No USB ports on Ipad!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: BreadWithSpam on 31 Mar 2010 18:12 -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> writes: > BreadWithS...(a)fractious.net wrote: > >�There's a huge difference, > > and the inability to plug in external storage via USB is, > > in fact, a shortcoming. > > It is and it isn't. If we continue the logic that it is a peripheral > itself, then we are logically obligated to criticize all external > external hard drives for similarly not having a USB plug for us to add > a hard drive into the hard drive for additional storage (or an Optical > reader, etc). As I said, it's probably not a big deal for most people. But it does certainly suggest, as you say, that the iPad be treated more like a peripheral than as a central, primary computing device. I don't believe that, if that's the case, Apple's taking the best view for their own sake. There are plenty of people for whom the iPad would be the ideal and only e-mail/internet/etc device they own. So long as they can get whatever content they want over the 'net, for the most part, it may already be all it needs - the main need for plugging in now is backing up, moving music/videos/photos from your computer, and OS updates. The first two of those may be able to have been mitigated by making it such that external storage could be attached directly to the device, albeit with some additional complexity (complexity which is currently simply shifted to your desktop anyway). > > While we're at it, it'd be nice if Apple would open up the > > video a bit, too. �They've imposed a limited set of video > > formats that iPhones (and pods and pads) support, and it's > > Agreed, but the pragmatic question and perspective comes down to if > the product has adequate CPU performance to drive these desired higher > video resolutions without them becoming jerky, plus if the CPU can do The thing is that, at least as far as my iPhone goes, it displays H.264 video far better than my netbook. There's no reason to think it couldn't display other video formats perfectly adequately. The resolution issue could be one part of it - the iPhone will not let me load videos which are in too-high a resolution, presumably for just the reason you indicate - downscaling them in real-time may be too heavy a task for the CPU. But the iPad is faster, and regardless, shouldn't it be up to me? I'd be happy enough if the VLC folks came out with an iPhone and iPad app and a reasonable means for me to put video files on the device. Currently, Apple also severely restricts the file storage space available to non-Apple apps, too. > really want? YMMV, but if I'm going to end up dragging around 3lbs, > I'd just assume go onto something like the MacBook Air (or similar > Netbook). I really love the slab format rather than a clamshell format for watching video, especially in confined spaces or other busy areas (ie. airplanes, subway). Actually, same goes for doing anything in those spaces - reading e-books, etc - is vastly easier with a device more similar to a Kindle or iPad or iPhone instead of a netbook or Air. Okay, well, to be quite honest, I find the netbook is pretty much generally useless, period. But an Air would be the obvious choice if we were talking about data entry. Anyway, that's all besides the point. Wishing about the video is pretty minor. I just wish the trolls would get over the USB issue. There is clearly a shortcoming but, as you and I seem to agree, it's probably pretty minor. To the trolls who claim it (and lack of flash, for that matter) are dealbreakers, i wish they'd just go away and buy whatever device they think will meet their needs. I should have known better than to remove the *.advocacy groups from my cross-post killfile... -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
From: nospam on 31 Mar 2010 18:20 In article <yobsk7g6szv.fsf(a)panix3.panix.com>, <BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote: > - the main > need for plugging in now is backing up, moving music/videos/photos > from your computer, and OS updates. which it can easily do. > The first two of those > may be able to have been mitigated by making it such that > external storage could be attached directly to the device, > albeit with some additional complexity (complexity which is > currently simply shifted to your desktop anyway). that external storage is a computer, which also runs the backup, transfer and os updating software known as itunes. > I'd be happy enough if the VLC folks came out with an iPhone > and iPad app and a reasonable means for me to put video files on the > device. there are several already. > Currently, Apple also severely restricts the file > storage space available to non-Apple apps, too. they do no such thing.
From: BreadWithSpam on 31 Mar 2010 21:17 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes: > In article <yobsk7g6szv.fsf(a)panix3.panix.com>, > <BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote: > > > - the main > > need for plugging in now is backing up, moving music/videos/photos > > from your computer, and OS updates. > > which it can easily do. Jeez, you miss my point. You can't do it with a plain old USB storage device. You need a computer. I'm hoping that Apple sees a market for folks who want iPads but who don't want computers in addition. > that external storage is a computer, which also runs the backup, > transfer and os updating software known as itunes. My point exactly. The USB port on the iPad makes the iPad a device, not a user of devices. That's unfortunate. > > I'd be happy enough if the VLC folks came out with an iPhone > > and iPad app and a reasonable means for me to put video files on the > > device. > > there are several already. Um, such as? > > Currently, Apple also severely restricts the file > > storage space available to non-Apple apps, too. > > they do no such thing. Individual apps may access Apple's common media storage area (ie. photos, videos and music), but they may not share amongst themselves anything, nor is any app permitted to store more than 2GB (outside of those Apple media areas). That being the case, even if someone did write a video player and set up a means of syncing it up which works around iTunes (because iTunes will only sync up the narrow range of "approved" formats), you'd still be severely limited. There are a wide range of file sharing systems which do let you download substantial files to the iPhone - I happen to love DropBox, for example. But it's local storage option - the "favorites" which get cached onto the device - is limited to that 2GB. It's a nice back door, though slow due to the fact that it's got to go over the network, but if you do put video files which conform to Apple's "approved" (ie. the formats that the built-in video-player can play) formats, you can play them. You're still (a) limited by network; (b) limited by filespace; and (c) limited by the formats that Apple's included player can play. It's really not horrible. But it's certainly unfortunate and, I think, unnecessary. -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
From: nospam on 31 Mar 2010 22:48 In article <yobpr2krmxj.fsf(a)panix1.panix.com>, <BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote: > > > need for plugging in now is backing up, moving music/videos/photos > > > from your computer, and OS updates. > > > > which it can easily do. > > Jeez, you miss my point. You can't do it with a plain old > USB storage device. You need a computer. I'm hoping that > Apple sees a market for folks who want iPads but who don't > want computers in addition. just about everyone has a computer. maybe eventually the ipad or some derivative will replace a computer as we know it today, but right now they are going to coexist. > > that external storage is a computer, which also runs the backup, > > transfer and os updating software known as itunes. > > My point exactly. The USB port on the iPad makes the iPad > a device, not a user of devices. That's unfortunate. not really. it hasn't been a problem for ipods or iphones. > > > I'd be happy enough if the VLC folks came out with an iPhone > > > and iPad app and a reasonable means for me to put video files on the > > > device. > > > > there are several already. > > Um, such as? oops, i read that as vnc of which there are several apps, not vlc, but there isn't any reason why someone can't do a vlc type app. there is an app that plays divx, for instance. > > > Currently, Apple also severely restricts the file > > > storage space available to non-Apple apps, too. > > > > they do no such thing. > > Individual apps may access Apple's common media storage > area (ie. photos, videos and music), but they may not > share amongst themselves anything, nor is any app permitted > to store more than 2GB (outside of those Apple media areas). true, they can't share, but apps can store whatever they want. i don't call that 'severely restricts.' compare that to android where apps must be on the internal memory, not on a card. that makes it a bit of a pain to write large apps that won't fit on the internal memory. > That being the case, even if someone did write a video > player and set up a means of syncing it up which works > around iTunes (because iTunes will only sync up the narrow > range of "approved" formats), you'd still be severely > limited. it would probably manage its own videos.
From: Eric on 1 Apr 2010 00:36
In article <5KadnaQplesy4i7WnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Steve de Mena <steve(a)stevedemena.com> wrote: > On 3/31/10 6:36 AM, Eric wrote: > > In article<goe1r5dn66kcamvhsm1a4tbhhap1dbri9r(a)4ax.com>, > > chrisv<chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> USB is not an "old standard" that needs to be "moved away from". It's > >> a standard in its *prime*, thus should be supported. > > > > USB is also a Master - Slave connection, in which the implicit > > assumption is that the computer is the Master and the peripheral the > > Slave. That is part of the USB standard. Since iPods, iPhones and iPads > > sync with a computer, this makes them peripherals. They have no business > > supporting other USB peripherals at all. Only pragmatism lets them run > > even a camera connector. > > Was this statement supposed to actually make sense? Well, I thought I was saying why the USB port on an iPad does not work the same as the USB port on a PC. USB is a master/slave configuration. The bus allows only for one Master. The bus arbitration is solely handled by this Master without possibility for transfer of control. This is different from peer to peer Firewire where multiple masters can be active and pass control to each other when demand arises. If the iPad connects to a PC via USB (which it does) then it can not also be a USB Master. I am not sure how Apple could do it otherwise without departing from the USB standard. Of course, the USB standard may have changed from when I last had any involvement with it, but I doubt it allows peer to peer connections. In my view, Apple have played a bit fast and loose with the USB standard by making an iPod Dock Connector to Camera and Dock Connector to SD adaptor. They also played with the USB standard with their external optical drive for the MacBook Air. This drive (like all optical drives) requires more power than allowed under USB to spin up the drive. Apple do a software negotiation while in 100mA connection mode, and then allow the drive to draw more than the 500mA maximum permitted by the USB standard. |