I recently, just to see if it really works, installed Android x86 4.0-RC1 into Virtualbox. So now we have Android on a general purpose device, customizable. Does that make it a Linux in your definition?
Originally Posted by Kivada
It's hard to say exactly what a "conventional" Linux is. Whose standards are you applying?
Originally Posted by e8hffff
Only half way there last I checked, can you run Android software on something else?
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Wasn't that you stating that all Android software is Java? Shouldn't Java software per definition be OS agnostic? I have not tried it, may be anyone else.
Originally Posted by Kivada
Side-question: If (and Bob beware) systemd will become the standard in the major Linux distributions, shouldn't all software that will not run on those systems, for whatever reasons, suddenly be declared to not be Linux software?
Last edited by TobiSGD; 07-12-2012 at 01:37 PM.
I cannot believe that this turned into an Android versus Gnu thread. I cannot fathom the defective lapse of intellect that it would take to turn a thread about a potential game console into an argument about something that has been well understood for the past few years.
Just to shake things up :-P
Pandora runs a native GNU/Linux (based on angstrom) and can run now run Android on top it.
Originally Posted by russofris
Returning to the console subject, although not quite the same thing, with the nexus 7 in a similar price range is it going to be heavy compertion in the field of android gaming. I know I'm gonna get a nexus 7 first, and if I can get a controller for it what will be my motivation in getting a ouya?
AFAIK, the Nexus 7 is aimed at 199$, the OUYA is aimed at 99$. I wouldn't call that the same price region. Also, as I understand it the OUYA will be more open for hobby developers and hardware tinkerers.
Originally Posted by Nevertime
I've given the article 10 minutes of thought. My current opinion is that this won't work out for the company. Here's part of the conversation I had in my head.
Company: We have a new open $100 game console. It runs android.
Me: That's neat. So it's like a smartphone, that plays games and plugs into my TV, just like the smartphone in my pocket.
Company: Yes, except this is tethered to a power outlet, and can't make calls, and doesn't have a built in camera. We do have an ergonomic controller though.
Me: That's nice. What makes the controller better than an XBox/PS3 controller?
Company: Um... Uhh. We also feature a Tegra 3
Me: That sounds interesting. That must be faster than the CPU/GPU in my iPhone, sort of like a tethered tablet without a built-in-display
Company: Yes and no. It performs somewhere between an iPhone and iPad
Me: Well as long as it's an upgrade from the PS3 in my living room, it might be worthwhile.
Company: Unfortunately, it's not. The PS3 has a number of features that we simply can't match (Blue Ray and performance)... But ours is $100.
Me: So, what you're telling me is that you're releasing a console that is less useful than a phone, less featureful than a Game console, and that your main selling points are that it's cheap and open?
Me: Looking at newegg, I can procure an AMD/APU based platform for $150 with an order-of-magnitude better performance. I can install Android or Gnu for free and purchase any controller accessory I want with prices ranging from $20 to $80. What would compel me to purchase your $100 box over something with 10X the performance for $160.
Company: We have an ergonomic controller..... And we're $100... And we're open.... Did you see our video?
Me: Look, I have an iPhone, I have an iPad, I have a PS3 that I use for Hulu, Bluerays, and on very rare occasions, gaming. I have an iMac with windows and linux VMs. Is there anything that you are offering that is in some way better and more useful than what I already have?
Company: No, but not everyone has, nor can they afford all that stuff.
And that's my current thoughts on the matter. I hope I'm wrong about one of the above items, and that this company succeeds. As presented, I'm surprised that they managed to funding.
Well, there's a lot of stuff out there that's crap. Sometimes you have to throw things at the wall and see what sticks. Some stuff succeeds, other stuff doesn't. Business is all about taking risks.
This could be more of a foundational step than an instant success. Maybe the first version isn't the best thing since sliced bread. But what if ARM-based / Android gaming is actually popular in the future? Then maybe these guys are in on the ground floor, rather than showing up a day late.
The other thing is... these SoCs are only about the size of a fingertip, or around the size of a US dime. If power supply isn't an issue, is there any chance of one day being able to hook 4-8 or whatever of these SoCs together to get decent graphics performance? There is obviously the cost aspect... but I'm just trying to think ahead maybe 2-3 years.