real website) or suck data off of business cards for my contact list. What the heck do you envision with regards to making it tablet optimized? Maybe I'm not using it for something you are and am completely missing the point.

But I digress from the point I want to make...

The end game for the Marekt is not to have different apps for phones, tablets and GoogleTV. Eventually we will have one Market of apps and the apps themselves will auto-magically understand what to present to the user, depending on the hardware it's being run on. The stretch/zoom feature is a bridge to that goal... for now.

In a year from now, you'll see the benefits of this direction. Instead of having several different versions of the same app to run on several different hardware platforms, we will have one app to rule them all.

[Michael Alan Goff]

@Maikai

Google Docs: I'd like a tablet version that allows me to make apps offline, then syncs later with my Google Docs account. Why? Because I'm not always around WiFi and I sometimes like typing up things on my Xoom anyway.

Google+: I don't like their mobile site.

[tdawg00]

I agree with some of what you're saying, but you're going off the deep end with most of it.

Several of these "apps" shouldn't even be run on a tablet. You should just interact with the website. I'm talking about Google+, Google Docs, Google Finance in particular. It seems silly that you'd want Google to support a a full featured tablet version of Google Docs, when you can simply access the full featured version through the web... on the tablet.

Google Goggles? Really? I use that to identify stuff (brings me to real website) or suck data off of business cards for my contact list. What the heck do you envision with regards to making it tablet optimized? Maybe I'm not using it for something you are and am completely missing the point.

But I digress from the point I want to make...

The end game for the Marekt is not to have different apps for phones, tablets and GoogleTV. Eventually we will have one Market of apps and the apps themselves will auto-magically understand what to present to the user, depending on the hardware it's being run on. The stretch/zoom feature is a bridge to that goal... for now.

In a year from now, you'll see the benefits of this direction. Instead of having several different versions of the same app to run on several different hardware platforms, we will have one app to rule them all.

Yea you missed the point... Google googles doesnt just scan "business cards"....

Your point about using a website seems counter intuitive when there are apps . You can say that for any google app made. If wanted to know where the nearest Mcdonalds is at, you think i should just fire up my browser and go to maps, type in Mcdonalds and select search vs just saying Navigate to Mcdonalds Yea, not so cool.

Imagine using the camera on one side the screen while the other side screen looks up results.

Google plus mobile website sucks... Sorry

[dmonzel]

In rega

[dmonzel]

Dang it. In regards to the mobile version of Google+, you can always install a different browser (Dolphin for Pads, for example) and set the user agent to Desktop.

[Maikai.Guy]

Yea you missed the point... Google googles doesnt just scan "business cards"....

Maybe I missed the point because you fail to make one. How would Google Goggles be optimized for a tablet? What exactly do you feel you're missing from Goggles on a tablet? Be specific.

Your point about using a website seems counter intuitive when there are apps . You can say that for any google app made. If wanted to know where the nearest Mcdonalds is at, you think i should just fire up my browser and go to maps, type in Mcdonalds and select search vs just saying Navigate to Mcdonalds Yea, not so cool.

Again, what's your point here? Now you want a McDonalds locator app? This seems to be complaint about navigator or google maps in general. What does this have to do with the premise: "Where are the "Google" built for tablet apps??"

Imagine using the camera on one side the screen while the other side screen looks up results.

Um... isn't that what Goggles does? You take a picture of something and it either extracts the data for your use, it translates foreign languages, or it looks stuff up on the web. Again, be specific about what it is you feel is missing.

Google plus mobile website sucks... Sorry

You seem to believe Google should completely recreate the web experience in an app. Why? It seems a ridiculous waste of time, energy and money. There are so many other things I'd love them to do before they make apps for tablets that completely recreate the look and feel of a website... something we can already go to about as fast as opening an app.

[neller2000]

Just for the record, there are ZERO tablet apps for Android tablets. There's featured apps, sure. They're not tablet apps though. They're flat out phone apps, tweaked to somewhat work on a tablet. The iPad has specific tablet apps designed for it, with a specific tablet section for apps, with thousands of tablet apps. Android has zero apps specifically designed from the bottom up for a tablet.

This was already covered by one of the Android webblogs some weeks ago, if not Androidcentral itself.

The total lack of apps for tablets is also why a lot of them crash most of the time. Heck, I can't even download the official Facebook app for my Xoom anymore since apparently it's phone only.

[Maikai.Guy]

Just for the record, there are ZERO tablet apps for Android tablets. There's featured apps, sure. They're not tablet apps though. They're flat out phone apps, tweaked to somewhat work on a tablet. The iPad has specific tablet apps designed for it, with a specific tablet section for apps, with thousands of tablet apps. Android has zero apps specifically designed from the bottom up for a tablet.

This was already covered by one of the Android webblogs some weeks ago, if not Androidcentral itself.

The total lack of apps for tablets is also why a lot of them crash most of the time. Heck, I can't even download the official Facebook app for my Xoom anymore since apparently it's phone only.

Zero? Really? You can't be serious.

"..specifically design from the bottom up for a tablet..." OK, sorry, but I've got to point out the profound lack of understanding of coding, the linux kernal, and android specifically, that this comment represents. No App is written "from the bottom up" for a particular platform, no matter what the blogs you read say.

As an electrical engineer since the mid 80's, working with a major semi supplier based in Silicon Valley, I am constantly amazed at what passes for tech knowledge these days. It's the era of the blind leading the blind. As soon as someone has enough info to be dangerous, they start a blog and spread copious amounts of disinformation due to their ignorance. This is where your strange/false expectations for a tablet platform come from, IMHO.

I'll try this in layman's terms, but if you'd like to get specific, feel free to ask a specific quetion. Android is built on the Linux kernal, which contains many of the hardware drivers. Linux is the "foundation", so to speak that the house is built on. It contains the main plumbing and other hardware interfaces the platform needs to support. It is compiled for a particular set of hardware. On that, are the "studs" of the house, the general libraries including the specific Android libraries. The application framework can be thought of as the sheetrock walls, paint, windows and doors of the house. The furniture, wall hangings and window dressings are the apps themselves.

So... suggesting there are no "bottom up" tablet apps is like saying there are no dining room tables specifically built "bottom up" for only Split Ranch homes. It's a statement that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what a house is, but yes, that statement would be a correct statement. To my knowledge, there are no dining room tables specifically built for Split Ranch homes. Just as there are no apps built "bottom up" for tablets... or phones for that matter!

The reason you don't see a separate tablet section in the Market is not because there are no tablet apps. It is because Google's intention is to not have dual markets. They want one market. Google has enabled the ability for the market to determine if an app is appropriate for our hardware and the ability for different versions of an app to be nested under a single app page within the market. They have also included a zoom function in Honeycomb for small screened apps. This is a bandaid for apps that have been written for a phone (small screen only). These small apps will always exist. Google will not dictate that developers make large screen versions of every app. So Google has made it a bit easier for tablet users who want to use one of these apps.

As for full blown Android apps which feature all the bells and whistles of a web home page, you'll be waiting a very long time for that, I think. Let's take Google+ for example. To use Google+, you need to be connected to the internet. If you are already connected to the internet, what would be the benefit of having an Android app that looks, feels, and is, exactly like the website? It's ridiculous. What you really want is a bookmark, but you are fixated on an app... again, probably because some ignorant blogger told you so.

The reason apps crash is because Honeycomb is still a work in progress. It was rushed out to production, nobody can argue that. In fact, I was told by an associate at Motorola that the XOOM was ready to be released for production before Christmas 2010, but they had to wait for Google. This makes sense, because clearly, it was rushed to market. As time goes on, compatibility issues will be ironed out. It's not a 'built for tablets" issue.

[tdawg00]

Zero? Really? You can't be serious.

"..specifically design from the bottom up for a tablet..." OK, sorry, but I've got to point out the profound lack of understanding of coding, the linux kernal, and android specifically, that this comment represents. No App is written "from the bottom up" for a particular platform, no matter what the blogs you read say.

As an electrical engineer since the mid 80's, working with a major semi supplier based in Silicon Valley, I am constantly amazed at what passes for tech knowledge these days. It's the era of the blind leading the blind. As soon as someone has enough info to be dangerous, they start a blog and spread copious amounts of disinformation due to their ignorance. This is where your strange/false expectations for a tablet platform come from, IMHO.

I'll try this in layman's terms, but if you'd like to get specific, feel free to ask a specific quetion. Android is built on the Linux kernal, which contains many of the hardware drivers. Linux is the "foundation", so to speak that the house is built on. It contains the main plumbing and other hardware interfaces the platform needs to support. It is compiled for a particular set of hardware. On that, are the "studs" of the house, the general libraries including the specific Android libraries. The application framework can be thought of as the sheetrock walls, paint, windows and doors of the house. The furniture, wall hangings and window dressings are the apps themselves.

So... suggesting there are no "bottom up" tablet apps is like saying there are no dining room tables specifically built "bottom up" for only Split Ranch homes. It's a statement that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what a house is, but yes, that statement would be a correct statement. To my knowledge, there are no dining room tables specifically built for Split Ranch homes. Just as there are no apps built "bottom up" for tablets... or phones for that matter!

The reason you don't see a separate tablet section in the Market is not because there are no tablet apps. It is because Google's intention is to not have dual markets. They want one market. Google has enabled the ability for the market to determine if an app is appropriate for our hardware and the ability for different versions of an app to be nested under a single app page within the market. They have also included a zoom function in Honeycomb for small screened apps. This is a bandaid for apps that have been written for a phone (small screen only). These small apps will always exist. Google will not dictate that developers make large screen versions of every app. So Google has made it a bit easier for tablet users who want to use one of these apps.

As for full blown Android apps which feature all the bells and whistles of a web home page, you'll be waiting a very long time for that, I think. Let's take Google+ for example. To use Google+, you need to be connected to the internet. If you are already connected to the internet, what would be the benefit of having an Android app that looks, feels, and is, exactly like the website? It's ridiculous. What you really want is a bookmark, but you are fixated on an app... again, probably because some ignorant blogger told you so.

The reason apps crash is because Honeycomb is still a work in progress. It was rushed out to production, nobody can argue that. In fact, I was told by an associate at Motorola that the XOOM was ready to be released for production before Christmas 2010, but they had to wait for Google. This makes sense, because clearly, it was rushed to market. As time goes on, compatibility issues will be ironed out. It's not a 'built for tablets" issue.

This so full of assumptions and is incredibly condescending. With your way of thinking, in terms of tablets and apps. There shouldn't be anything made for a tablet because we can just bookmark it or whatever. Which makes no sense to anyone but yourself. Obviously I pay for the internet (verizon network), and want to use the app without firing up the browser, hit a bookmark and do 5 mins of scrolling around so i can see 10 Facebook post, when i could just press a button on my homescreen and be there without scrolling and zoom etc.

I am still to figure out Google doesn't want to have two different markets statement.... When there is section called "Feature tablet apps" I mean really?? What it so hard to have a "tablet app section"?

Let me guess Google doesn't want to design tablet apps because (throw in random unrelated argurment)

[tdawg00]

Maybe I missed the point because you fail to make one. How would Google Goggles be optimized for a tablet? What exactly do you feel you're missing from Goggles on a tablet? Be specific.

Im not because you dont get it. And you will just make a different point that we are wrong.

Again, what's your point here? Now you want a McDonalds locator app? This seems to be complaint about navigator or google maps in general. What does this have to do with the premise: "Where are the "Google" built for tablet apps??"

No. I am saying since you think tablet apps are silly, i should just make a bookmark to the nearest McDonald. Google Maps is a tablet optimize and it works for the tablet. It obviously bigger, has different features then the phone app provides.

Um... isn't that what Goggles does? You take a picture of something and it either extracts the data for your use, it translates foreign languages, or it looks stuff up on the web. Again, be specific about what it is you feel is missing.

No it takes it on two different screens at two different times, independently of each other....

You seem to believe Google should completely recreate the web experience in an app. Why? It seems a ridiculous waste of time, energy and money. There are so many other things I'd love them to do before they make apps for tablets that completely recreate the look and feel of a website... something we can already go to about as fast as opening an app.

Where did i say that?? I said Google+ plus web experience sucks.... It forces you to use the mobile site, but you probably dont have a Google + account and use a tablet to know that. So it really doesnt matter.

[neller2000]

Zero? Really? You can't be serious.

"..specifically design from the bottom up for a tablet..." OK, sorry, but I've got to point out the profound lack of understanding of coding, the linux kernal, and android specifically, that this comment represents. No App is written "from the bottom up" for a particular platform, no matter what the blogs you read say.

As an electrical engineer since the mid 80's, working with a major semi supplier based in Silicon Valley, I am constantly amazed at what passes for tech knowledge these days. It's the era of the blind leading the blind. As soon as someone has enough info to be dangerous, they start a blog and spread copious amounts of disinformation due to their ignorance. This is where your strange/false expectations for a tablet platform come from, IMHO.

I'll try this in layman's terms, but if you'd like to get specific, feel free to ask a specific quetion. Android is built on the Linux kernal, which contains many of the hardware drivers. Linux is the "foundation", so to speak that the house is built on. It contains the main plumbing and other hardware interfaces the platform needs to support. It is compiled for a particular set of hardware. On that, are the "studs" of the house, the general libraries including the specific Android libraries. The application framework can be thought of as the sheetrock walls, paint, windows and doors of the house. The furniture, wall hangings and window dressings are the apps themselves.

So... suggesting there are no "bottom up" tablet apps is like saying there are no dining room tables specifically built "bottom up" for only Split Ranch homes. It's a statement that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what a house is, but yes, that statement would be a correct statement. To my knowledge, there are no dining room tables specifically built for Split Ranch homes. Just as there are no apps built "bottom up" for tablets... or phones for that matter!

The reason you don't see a separate tablet section in the Market is not because there are no tablet apps. It is because Google's intention is to not have dual markets. They want one market. Google has enabled the ability for the market to determine if an app is appropriate for our hardware and the ability for different versions of an app to be nested under a single app page within the market. They have also included a zoom function in Honeycomb for small screened apps. This is a bandaid for apps that have been written for a phone (small screen only). These small apps will always exist. Google will not dictate that developers make large screen versions of every app. So Google has made it a bit easier for tablet users who want to use one of these apps.

As for full blown Android apps which feature all the bells and whistles of a web home page, you'll be waiting a very long time for that, I think. Let's take Google+ for example. To use Google+, you need to be connected to the internet. If you are already connected to the internet, what would be the benefit of having an Android app that looks, feels, and is, exactly like the website? It's ridiculous. What you really want is a bookmark, but you are fixated on an app... again, probably because some ignorant blogger told you so.

The reason apps crash is because Honeycomb is still a work in progress. It was rushed out to production, nobody can argue that. In fact, I was told by an associate at Motorola that the XOOM was ready to be released for production before Christmas 2010, but they had to wait for Google. This makes sense, because clearly, it was rushed to market. As time goes on, compatibility issues will be ironed out. It's not a 'built for tablets" issue.

I'm definitely very serious. Look at Apple and how app developers create thousands and thousands of apps, specifically designed for the iPad. They work flawlessly on the iPad. They take perfect advantage of the specific screensize. They rarely, if ever, crash.

Most of the apps I have on my Xoom are half-baked. They crash often. Most are just poor ports from phone apps. Some only work on certain tablets. Some won't even work.

[dhendriksen]

There are tablet specific apps that I've found. A few are: file explorer, quick office, etc...

[johnowolf]

I'm definitely very serious. Look at Apple and how app developers create thousands and thousands of apps, specifically designed for the iPad. They work flawlessly on the iPad. They take perfect advantage of the specific screensize. They rarely, if ever, crash.

Most of the apps I have on my Xoom are half-baked. They crash often. Most are just poor ports from phone apps. Some only work on certain tablets. Some won't even work.

I have to go with Maikai.Guy here. As a software professional I would think asking for a tablet only app would be like asking for an app that only works on Windows 7 on a dual-core processor. Yes, we all think we want it until win 8 comes out or the quad core is released, and and then we scream because it doesn't work anymore!

Take a page from the old Apple (back when they were still innovators). Apple developer guides said don't use a certain range of memory because it was reserved for 32 bit processing. The major developers ignored it because they could make their apps faster. Mac System 7 rolled out and all those apps crashed. Guess who got blamed; Apple, of course! Not the developers who ignored the guidelines in the first place. I believe that's where we are now with Android. The guidelines are for a common standard, but many developers have ignored the standard to optimize for a particular device or os version.

Be careful what you ask for! ICS is coming; do you want to have a series of apps that will no longer work when your tablet upgrades from honeycomb? Or do you want to be left behind from ICS? Honestly, I have found very few apps that don't work on my Xoom, and most of those don't work right anywhere unless you are on the "just right platform".

Oh, and "flawlessly on iPad"? Really? Not what I hear from some iPad owner friends! Not to mention, pull out the iPad, load your favorite browser, and head for a Flash site. What, no browser? No flash? Oh yeah, you're using an iPad!

[Michael Alan Goff]

I have to go with Maikai.Guy here. As a software professional I would think asking for a tablet only app would be like asking for an app that only works on Windows 7 on a dual-core processor. Yes, we all think we want it until win 8 comes out or the quad core is released, and and then we scream because it doesn't work anymore!

Take a page from the old Apple (back when they were still innovators). Apple developer guides said don't use a certain range of memory because it was reserved for 32 bit processing. The major developers ignored it because they could make their apps faster. Mac System 7 rolled out and all those apps crashed. Guess who got blamed; Apple, of course! Not the developers who ignored the guidelines in the first place. I believe that's where we are now with Android. The guidelines are for a common standard, but many developers have ignored the standard to optimize for a particular device or os version.

Be careful what you ask for! ICS is coming; do you want to have a series of apps that will no longer work when your tablet upgrades from honeycomb? Or do you want to be left behind from ICS? Honestly, I have found very few apps that don't work on my Xoom, and most of those don't work right anywhere unless you are on the "just right platform".

Oh, and "flawlessly on iPad"? Really? Not what I hear from some iPad owner friends! Not to mention, pull out the iPad, load your favorite browser, and head for a Flash site. What, no browser? No flash? Oh yeah, you're using an iPad!

Woah woah woah.

Having a tablet version of an app isn't a bad thing.

And, really, there's no relevance between apps working and whether or not the iPad has flash.

Stay on subject, or make yourself look like a fanboy.

[johnowolf]

Woah woah woah.

Having a tablet version of an app isn't a bad thing.

And, really, there's no relevance between apps working and whether or not the iPad has flash.

Stay on subject, or make yourself look like a fanboy.

I believe the subject is "why so few tablet specific apps", which is what I was addressing (or at least stating my feelings on). In my not usually very humble opinion, the browsers and flash help address that department; not to mention that being one of the key advantages of the Android platform.

I won't argue that there may be advantages to tablet-specific apps, but isn't one of the goals of ICS to help unify the platform and reduce fragmentation? To me, that would suggest a reduction of focus on targeted apps.

Give me an idea of what you feel defines a tablet specific app. The screen size? Do we then have "10 inch" and "7 inch" specific apps? Is it the processor or memory? That's going to end up being a wide-spread variation of options. Is it a particular set of functionality? Again, tell me what functionality sets apart a tablet app from a smartphone app (aside from the obvious phone features).

The only reason I brought up the iPad was to answer a specific statement by another forum member. If you feel it makes me look like a "fanboy" to address someone else's thoughts, so be it; but please check the topic and discussions before suggesting someone is off them.

[Michael Alan Goff]

I believe the subject is "why so few tablet specific apps", which is what I was addressing (or at least stating my feelings on). In my not usually very humble opinion, the browsers and flash help address that department; not to mention that being one of the key advantages of the Android platform.

I won't argue that there may be advantages to tablet-specific apps, but isn't one of the goals of ICS to help unify the platform and reduce fragmentation? To me, that would suggest a reduction of focus on targeted apps.

Give me an idea of what you feel defines a tablet specific app. The screen size? Do we then have "10 inch" and "7 inch" specific apps? Is it the processor or memory? That's going to end up being a wide-spread variation of options. Is it a particular set of functionality? Again, tell me what functionality sets apart a tablet app from a smartphone app (aside from the obvious phone features).

The only reason I brought up the iPad was to answer a specific statement by another forum member. If you feel it makes me look like a "fanboy" to address someone else's thoughts, so be it; but please check the topic and discussions before suggesting someone is off them.

The thing that defines a tablet app, against a non-tablet, is the use of the screen. When an application os made for a smartphone, they're made to deal with specific issues. A screen the size of 4.5 inches or smaller requires certain things. The Gmail application is a good example on how to use the different size.

It actually makes use of the increased screen size.

As for why I called you a fanboy, it wasn't about bringing up you bringing up the iPad. I was bringing up your idea that "flash makes up for everything" as well as the antagonistic stance that you seem to have against the iPad itself. They're both tools, not religions.

[Maikai.Guy]

The thing that defines a tablet app, against a non-tablet, is the use of the screen. When an application os made for a smartphone, they're made to deal with specific issues. A screen the size of 4.5 inches or smaller requires certain things. The Gmail application is a good example on how to use the different size.

It actually makes use of the increased screen size.

IMHO, the line between needing a tablet app and simply using your favorite browser to access the website becomes blurry at 10 inches. If you are accessing web based info, should there be a tablet app that completely recreates the full bodied experience of the website, or should people simply create a bookmark?

I believe Google is going down the later path. Not exclusively, of course. Clearly, the table Gmail app is an example. It could easily be argued it is unnecessary.

For apps that don't require an internet connection or rely on web-based content for the majority of what it presents, then sure, make a tablet app.

As for why I called you a fanboy, it wasn't about bringing up you bringing up the iPad. I was bringing up your idea that "flash makes up for everything" as well as the antagonistic stance that you seem to have against the iPad itself. They're both tools, not religions.

Your comments are misdirected. I think you want to pick that fight with neller2000, not johnowolf. johnowolf's comments were appropriate, considering both the context of this thread and the claim by neller2000 regarding the number of iPad apps and the claim everything on the iPad worked perfectly. johnowolf simply pointed out two glaring deficiencies in the iPad. ... no choice of browser... inability to experience the entirety of the internet. There was no fanboy element to it, just facts.

IMHO, there was more of a fanboy element to neller2000's statement than johnowolf's, but I wouldn't go so far as to call neller2000 a fanboy. I think we all need to raise the bar on this fanboy stuff. If someone is a raving lunatic in a positive way about one and a raging lunitic in a negative way about the other, then sure, call them a fanboy. But apart from that extreme, where does one draw the line between reasonable people preferring one platform over the other for valid reasons and being a "fanboy"?

[neller2000]

IMHO, there was more of a fanboy element to neller2000's statement than johnowolf's, but I wouldn't go so far as to call neller2000 a fanboy. I think we all need to raise the bar on this fanboy stuff. If someone is a raving lunatic in a positive way about one and a raging lunitic in a negative way about the other, then sure, call them a fanboy. But apart from that extreme, where does one draw the line between reasonable people preferring one platform over the other for valid reasons and being a "fanboy"?

I'm not a fanboy of any particular platform, I've enjoyed iOS, Android, WebOS equally. I currently have the Motorola Xoom, which doesn't have any true offering of tablet apps in the Market store. Only a featured section, which isn't apps designed for the tablet and only the tablet. I came from iOS this time and was entirely, fully and without question EXPECTING a tablet app section. Are you saying I'm asking too much?

The apps I have on the Xoom don't function fully. Not even close. Skype, no video calling there. Google Chat, no video calling there. Google Voice, never mind, it's not even there for the Xoom. Heck, even my now discountinued Touchpad has Skype two way videocalling. Facebook, app crashes every time I hit the Friends button, same deal no matter what's tweaked or having the Xoom master reset.

If it's in the market, I expect it to work. If it doesn't work, I expect it to get fixed. Fast. For someone like me, I could care less about the hardware, I want the software and apps to work, flawlessly. I could pick up an iPad 2 tomorrow and entirely drop my cellphone. I could with some problems do the same with my Touchpad. Since I have the Xoom, no, I'll definitely need the Thunderbolt still since the choices and options are far too buggy/non-existant/not available for my Xoom or only halfbaked.

I've said this before as well, I do enjoy the Xoom, I love the Google Maps navigation, love the GMail integration, love the widgets but unless something major happens with Android Honeycomb or ICS, I'll most likely be jumping ship, again, to iOS.

[neller2000]

I have to go with Maikai.Guy here. As a software professional I would think asking for a tablet only app would be like asking for an app that only works on Windows 7 on a dual-core processor. Yes, we all think we want it until win 8 comes out or the quad core is released, and and then we scream because it doesn't work anymore!

Take a page from the old Apple (back when they were still innovators). Apple developer guides said don't use a certain range of memory because it was reserved for 32 bit processing. The major developers ignored it because they could make their apps faster. Mac System 7 rolled out and all those apps crashed. Guess who got blamed; Apple, of course! Not the developers who ignored the guidelines in the first place. I believe that's where we are now with Android. The guidelines are for a common standard, but many developers have ignored the standard to optimize for a particular device or os version.

Be careful what you ask for! ICS is coming; do you want to have a series of apps that will no longer work when your tablet upgrades from honeycomb? Or do you want to be left behind from ICS? Honestly, I have found very few apps that don't work on my Xoom, and most of those don't work right anywhere unless you are on the "just right platform".

Oh, and "flawlessly on iPad"? Really? Not what I hear from some iPad owner friends! Not to mention, pull out the iPad, load your favorite browser, and head for a Flash site. What, no browser? No flash? Oh yeah, you're using an iPad!

So because Apple refuse to implement Flash in iOS, which is horribly laggy on all Android devices I've owned and currently own, they're not innovating? iOS device sales prove maybe people are looking for something else, like stability, minimal fragmentation if any and a plethora of cross device apps that just work.

Sure, I could pull out my iPad, load my favorite browser and happily know I won't suffer immense slowdowns like my Xoom and Thunderbolt when that dreaded Flash junk appears. You might love Flash. I personally can't wait for that garbage to be gone and everything switched to HTML5. Here's a typical day with an iPad. Grab it from my desk and head to work, first break I get I check my email, Pulse and maybe answer a few SMS messages. On my lunch I would watch YouTube videos and Hulu Plus videos. Hulu Plus isn't even available on my Xoom. I'd surf around a few tech blogs, gloriously free from Flash. Maybe even throw in a FaceTime chat with my family. I'd love to do that with my Xoom but apparently Google didn't agree that Google Chat or Google Voice should have anything like that. Last break I would mess around with some mini games, which I'm at least able to do as well on my Xoom. Where exactly do I need Flash in all that? I've never even thought about not having it, until I actually mess around on the Xoom with slowdowns.

So basically what you're saying is you don't mind plenty of halfbaked apps, lots of crashes and inferior versions of iOS apps? Why not demand quality control instead? These sites always glorify Android sales over iOS sales in raw numbers. Then why are the apps lightyears behind then? Why should I have to put up with a simplified UI from Apple just to get something that works well?

Is it really too much to ask that the apps at least function or ask that developers start developing more tablet apps already for Honeycomb? The selection is beyond pathetic this far into Honeycomb.

[dhendriksen]

Xoom has video calling in Google Talk. Works great.