I find it funny that you are so determined that the iPad is a superior ebook reader when you haven't even seen one, much less read a book on one.
And I find it funny that you are so determined that the iPad is an inferior eBook reader, when you haven't even see one, must less read a book on one.
I have, however, used a Kindle, and have used an LED backlit IPS display, and have used an iPhone, and I've seen video of how the iBooks app works, so I have a rather good idea of how eBook reading will work on the iPad.
You are correct, however, that I can't be certain until I've actually used one, but based on what I already know with things I'm already familiar with, I have good reason behind my judgement. Just as I have good reason to believe I wouldn't like a Big Mac very much were the meat patties replaced with veggie burgers, even though I've never had that exact combination. I *could* be wrong, but I'm probably not. And I'm willing to verify as the ability to do so arises.
Surprisingly, unless you have some super inside secrets and have already used an iPad, you are unable to conclusively say it is superior at the task of reading ebooks.
And you are unable to conclusively state the opposite, even though you have. How could that be? Unless, like me, you are using past experience, and knowledge of the specs of the iPad, to generate your opinion? Having both of us laid bare the reasoning behind our opinions, I've addressed the issues you brought up. Specifically, that the screen on the iPad is worse for reading books on. And I've disputed your assessment, based on fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
You, on the other hand, have simply resorted to attacking my opinion based on lack of experience. The very same lack of experience which you have.
Given what I already know, and given my past experiences, I stand by my statement, unless I find experience or, until then, argument proves otherwise.
Just because eye strain isn't a problem for you or numerous other people, doesn't mean there are people who don't have eye strain problems.
I never said there aren't people who have problems with their eyes.
For example, I can not turn down the brightness on my laptop screen, or my LCD monitors at work low enough to be completely comfortable, and this is in a well lit environment.
For example, that has nothing to do with the iPad.
I will agree that the color screen is an advantage, but faster updating means next to nothing for an ebook reader. If you want an ebook reader only, then the Kindle is the superior choice, if you want something more general purpose then the iPad might be sufficient.
Um, no. As an eBook reader, the iPad is superior to the Kindle.
Except: In direct sunlight and for usage of greater than 10 hours between charges. Or if your eyes are faulty in such a way that only low-contrast reflective displays are comfortable to you.
If any of those three are important to you, then by all means, Kindle is the best for you. For the 99.9% rest of us, the iPad is the superior reader. The fact that it can do so much more is icing on the cake. Or, let's be honest here, that it can do the rest of those things so well is the main benefit, and the fact that it's also the best quality eBook reader is the icing on the cake, for most of that 99.9% of us. Although for me personally, the eBook reader aspect of it is important, and has factored greatly in my decision to not buy a Kindle (or Nook).
But either way you look at it, for most people, Kindle isn't even a contender.
Yeah, a full OS on a tablet platform isn't going to fly - until the tablet is powerful enough and the OS light enough to do enough niche things that it has broad utility. That would be right about... now.
No, it's never going to fly, if you mean running a desktop OS mostly unaltered, on a tablet. Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. None of these are well suited for even stylus based interaction, let alone multitouch. Things like window titlebars, close and minimize buttons, menus. None of these are very usable in multitouch.
Apple's take on Mac OS X as the iPhone OS is the right direction. Similar is Google's take on Linux as Android. But the idea of running Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux on a tablet is doomed, no matter what the technology is that goes into the battery, processor and display.
I don't see how people can keep comparing these two things.
Form factor and the iBookstore. How can you not compare the two? Hell, the fact that Amazon is feeling pressure due to the iPad pretty much proves the comparison is valid.
The kindle and other ereaders are just that, EReaders. The MaxIpad is more of a tablet pc and seems like more of a competition for netbooks.
The thing that makes the iPad so much better than other eReaders or netbooks is that it's better at both those things.
I would buy an ereader because staring at a computer screen kills the eyes(for most people) because its bright.
That's nonsense. People read LCDs constantly without problem. If it's too bright, you can dim it.
Photons are photons, whether they come from an LED backlight, or are reflected from a light behind you. In fact, the iPad's display should be better on the eyes, because you can read in dim lighting, where devices like the Kindle are much harder to read (leading to actual eyestrain).
Color, faster updating, higher contrast, no need for external lighting. These are all things which are in the iPad's screen's favor. Better readability in direct sunlight and lower power requirements are the only things in the Kindle's (and similar) screen's favor.
No, third largest publicly traded company in the world. Going by market cap. And it's actually fifth right now (these things fluctuate), Exxon, Microsoft, PetroChina, Wal-Mart, Apple. In that order.
However, looking further into it, PetroChina is worth over 2 trillion (I assume dollars), in a foreign exchange, which is interesting.
Regardless of the specifics, it doesn't really alter my general point. Apple is the largest tech company, the second largest software company, the largest online services company, the second largest retailer, the largest mobile company and the largest media company, in terms of publicly traded market caps.
Apple has more cash on hand than Microsoft (although the difference does fluctuate, and they are both very close). Only Cisco and Exxon have more as of the most recent numbers I can quickly find.
Presently, Apple has enough cash to buy every share of Dell or Sony.
The one specific factor I am pointing this out for is that Apple is not going to be shutting down their iTunes authentication servers anytime soon. Any purchases from iTunes are definitely sound in the medium to long term. Maybe Apple will fail as a company during my lifetime, but probably not. I suspect the whole market will change before Apple dies, like what has happened with DRM music.
I, and most everyone, know what I'm getting into when I buy media from iTunes. I know it might become unplayable in the future. Just as I knew CDs and DVDs would eventually become replaced. I also know that some other company might make a product more compelling than Apple's offerings. But life has risks, nothing is certain and nothing lasts forever. If I have to repurchase my media library because a fire melted my CDs, or Apple goes bankrupt, then that's what I have to do. But in the meantime, I'm highly confident I'll have years (if not a lifetime) of convenience and usability that's worth investing in for now.
I'm not going to unnecessarily avoid the opportunities that life offers today for fear of changes that may come decades later. It's just not worth it.
For a tablet device I thought it was good enough and while the movie I saw demoed looked somewhat washed out, it was still certainly viewable. I would say it was certainly on par with older passive matrix displays if not a bit better. I mean the color and contrast.
This isn't exactly high praise.
Part of the usability of tablet would be using it in direct sunlight. I mean if you are indoors all the time, you might as well just use a laptop.
That's silly. The tablet form factor isn't merely something for outdoors use. In fact, tablets don't exactly strike me as something people will want to take out and use randomly on the street (and I don't mean for fear of theft, but simply for the natural benefit of the form factor). Phones are much better suited for this.
A tablet you can whip out and check your e-mail in the street in direct sunlight would be pretty sweet.
It's called the iPhone (and Android, etc.).
The only situation where the Pixel Qi display is really beneficial is for things that aren't graphically important (indoors or outdoors), but where readability is important, and outdoors plays a significant role.
This doesn't strike me as a very important technology in the consumer sector. It may be great for certain types of public displays and perhaps in-dash displays (like on the Prius). But on a media-centric tablet? It's a non-starter. It doesn't meet the primary goals of the technology (vivid, quality display of media), and instead delivers on a secondary goal (outdoors, direct sunlight readability).
Exactly, there's Sony, B&N and others. I think par tof Amazon's success is that the press talks about no one else. Now we have Apple who has, imo, a very half-assed device and they're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they'll probably get more sales than they deserve.
What "superior competition" would that be?
You mention that the press talks about Amazon more than Sony, and that that has played a role in Amazon's success. You're overstating things here. Sony's ebook reader and ebook services are inferior to Amazon's. B&N was the first real Amazon contender, and they got *plenty* of press out of it.
Now the iPad, which blows away all existing ebook readers, is getting the press.
The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.
What are you talking about? The press isn't building up any drama here. The drama is taking place. Amazon is playing hardball with the book publishers as a direct result of the deals the publishers are making with Apple. The drama is real, not imagined or exaggerated.
Barnes & Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done. Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders,
A few reasons:
1. When the Nook was announced, the buzz was Amazon vs. B&N. Now the iPad is the new product, and *that's* the one getting the buzz. 2. The iPad is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the current readers. 3. Apple's dominance with the iTunes store makes them a serious contender. No matter what media market they enter, it will be a tectonic shift when they do.
And in this particular case, the primary reason:
4. Amazon's current bout of "arm twisting" is in direct response to Apple's deals with the publishers.
The Nook didn't cause this, the iPad did.
Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?
Yet somehow they've already sold hundreds of thousands of them.
But "for sale right now" isn't even a rational metric. The iPad had a lot of buzz going for it before it was even announced, and had already significantly affected the markets it's entering (and creating) long before the orders started being taken. The ebook market really isn't that much different with the Nook than it would have been without it. But that very same market has already been significantly altered by the iPad before the iPad was even available for purchase.
I don't have to buy a different set of eyes to read books purchased at different stores. They all work, as is. Where as, with ebooks, once you have a collection from Amazon, if you EVER want to read them again, you must do so on an Amazon supplied reader. If at any point in the next couple of years, Amazon decides to stop manufacturing those readers and yours dies, all of your books stop being readable.
Or, in this case, Apple. Do you think the third largest publicly traded company in the world is going away any time soon?
For me, the convenience of something like the iBookstore outweighs the risks. So I might have to repurchase a handful of books that I'll want to re-read in the future if somehow Apple folds. That's just the cost of modern life.
Life is too damned short to hold off on enjoying the things the world has to offer (including DRM encrypted books, music and video) just because in the future you might lose those things. Better to have loved and lost, right?
Of course there are always those people who don't mind having to carry around a single, bulky book, and who have the bookshelf space to hold their library, etc. I'm not talking about those people. Everyone has their preferences, and should stick to them. But to be the type of person who would prefer the ebook format, but stay away from it because of DRM? That really seems to be case of broken priorities. When you're dead, you're dead. You can't take your books with you, and you don't get to read all those books you missed out once you are gone on just because you found the notion of DRM to be offensive.
I know of no one as well. But I'm basing my judgement on common sense. It just doesn't seem likely that the hybrid type system behind the Pixel Qi would be as good (let alone better) than a high quality LCD. If it were, this would be trumpeted. It would be marketed as this extremely high quality new LCD type that can *also* go reflective, as opposed to the way it's actually presented, which is as a display type that can toggle between backlit and reflective.
Or put another way, does it seem likely to you that Pixel Qi would be of such high fidelity that graphics artists would specifically seek it out, the way they seek out IPS today?
You're right that this is speculation, but as far as speculation goes, my confidence level is pretty high. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but I won't be holding my breath.
...better than the iPad, and the thing isn't even out yet. (Moby)
Of course, iPad will still probably sell better than it simply due to that almost certainly stale chewed apple.
Hmm... If it's better, and if it's $99, it'll outsell the iPad. However, it's pretty much impossible that anyone can make a device that is both those things.
But, like you said, it's vaporware, so I guess first thing is it has to actually exist.
The problem with e-ink (or displays like Pixel Qi) is that the screen is of inherently lower quality to something like the IPS display in the iPad. In sunlight, Pixel Qi can be better, but when watching a video indoors, or away from direct sunlight, the iPad (and similar) screens will be much better.
The Notion Ink Adam looks pretty cool. I'll definitely be checking it out when it hits stores in the US, but I highly doubt I'll buy one. Ignoring the iPad, the Adam looks like the best of the current crop. Compared to the iPad, however, the Adam just isn't compelling. Given the choice of a free Adam or a full-priced iPad, I'd rather pay for something that I'll find useful rather than settle for something less capable of meeting my needs.
As for requiring some sort of e-ink in order to spend hours on end reading on a device, that's rather absurd. Most everyone on the Internet finds reading text on an LCD suits them just fine.
That's your opinion. Given h.264's current ubiquity, your opinion is not exactly universal.
The licencing is the only roadblock to H.264 being worthwhile for the web.
It's already worthwhile for the web, as it's the primary codec in use today. That wouldn't be the case were the codec "not worthwhile"
It would be a non-issue if H.264 was royalty-free.
That's true, and that's my point. It h.264 were royalty free, or Theora patent-encumbered like h.264 (and it's not certain it's not, but that's a whole side issue), then there'd be no discussion, as h.264 is far superior to Theora.
So we should promote Theora because Google might release an open source codec of their own?
No, we should use Theora because it's royalty-free. Please read more carefully next time.
"Theora works today and will only improve with time. I'd speculate and even consider it likely that VP8 will also join the open, royalty-free fold courtesy of Google."
Regardless, what you'll see is that royalty-free will win out over time.
I never said it wouldn't. I'm talking about today, not "over time". "Over time" h.264 will be royalty free, although I don't expect h.264 to remain dominant until then. I'm also not sure it'll be displaced, as mp3 and jpeg are still around, in spite of superior formats. An almost universally installed base of h.264 accelerated hardware will be tough to go against.
One of the core goals of the push to HTML5 is to remove dependencies on propriety components on the web and that can't be achieved with H.264.
Yes, that's one of the goals. Yes, it can be achieved with h.264, because it removes the need for Flash + h.264. The net dependency on proprietary technologies is reduced. It just can't be fully achieved with h.264. So get cracking on a superior open source codec so we can remove *that* obstacle as well.
The *only* thing going for Theora is its license. Pretty much every other metric goes to h.264. It's a superior codec, it's more widely supported, and it's accelerated in pretty much every device on the market.
You'll come to understand that you were wrong. And that's okay. It's all learning.
Oh please, do explain which fact I have incorrect. The only thing I have stated that can be "wrong" is my opinion, and that would only reasonably be if the license ever became problematic. I've already stated my contingency for that, which is to continue to pay the license (as I already do when buying h.264-supporting software and hardware), for sites that can pay the license to pay the license, and those that can't to either just remain noncompliant, or switch to a different codec.
So again, please, do explain which bit you think I've got wrong. It can't be that h.264 costs money, and may cost more in the future. I can't be that h.264 is better than Theora. It can't be that some sites may have to switch to something other than h.264 due to licensing. It can't be that freely implementable standards are better for the web than closed ones.
No, I think the only thing you'll have is that I'm not 100% pure in my ideology. That I am capable of accepting both the idea that fully open standards are preferable, while still supporting h.264. Well, sorry, I'm not a mindless robot. I have the capability of rational thought, and can hold two opposing ideas at once. I can see the world both as it is and as I want it to be. You'll find that doesn't make one wrong, it helps make them more right, as the world itself isn't ideologically pure. I can prefer warm weather, while still rationally heading to the mountains to ski. I can hold the view that sugar is bad for you, yet still drink soda. I can believe that the web does better with fully open standards, yet endorse h.264 as a standard codec.
And so can most other people. Theora has already lost. I suggest you start making your peace with that. Mozilla needs to accept this as well, lest they find themselves fading into irrelevancy.
I can appreciate that you think of yourself as a pragmatist, but you are, in fact, an adherent of feudalism.
My promoting of h.264 is neither a pragmatic decision, nor a feudalistic decision. Pragmatic would be if I chose the inferior codec for some reason of expediency. Feudalism would be if I chose h.264 because of the fact that it's proprietary. Neither is the case.
The web works and is successful because all of the most important parts of it can be implemented on a royalty-free basis.
If the MPEG-LA ever decides to make onerous the licensing of h.264, the sites that can pay will pay, and those that can't will either just continue without paying, or switch to something like Theora. In either case, I get to use the superior codec today (and in the future), and a free, but inferior, one in the future, if the need arises.
What I *don't* promote, is to forgo the superior solution because of ideology. It doesn't help that Mozilla and their supporters are lying about the effects that h.264 will have on the Internet.
Theora works today and will only improve with time. I'd speculate and even consider it likely that VP8 will also join the open, royalty-free fold courtesy of Google.
So we should promote Theora because Google might release an open source codec of their own?
Having skimmed TFA (actually, TF Press Release) it doesn't sound like there's anything really interesting here other than GPUs are faster are parallel calculations than CPUs. This is already known.
Cracking WPA and iPod/iPhone backups is still not a feasible task. Instead of 20 billion years (or whatever), it'll now only take 1 billion? Saying "20 times faster" makes it sound like you can already reliably crack these things, and now instead of a few hours, it's only a few minutes. But unless I missed it (and I certainly could have), that's not the case. It's just Moore's Law continuing on, in this case on the GPU instead of the CPU. We already know newer chips will be able to try more keys per second, but we're a *long* way from it being something to have any reasonable level of concern over.
It strikes me as odd that they actually have a product for this. It may be useful for short key lengths, but not for the things listed in the headline. It's like saying the hydrogen bomb can destroy Jupiter 100 times faster than an atom bomb. It may be technically true, but it's not a practical solution.
MS is visibly arrogant and arguably evil, but stupid? Nyet. Count on their legal eagles making DAMN sure the little fiasco outlined in the linked article never happens again. They may be inclined to do anything they think they can get away with, but this is something they understand they can't get away with.
Right, because MS never does the same illegal thing twice... (or more. You forgot about Stac). Well, let's just say this seems to be habitual with MS. They may have kicked the habit, but they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.
this kind of assumes people care about what internet explorer uses. That's becoming less relevant by the day.
Yeah, it's only like 80% of the Internet...
The reason people care is that those that build sites and the techie types that flock to Firefox, Chrome, and Safari all want to do away with Flash video (and Flash altogether, but video is really the one remaining bit that's keeping it so prevalent). If IE doesn't support html5, but does support Flash, then that dream will be much more difficult to realize.
So, IE is still important. The fact that IE looks like it will html5 video with h.264 is good news for everyone else, even non-IE users. Contrast this with Firefox, who if they do *not* support h.264, will find people moving back to IE (gasp!) or Chrome or Safari.
Now, to be sure, MS isn't doing this because they believe in web standards. They don't. They're doing this because people are leaving IE for browsers that do care about and support web standards. The irony will not be lost if Mozilla and Microsoft reverse their roles. Mozilla's ideology is going to screw us all if it means increased market share for IE.
h.264 can be added to any of those OSs you listed. It can also be added to Firefox.
If the biggest loss in the move to h.264 is video and audio on wikipedia, well, that's just noise. There's always going to be somebody that doesn't follow the trend. h.264 is presently en route to becoming the standard for web video. In fact it already is. HTML5 is just capping off this trend. Wikipedia and Firefox, no matter how important they presently are, cannot stop it. They will either join with the trend, or lose relevance.
You don't get it. If Firefox had h.264 support, it could not be redistributed. Period. Everyone would have to download the 'offical' version from Mozilla. No Linux distro could include it. No one could change the code and distribute it. It would cripple Firefox. Why the hell doesn't anyone understand this?
That's not true. h.264 can be implemented as a plugin. Firefox needn't include this plugin by default. There are plenty of third-party h.264 implementations to choose from. Mozilla themselves could even create such a plugin as an add-on, and make it freely available (sans source, if necessary).
Mozilla are shooting themselves in the foot if their present stance is anything but bluster. The h.264 train is leaving the station, and Apple, Google, and even Microsoft are on board. Firefox's market share will plummet without an h.264 solution.
I like the iPhone and I like the iTunes store. I just think we'd see even more apps and better apps if Apple didn't keep such an iron fist over distribution.
No, you'd see stores all over the place, including developers who decide to serve up their apps on their own web site. There *might* be more apps this way. Overall, there probably wouldn't be better apps, except for a small handful of exceptions (like Google Voice, or 3G Slingbox and Skype (the latter two are now allowed anyway, and Google's Voice web app is really good, and as it is is better than replacing fundamental iPhone functionality)).
But for the end users, it would be a much bigger mess. As it stands now, it's extremely easy to browse, discover, purchase, download, and install iPhone apps. By fracturing the store, this process would no longer be as seamless. Additionally, the potential for true spyware and crapware would rise significantly. iPhone users give up a little bit, but gain a lot in exchange. For those for whom that trade-off isn't so well balanced, there's always Android.
And that's the main problem I have with people wanting Apple to allow apps from any source. There's already a phone OS that allows that (at least, to a greater extent than the iPhone). So use that. But asking Apple to follow suit is to ask Apple to destroy on of the most critical aspects of the iPhone's success. Why break the iPhone when there's already something that meets your requirements?
I suspect a lot of that development has also been fueled by "get rich quick" dreams, which has obviously only come to reality for a small number of developers. Okay if you're a hobbyist, but not a great return on investment for anyone looking for more than that.
As opposed to the gold rush that is Android development?
It sounds like your complaint is simply something to nitpick on rather than an actual argument against Apple's store.
Sure, they could do that, but then they wouldn't get to pretend like their philosophical maneuvering is something based on practical needs as opposed to what it is, which is basing their design decisions on ideals which even their own users do not come close to universally sharing.
Last I checked, Firefox works just fine with closed-source plugins and extensions. There's no technical, or even legal, reason Firefox cannot support h.264.
If Mozilla really thought such a thing would be legally impossible (in the US, at least) then they need to drop support for Flash immediately.
Wow, the worst "malware" for the Mac can email you and call you! If that was the worst thing that PC malware did, companies like Norton and McAfee would be out of business overnight.
I can't seem to find a link to it now (so maybe I'm wrong), but I thought Apple blocked at least one of the apps where the developer actually called someone. I know the storm8 example you listed has been fixed.
if Apple allows it, it's clearly not malware.
That's absurd. Apple has a process in place to both remove from the store, and if the app is truly egregious, remove remotely from people's phones, any malware that slips past them.
Slashdot Mirror
iPhone OS has provided multitasking since day one.
I find it funny that you are so determined that the iPad is a superior ebook reader when you haven't even seen one, much less read a book on one.
And I find it funny that you are so determined that the iPad is an inferior eBook reader, when you haven't even see one, must less read a book on one.
I have, however, used a Kindle, and have used an LED backlit IPS display, and have used an iPhone, and I've seen video of how the iBooks app works, so I have a rather good idea of how eBook reading will work on the iPad.
You are correct, however, that I can't be certain until I've actually used one, but based on what I already know with things I'm already familiar with, I have good reason behind my judgement. Just as I have good reason to believe I wouldn't like a Big Mac very much were the meat patties replaced with veggie burgers, even though I've never had that exact combination. I *could* be wrong, but I'm probably not. And I'm willing to verify as the ability to do so arises.
Surprisingly, unless you have some super inside secrets and have already used an iPad, you are unable to conclusively say it is superior at the task of reading ebooks.
And you are unable to conclusively state the opposite, even though you have. How could that be? Unless, like me, you are using past experience, and knowledge of the specs of the iPad, to generate your opinion? Having both of us laid bare the reasoning behind our opinions, I've addressed the issues you brought up. Specifically, that the screen on the iPad is worse for reading books on. And I've disputed your assessment, based on fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
You, on the other hand, have simply resorted to attacking my opinion based on lack of experience. The very same lack of experience which you have.
Given what I already know, and given my past experiences, I stand by my statement, unless I find experience or, until then, argument proves otherwise.
Just because eye strain isn't a problem for you or numerous other people, doesn't mean there are people who don't have eye strain problems.
I never said there aren't people who have problems with their eyes.
For example, I can not turn down the brightness on my laptop screen, or my LCD monitors at work low enough to be completely comfortable, and this is in a well lit environment.
For example, that has nothing to do with the iPad.
I will agree that the color screen is an advantage, but faster updating means next to nothing for an ebook reader. If you want an ebook reader only, then the Kindle is the superior choice, if you want something more general purpose then the iPad might be sufficient.
Um, no. As an eBook reader, the iPad is superior to the Kindle.
Except: In direct sunlight and for usage of greater than 10 hours between charges. Or if your eyes are faulty in such a way that only low-contrast reflective displays are comfortable to you.
If any of those three are important to you, then by all means, Kindle is the best for you. For the 99.9% rest of us, the iPad is the superior reader. The fact that it can do so much more is icing on the cake. Or, let's be honest here, that it can do the rest of those things so well is the main benefit, and the fact that it's also the best quality eBook reader is the icing on the cake, for most of that 99.9% of us. Although for me personally, the eBook reader aspect of it is important, and has factored greatly in my decision to not buy a Kindle (or Nook).
But either way you look at it, for most people, Kindle isn't even a contender.
Yeah, a full OS on a tablet platform isn't going to fly - until the tablet is powerful enough and the OS light enough to do enough niche things that it has broad utility. That would be right about... now.
No, it's never going to fly, if you mean running a desktop OS mostly unaltered, on a tablet. Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. None of these are well suited for even stylus based interaction, let alone multitouch. Things like window titlebars, close and minimize buttons, menus. None of these are very usable in multitouch.
Apple's take on Mac OS X as the iPhone OS is the right direction. Similar is Google's take on Linux as Android. But the idea of running Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux on a tablet is doomed, no matter what the technology is that goes into the battery, processor and display.
It's the interface, stupid.
I don't see how people can keep comparing these two things.
Form factor and the iBookstore. How can you not compare the two? Hell, the fact that Amazon is feeling pressure due to the iPad pretty much proves the comparison is valid.
The kindle and other ereaders are just that, EReaders. The MaxIpad is more of a tablet pc and seems like more of a competition for netbooks.
The thing that makes the iPad so much better than other eReaders or netbooks is that it's better at both those things.
I would buy an ereader because staring at a computer screen kills the eyes(for most people) because its bright.
That's nonsense. People read LCDs constantly without problem. If it's too bright, you can dim it.
Photons are photons, whether they come from an LED backlight, or are reflected from a light behind you. In fact, the iPad's display should be better on the eyes, because you can read in dim lighting, where devices like the Kindle are much harder to read (leading to actual eyestrain).
Color, faster updating, higher contrast, no need for external lighting. These are all things which are in the iPad's screen's favor. Better readability in direct sunlight and lower power requirements are the only things in the Kindle's (and similar) screen's favor.
third last company in the world? citation needed
No, third largest publicly traded company in the world. Going by market cap. And it's actually fifth right now (these things fluctuate), Exxon, Microsoft, PetroChina, Wal-Mart, Apple. In that order.
However, looking further into it, PetroChina is worth over 2 trillion (I assume dollars), in a foreign exchange, which is interesting.
Regardless of the specifics, it doesn't really alter my general point. Apple is the largest tech company, the second largest software company, the largest online services company, the second largest retailer, the largest mobile company and the largest media company, in terms of publicly traded market caps.
Apple has more cash on hand than Microsoft (although the difference does fluctuate, and they are both very close). Only Cisco and Exxon have more as of the most recent numbers I can quickly find.
Presently, Apple has enough cash to buy every share of Dell or Sony.
The one specific factor I am pointing this out for is that Apple is not going to be shutting down their iTunes authentication servers anytime soon. Any purchases from iTunes are definitely sound in the medium to long term. Maybe Apple will fail as a company during my lifetime, but probably not. I suspect the whole market will change before Apple dies, like what has happened with DRM music.
I, and most everyone, know what I'm getting into when I buy media from iTunes. I know it might become unplayable in the future. Just as I knew CDs and DVDs would eventually become replaced. I also know that some other company might make a product more compelling than Apple's offerings. But life has risks, nothing is certain and nothing lasts forever. If I have to repurchase my media library because a fire melted my CDs, or Apple goes bankrupt, then that's what I have to do. But in the meantime, I'm highly confident I'll have years (if not a lifetime) of convenience and usability that's worth investing in for now.
I'm not going to unnecessarily avoid the opportunities that life offers today for fear of changes that may come decades later. It's just not worth it.
For a tablet device I thought it was good enough and while the movie I saw demoed looked somewhat washed out, it was still certainly viewable. I would say it was certainly on par with older passive matrix displays if not a bit better. I mean the color and contrast.
This isn't exactly high praise.
Part of the usability of tablet would be using it in direct sunlight. I mean if you are indoors all the time, you might as well just use a laptop.
That's silly. The tablet form factor isn't merely something for outdoors use. In fact, tablets don't exactly strike me as something people will want to take out and use randomly on the street (and I don't mean for fear of theft, but simply for the natural benefit of the form factor). Phones are much better suited for this.
A tablet you can whip out and check your e-mail in the street in direct sunlight would be pretty sweet.
It's called the iPhone (and Android, etc.).
The only situation where the Pixel Qi display is really beneficial is for things that aren't graphically important (indoors or outdoors), but where readability is important, and outdoors plays a significant role.
This doesn't strike me as a very important technology in the consumer sector. It may be great for certain types of public displays and perhaps in-dash displays (like on the Prius). But on a media-centric tablet? It's a non-starter. It doesn't meet the primary goals of the technology (vivid, quality display of media), and instead delivers on a secondary goal (outdoors, direct sunlight readability).
Exactly, there's Sony, B&N and others. I think par tof Amazon's success is that the press talks about no one else. Now we have Apple who has, imo, a very half-assed device and they're unfortunately getting more attention then superior competition which means they'll probably get more sales than they deserve.
What "superior competition" would that be?
You mention that the press talks about Amazon more than Sony, and that that has played a role in Amazon's success. You're overstating things here. Sony's ebook reader and ebook services are inferior to Amazon's. B&N was the first real Amazon contender, and they got *plenty* of press out of it.
Now the iPad, which blows away all existing ebook readers, is getting the press.
The press needs to do a proper job rather than trying to build up some drama to report on.
What are you talking about? The press isn't building up any drama here. The drama is taking place. Amazon is playing hardball with the book publishers as a direct result of the deals the publishers are making with Apple. The drama is real, not imagined or exaggerated.
Barnes & Noble's device is fairly decent, although its missing Wikipedia and some of the features could be better done. Why is this is being set up as an Apple vs. Amazon fight when, of the several companies putting out eReaders,
A few reasons:
1. When the Nook was announced, the buzz was Amazon vs. B&N. Now the iPad is the new product, and *that's* the one getting the buzz.
2. The iPad is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the current readers.
3. Apple's dominance with the iTunes store makes them a serious contender. No matter what media market they enter, it will be a tectonic shift when they do.
And in this particular case, the primary reason:
4. Amazon's current bout of "arm twisting" is in direct response to Apple's deals with the publishers.
The Nook didn't cause this, the iPad did.
Apple is the only one who doesn't actually have a device available for sale right now?
Yet somehow they've already sold hundreds of thousands of them.
But "for sale right now" isn't even a rational metric. The iPad had a lot of buzz going for it before it was even announced, and had already significantly affected the markets it's entering (and creating) long before the orders started being taken. The ebook market really isn't that much different with the Nook than it would have been without it. But that very same market has already been significantly altered by the iPad before the iPad was even available for purchase.
I don't have to buy a different set of eyes to read books purchased at different stores. They all work, as is. Where as, with ebooks, once you have a collection from Amazon, if you EVER want to read them again, you must do so on an Amazon supplied reader. If at any point in the next couple of years, Amazon decides to stop manufacturing those readers and yours dies, all of your books stop being readable.
Or, in this case, Apple. Do you think the third largest publicly traded company in the world is going away any time soon?
For me, the convenience of something like the iBookstore outweighs the risks. So I might have to repurchase a handful of books that I'll want to re-read in the future if somehow Apple folds. That's just the cost of modern life.
Life is too damned short to hold off on enjoying the things the world has to offer (including DRM encrypted books, music and video) just because in the future you might lose those things. Better to have loved and lost, right?
Of course there are always those people who don't mind having to carry around a single, bulky book, and who have the bookshelf space to hold their library, etc. I'm not talking about those people. Everyone has their preferences, and should stick to them. But to be the type of person who would prefer the ebook format, but stay away from it because of DRM? That really seems to be case of broken priorities. When you're dead, you're dead. You can't take your books with you, and you don't get to read all those books you missed out once you are gone on just because you found the notion of DRM to be offensive.
I know of no one as well. But I'm basing my judgement on common sense. It just doesn't seem likely that the hybrid type system behind the Pixel Qi would be as good (let alone better) than a high quality LCD. If it were, this would be trumpeted. It would be marketed as this extremely high quality new LCD type that can *also* go reflective, as opposed to the way it's actually presented, which is as a display type that can toggle between backlit and reflective.
Or put another way, does it seem likely to you that Pixel Qi would be of such high fidelity that graphics artists would specifically seek it out, the way they seek out IPS today?
You're right that this is speculation, but as far as speculation goes, my confidence level is pretty high. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but I won't be holding my breath.
Are you saying that Pixel Qi's backlit LCD mode is as good as an IPS LCD? That's a pretty bold statement, and almost certainly an incorrect one.
...better than the iPad, and the thing isn't even out yet. (Moby)
Of course, iPad will still probably sell better than it simply due to that almost certainly stale chewed apple.
Hmm... If it's better, and if it's $99, it'll outsell the iPad. However, it's pretty much impossible that anyone can make a device that is both those things.
But, like you said, it's vaporware, so I guess first thing is it has to actually exist.
The problem with e-ink (or displays like Pixel Qi) is that the screen is of inherently lower quality to something like the IPS display in the iPad. In sunlight, Pixel Qi can be better, but when watching a video indoors, or away from direct sunlight, the iPad (and similar) screens will be much better.
The Notion Ink Adam looks pretty cool. I'll definitely be checking it out when it hits stores in the US, but I highly doubt I'll buy one. Ignoring the iPad, the Adam looks like the best of the current crop. Compared to the iPad, however, the Adam just isn't compelling. Given the choice of a free Adam or a full-priced iPad, I'd rather pay for something that I'll find useful rather than settle for something less capable of meeting my needs.
As for requiring some sort of e-ink in order to spend hours on end reading on a device, that's rather absurd. Most everyone on the Internet finds reading text on an LCD suits them just fine.
The licencing already is onerous.
That's your opinion. Given h.264's current ubiquity, your opinion is not exactly universal.
The licencing is the only roadblock to H.264 being worthwhile for the web.
It's already worthwhile for the web, as it's the primary codec in use today. That wouldn't be the case were the codec "not worthwhile"
It would be a non-issue if H.264 was royalty-free.
That's true, and that's my point. It h.264 were royalty free, or Theora patent-encumbered like h.264 (and it's not certain it's not, but that's a whole side issue), then there'd be no discussion, as h.264 is far superior to Theora.
So we should promote Theora because Google might release an open source codec of their own?
No, we should use Theora because it's royalty-free. Please read more carefully next time.
"Theora works today and will only improve with time. I'd speculate and even consider it likely that VP8 will also join the open, royalty-free fold courtesy of Google."
Regardless, what you'll see is that royalty-free will win out over time.
I never said it wouldn't. I'm talking about today, not "over time". "Over time" h.264 will be royalty free, although I don't expect h.264 to remain dominant until then. I'm also not sure it'll be displaced, as mp3 and jpeg are still around, in spite of superior formats. An almost universally installed base of h.264 accelerated hardware will be tough to go against.
One of the core goals of the push to HTML5 is to remove dependencies on propriety components on the web and that can't be achieved with H.264.
Yes, that's one of the goals. Yes, it can be achieved with h.264, because it removes the need for Flash + h.264. The net dependency on proprietary technologies is reduced. It just can't be fully achieved with h.264. So get cracking on a superior open source codec so we can remove *that* obstacle as well.
The *only* thing going for Theora is its license. Pretty much every other metric goes to h.264. It's a superior codec, it's more widely supported, and it's accelerated in pretty much every device on the market.
You'll come to understand that you were wrong. And that's okay. It's all learning.
Oh please, do explain which fact I have incorrect. The only thing I have stated that can be "wrong" is my opinion, and that would only reasonably be if the license ever became problematic. I've already stated my contingency for that, which is to continue to pay the license (as I already do when buying h.264-supporting software and hardware), for sites that can pay the license to pay the license, and those that can't to either just remain noncompliant, or switch to a different codec.
So again, please, do explain which bit you think I've got wrong. It can't be that h.264 costs money, and may cost more in the future. I can't be that h.264 is better than Theora. It can't be that some sites may have to switch to something other than h.264 due to licensing. It can't be that freely implementable standards are better for the web than closed ones.
No, I think the only thing you'll have is that I'm not 100% pure in my ideology. That I am capable of accepting both the idea that fully open standards are preferable, while still supporting h.264. Well, sorry, I'm not a mindless robot. I have the capability of rational thought, and can hold two opposing ideas at once. I can see the world both as it is and as I want it to be. You'll find that doesn't make one wrong, it helps make them more right, as the world itself isn't ideologically pure. I can prefer warm weather, while still rationally heading to the mountains to ski. I can hold the view that sugar is bad for you, yet still drink soda. I can believe that the web does better with fully open standards, yet endorse h.264 as a standard codec.
And so can most other people. Theora has already lost. I suggest you start making your peace with that. Mozilla needs to accept this as well, lest they find themselves fading into irrelevancy.
I can appreciate that you think of yourself as a pragmatist, but you are, in fact, an adherent of feudalism.
My promoting of h.264 is neither a pragmatic decision, nor a feudalistic decision. Pragmatic would be if I chose the inferior codec for some reason of expediency. Feudalism would be if I chose h.264 because of the fact that it's proprietary. Neither is the case.
The web works and is successful because all of the most important parts of it can be implemented on a royalty-free basis.
If the MPEG-LA ever decides to make onerous the licensing of h.264, the sites that can pay will pay, and those that can't will either just continue without paying, or switch to something like Theora. In either case, I get to use the superior codec today (and in the future), and a free, but inferior, one in the future, if the need arises.
What I *don't* promote, is to forgo the superior solution because of ideology. It doesn't help that Mozilla and their supporters are lying about the effects that h.264 will have on the Internet.
Theora works today and will only improve with time. I'd speculate and even consider it likely that VP8 will also join the open, royalty-free fold courtesy of Google.
So we should promote Theora because Google might release an open source codec of their own?
Having skimmed TFA (actually, TF Press Release) it doesn't sound like there's anything really interesting here other than GPUs are faster are parallel calculations than CPUs. This is already known.
Cracking WPA and iPod/iPhone backups is still not a feasible task. Instead of 20 billion years (or whatever), it'll now only take 1 billion? Saying "20 times faster" makes it sound like you can already reliably crack these things, and now instead of a few hours, it's only a few minutes. But unless I missed it (and I certainly could have), that's not the case. It's just Moore's Law continuing on, in this case on the GPU instead of the CPU. We already know newer chips will be able to try more keys per second, but we're a *long* way from it being something to have any reasonable level of concern over.
It strikes me as odd that they actually have a product for this. It may be useful for short key lengths, but not for the things listed in the headline. It's like saying the hydrogen bomb can destroy Jupiter 100 times faster than an atom bomb. It may be technically true, but it's not a practical solution.
MS is visibly arrogant and arguably evil, but stupid? Nyet. Count on their legal eagles making DAMN sure the little fiasco outlined in the linked article never happens again. They may be inclined to do anything they think they can get away with, but this is something they understand they can't get away with.
Right, because MS never does the same illegal thing twice... (or more. You forgot about Stac). Well, let's just say this seems to be habitual with MS. They may have kicked the habit, but they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.
this kind of assumes people care about what internet explorer uses. That's becoming less relevant by the day.
Yeah, it's only like 80% of the Internet...
The reason people care is that those that build sites and the techie types that flock to Firefox, Chrome, and Safari all want to do away with Flash video (and Flash altogether, but video is really the one remaining bit that's keeping it so prevalent). If IE doesn't support html5, but does support Flash, then that dream will be much more difficult to realize.
So, IE is still important. The fact that IE looks like it will html5 video with h.264 is good news for everyone else, even non-IE users. Contrast this with Firefox, who if they do *not* support h.264, will find people moving back to IE (gasp!) or Chrome or Safari.
Now, to be sure, MS isn't doing this because they believe in web standards. They don't. They're doing this because people are leaving IE for browsers that do care about and support web standards. The irony will not be lost if Mozilla and Microsoft reverse their roles. Mozilla's ideology is going to screw us all if it means increased market share for IE.
h.264 can be added to any of those OSs you listed. It can also be added to Firefox.
If the biggest loss in the move to h.264 is video and audio on wikipedia, well, that's just noise. There's always going to be somebody that doesn't follow the trend. h.264 is presently en route to becoming the standard for web video. In fact it already is. HTML5 is just capping off this trend. Wikipedia and Firefox, no matter how important they presently are, cannot stop it. They will either join with the trend, or lose relevance.
You don't get it. If Firefox had h.264 support, it could not be redistributed. Period. Everyone would have to download the 'offical' version from Mozilla. No Linux distro could include it. No one could change the code and distribute it. It would cripple Firefox. Why the hell doesn't anyone understand this?
That's not true. h.264 can be implemented as a plugin. Firefox needn't include this plugin by default. There are plenty of third-party h.264 implementations to choose from. Mozilla themselves could even create such a plugin as an add-on, and make it freely available (sans source, if necessary).
Mozilla are shooting themselves in the foot if their present stance is anything but bluster. The h.264 train is leaving the station, and Apple, Google, and even Microsoft are on board. Firefox's market share will plummet without an h.264 solution.
I like the iPhone and I like the iTunes store. I just think we'd see even more apps and better apps if Apple didn't keep such an iron fist over distribution.
No, you'd see stores all over the place, including developers who decide to serve up their apps on their own web site. There *might* be more apps this way. Overall, there probably wouldn't be better apps, except for a small handful of exceptions (like Google Voice, or 3G Slingbox and Skype (the latter two are now allowed anyway, and Google's Voice web app is really good, and as it is is better than replacing fundamental iPhone functionality)).
But for the end users, it would be a much bigger mess. As it stands now, it's extremely easy to browse, discover, purchase, download, and install iPhone apps. By fracturing the store, this process would no longer be as seamless. Additionally, the potential for true spyware and crapware would rise significantly. iPhone users give up a little bit, but gain a lot in exchange. For those for whom that trade-off isn't so well balanced, there's always Android.
And that's the main problem I have with people wanting Apple to allow apps from any source. There's already a phone OS that allows that (at least, to a greater extent than the iPhone). So use that. But asking Apple to follow suit is to ask Apple to destroy on of the most critical aspects of the iPhone's success. Why break the iPhone when there's already something that meets your requirements?
I suspect a lot of that development has also been fueled by "get rich quick" dreams, which has obviously only come to reality for a small number of developers. Okay if you're a hobbyist, but not a great return on investment for anyone looking for more than that.
As opposed to the gold rush that is Android development?
It sounds like your complaint is simply something to nitpick on rather than an actual argument against Apple's store.
Sure, they could do that, but then they wouldn't get to pretend like their philosophical maneuvering is something based on practical needs as opposed to what it is, which is basing their design decisions on ideals which even their own users do not come close to universally sharing.
Last I checked, Firefox works just fine with closed-source plugins and extensions. There's no technical, or even legal, reason Firefox cannot support h.264.
If Mozilla really thought such a thing would be legally impossible (in the US, at least) then they need to drop support for Flash immediately.
Wow, the worst "malware" for the Mac can email you and call you! If that was the worst thing that PC malware did, companies like Norton and McAfee would be out of business overnight.
I can't seem to find a link to it now (so maybe I'm wrong), but I thought Apple blocked at least one of the apps where the developer actually called someone. I know the storm8 example you listed has been fixed.
if Apple allows it, it's clearly not malware.
That's absurd. Apple has a process in place to both remove from the store, and if the app is truly egregious, remove remotely from people's phones, any malware that slips past them.