Dslr's take photos in raw mode which you can photochop easily
iPhone is in jpeg which you can do some basic editing but the original photo needs to be under optimal conditions
Yawn. First of all: you can easily print unedited iPhone photos directly on 4"x6" and most people couldn't tell a difference to one made with a (D)SLR, let alone when printed in a news paper.
As for the image format: just buy a different camera app, there are several who produce uncompressed files.
Wifi enabled SD cards in cameras are available to solve that problem. They can still use their phone to upload the picture.
Then you'll still need an open WiFi hot spot and a decent way to configure the SD for the WiFi.
And its easier to teach a reporter to shoot and send photos with their iPhones than it would be to teach them (or pro-photographers) to do the above on the road every time they want to send a picture.
I can't believe somebody is asking this on Slashdot. Non-music files are just ignored. But yes, you can use your MP3 player as a USB thumb drive.
I can't believe anyone on Slashdot hasn't had his "music" player play game sounds or commands from his navigation software. Unless he only used Apple products.
Android manufacturers entered into the smart phone market against an established player, Apple. They had to compete on price to drive market share, market share is necessary to drive brand awareness, developer interest (Apps), and business partner buy-in.
....
It's only with the Samsung Galaxy S4 and the HTC One that Android phones have reached the point where they can start to compete directly with Apple. Apple may be the top dog today, but we are only in round 2 of a 12 round fight...
Okay, first of all, most "Android manufacturers" were making smartphones long before Apple did, so pretending that Aplpe had a head start or that this is "round 2 of a 12 round fight." is plain silly.
Which brings us to brand awareness: funny that for both phones you mention the web pages only ever mention Android hidden on the Tech Spec page. Great brand awareness for HTC and Samsung, terrible for Android.
But you see, while there's "1500+" Android devices (LOL), there are only a handful of really popular ones (probably you could count on your hands -- Galaxy S series, One series, one or two specific budget phones), and even then, there are only a handful of chip platforms (Snapdragon, Exynos, Tegra) -- testing on one device will likely have a working app on other phones.
There are a ton of companies that have successful applications on Android. Just because one developer can't fix bugs or doesn't know how to program in Android properly just means that that company chose their developer poorly -- a problem you'd also have on other platforms.
Sure. It just takes longer on Android than on iOS - and not just because of the fragmentation. Just one example
"If you look at the amount of energy we spend on Apple, it pales in comparison to what we spend on Android. And that's right - we agree with the audience." But he then outlined the challenges involved:
RCJ: Why is there this gap between the BBC's offering for Apple and Android - I've heard talk that it's all about the fragmentation of the Android ecosystem?
DD: "It's not just fragmentation of the operating system - it is the sheer variety of devices. Before Ice Cream Sandwich (an early variant of the Android operating system) most Android devices lacked the ability to play high quality video. If you used the same technology as we've always used for iPhone, you'd get stuttering or poor image quality. So we're having to develop a variety of approaches for Android."
For the company itself or the shareholders, you are right, market share doesn't mean winning. However, from a custommer point of view, market share means winning, because it means that they chose the winner (TM).
. No wonder there PC sales dropped 22% and 2% over the past two quarters.
No wonder they are one of very few companies with climbing PC market share, because the fucking PC market is being destroyed by tablets. By which I mean iPads.
Also, I still can't understand how people believe Tim Cook is relevant. He orchestrated a disaster that plunged Apple's stock over $300 a share. I mean, most CEO's do not even have the luxury of having a stock reach a value of $300 a share, but Cook lost this much value in under 6 months.
Under Jobs, AAPL lost >60% in September 2000, more than 30% in January 2008, and another 40% from late August to September same year. Just sayin.
Horrible interfaces? The iPod had Firewire and wouldn't charge from USB until the 4th gen. You couldn't just copy your music to it or use the application of your choice, you had to use iTunes. iTunes only cared about the file tags so you had to keep them meticulously maintained and in iTunes' preferred format.
Even USB 2.0 was capable of maxing out those 1.8" drives, Firewire was totally wasted on them.
The first USB 2.0 MP3 players came out a year after the iPod, and even those didn't allow charging because USB 2 barely gave enough power to drive the disk.
I find it funny that someone would say "When I come to replace I'll buy another iPhone. Why? Because it does the job I want it to.", when there may be other devices that do the job you want better and cheaper.
Yeah, especially when many of those owning those "better and cheaper" devices don't say the same. Gee, I wonder if there is a connection.
The good news is that these guys are Jobs' hand-picked successors, and that they have a lot of money in the bank..
Not entirely true. Yes Steve picked Tim Cook. God only knows why, the mans so far removed from reality it's mind boggling. How can any CEO keep their job after their stock value was chopped in half in less than a year?
Because he more than doubled it in the year before? Because it is up 17% since he officially became CEO.
Look at the right one? You have no clue about off the shelf monitoring systems do you? The cameras will see the taggers coming over the fence,
There's a tiny problem with your argument. Their current cameras aren't sufficient - so why should your magical better cameras do it? And a t a better price than drones?
Slashdot Mirror
Dslr's take photos in raw mode which you can photochop easily
iPhone is in jpeg which you can do some basic editing but the original photo needs to be under optimal conditions
Yawn. First of all: you can easily print unedited iPhone photos directly on 4"x6" and most people couldn't tell a difference to one made with a (D)SLR, let alone when printed in a news paper.
As for the image format: just buy a different camera app, there are several who produce uncompressed files.
That's an elitist view.
There is no need for any sort of special professional to press a button on a handled camera device, DSLR or not.
The photographs involved needn't be art, it's for a disposable newspaper.
You win the "complete jackass" comment award. Press photographers don't make "art". They record history. Do some research. Fucking idiot.
You don't need a $10k camera to "record history".
Wifi enabled SD cards in cameras are available to solve that problem. They can still use their phone to upload the picture.
Then you'll still need an open WiFi hot spot and a decent way to configure the SD for the WiFi.
And its easier to teach a reporter to shoot and send photos with their iPhones than it would be to teach them (or pro-photographers) to do the above on the road every time they want to send a picture.
and it's $100 with contract. And the iPhone from two years ago is free with contract.
Did you just suggest that someone take-out a $30-per-month contract for two years to buy a phone 'cheaply'?
Remember kids, you can only do that with Android phones, doing it with an iPhone is cheating.
and only Samsung is making any real money from selling Android Phones.
I thought you forgot Microsoft - but they make theirs without even selling Android phones themselves.
People don't buy an iPod touch to play music. They buy them to play games.
The the iPod can enjoy its continuing decline into obscurity
Remember kids: the dying iPod still outsells the hugely successful Galaxy Notes.
You are joking right? $49 for a MP3 player without display, and only 2GB storage?
Yeah, and it also can't find those damn moving goalposts.
No one young enough to know how to work a smartphone has any idea who Al Jolson is.
But they can look it up on Wikipedia.
Does it actually try to play it as music?
I can't believe somebody is asking this on Slashdot. Non-music files are just ignored. But yes, you can use your MP3 player as a USB thumb drive.
I can't believe anyone on Slashdot hasn't had his "music" player play game sounds or commands from his navigation software. Unless he only used Apple products.
GP's post is evasive at best, dishonest at worst. He talks about market growth where profits have dropped
Could you Hateboys make up your minds whether marketshare or profits are the deciding factor?
Cults don't work without a cult leader...
Apple is over with.
Thanks for proving that Apple is not a cult then.
It is a false urban legend that Apple is paying no taxes.
So if by Urban Myth...you actually mean Fact you would have been right. The fact that you were modded informative shows a frightening trend.
It is a FACT that Apple paid 6 billion dollars last year in federal income taxes alone. It's a myth that you have a clue.
Android manufacturers entered into the smart phone market against an established player, Apple. They had to compete on price to drive market share, market share is necessary to drive brand awareness, developer interest (Apps), and business partner buy-in.
....
It's only with the Samsung Galaxy S4 and the HTC One that Android phones have reached the point where they can start to compete directly with Apple. Apple may be the top dog today, but we are only in round 2 of a 12 round fight...
Okay, first of all, most "Android manufacturers" were making smartphones long before Apple did, so pretending that Aplpe had a head start or that this is "round 2 of a 12 round fight." is plain silly.
Which brings us to brand awareness: funny that for both phones you mention the web pages only ever mention Android hidden on the Tech Spec page. Great brand awareness for HTC and Samsung, terrible for Android.
But you see, while there's "1500+" Android devices (LOL), there are only a handful of really popular ones (probably you could count on your hands -- Galaxy S series, One series, one or two specific budget phones), and even then, there are only a handful of chip platforms (Snapdragon, Exynos, Tegra) -- testing on one device will likely have a working app on other phones.
There are a ton of companies that have successful applications on Android. Just because one developer can't fix bugs or doesn't know how to program in Android properly just means that that company chose their developer poorly -- a problem you'd also have on other platforms.
Sure. It just takes longer on Android than on iOS - and not just because of the fragmentation. Just one example
"If you look at the amount of energy we spend on Apple, it pales in comparison to what we spend on Android. And that's right - we agree with the audience." But he then outlined the challenges involved:
RCJ: Why is there this gap between the BBC's offering for Apple and Android - I've heard talk that it's all about the fragmentation of the Android ecosystem?
DD: "It's not just fragmentation of the operating system - it is the sheer variety of devices. Before Ice Cream Sandwich (an early variant of the Android operating system) most Android devices lacked the ability to play high quality video. If you used the same technology as we've always used for iPhone, you'd get stuttering or poor image quality. So we're having to develop a variety of approaches for Android."
For the company itself or the shareholders, you are right, market share doesn't mean winning.
However, from a custommer point of view, market share means winning, because it means that they chose the winner (TM).
FTFY.
. No wonder there PC sales dropped 22% and 2% over the past two quarters.
No wonder they are one of very few companies with climbing PC market share, because the fucking PC market is being destroyed by tablets. By which I mean iPads.
Since when is grapefruit considered OK in the Reinheitsgebot?!
That's not a beer, it's a "beer mix", made from 50% beer and 50% grapefruit flavored diet soda.
Also, I still can't understand how people believe Tim Cook is relevant. He orchestrated a disaster that plunged Apple's stock over $300 a share. I mean, most CEO's do not even have the luxury of having a stock reach a value of $300 a share, but Cook lost this much value in under 6 months.
Under Jobs, AAPL lost >60% in September 2000, more than 30% in January 2008, and another 40% from late August to September same year. Just sayin.
Apple's products are now just very expensive toys built for an economy that has gone away.
Are you actually claiming the economy is worse now than 3 years ago during the recession? During which Apple thrived?
So they're famous for good marketing. That sounds about right.
And that despite spending far less on marketing than the competition.
Horrible interfaces? The iPod had Firewire and wouldn't charge from USB until the 4th gen. You couldn't just copy your music to it or use the application of your choice, you had to use iTunes. iTunes only cared about the file tags so you had to keep them meticulously maintained and in iTunes' preferred format.
Even USB 2.0 was capable of maxing out those 1.8" drives, Firewire was totally wasted on them.
The first USB 2.0 MP3 players came out a year after the iPod, and even those didn't allow charging because USB 2 barely gave enough power to drive the disk.
I find it funny that someone would say "When I come to replace I'll buy another iPhone. Why? Because it does the job I want it to.", when there may be other devices that do the job you want better and cheaper.
Yeah, especially when many of those owning those "better and cheaper" devices don't say the same. Gee, I wonder if there is a connection.
The good news is that these guys are Jobs' hand-picked successors, and that they have a lot of money in the bank..
Not entirely true. Yes Steve picked Tim Cook. God only knows why, the mans so far removed from reality it's mind boggling. How can any CEO keep their job after their stock value was chopped in half in less than a year?
Because he more than doubled it in the year before? Because it is up 17% since he officially became CEO.
PS: looks like they also want to use the drones for bridge maintenance.
Look at the right one?
You have no clue about off the shelf monitoring systems do you? The cameras will see the taggers coming over the fence,
There's a tiny problem with your argument. Their current cameras aren't sufficient - so why should your magical better cameras do it? And a t a better price than drones?