Slashdot Mirror
Big Backing For 'Universal Stylus' Campaign (bbc.com)
Google has backed an effort to standardise touch-screen styluses so they can be used on many devices. From a report: The Universal Stylus Initiative (USI) was launched, in 2015, to encourage companies to produce styluses that work on rivals' products Dell, Intel, Lenovo, LG and graphics tablet-maker Wacom have all backed the project. However, Apple, Microsoft and Samsung have not. One expert suggested the big brands would keep their proprietary pens. Styluses designed to work with modern touch-screen devices and graphics tablets usually contain sensors to detect pressure, movement and orientation of the pen.
and I thought there was an Apple bias?
The problem with these kinds of standards is that they usually settle on the cheapest, crappiest thing. MicroUSB is the perfect example, exploding/burning/shorting chargers are another one.
Lightning, Thunderbolt and especially USB-C are better examples, with companies behind it that have at least some level of QC.
There's nothing somebody else in China can't manufacture a bit cheaper and a bit crappier and a bit more dangerous for the end-user.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Google is not a player in this game, and be honest I really doubt they give a damn what gets developed as a "standard" Googles stance has EVERYTHING to do with attacking Apple and Microsoft. From reviews I have read both these companies have good pens/tech and they work very well. This is tech google does not have, so why not force these companies to either share or get labeled as "non-standard" even if that standard is inferior. this "standard" is by companies trying to stay relevant.
A few searches leads me to believe that Dell, Lenovo, and LG have all put out devices with Wacom stylus technology. I wonder what this "universal stylus" technology will be based on? I wonder whose patents it will depend on?
Breakfast served all day!
Nonsense. If companies decide that the standard isn't good enough, they can improve the standard, just like the USB consortium did with USB-C.
IMO, if Apple had pushed for improvements to the standard instead of going off on their own with Lightning, we wouldn't have two incompatible standards right now. After all, I think everybody had concluded that micro-USB was fundamentally unreliable by the time Lightning came out, and they were looking for a replacement by that point anyway. The idea of making a reversible connector might have been borrowed from Apple (no idea about the timeline for that decision), but it certainly wasn't the primary driver for replacing micro-USB.
In fact, if Apple had stuck with the standards and pushed to improve those standards rather than using the 30-pin dock connector way back in the day, there's a good chance we'd have gotten a USB-C-like connector many years earlier, instead of the disaster that micro-USB turned out to be.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Apple and Google have zero incentive to have a standard, so that they can be undercut and effectively cede the market to cheap knock-offs. Pens are never the reason for choosing a platform, but it factors heavily into consumer satisfaction. Having a best-in-class experience is critical to maintaining satisfaction.
Also, I suspect the margin on Apple and Microsoft Pens is quite good.
- Vincit qui patitur.
as far as I know
That would be a new unit of measurement based on the number zero? Sounds far indeed...
You don't know the meaning of "proprietary."
It is absolutely proprietary. USB is not open and free.
Actually it is open, you can download the spec from here. Also it is free of charge, you can pay for a VID ($5000USD) and you can pay to license the logo ($3500USD) but you can also do as many do and if you need a VID use 0xF055.
Looks like they're supporting universal run-on sentences too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You can use the USB connector freely. You can't put the trademark logo on a device that hasn't paid for the logo license and passed USB-IF compliance testing. It's a nice loophole for hobbyists that want something totally free and off-the-shelf.
If you're manufacturing devices, it's a single fee without a per device charge. This is different from something like FireWire which was open spec, but the trademarked names and logos cost a $1 per device. (or $1 per port?). FireWire is an open standard (IEEE 1394-1995) but an official copy of the standard is $335.00 for IEEE members (membership is $35/year).
Really proprietary stuff means you can't even buy the components to build a connector or cable without an agreement from the manufacturer or custom manufacturer.
But perhaps you have a different definition of proprietary than the rest of us have. If so, please explain it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
was filled with people saying how superior Micro USB was to Lightning.
Are you sure they were serious? Do you have any examples? Just because one thick headed nitwit on-line debated some stupid position doesn't really follow that /. is filled with such people.
FireWire/IEEE1394 was better than USB for many technical reasons, especially 800 and S1600. And I believe that dominance lasted for about 10 years. But technical reasons alone don't guarantee adoption. And every year 1394 stagnates we'll see USB moving beyond it.
The versatility of USB Type-C to carry USB 3, active power (USB-PD), DisplayPort, Thunderbolt 3 and now HDMI is a huge advantage. But USB-C far from simple and in some ways it was designed for chip companies to sell more chips, and that should not be surprising given the USB-IF's membership list.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Micro USB is superior to Lightning. Yes, Lightning and type C can allow you to plug in either way as compared to micro USB. But Lightning is not available on basically anything other than iOS devices. I have to carry an extra, special cable for just that. Or lots of dongles/adapters. Micro USB is ubiquitous, required by law in the EU, low cost, and fairly robust. I can get plugs and jacks for pennies at a dozen suppliers, and cables are everywhere. Lightning? Not so much... I can build cables with multiple connectors on them (type C, micro USB, mini USB, mini HDMI, etc) but Lightning is limited to just Lightning-to-USB C or Lightning-to-Type A only (per Apple's requirements). The flexibility of use, ubiquity, and low cost make micro USB superior to Lightning.
Now, if you want to rate the ease-of-insertion higher than all that, then great. Go with type C - and then you gain flexibility of use (meaning you can mix and match connectors - and as many as you want - on a given cable), ubiquity, and low cost (relative to Lightning) and be done with it.
So in what way is Lightning superior to type C? Or, discounting the dual orientation feature, in what way is Lightning superior to micro USB?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, it's required. Apple gets around it in the EU by shipping a micro USB to Lightning dongle, so the charger can be the legislated standard with a micro USB output.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!