Oh, yeah? Wait 'til You see Microsoft's Tablet!
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: The New Apple Tablet - $499!
Next: iPad is supercool
From: nospam on 28 Jan 2010 03:05 In article <4b6140f0$0$1965$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote: > Making a larger iPhone that runs on > any GSM network as long as it's AT&T is just pissing customers off. except for it being unlocked and no contract required, pay as you go, cancel at any time.
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= on 28 Jan 2010 03:30 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-98D3DE.00525628012010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > In article <000ce5a6$0$2147$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > > > Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for > > > touch screen on real computers. > > > > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely > > mistaken. > > It's what the customer says it is because that's where Apple's money > comes from. I would never buy an iPad because of the locked-down > environment it runs in. Think of it as the perfect eBook reader ... and a reader that unlike the Kindle is open ... > The iPhone was revolutionary because it made a pocket-sized touch-screen > both elegant and commonplace. Making an iPhone bigger is not impressive > and maybe even counter-productive. Making a larger iPhone that runs on > any GSM network as long as it's AT&T is just pissing customers off. Most GSM networks don't run AT&T, and they run the iPhone perfectly well. Don't mistake the US for the world ... -- Per Erik R�nne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
From: Tom Stiller on 28 Jan 2010 06:38 In article <280120100305043376%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <4b6140f0$0$1965$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Kevin McMurtrie > <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote: > > > Making a larger iPhone that runs on > > any GSM network as long as it's AT&T is just pissing customers off. > > except for it being unlocked and no contract required, pay as you go, > cancel at any time. And it's not a phone. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Tom Stiller on 28 Jan 2010 06:41 In article <00dd10c2$0$23824$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote: > > >> Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for > >> touch screen on real computers. > > > > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely > > mistaken. > > > > > I don't think it is an "oversight". It is obvious Apple made a conscious > decision on this. But whether this decision is right or wrong, only time > will tell. The multi touch technology can be significantly more > productive than a mouse. > > Consider iWork. They now have a version with multi-touch on the iPad, > and the "old" legacy version on OS-X. > > If Microsoft and PC vendors start to push for touch screen computers and > start to gain market share, Apple will be left behind with an old > product line that doesn't support touch screen. > > Apple could start to sell touch screen enabled displays, as well as > cards one could put into a MacPro to enable it. (consider those > developping apps for iphone/ipad, they would love to be able to use > touchscreen when testing their apps). Touch screens are great for tablet devices, not so great for laptops, and very arm fatiguing for desktops. Just try pointing your finger at everyplace you position the cursor for a day and see how it feels. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Lloyd Parsons on 28 Jan 2010 07:52
In article <00dd10c2$0$23824$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote: > > >> Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for > >> touch screen on real computers. > > > > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely > > mistaken. > > > > > I don't think it is an "oversight". It is obvious Apple made a conscious > decision on this. But whether this decision is right or wrong, only time > will tell. The multi touch technology can be significantly more > productive than a mouse. > > Consider iWork. They now have a version with multi-touch on the iPad, > and the "old" legacy version on OS-X. > > If Microsoft and PC vendors start to push for touch screen computers and > start to gain market share, Apple will be left behind with an old > product line that doesn't support touch screen. > That's a big IF considering how long touch screen computers have been around with little market penetration. Years ago I used to sell the Compaq T1100 (I think that's the model), a touchscreen laptop, to nursing homes as a way for those making rounds to take notes. They loved it, but it was very costly to implement because wireless networking at the time was very expensive and not very good. That model didn't last long. Now I own an HP Touchsmart 300 which is a touchscreen desktop. For almost everything you normally do on a desktop computer at home, the touch is nearly worthless as the apps really don't work well with it. Mostly because of small icons and menu selections, but also the onscreen keyboard is mostly suitable for children (the last ones you want playing around on a touchscreen!). I bought it because of MusicReader (musicreader.net) and it works quite well with touch because it was designed with touch in mind. > Apple could start to sell touch screen enabled displays, as well as > cards one could put into a MacPro to enable it. (consider those > developping apps for iphone/ipad, they would love to be able to use > touchscreen when testing their apps). I would think that if the iPad does as well as I think it will, and if iWork for it sells well, you might just see Apple come out with touch on more things in the future. |