No USB ports on Ipad!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: -hh on 23 Mar 2010 17:42 chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > nospam wrote: > >chrisv wrote: > > >> USB ports would be a nice added feature, at extremely low cost. > > >a lot of things would be nice to have, but they don't come for free. > > Some things make sense to have, because they are quite useful and > afforable. > > >and what exactly were you wanting to connect to it, anyway? > > Storage, keyboard, camera, other possibilities. USB is an implimentation, not a capability. Try making the distinction between having the *capability*, and how a capability is *implimented*. Then look again at the problem statement...you very well might not have a capability gap. -hh
From: -hh on 23 Mar 2010 17:52 chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > nospam wrote: > > chrisv<chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >> I bet Apple has a very good idea of how to maximize profits > > >most companies do. otherwise they cease to exist. > > You missed my point, idiot, which is that serving "typical usage > patterns" may conflict with their desire to maximize profits by > constraining their customers. Okay, so let's play it you way: > >> by constraining their customers in various ways. > > >nonsense. if people felt constrained they would buy a different product. > > Wrong again, idiot. People will buy the "best fit" product, *despite* > it's shortcomings. Just because "people like and will buy the iPad" > does not mean that USB ports would not improve it, idiot. So then by your rules, the addition of a USB port (and with a price hike), will improve the product, so Apple should do this because it will increase their quantities of sales and, due to the price hike to cover the increase in costs, their profits. So how is it then that they can be as greedy as you claim they are ... and yet fail to add a USB port in order to rake in more gold? Please explain. -hh
From: JEDIDIAH on 23 Mar 2010 17:17 On 2010-03-23, Ezekiel <zeke(a)nosuchmail.com> wrote: > > > > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi(a)nomad.mishnet> wrote in message > news:slrnhqhsuq.mm4.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet... >> On 2010-03-23, gl4317(a)yahoo.com <gl4317(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >> Although the only reason to even turn this thing into a slave device >> is this walled garden nonsense. Make it a proper machine with open access >> and the need to treat this thing like an oversized ipod goes away. > > > That's what Apple is betting on - many people don't want a "proper machine" > whatever that means. People want to read email, visit some web sites, play a It means... they never want to share with their friends and family. they never want to burn a CD. they never want to print a picture. they never want to dump their Windows PC with the copy of iTunes on it. [deletia] -- Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
From: JEDIDIAH on 23 Mar 2010 17:24 On 2010-03-23, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <slrnhqht2v.mm4.jedi(a)nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH ><jedi(a)nomad.mishnet> wrote: > >> You mean the "problem" of adding a little extra storage transparently >> to the device. This is Apple, they've been doing this stuff for nearly 30 >> years. > > it's only a problem if people actually fill the storage they already > have, which most don't. the best selling ipods have been the nanos I feel a strange sense of deja vu here. I think we even have a multiple of 640K on the relevant device. > which are currently 8-16 gig, not the ipod classic with 120-160 gig. -- Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
From: JEDIDIAH on 23 Mar 2010 17:20
On 2010-03-23, Mocassin joe <joemocasanto(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:230320101156576761%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >> In article <hob2k7$t4h$02$2(a)news.t-online.com>, Peter Köhlmann >> <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote: >> >>> Amazon does not attribute all kinds of capabilities to its machine. >> >> neither does apple. > > > I think for Jobs to tout it as "revolutionary" and "magical" says they do. There was also some rhetoric indicating that they think that this thing will displace netbooks. Now since this thing has an office suite planned for it, it is clearly meant to be a little more than another PMP or a Kindle knockoff. The cult members (and the sniping Lemmings) won't let actual facts get in the way of their faith in the one true Jobs. [deletia] -- Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit |