No USB ports on Ipad!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: chrisv on 25 Mar 2010 08:56 nospam wrote: > -hh wrote: >> >> In general, its pretty silly to suggest that its critical to have a >> USB port and then claim that you're never going to have any "dangly" >> problems because you're not going to ever plug anything into it. Idiot. Is a USB stick "dangly"? Also, is it a "dangly problem" if, for example, at the end of the day you connect a cable from a camera to the iPad, to dump some photos, a process that might take a minute? No, it isn't, is it. >you noticed that contradiction too? No "contradiction" at all, idiot. Sheesh. Afraid of adding a port, because occasionally something will be attached to it, thus damaging the "Apple aesthetic". God forbid we have that flexibility. Apple should just deny us the choice. >the extent to which people go just to slam something is unreal. The extent to which people go just to defend something is unreal.
From: chrisv on 25 Mar 2010 09:14 ZnU wrote: > chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> ZnU wrote: >> >> >The reason the iPad lacks USB ports is because Apple has a >> >very specific vision for how computing should work, and dangling cables >> >off of your ultra-portable tablet doesn't fit into it. Nor do SD cards, >> >at least, I think, until Apple figures out a way to support storage >> >across multiple volumes without re-introducing a user-accessible file >> >system. >> >> Spoken like a True Believer. > >Huh? I didn't even necessarily say I *agreed* with this. I'm just >explaining Apple's actual motives. You would prefer "parroting the company line"? >I do tend to favor minimalist design, but Apple sometimes goes a little >too far even for my tastes. (Though I'm not sure they have in this case.) > >> BTW, is the iPad really "ultra" portable? > >1.5 pounds, 10 hours of battery life, option 3G, and you can even use it >standing up. Yeah, I'd call that ultra portable. Are we speaking the same language? It's portable. "Ultra" portable fits in a pocket. > Devices with reasonable >sized screens aren't going to get much more portable than that until we >get foldable e-paper displays. Irrelvant. Was this machine "ultra" portable, simply because "it was the best we could do at the time"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1 Was it "ultra" portable because it could be moved without a hand truck? >> And does using a USB port imply "dangling cables"? > >Probably. Wrong again. >Unless you're just using it for some sort of wireless dongle, >in which case it's an even worse kludge, since whatever device that >dongle is talking to should probably just have Bluetooth or WiFi. Err... Many uses of USB ports are "in and out" situations. A quick transfer of data, and you're done. >> Witness that joke of a keyboard on their desktop systems. Witness >> the laughable speakers. >> >> So fashionable, I admit... > >As I've said before, the "fashion" comparison is off the mark, because >we're talking about functional design, not just making things look >pretty. Not in the two example I just gave. They are both technically inferior designs, justified by their aesthetic appeal. It is therefore proven that Apple will make this compromise. >Apple didn't leave an SD card slot off the iPad because it would >have make it look uglier (it's a tiny almost invisible slot), but Note the shift from the central issue, USB ports, to the SD-card slot. >because of a strong opinion about how the device should be used. The >most apt comparison outside of the consumer electronics industry would >probably be to architecture, not fashion. But the "dangly USB cable" issue that you have raised *is* a fashion/aesthetic issue.
From: chrisv on 25 Mar 2010 09:18 nospam wrote: >i'm not defending anything. Lie number one. >i'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of what's being said Lie number two. >as well as correcting numerous incorrect statements You've done nothing of the kind. I'd say your claim, here, qualifies as yet another lie. I'd give you some slack, but you're already a known liar, so... >from those who have nothing better to do >than criticize a product they're never going to buy. Another failure of your logic, idiot.
From: chrisv on 25 Mar 2010 09:22 nospam wrote: > Ian Hilliard <nospam(a)hilliardtech.com> wrote: > >> Apple make a lot of great products, but the only reason to buy something >> is because it solves some problem. At this point, the IPad seems to be a >> product without a market. > >or maybe others have different needs than you do. ever think of that? That's obvious, idiot. We're not as stupid as you are. Having the flexibility there accommodates *both* those who have the need *and* those who do not. Read the above over and over until it soaks-through your thick fscking skull. And don't bring up "cost" again. It is not significant and not a good excuse on this premium-priced product.
From: chrisv on 25 Mar 2010 09:26
nospam wrote: >that's an issue with the locked down windows boxes, not the ipad. Too fscking stupid to understand that "wireless transfer of data" just isn't easy, in many situations. So incredibly ignorant and naive. |