iPad usefulness?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 2 Apr 2010 05:25 On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:59:14 +0100, Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> p.s. I was just going to suggest they put it back as it was (as well) >> as that obviously suited him before. If it was analogue TV / Teletext >> I think the switchover for us in London is 2012 so he'd have it for >> another couple of years? > >But possibly worse for him to try and learn a new system when he is 85. Well true, if the 'computer' solution was acceptable in the first place (and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be). Like my Dad and just wanting to put his CD's in a player (not 'muck about with an iPod), this guy just wants to be able to press the button on the remote, like he used to, and get his stocks and shares, instantly. Now it seems you can do something like that on this VM cable TV but it's more 'Press the interactive button, News, Bloomberg, Most recent / Winners / Losers etc etc. No complete listing, nothing. That's not to say it's not on there, just that I couldn't find it in the few moments I was there. But this it seems is progress. Like when awhile ago NTL offered to upgrade us to 'Digital' with loads of free channels and faster broadband. The Mrs asked if we would still get the basic channels on the other TV's in the house. I suggested 'we must be able to' but a phone call to CS told me otherwise. Loads of free channels on the main TV but only what we were watching on the main TV on all the others (unless we bought extra boxes of course). We stayed with the analogue service. A portable computer that doesn't work with some of the Internet, a phone that isn't a good 'phone', mp3 players that can't (also) give me a folder view, not progress in my mind but a dumbing down to suit the consuming masses. May be good business, not good for all users (it seems). Cheers, T i m
From: zoara on 2 Apr 2010 05:31 Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > You're right about the consuming angle, but this has nothing to do > with > Apple or computers. We have all been turned into consumers for a long > time now. I think the human race has pretty much always been consumers in the majority and producers in the minority. Whether it be hand-transcribed books before the printing presses, blacksmiths and millers, or bloggers and photographers, there will always be a minority of people skilled in and passionate about a given task, and the rest of us will consume the fruits of those labours. I think that the iPad recognises this. For most people, reading blogs, reading books, watching video, or other "consuming" activities will be fine, because real computer or not they would never do more than dabble in creating video, writing books or blogging. An iPad-like device allows dabbling but if a real passion emerges then they'd move onto a tool more suited to the job, just as a photographer dumps their cheap point-and-shoot for a high-end SLR. We, as geeks, are passionate about our tools - computers - being the best for the job, but we need to recognise that for most people a point-and-shoot is actually better than an SLR. Most people don't need to do anything more than dabble in production in this area, they mainly want to consume. A cook produces, but does so outside of the arena of technology. For them, an iPad would be all about consumption (including stuff related to their passion such as recipes) and maybe a tiny dabble in production (like submitting recipes to a website). If they got into writing recipes enough to decide to publish a book, they'd move on to a more suitable tool, but they'll most likely not - their production will remain about producing nice food. I think Apple have nailed a revolution here. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Graeme on 2 Apr 2010 05:39 In message <65dbr558ssoc1ho78eh1elvcj4cmmjgubh(a)4ax.com> T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:59:14 +0100, Graeme > <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> p.s. I was just going to suggest they put it back as it was (as well) > >> as that obviously suited him before. If it was analogue TV / Teletext > >> I think the switchover for us in London is 2012 so he'd have it for > >> another couple of years? > > > >But possibly worse for him to try and learn a new system when he is 85. > > Well true, if the 'computer' solution was acceptable in the first > place (and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be). > > Like my Dad and just wanting to put his CD's in a player (not 'muck > about with an iPod), this guy just wants to be able to press the > button on the remote, like he used to, and get his stocks and shares, > instantly. > > Now it seems you can do something like that on this VM cable TV but > it's more 'Press the interactive button, News, Bloomberg, Most recent > / Winners / Losers etc etc. No complete listing, nothing. That's not > to say it's not on there, just that I couldn't find it in the few > moments I was there. If he's got internet access then just go to the BBC website > > But this it seems is progress. Ceefax is dying, once the digital switchover is complete it will disappear. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Graeme on 2 Apr 2010 05:37 In message <1jgbj17.cwibxs19y66mvN(a)de-ster.xs4all.nl> nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > [snip] > > > > iPad with a PPC Mac. As Graeme says, he *did* misread the specs. > > > > > > That was the previous round. > > > I was saying next that the specs are probably exaggerated, > > > and that it seems likely that 10.4.11 (Tiger) > > > will do as well, > > > > > > > That's possible but I wouldn't want to lash out 600 quidlets on the > > off-chance it might work. > > We'll know soon. <grin> > > > On the other hand upgrading to Leopard wasn't > > expensive. > > I have it, but hesitate about putting it on the Cube. Touch wood I had no problems with the G4 apart from finding FCP no longer worked :-( > > > I'm now 50% convinced about the practicalities of getting one. > > The iPod Touch is fine on USB1 on the Cube. > It just takes some more patience, > I assumed when it specified USB2 it would work on USB1, just slower. Not bothered about that at this stage. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: R on 2 Apr 2010 06:05
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > I think the human race has pretty much always been consumers in the > majority and producers in the minority. Whether it be hand-transcribed > books before the printing presses, blacksmiths and millers, or bloggers > and photographers, there will always be a minority of people skilled in > and passionate about a given task, and the rest of us will consume the > fruits of those labours. > > I think that the iPad recognises this. For most people, reading blogs, > reading books, watching video, or other "consuming" activities will be > fine, because real computer or not they would never do more than dabble > in creating video, writing books or blogging. An iPad-like device allows > dabbling but if a real passion emerges then they'd move onto a tool more > suited to the job, just as a photographer dumps their cheap > point-and-shoot for a high-end SLR. That assumes the tool more suited to the job would be accessible to them. What I mean by that is, if 95% of people, say, only bought iPad-like devices, then traditional computers might well become unaffordable to many - the economies of scale would not be there. The cost of your notebook might well be subsidised (unfairly or not) by people who buy a macbook/mbp/imac/mini when they really want something else. If that subsidy disappears, you might pay a lot more for your notebook, say (random figures), �3000-4000. |