Browsing the comments on TC, and I found this quite telling/interesting.<p><a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/30/update-on-the-techcrunch-tablet-prototype-a/#comment-2451799" rel="nofollow">http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/30/update-on-the-techcrunc...</a><p>In case it goes:
"A couple of weeks ago I was asked to make a simple cad model for the prototype hardware.
<a href="http://tctablet.altronix.se/#2.11" rel="nofollow">http://tctablet.altronix.se/#2.11</a><p>I would like to finish the work but since last week I have not been able to to get in touch with them on either irc or skype… :/"
Refer
The idea is not bad, but they are working on obselete technology. What they should be working on are extension screens for even smaller computers - think of a very flat panel with a slot for an iphone that immediately expands the iphone screen into a 20 inch thing.<p>The computer itself should be expensive, but the screen part of things should be cheap.
Classy. Do these guys really think you can brew up a $200 web tablet at an old kitchen table?<p>I've been critical of this project before, but my advice on the matter would be to refer techcrunch to the first facet of this effect:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect</a><p>I don't understand how the commenters on TC think it's anywhere near an actual prototype. Groupthink?<p>If they're serious about this project, TC should focus on the skills they have (PR, contacts and reputation) and get this actually built by some pros rather than by some barefooted web 2.0 nerds with bits of Arrington's old macbook air.<p>Still willing to be proven wrong though.