iPad usefulness?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 1 Apr 2010 07:12 R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > > > You're partly right and partly totally wrong. For many people computers > > are nothing less than liberating. They fear and hate them and do *less* > > with them than what they could do with a more streamlined and simpler > > device (and software). > > Ok. Let's consider getting photographs out of a camera /yourself/. > > This is how it used to be done. You would have someone build you > a darkroom, or you'd mess around with black tape. Then, once you > had snapped your images, you'd spend a lot of time fumbling about > in the dark with strange chemicals etc. and all the while hoping not > to accidentally expose your negatives or suffer some other calamity. > If it went wrong, in the worst case, you'd lose all your photographs. > It was costly, too. No you wouldn't - you would take the film out of the back of the camera and toddle down to supersnaps and get them back 3 days later. > Which of the two methods is simpler and more streamlined? That > is partly what I mean by computers being liberating. (And before > someone mentions it - yes, then, as now, you can pay someone > else to develop and print your photographs if you don't mind the > loss of control and immediacy). People in general didnt mind > The computer has allowed ordinary people (i.e., not specialists > in a particular field) to spend relatively little money and do what > formerly was only within the reach of the hands of professionals. > Anyone who has a half decent computer can produce work that > will rival almost anything produced by the professionals, if (the > important bit) they have the talent to do so. That wasn't always > the case, but now it is. Extremely high quality still and moving > images, and high quality sound on a par with that produced by > the most expensive studios is within reach of the gifted but not > particularly wealthy amateur. You no longer need to hire studio > time or equipment at great expensive to compete at anything > but the highest level. Yes, for a few people it has been nothing short of liberating, but for an equal number ithas been a nightmare. There are still lots of people that can't use them, and they are over complicated for what they do, for historical reasons. I mean, I love them, but I know many people that dont. > That to me is liberating - making available > to the masses what was once the privilege of the few. This is all > possible because the computer is the ultimate you can think it > you can do it tool. It isn't. It is a 'if you can think it and find someone else who can show you how you can do it, and if you are capable of doing it, it will do it tool'. I know many artists that won't go near one, and can't understand them at all. That is not their fault, it is the computer. If you are an author, back in the old days you would go to your desk, start typing. now you go to your desk, start your computer, run your word processor, navigate round your system to find your file, start writing hoping that the application doesn't crash and lose all your work, then save, make some backups. > And the iPad is not, by the look of it, such a > tool. You will be limited by the device and by Apple, and not so > much by your imagination. Again, if you are an author, press the start button, press your application, start typing. Sounds easier to me. For a lot of people it takes the computer out of the equation. > There are some things I like about the iPad (as we know it now), > but I don't want a future dominated by such dumbed down devices. > What is missing here - what I had hoped for - is a new innovative > class of open ended devices or machines. New ways of interacting, > new designs and form factors, and new liberating ways of creating > stuff. Whatever these things are, they need to be as simple as they > need to be (simplicity achieved through architectural elegance) but > not specifically made simple for simpletons (simplicity achieved by > crudely chopping off, metaphorically speaking, arms and legs). > > I hope your eyes aren't as tired as my fingers are now :) This is not an ultimate device, any more than a comptuer is. But as much as I love computers I know that they are a wall of fear for some, and those people who do creat things with one are in a minority. This doesn't take away computers, this is another thing on the way to somewhere. For quite a lot of people I think something like this (when it develops to be a machine in its own right) is a lot closer than a comptuer to a useful device -- Woody
From: Woody on 1 Apr 2010 07:12 R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > Media (music, videos, books, podcasts etc) - yes. > > Yes - if you don't mind the poor quality. Poor quality sound, > low resolution video and books, etc etc. The quality of sound and video is much higher than was available to most people in the history of TVs and computers > I would like to think, as Apple customers, we care about > quality as much as convenience. Apple customers? I am just a person. I care about what is useful to me in any given circumstance, regardless what it is, and regardless who makes it. -- Woody
From: Woody on 1 Apr 2010 07:26 R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > > I'm not quite sure of your point here. It's a smallish portable device > > not intended to be a fixed part of a hifi and with only middling dpi, > > therefore its media presentation is limited? This is hardly news... > > Its dpi count could be quite a lot higher, though, couldn't it? It could be. > And its sound quality and camera could be much better, too. As it has no camera, it could cerainly be better Its sound quality is 44kHz, 16 bit audio with a claimed 20hz to 20kHz +/- 3db signal. I don't know how good your ears are, but mine can't hear better, so no, it probably couldn't be better. > I'm sorry to say I view the iPhone and iTouch as slightly tacky > low quality devices. Quite a lot of the competition is even worse, > though. Well, don't buy one then! I view the iPhone as a wonderful liberating portable computer -- Woody
From: T i m on 1 Apr 2010 07:35 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:47:22 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: <snip> >Personally, if she wanted to get going, I'd point her at a Macbook, but >they are fairly pricey for what would be a very small part of her life. Same with Dad and getting him a bit better up to speed than with his OS9 iMac. He can't justify the cost of a Macbook but it would be the best solution considering his (sort of) familiarity with Apple OS. Then there's that 'we have a mobile or been given a printer / scanner / webcam / other-gadget but it's not supported on Macs' thing (even if it might be after some faffing). >The advantage would be that I could help her maintain it via VOIP- at >least, unlike Windows, I would have an idea what she's seeing on screen. Funny, Mum phoned this morning saying 'she tried to get online last night and this morning' (on her XP laptop) and I asked if she had checked all the lights were on the BT Hub. They weren't and a reset got everything working again. I then used Teamviewer to check all was ok. >And she has friends and a daughter in Geneva who use Macs, and so have >access to Mac techies locally. But I guess she may have a greater range of help still if it were a Windows box (statistically)? Like, any visitor bearing kids aged 5+ would be able to help her! > >I'm seeing her soon, so we'll discuss it then. I'm surprised how handy my little eeePC / XP can still be. I was playing with my (new to me) Xbox 360 and on a 42" Plasma (I was given ages ago) and used the eeePC to do background / setup tasks at the same time. Sitting on the bed I noticed the 7" eeePC screen looked the same size as the 42" Plasma across the room! As mentioned elsewhere it's too small for easy use of most things so a 10" or bigger would be a must to encourage regular use. Cheers, T i m
From: Peter Ceresole on 1 Apr 2010 07:35
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > If you are an author, back in the old days you would go to your desk, > start typing. now you go to your desk, start your computer, run your > word processor, navigate round your system to find your file, start > writing hoping that the application doesn't crash and lose all your > work, then save, make some backups. Hmmm. I gree in general with what you are saying but you risk over-egging here; for a writer, that simplicity has been available for a very long time. One-key (okay, sometimes one multiple keypress that was dead easy to remember) was all it took. Remember the Amstrads? Especially the NC series? And the WP *never* crashed in the years I used it all over London. I reckon the iPad is the modern equivalent. And I do agree that horrors like Word have degraded the simplicity. However, the iPad can do significantly more, and the problem is that people may want to do these things. And none of the functions on the NCs needed support from a 'real' computer. I'm sorried that the iPad will do. It needs to be as simple to use as the NC200. I'm sure that eventually it will be. And I do think that they'll sell zillions. -- Peter |