No USB ports on Ipad!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: -hh on 28 Mar 2010 20:05 On Mar 28, 7:26 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > -hh wrote: > > While I'm on the road, the only things that I see plugged into laptops > > are: > > > a) 3G cards ... while in mobility mode(s) > > Plugged in via USB. Wrong. Plugged in via PC Card. > > b) USB thumb drives ... > > Plugged in via USB. Yes, back before my USB was shut down by IT...as has been previously discussed. > So nice to know that these devices simply won't work with the MaxiPad > unless you buy a completely pointless extra piece of junk hardware. This assumes that one actually wants to, and doesn't have an alternative way to skin the cat. Also as previously discussed. -hh
From: nospam on 28 Mar 2010 20:12 In article <h16587-dbc.ln1(a)spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > those say it lacks usb *ports*, not that it lacks usb (along with a lot > > of not particularly accurate criticisms). > > > > the kindle doesn't have usb ports either. why aren't you slamming that? > > The Model T doesn't have USB ports, either, and we're not slamming it. > Maybe because the discussion isn't *about* the Model T. stupid comments aside, the kindle is an ebook reader, and one of the major functions of the ipad is for ebooks, therefore comparing it to a kindle is perfectly reasonable. try harder next time.
From: nospam on 28 Mar 2010 20:13 In article <1h5587-g0c.ln1(a)spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> USB ports would be "good to have" on the iPad. > > > > why? > > > > it's not an issue for the ipod touch, and after all, isn't the ipad > > just a big ipod touch? > > If it is, then there's no point to it _at all_, as the iPod touch does a > perfectly good job of being an iPod touch, in what, about a tenth the > size? a small device is limited for many tasks, such as reading an ebook or watching a movie. > Reminds me of the old joke about how "[Ethnic] engineers have just > announce the world's largest microcomputer!" > > Making a small, compact, easily-ported device ten times the size is not > a benefit unless there's a concomitant increase in functionality. and there is an increase in functionality.
From: nospam on 28 Mar 2010 20:13 In article <ht5587-h8c.ln1(a)spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> USB2 is plenty fast enough for toys like the iPad > > > > good thing it has usb 2 then. > > Really? Good. I have a USB cable. Where do I plug it in? There > seems to be no USB connector to actually _use_ that supposed USB support > with, making the supposed USB support kinda pointless. the ipad comes with a usb cable, so there's no problem there. many cellphones and cameras have usb, but i guarantee that your usb cable won't fit in it. i guess it must be pointless. strangely enough, it's very useful. usb has many different plug types. first there were type a and b plugs, then mini usb, then micro usb, and usb 3 is yet *another* variant that needs completely new cables. so much for being standard. at least the ipod, iphone and ipad standardized on just one connector, and one that's far more capable than just usb. you also didn't answer how you would design an ipod to have firewire, usb, composite & s-video out, headset and line level audio out, remote control in and power. would it have an array of standard plugs on the side? > >> What the fanboiz don't want to admit is that apple deliberately chose to > >> screw their customers by closing that thingy as much as possible. > > > > quite the opposite, actually. > > Really? They *didn't* close it? on the ipad, you will be able to buy ebooks from apple, amazon and barnes&noble (initially, maybe more in the future), and it has the ability to read a pdf or epub book or access content on web sites. the kindle is amazon only and the barnes&noble nook is b&n only. thus, the ipad has a much wider selection of material, including from competing vendors. it's *more* open than other products. and as for apps, go find out what it took to write for the verzion/brew platform.
From: Kelsey Bjarnason on 28 Mar 2010 20:18
[snips] -hh wrote: >> And completely unusable with standard devices - which also use ports and >> mechanisms long standardized - and even known by Apple - meaning they >> can leverage their existing technologies for those, and provide _useful_ >> connectors. > > Where "long standardized" is that USB2 only lasted 7 years before its > replacement was announced Hmm? You mean USB 3? Which is backwards compatible? And supports the approximately 10 *billion* USB devices shipped thus far? Oh, but yes, makes perfect sense to not include even the most basic hookup for any of those devices. Nobody, anywhere, would ever want something as silly as a USB port. > and SDHC cards has lasted only 3 years > until its replacement was announced. You mean SDXC, which is backwards-compatible with SDHC? Meaning all your existing SDHC cards will work just fine? > While both replacements are > arguably having problems getting traction, they are lurking out there > to obsolete your current hardware investments. Except they don't, as they're backwards compatible. Nice try, though. > In general, the error you're making is that you're stuck in the weeds > in not recognizing what's a capability and what's a mechanism that > permits that particular capability. Simply put, there's more than > one way to skin a cat, even if you're following the "it must be a nail > because I have a hammer" paradigm. Actually, I'm not. I'm using the Apple Fanboi's own idiotic nonsense against them. One argues that the problem with USB keys is they stick out, therefore being susceptible to damage, so it makes (some sort of) sense not to risk it - particularly if the "damage" means lifting the port off the mobo. Sounds good... except we note the device - as you point out - does in fact "support USB", but to do so requires an adapter... which makes the situation *worse* than if it had just had a USB connector. As in adapter + USB device (or cable) sticking out *further*, thus *increasing* the risk... which was the very argument used to not include the USB port in the first place. In order for the argument to make sense, they'd need to provide not an adapter which extends beyond the body of the device, but a recess into the device which would provide support against the stresses which risk damage. Instead, the offering is exactly *opposite* to this... meaning its very existence violates the whole premise of the argument for its existence in the first place. Sorry, that's just plain stupid. >> Oh, yes, do keep right on explaining the stupidities behind this asinine >> port on the MaxiPad. > > It may very well be a poor decision - - but there's no logical need to > childishly call an inanimate object offensive names, unless you really > want to illustrate how non-credible you are. It's a Pad. It's huge. What do you _expect_ people to refer to it as? This should have been a no-brainer. You know, like people referring to "plug-format computers" as "wall warts". >> On the iPhone, it may well have made sense - there isn't physical space >> for much more. �The MaxiPad has no such limitation. > > And yet that's also not a prohibition to doing it. No, but we've yet to see a sensible justification for doing it. USB support is dirt cheap, as evidenced by the fact even sub-$100 boards (and even sub-$50 boards!) can offer anywhere from four to a dozen. USB connectors don't add significant mass. The argument about "risk" is shown patently absurd by the mechanism offered to get the USB support, and the fact that the same argument applied elsewhere - to the display, say - would render the device useless. >> I see. �In your demented world view, only a person who runs an entire >> computer design and production company can possibly have any ability to >> figure out that something as basic as including industry standard >> connectors is a good idea. > > That's not at all what it means. It was an invitation for you to > provide some credible basis to show that you have any relevant > professional expertise in *any* of these areas ... and you chose to > fail. Actually, it wasn't. It was a pathetic failure pretending to be an argument, to wit, "If you can't produce your own competing device, you can't have an opinion". It was only when that bullshit was called that damage control set in with a subsequent whine about "well, see, I was really just trying to get you to show..." Sorry, doesn't wash. If that was what you meant, that's what you would have said - not the other bit, the bullshit about being able to produce a competing device being the only basis for having an opinion. >> I'm sorry, but you Apple Fanbois are getting more retarded by the >> minute. > Perhaps some more research on your part would be in order. Had you > done so, you would have found out that I'm a multi-OS user So? One can use caffeine and nicotine, yet still be an alcoholic. > this no longer includes Linux. I dropped Linux because it simply > didn't have adequate benefits for my needs vs the alternatives, so it > effectively only added complexity which could be avoided. To put > this in smaller words that you're more likely to understand, Linux > simply was no longer worth the effort required to save a very trivial > couple of bucks. Heh. Another classic example of the Apple Fanboi elitism: "It's not the job, it's how much you *spend* on the job." Here's a hint, numbnuts, I don't use Linux because it's cheap. I use it because it's *good*, and because it's Free. Free as in freedom. Now you run along with your silly Apple elitism about paying more to get less and being proud of it, and we'll just stick around laughing at you behind your back. But do, please, take your other cult members with you - they're polluting COLA. |