Maybe I don't like Skype's app. There's also the problem that it has to be installed and the user has to create an account. With iMessage, I'm guessing it's going to be right there, ready to use. If don't know if the person I'm contacting has iMessage, I probably won't know if they have Skype, either. I'd rather just send an SMS, because for all it's crappiness, it is supported on pretty much every cellphone.
Just because it feels subjectively different that doesn't mean it isn't processed by the same part of the brain. I've seen very different things through my eyes.
it's an insane waste of time to maintain two similar sets of view hierarchies, two entirely different ui libraries etc.
That's the kind of thinking that has cost Microsoft their empire. Those two UI libraries are there because of the fundamental difference between interacting with a desktop and a tablet or phone. To think that there is redundancy there, is to no understand the fundamentals of UI design, don't you think?
I'd prefer this native IM over SMS from my carrier any day. The iPhone will still be able to send text messages, but now those with an iPhone can have a half-decent messaging service, because SMS is utter crap thanks to the carriers. If it becomes successful, Apple may open it up like they have with FaceTime.
Not really. Backing up everyone's non-iTunes music would not only be a huge burden in terms of storing and initial syncing, but Apple may not have had the means to do it legally, anyway.
Who cares? If you actually want to know how computers work, get an old PC to rip apart and install Linux. For most people, non-user serviceability isn't a big deal if the service is decent.
Since when has it been normal for Apple to announce such things before they're ready? Especially when they know that anyone with insight can tell what their plan is.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I don't like Skype's app. There's also the problem that it has to be installed and the user has to create an account. With iMessage, I'm guessing it's going to be right there, ready to use. If don't know if the person I'm contacting has iMessage, I probably won't know if they have Skype, either. I'd rather just send an SMS, because for all it's crappiness, it is supported on pretty much every cellphone.
Along with your collection of Macs and a unicorn?
Just because it feels subjectively different that doesn't mean it isn't processed by the same part of the brain. I've seen very different things through my eyes.
it's an insane waste of time to maintain two similar sets of view hierarchies, two entirely different ui libraries etc.
That's the kind of thinking that has cost Microsoft their empire. Those two UI libraries are there because of the fundamental difference between interacting with a desktop and a tablet or phone. To think that there is redundancy there, is to no understand the fundamentals of UI design, don't you think?
Don't mistake non-intellectual for anti-intellectual. A wise person knows the difference.
I find it hard to believe that you ever had a MobileMe account.
I'd prefer this native IM over SMS from my carrier any day. The iPhone will still be able to send text messages, but now those with an iPhone can have a half-decent messaging service, because SMS is utter crap thanks to the carriers. If it becomes successful, Apple may open it up like they have with FaceTime.
Not really. Backing up everyone's non-iTunes music would not only be a huge burden in terms of storing and initial syncing, but Apple may not have had the means to do it legally, anyway.
How does that work?
You say that as if handwriting is somehow superior to a virtual keyboard. Evidence?
Surely that rationale also applies to buying smartphones in general, no matter manufacturer or carrier control?
Do you have any stereoscopic photos online with a large separation distance?
Teachers are expensive. Study aids like the iPad are cheap.
(not portable tablets, but laptop PCs with touch-screens to be used with styluses)
There's your problem, sir.
Not unless they were going to buy pieces of junk that will fall apart by the end of the year.
Besides, as far as hardware specs like RAM and HDD, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Everything? Pretty sure that isn't right.
There are built-in restriction controls for iOS.
We want to teach students to be content creators, not simply consumers.
Can't have used an iPad for very long if that is the impression you were left with.
And what new, revolutionary, user-oriented OS are you going to be putting on those netbooks?
And if Apple et. al. have their way, they'll undo the terrible mistake of DRM free, unrestricted computers being available to the average person.
Like how they finally got their way by removing DRM from the music they sell?
Who cares? If you actually want to know how computers work, get an old PC to rip apart and install Linux. For most people, non-user serviceability isn't a big deal if the service is decent.
Which deficiencies are these? Ones that most people don't care about too much in a tablet?
All RIM has done is to give a negative first impression of their product.
A silly thing to do when consumers' other, more obvious option is the iPad 2.
I've tethered my iPad to my iPhone 3G quite a few times. Perhaps the problem is more with the networks than with Apple?
Since when has it been normal for Apple to announce such things before they're ready? Especially when they know that anyone with insight can tell what their plan is.