Why are you concerned? The article says that they expect Google to announce services/software/specs that phone makers can use. That sounds like they're going to be doing things that help Nokia, not hurt it. A standard suite of software that could be run on top of, say, Maemo. Especially once the WiMAX version is out.

Now, if Google releases a hardware phone platform, instead of a software specification, then, yes, I'd be concerned about that.

Google is getting involved with both.

And Nokia is getting more into services as well.

I've heard _rumors_ of a Google device. But the only concrete stuff I've come across, attached to the "google phone" concept, is specs/software/services that other devices could leverage. I haven't seen anything concrete about a physical device coming from Google.

I actually think it'd be a mistake for Google to make a device. But having a set of software every vendor can use, that also enables their "free via advertising" scheme (with some of that revenue going back to the carrier and the device maker), makes a lot of sense for them.

Although I was accused of reciting management speak, I did actually use the phrase knowing what it means, and also of the sheer power of the phrase. It's overused, but it's still a useful statement.

I think you're too narrow when you define it as a "usage paradigm". The reason I used the phrase "paradigm shift" was to avoid specifics. We're talking about a convergence of several factors, one of which is usage, but also technology (better batteries, lower power consumption, ubiquitous wifi), as well as attitudes. We've accepted the Internet as a part of our lives, and Nokia is effectively stepping up to the plate to give the Internet to people in a useful form while on the move (or, indeed, at home). Crucially, they've given us the desktop Internet, rather than a pale imitation (WAP, or, even worse, browsing on a tiny mobile phone screen).

Like I said, in 10 years time, most people under 40 will carry Internet tablets. We might have abandoned the concept of holding a mobile phone to our ears, and we might use headsets *, in which case the Internet tablet could very easily work as our phone as well. What I'm trying to say is that the device in 10 years time might not resemble the Nokia 800, although we will easily be able to chart a clear family tree back to it. Just like the PC doesn't resemble the Apple II.

And this wonderful device will probably be made by Google

* All it will take is some good scientific proof that mobile phones can cancer and everybody will start to use headsets.

I just hope Nokia don't make the same mistakes that Apple did the first time round with the Newton. As much as most people here hate Apple, I see a lot of similarities with the IT line and the range of Newtons. The Newton progesssively got better, but the horse had bolted by the time the right hardware and software combination came along. Hopefully Nokia will get things close to right by the time these mythical MIDs come along

Personally, I don't see any real point of comparison between PDAs and the Internet tablets, other than the fact they're portable electronic devices. You could just as easily draw parallels between the internet tablets and the iPod, and Apple did a superb job with the iPod.

I think the comparison with PDAs is a potentially limiting factor for the Internet tablets. I see from the video ad for the N810 that Nokia is working hard to get past this, although their method is to draw comparisons with a mobile phone.

@rs-px

The point was not comparing PDAs to the IT (of which Palm skewed the real meaning of a PDA), but the fact that Apple could not get the right mix of hardware and software until it was too late. Palm had overtaken Newton sales by a fair amount when the Messagepad 2000 came out. Judging from the number of threads complaining about the N810, it is obvious that Nokia still haven't got it right either. And having incompatibility issues with OS 2008, the software is not quite there either.

My point is that I think Nokia are on to something special (as did Apple with the Newton), but if Nokia take too long with getting from 3 to 5, the Intel MIDs may make a big enough splash to make the IT an also-ran.

OK, point taken. I misunderstood your original posting

I read on Ari's blog that the Internet tablet team really does take into account criticism, although usually only those from mainstream reviewers and not lesser individuals, like bloggers. This is both good and bad -- the N800 was by all accounts better than the 770 (apart from, perhaps, the ergonomics), and most improvements people requested were implemented (mainly better performance and stability). But enough reviewers moaned about the N800 not having a keyboard that Nokia added one to the N810 -- rather blindly, IMHO.

As I said above, one of Apple's strengths is the ability to spot mistakes and opportunities, and fix/implement them, even if that means a product line evolves into something else (such as the iPod line, which evolved into a phone and is currently, arguably, evolving into an internet tablet).

Nokia's problem may be that it is sticking to its original brief for an Internet tablet and only responding to criticism of their implementation of that brief, rather than responding to criticism of the brief itself. Lots of people have given constructive criticism of the tablet concept but, really, the N810 is a clone of the 770 with some additional features, and the 770 was produced in the isolation of a lab. Obstinacy does nobody any good. It may well kill Nokia's internet tablet.

There is no sense in comparing the IT to PDAs because they are PDAs . The only difference being that they are a more modern rendition of the product. Nokia doesn't seem to want to recognize that this is part of the product, instead trying to sell the device as an internet cruising device. I just don't see a demand for a device with that narrow focus. To Nokia credit the device does run Linux and as such people can customize to their hearts content. That is great if you are a techie or geek but pretty hard row to hoe from the marketing standpoint.
Part of newtons problems where related to the need to save much more of Apple. Along with that was the issue of limited depth to the Newton.
Nope haven't gotten it yet. That by no means implies that the IT's are bad devices. On the contrary very interesting but not suitable for some potential uses.
Personally I feel Nokia went a little to far off the beaten open source path with the earlier software releases. That is it would have been better to make use of as mainstream software tool kits as possible. This simply from the standpoint of simplifying software porting. It is the supply of software that makes things like the N800 desirable not its internet features per say. Yes having access to the internet is good, but flexibility to do other things is far better.
Interestingly one of the machines I'm looking at is the ASUS Eee PC. Again a LINUX machine but not pocketable. This is key in my mind and like I've stated in this thread and others, people want to carry something with them but not have pockets full of devices. I think this is why the iPhone has been such a hit as limited as it is.

The iPhone lets you shove one device into your pocket that covers multiple bases. It solves the issue of a conventional CELL phone, the issue of an MP3 player and allows state of the art internet access. Well state of the art for a device that small, certainly better than any other CELL phone.

This is where it is at right now people simply do not want pockets that are overflowing with electronics. Apple is doing really well with a device that I consider half done, so outfits like Nokia could potentially learn a lot from them. At least from the standpoint of technology, the IPhone isn't perfect.

The area where the iPhone looses it the most is its physical size. It is just to small! Tiny in the hand and a smaller than desirable screen. The screens on these sorts of devices are where development must now focus. Except for storage the electronics are pretty well nailed down except for the video aspects. Everything needs improvement Video wise including the power usage, speed and color quality.

Dave

It's small because it's a phone. I couldn't imagine holding a laptop up to the side of my head whenever I wanted to annoy every person around me with one-sided details of my mundane life (I don't have a cell phone - - could you tell?)

One of the biggest things that irks me about the potential for tablets is feature creep. Imagine if you had a tablet that had Wifi/Bluetooth connectivity, cell, video/audio playback, GPS, a full 7mp camera w/video recording options, a hardware keyboard, etc, etc, etc. It would only perform several of those tasks well. Feature creep is a dangerous thing that only diminishes the final product for most. I think the greatest example of this that I saw was a cheap $10 mouse from some overseas sweatshop that had a dialpad on top. Your phone handset or headset would plug into the mouse and you'd use the mouse to dial...

That said, I think there *are* some combinations that can be pulled off. The n810 is a good combination of many features but the conflicting form factor considerations between it being a cell phone and it being an internet tablet are too great. How small can you make it before it's a good cell phone and a crappy internet experience & vice versa? The shoddy camera is fine - - I thought cell cameras were a horrid idea until I played with one at the bar one night. You're not taking wedding pics, you're taking spontaneous pics of funny things in the street or your drunken friends. Feature creep, but acceptable as you're not trying to marry a phone with an 10mp SLR camera.