You just answered your own question with a couple of nos. Nobody can deliver equivalent level of immersive interaction without a sizable investment. Which Arrington hasn't got. And you can just about forget the idea of a $200 tablet, it won't be happening. This was a gross miscalculation of TC team once upon a time based on cost of components in somewhat midsized batches of the product (5000 pcs?), with no margin for other things like paying people above board for their services. The only instance a $200-250 tablet ever made sense, and then only just and in very limited numbers, would be a one-off promotional drive for something else in which this item would be a loss-leader meant to create press buzz [in itself nothing to sneeze of, as promotion doesn't come without its own price…] But even that requires quite an outlay from some Deep Pockets™ dept. - ianf ⌘

How do you know Arrington doesn't have the investment money? He frequents the VC crowd. Are you suggesting that the whole venture was created on a whim without any prior market research? Surely this is not a 'vanity device'? - Andrew Eglinton

Will it only run a browser? Would be nice to run maybe Adobe AIR apps or something. Like tweetdeck. - TobiasVerhoog.com

That's exactly what I am saying, a badly researched vanity project against better judgement. It's all well and dandy if TC manages to come out with an initial, still-imperfect batch of these, and then sees the goodwill towards the product crumble. What Arrington hasn't really thought through is that in order to compete in the commodities market (as any $200 web-appliance device undoubtedly would be), you first need to be one of the major players in it. You don't become a low-end player right from the start. Because the cost of components, and even largely-manual assembly of first-batch units is nothing compared to that of the infrastructure needed to make it in numbers, delivering them into the hands of buyers, and supporting them after the sale. So, no, he doesn't have any serious investment money behind him - if he had, we'd be hearing about it by now. But VCs can count as well… and all they are seeing are the unimpressive figures for Amazon's vanity project Kindle, and a shadow of a potential iTouch Grande (=the mythical iTablet) looming on the horizon. It should be clear why investors aren't flocking to that [be ever so nice] device: @$200 projected consumer price, there is no margin for profit unless you make it in millions, and plaster the entire industrialized world with them (if then). - ianf ⌘

I think the initial spec spoke of somewhat modified FireFox browser only, with some plugins and linked Skype, etc. No OS would be needed. Then they must've realized that FireFox, even a very stable release, is a glutton for memory, and a constant future vector for user complaints why it can not be extended by this and that favorite plugin, and must have reconsidered its use. I don't know the latest, and, as there's only that much time I can spare for vaporware, am not following it closely, but I read some talk about a custom WebKit instead - which, btw. would make more sense even to a doubter like myself. - ianf ⌘

ianf - These are all solid arguments you make here. Another point that comes to mind is to do with form factor. Do we really need a large touch screen device when the tech world has been perfecting portability for the past 60+ years? The iPhone (and its competition) is shaping a large swathe of today's digital landscape, so while it may still seem desirable in 2009 to provide more screen real estate, it's soon likely to become a non-argument. - Andrew Eglinton

Actually, CrunchPad's "oversized" form factor is of little consequence to its portability, as the device has apparently been designed for use within easy reach of a recharging socket. Consequently, I do not expect any great battery life from it, perhaps 2hrs on full charge (that's what one could depend on from Compaq, then HP TC1000/TC1100 tablet with similar form factor). If it turns real, the CP would in all probability use the same NiMH battery technology, and not any later, thus considerably more costly, Li-ion or similar. Battery and screen hardware are the two limiting factors here - the thinner the first, and the more dense the latter the more expensive they get. iPhone's superior screen component is rumored to cost $60/unit in volume sales… think Arrington could wiggle out a better deal for his 6x bigger one? Of course not, which is why CP will rely on lower-density screens, which in turn dictate the outer size of the device (in itself not a bad thing to have larger pixels, as the text will be more legible even at the default text size…). I know TC has managed to build 4 prototypes to show off to investors, but it's a long way from that to a viable production line. - ianf ⌘

[December 2nd, 2009] For the record: here's the official "Demise of the CrunchPad" by Arrington himself http://www.techcrunch.com/2009... plus a lame attempt at explaining away the colossal non-future of this ill-conceived project: http://www.crunchgear.com/2009... Ah, well, it was entertaining to read about while it lasted. - ianf ⌘