In what is sure to ruffle a few feathers with Android users, a representative of a research company Wednesday sunk his teeth into Google's Android 3.0 'Honeycomb,' saying it is "by the geeks, for the geeks, and of the geeks" (we were confused, as we thought that was a compliment). The analyst left little hope for mass adoption of the new tablet-tailored version of Android.
In his note to investors, Trip Chowdhry of Global Equities Research said Android 3.0 is doomed to fail next to Apple's iPad 2. He blames Google's background on the web as the culprit for the spanking he expects the OS to take. He said that services like Gmail and Google Voice "worked well as long as these products are free," but that when those same products are packaged on an expensive device like the XOOM, "the consumer is unforgiving."
Chowdhry added that "Honeycomb is insignificant to Google's revenues," and predicted they would survive the supposed disaster unscathed (meanwhile Motorola's and NVIDIA's shares have dropped in the wake of the pricey XOOM's launch).
What exactly does Mr. Chowdhry not like about Honeycomb? Forbes lays out the following gripes that the analyst has:
- the Motorola XOOM can sometimes freeze and crash
- battery life can be inconsistent
- battery standby time is only 10 to 12 hours compared to 30 days for the iPad
- auto-wrap of text on the tablet’s screen doesn’t work correctly
We find that his points lead to more confusion and questions than they do to answers. Three of those four complaints could easily be attributed more to the XOOM and its hardware than with Honeycomb. Plus how do his gripes about battery life and stability relate to his assertion that Honeycomb is for geeks? Not to mention, what exactly about Android 3.0 is so terribly complicated and technically advanced? It's not as if you boot it up and are presented with a Linux command line - we are talking home screens, app drawers, widgets, and Angry Birds. Is our populace so dumbed down that this is considered "for geeks?" Must we pronounce something dead because it doesn't go to extremes to cater to the least common denominator?
What's your take on this? Does he make a point, or is this just a bag of wind from someone who can't see past the hot air blowing out of Steve Jobs' lips? Let us know in the comments.