Everywhere you look, people are talking about Apple's iPad. Given the fact that tablet computers have been around for a long time and not ever been huge market successes, it's sort of surprising that Apple's device, which runs the iPhone operating system, is predicted to do so well.
Nevertheless, many people predict that the iPad will do revolutionary things like bring new life to dying print newspapers and magazines that can deliver whiz-bang versions of their publications on it. If the iPad has so much promise, though, then why couldn't an open source tablet--especially one that runs more than one operating system--have even more promise?
Just look at the market success that Google's open source Android operating system is at this point, with countless handsets, and, yes, tablets based on it arriving. It's sure easy to forget that as recently as March of last year some people were wondering whether Android was already a failure. It was on only one phone handset back then.
If Android has been such a success competing with the iPhone OS on smartphone handsets, why can't it compete with the same OS on tablets? For that matter, why can't it ship on tablets that have more than one free, open source operating system for users to choose from? This proposition gets even more interesting when you throw into the mix the fact that an abundance of applications usually ensures the success of a hardware platform. Could a tablet that, say, runs a version of Ubuntu as well as Android give me a pallette of applications that would make my iPad's applications look puny in comparison? Why not?
To prove itself as being as innovative as it supposedly is, the iPad will have to make us appreciate new applications and large numbers of applications that can run on it. There is still more than enough time for an open source challenger to compete with it. And there's no reason why that challenger has to run only one, closed operating system the way the iPad does.
Image courtesy of GigaOM.