No USB ports on Ipad!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Kelsey Bjarnason on 29 Mar 2010 00:32 [snips] -hh wrote: > Specifically, we have an assumption that its OK for some devices (eg, > Kindle) to not have a USB port, but not OK for others. Let's see how Apple describes the MaxiPad: "A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price." How does Amazon describe the Kindle? "Kindle: Amazon's Original Wireless Reading Device" Not "magical". Not "revolutionary". Not even "general purpose" or "the best way to experience the web, email, photos and videos, hands down". The Kindle _does_ actually use "revolutionary", specifcally, "Revolutionary electronic-paper display provides a sharp, high-resolution screen that looks and reads like real paper." - strictly limiting the "revolutionary" to the appearance of the screen. Indeed, the entire writeup of the Kindle promotes it as a one-function device: for reading content - primarily e-books, but also news feeds - and that's about it. The very reasons one might need or want a USB port on a device largely just do not apply to the Kindle. It's not advertising its massive internal storage, so wonderful for carting your data around. Or the huge selection of apps. Or the advanced media capabilities. Or any of the other things which would necessitate getting data onto it or off it, other than books - and the mechanism for that is built in. If the MaxiPad is trying to be nothing more than an e-book reader, then fine, you've got a point - it doesn't need such tihngs any more than the Kindle does... but then, that's not how it's being hyped, and it is *anything* *but* "an unbelievable price" for such a device. > The rational underlying this is because the different devices have > been pigeon-holed into different product catagories, and the it is > this catagorization that applies (or not) value to certain > features. > > Okay...but who picked these product catagories? And upon what > basis? > > So is the problem with the product? Or is it a problem based upon > what "catagory" that the device is being Pigeon-holed into, andi if > this selection was correctly done or not. It's a freaking tablet. Nothing novel about that. In actual functionality, it's about on a par with the iPod, just ten times the size. It's nowhere near the capabilities of a netbook. Its badly designed as a media device - wrong aspect ratio. If it's nothing but a bigger iPod, there's *already* an iPod, which is smaller and works quite well for what it does. If it's an e-book reader, it's overpriced and has endless useless extras. If it's a netbook, it's way too shortsighted to be taken seriously. > In other words, we can say: "if the iPad is a Netbook then YES, it > should have USB ports" And if it's just a kindle knockoff, it's too expensive and overdesigned. > However, the weak link in this logic is hidden by the "IF": how do we > determine if it really properly falls into the Netbook catagory? By examining what else it could be. And, in fact, it really *isn't* in the netbook category, it really *is* just an iPod with a glandular disorder - in which case, why pay for a bigger, clunkier version when the smaller, sleeker version works just fine? > So: what catagory is the iPad being put into? Sad joke, mostly.
From: ToolPackinMama on 29 Mar 2010 00:52 On 3/28/2010 11:44 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > ToolPackinMama wrote: > >> On 3/28/2010 7:32 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> >>> Making a small, compact, easily-ported device ten times the size is not >>> a benefit unless there's a concomitant increase in functionality. >> >> This is the iPod Granddad can use without having to hunt down his glasses. > > Okay, fine - we'll agree: anyone legally blind, or over the age of, say, > 70, might find a positive benefit to the device over an > iTouch/iPod/Whatever. > > > "This is not your father's Apple. It's your grampaw's." Hee hee! ;)
From: nospam on 29 Mar 2010 01:00 In article <33n587-8kn.ln1(a)spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And if it's just a kindle knockoff, it's too expensive and overdesigned. it's $10 more than a kindle dx. so much for being 'too expensive.' <http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Generation/dp/B00 15TG12Q> > By examining what else it could be. And, in fact, it really *isn't* in > the netbook category, it really *is* just an iPod with a glandular > disorder - in which case, why pay for a bigger, clunkier version when > the smaller, sleeker version works just fine? works fine, unless you want to read an ebook or watch a movie or any number of things where a small screen sucks. and has apple cancelled production of the ipod touch? no. they're still available. if an ipod is a better match for what someone needs, then they'll get an ipod. it's a good thing there's a choice.
From: Kelsey Bjarnason on 29 Mar 2010 01:49 [snips] -hh wrote: >> It's not. �Nospam and his cohort hh are about as stupid as people can be >> and not actually collapse in on themselves due to the immense >> gravitational pull of their own fundamental cluelessness. > > More namecalling. How...credible. Hey, act stupid, get called stupid. Don't like it? Don't act stupid. >> > Anyway, I find removeable storage VERY useful. � >> >> No kidding. > > Its merely one tool. Not the only tool in the toolbox. And that detracts from it being useful how? Right, it doesn't. Stop being stupid. >> Depends on too many factors. �For one, just how much storage is on the >> device itself - and how much of that is in use? �If you have, say, a >> video file a hundred gigs or more in size, it ain't gonna fit no matter >> what, and even a considerably smaller one might not fit. > > Hence, the joker who suggested a 300GB file in an attempt to try to > "win" his argument. What, you've never heard of anyone working with large files? Sorry, happens pretty regularly. One of our clients needed us to clear out space on a server for him, because he (rather, his company) had completed a render, and needed to drop it (via external USB drive) onto the server so that the far end could pull it, via FTP. Size of the file? Over 300 GB. It was a video render of a segment of a new movie for Disney. In HD. Since both we and the receiver had "fat pipes", FTPing it was the fastest way to get it there. Oh, but wait... that used an external drive, connected via FTP, with a 300+ GB file. You know. all those things you keep suggesting don't matter, aren't real, don't happen, etc, etc, etc. Sorry, but your bizarrely limited view of how computing works does not constrain everyone else. Video production _frequently_ involves transferring chunks of data, even single files, of many and sometimes even hundreds of gigs. Cope. >> As just an example, I've got a 16GB USB key here wihch I use for >> transferring files. �It can readily handle, say, 4 or more DVD rips >> without consuming a byte of "on device" store - meaning I don't have to >> potentially rip several gigs' worth of stuff off the device just to >> watch a video. > > Assuming, of course, that the I/O transfer rate from the USB is > sufficient for streaming the video in real time. If not, then its > going to have to be transferred to the main storage anyway. So much > for "saving space". So, if I have four videos on the USB, I need to transfer _all_ of them in order to watch _one_? I need to clear 16GB of space off the on-device store in order to move *one* 4GB file onto it? Gods, you are stupid. >> This process, depending on management and the IT load, can take anywhere >> from a couple of minutes to a couple of days.. and could have been >> entirely avoided if you'd just stuck your USB key in, pulled the data >> off and handed it over to the guy who needs it. > > Its a nice story ... but it assumes a level of personal home IT > instead of corporate Enterprise IT policies, such as a requirement for > USB thumb drives to be authenticated to be allowed on the > network...otherwise, you're shut down because it never gets by their > Enterprise's USB Blocker. Oh, I forgot - you work with retarded IT people. I don't. The ones I work with understand the difference between such things as autorun and USB - they worry about the former, don't give a *damn* about the latter. >> Mind you, if you were using a netbook or laptop instead of an iTouch >> with a glandular condition, the problem wouldn't even exist, as >> connecting to your own (or his) USB key is simply a matter of plugging >> it in. �As is connecting to a LAN port, or a router if you have one, >> or... > > Which just provides more credence that all of the claims that an iPad > is a Netbook - - are incorrect. No, we're well aware it's not a netbook. To be so, it would have to have all sorts of functionality it just hasn't got. Then the price would have to be cut in half, it would have to have a bunch of ports added, a keyboard, a screen cover and a host of other useful things. For, as noted, about half the price. No, it's not a netbook. It can't ever be a netbook, it's far too limited to even try.
From: JF Mezei on 29 Mar 2010 02:14
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > I don't read _any_ mac groups; I read COLA. [little britain mode] YEAH BUT.... It was COLA people who started this thread and infected the mac groups :-) :-) :- :-) [/little britain mode] What you do in the privacy of your newsgroup is none of my business. You are free to use any cryptic qualifiers to unix commands and perform whatever line command incantation or config file modification ritual as your religion dictates you do. What has happened is that some Windows zealots decided to install promiscuous cameras that forced us to view what Linux people do the the privacy of their newsgroup and forced Linux people to view what Apple people do in the privacy of their newsgroups and ended up in a pissing contest about the size of each other's USB ports. It is all Bill Gates' fault who is trying to divide the unix market. He knows that if OS-X and Linux gain too much commonality, there will be too many apps that become available only on Unix and Windows will lose out. |