I can buy an MP3 player with 32GB of storage, 960x480 display, Wireless-N. equivalent graphic performance, quality 3rd party apps for less than the iPod Touch?
No, and i didn't see him suggest such a thing.
But i certainly think apples devices are pretty cheap these days, but that's subjective i suppose.
People around me did...hell if you look in this thread people are still whining about "why not just use a $399 netbook". I think most it stems from the "its just a bit ipod touch" crowd...though anyone who uses a tablet thinks otherwise very quickly.
Well it *is* just a big ipod touch, but the fact that it's big makes all the difference and $499 is hell of a lot less than what "analysts" predicted initially, in fact it's almost 1/2. I thought most people found it to be quite cheap.
That's why UAC was so annoying to most users...everyone ran as Admin but had no idea that doing so had consequences, once they were forced out of that habit there was a backlash.
Wait...the iPad has half the cores and 1/4 of the RAM as the Xoom, and it 'competes well'? Don't get me wrong; the iPad is a nice device and I'm not going to buy a Xoom, but please, give us a break. This RDF shit is getting really old and tired.
Not to mention the Xoom isn't even out yet, how can anyone say how well the two compete when the only info on Xoom is hardware specs and a couple of brief demo videos?! "oh it's apple, it must be able on par with or superior to competitors' future devices"...seriously wtf?! Is he just trolling?
What, you don't think Apple will make a second iPad, which will be better than the first iPad, and cost roughly the same?
He clearly wasn't debating that at all, but obviously questioning how much better and what features such a device will have that will be so much better than anything competitors are offering.
That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.
Only if they want to compete in the wifi-only market, which - unless you're a complete idiot - it's obvious they don't. And in any case *if* the Xoom happened to be better than an ipad they don't have to price it at ipad prices at all to be competitive.
32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.
The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.
That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?
No, it doesn't add to the price at all if you buy both under the same circumstances. Looks like the US is getting screwed with the XOOM the same way they did with the iphone...likely international customers will be fine.
unlike the entertainment of watching mod points go up and down on that post:)
Pro-Microsoft posts will lead many to brand you a 'Microsoft Astroturfer'.
W7's approach of letting you set the level of UAC introduced an extra security flaw.
Security is annoying and if you annoy users they'll often complain, particularly if they don't understand the reason for the security or the implications of removing it. MS (well actually all OS vendors) really need to put out a campaign that educates users in a brief - and im guessing 'entertaining' - way so they at least understand why it's annoying.
There is less value to advertisers when you don't see the ads. Computer screen? Xbox? $$$ is higher per impression. Note why Hulu requires a subscription for your iPad, PS3, etc while it doesn't on the web. Different platforms effect the value of the ad displayed.
That argument would have merit if the subscription fee included WP7 phones, which it does not.
that's a very narrow definition of civil disobedience.
what about countries that don't allow people to congregate in groups of more than 5 or so? people could break that law to protest against an entirely different law, and it would still be civil disobedience.
In that case they *are* protesting the law against having more than 5 people congregating, as well as whatever the protest was for. But I can't just go and murder someone in protest of something else and claim it's civil disobedience, if it were then I would be trying to say murder should be legal.
as such, anon kiddies ran the LOIC botnet (illegally) to protest the actions of their governments and associated companies.
So they were protesting the government and corporate stance with wikileaks and doing it with an illegal method. The act of doing it with the illegal method would be civil disobedience if in fact they are suggesting the method itself should be a legal form of protest. And maybe they are, in fact they probably are, but the fact that they have gone to lengths to hide their identities would mean that even if they *are* suggesting that, they aren't willing to stand behind that action. If there's no-one to stand up and take responsibility for the action then things are unlikely to change and the action is unlikely to be seen as civil disobedience.
The concept goes mostly Nintendo; MS gets no credit.
Exactly which concept? You do realise kinect is a 'controller-less' product, unlike anything nintendo has.
Innovation is a marketing term, there is little going on in the consumer sector and far more going on in universities than people realize.
And we're looking at it in terms of products delivered to the consumer. Most consumers don't care about the origin of the research, just about who packages a whole lot of those different technologies into one consumer product.
But using a mix of gas and electric isn't new at all.
Obviously, but the computer systems involved in making it work seamlessly are.
And not only did they execute coordinated attacks but they even managed to *cancel* a coordinated attack, you can't do that without *some sort* of organizational structure.
Anonymous is a concept, not a group. It is an intensional definition of a set, not the set extension.
All the people who carried out the specific actions in the name of Anonymous are obviously a group, they didn't all coincidentally individually attack the same target at the same time through the same method, it was an organised attack.
I suggest you read more about the definition open source.
So you're actually trying to argue it's open source? It absolutely is NOT open source. Open source is primarily about access to the source, you cannot get access to the OSX source. Darwin is open, OSX is not.
No part of the definition says that everything that it ships with must be open to be considered open source.
It's not about what it ships with, it's about the components of the product. It specifically states 'access to the source', which you cannot get with OSX.
OS X has open source components (namely the kernel) and thus is partly open source
Now you're back to arguing it's "partly open source", do you consider any software that links to OSS libraries to be 'partly open'? Or any product that contains OSS code? Because I think you'll find it is generally 'closed' or 'open', 'partly open' can be just about anything.
No reason for them to need to be capable of it. My netbook can't do enough pixels in hardware either for my other monitor at the same time, software rendering to the rescue! If you are not familiar with linux video not know that is something we can forgive.
Not really ideal, but that would be a workable solution in the interim, at least until we get GPUs powerful enough to do it.
No need for separate applications either, the applications just would have to have gtk/qt frontends and android ones.
That's the tricky thing though not all applications are designed to do both in their workflow, so you get a different experience in each shell if - and only if - the application has 2 frontends coded for it. If not then switching to another application would mean you would have to switch shells as well.
i can see the potential for it but i doubt an OS with multiple shells that requires applications to be developed with multiple frontends to support different kinds of user input is going to be very mainstream, it's just not intuitive. For example iOS has been well-received primarily because it is incredibly simple.
3. There are many android phones with HDMI out. This means having a small screen while on the go and a large one at your desk are not at odds with each other. Multiple Monitors would require more HDMI outs, but that is not a huge limitation.
Phone resolutions are nowhere near the resolution of multi-display setups, in fact they can't even match one modern display yet. So i'd say that's quite a long way off, not to mention you'd need touchscreen monitors otherwise you'd have to be simulating touch input with a mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck Xoom, at $800 you're going to need a lot more than a Superbowl commercial to beat the iPad.
Why would they need to beat the ipad? Look at the desktop/laptop market in which apple has a minority share but is doing just fine.
Really?
Yes.
I can buy an MP3 player with 32GB of storage, 960x480 display, Wireless-N. equivalent graphic performance, quality 3rd party apps for less than the iPod Touch?
No, and i didn't see him suggest such a thing.
But i certainly think apples devices are pretty cheap these days, but that's subjective i suppose.
People around me did...hell if you look in this thread people are still whining about "why not just use a $399 netbook". I think most it stems from the "its just a bit ipod touch" crowd...though anyone who uses a tablet thinks otherwise very quickly.
Well it *is* just a big ipod touch, but the fact that it's big makes all the difference and $499 is hell of a lot less than what "analysts" predicted initially, in fact it's almost 1/2. I thought most people found it to be quite cheap.
People balked at the iPad's price even with a $499 option
Really?
That's why UAC was so annoying to most users...everyone ran as Admin but had no idea that doing so had consequences, once they were forced out of that habit there was a backlash.
You forget about this: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/01/19/2322215/Motorola-Sticks-To-Guns-On-Locking-Down-Android
And you probably didn't realise their lock-down technology has been thwarted a number of times already.
Wait...the iPad has half the cores and 1/4 of the RAM as the Xoom, and it 'competes well'? Don't get me wrong; the iPad is a nice device and I'm not going to buy a Xoom, but please, give us a break. This RDF shit is getting really old and tired.
Not to mention the Xoom isn't even out yet, how can anyone say how well the two compete when the only info on Xoom is hardware specs and a couple of brief demo videos?! "oh it's apple, it must be able on par with or superior to competitors' future devices" ...seriously wtf?! Is he just trolling?
What, you don't think Apple will make a second iPad, which will be better than the first iPad, and cost roughly the same?
He clearly wasn't debating that at all, but obviously questioning how much better and what features such a device will have that will be so much better than anything competitors are offering.
That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.
Only if they want to compete in the wifi-only market, which - unless you're a complete idiot - it's obvious they don't. And in any case *if* the Xoom happened to be better than an ipad they don't have to price it at ipad prices at all to be competitive.
I'm not familiar with your math.
32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.
The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.
That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?
No, it doesn't add to the price at all if you buy both under the same circumstances. Looks like the US is getting screwed with the XOOM the same way they did with the iphone...likely international customers will be fine.
unlike the entertainment of watching mod points go up and down on that post :)
Pro-Microsoft posts will lead many to brand you a 'Microsoft Astroturfer'.
W7's approach of letting you set the level of UAC introduced an extra security flaw.
Security is annoying and if you annoy users they'll often complain, particularly if they don't understand the reason for the security or the implications of removing it. MS (well actually all OS vendors) really need to put out a campaign that educates users in a brief - and im guessing 'entertaining' - way so they at least understand why it's annoying.
There is less value to advertisers when you don't see the ads. Computer screen? Xbox? $$$ is higher per impression. Note why Hulu requires a subscription for your iPad, PS3, etc while it doesn't on the web. Different platforms effect the value of the ad displayed.
That argument would have merit if the subscription fee included WP7 phones, which it does not.
And 16% are being returned.
check your facts
that's a very narrow definition of civil disobedience.
what about countries that don't allow people to congregate in groups of more than 5 or so? people could break that law to protest against an entirely different law, and it would still be civil disobedience.
In that case they *are* protesting the law against having more than 5 people congregating, as well as whatever the protest was for. But I can't just go and murder someone in protest of something else and claim it's civil disobedience, if it were then I would be trying to say murder should be legal.
as such, anon kiddies ran the LOIC botnet (illegally) to protest the actions of their governments and associated companies.
So they were protesting the government and corporate stance with wikileaks and doing it with an illegal method. The act of doing it with the illegal method would be civil disobedience if in fact they are suggesting the method itself should be a legal form of protest. And maybe they are, in fact they probably are, but the fact that they have gone to lengths to hide their identities would mean that even if they *are* suggesting that, they aren't willing to stand behind that action. If there's no-one to stand up and take responsibility for the action then things are unlikely to change and the action is unlikely to be seen as civil disobedience.
The concept goes mostly Nintendo; MS gets no credit.
Exactly which concept? You do realise kinect is a 'controller-less' product, unlike anything nintendo has.
Innovation is a marketing term, there is little going on in the consumer sector and far more going on in universities than people realize.
And we're looking at it in terms of products delivered to the consumer. Most consumers don't care about the origin of the research, just about who packages a whole lot of those different technologies into one consumer product.
But using a mix of gas and electric isn't new at all.
Obviously, but the computer systems involved in making it work seamlessly are.
And not only did they execute coordinated attacks but they even managed to *cancel* a coordinated attack, you can't do that without *some sort* of organizational structure.
Anonymous is a concept, not a group. It is an intensional definition of a set, not the set extension.
All the people who carried out the specific actions in the name of Anonymous are obviously a group, they didn't all coincidentally individually attack the same target at the same time through the same method, it was an organised attack.
And before someone says what they're doing is illegal, criminal, etc -- there is something called civil disobedience.
Which is illegal. And this isn't civil disobedience anyway, they aren't breaking laws in opposition of those laws.
It's not a backdoor. It's a challenge / response.
Show me.
I suggest you read more about the definition open source.
So you're actually trying to argue it's open source? It absolutely is NOT open source. Open source is primarily about access to the source, you cannot get access to the OSX source. Darwin is open, OSX is not.
No part of the definition says that everything that it ships with must be open to be considered open source.
It's not about what it ships with, it's about the components of the product. It specifically states 'access to the source', which you cannot get with OSX.
OS X has open source components (namely the kernel) and thus is partly open source
Now you're back to arguing it's "partly open source", do you consider any software that links to OSS libraries to be 'partly open'? Or any product that contains OSS code? Because I think you'll find it is generally 'closed' or 'open', 'partly open' can be just about anything.
making applications web dependent is another way to invade peoples privacy
Sorry your data was stored on a system that also hosted data of an accused criminal. The system has been confiscated by the FBI so your data is gone.
Whoops,
Cloud Data Provider.
And don't get me started on clouds!!!
FTFY
No reason for them to need to be capable of it. My netbook can't do enough pixels in hardware either for my other monitor at the same time, software rendering to the rescue! If you are not familiar with linux video not know that is something we can forgive.
Not really ideal, but that would be a workable solution in the interim, at least until we get GPUs powerful enough to do it.
No need for separate applications either, the applications just would have to have gtk/qt frontends and android ones.
That's the tricky thing though not all applications are designed to do both in their workflow, so you get a different experience in each shell if - and only if - the application has 2 frontends coded for it. If not then switching to another application would mean you would have to switch shells as well.
i can see the potential for it but i doubt an OS with multiple shells that requires applications to be developed with multiple frontends to support different kinds of user input is going to be very mainstream, it's just not intuitive. For example iOS has been well-received primarily because it is incredibly simple.
No reason the video out must be constrained to the same resolution as the phone screen.
I mean the GPUs aren't capable of those higher resolutions.
There is also no reason why the touch input would need to be simulated. At worst case you have it you a different desktop environment.
That's true, but it certainly would be annoying having to separate applications on one device based on what peripherals are connected to it.
3. There are many android phones with HDMI out. This means having a small screen while on the go and a large one at your desk are not at odds with each other. Multiple Monitors would require more HDMI outs, but that is not a huge limitation.
Phone resolutions are nowhere near the resolution of multi-display setups, in fact they can't even match one modern display yet. So i'd say that's quite a long way off, not to mention you'd need touchscreen monitors otherwise you'd have to be simulating touch input with a mouse.