Oh I don't know, given the larger-than-expected percentage of climate change deniers and misinformed scaremongers on every nuclear related story. I wouldn't expect it for such an "educated" audience (you need a minimum level of literacy and tech literacy to really understand a lot of the topics on here).
I mean, look at the story about the molten sodium sphere modelling the earth's core - a whole bunch of non-ironic comments proclaiming how flawed it all was and how they'd clearly not accounted for x, y or z really obvious thing.
I think we might have to go back to the Bhor model of the atom at this rate.
I should have added a massive disclaimer that two open standards (H.264 and AAC) does not a "push away" make, when you consider the other W3C standards involved that Apple has been working hard on getting into Safari (via work on Webkit).
If they're not 100% in lockstep with the W3C on every single issue they're "pushing developers away" then? All that work on getting CSS up to date in Webkit and so on was all a Machiavellian plan to drive developers away into a locked down web? The strong promotion of HTML5 over Flash? Integration of RSS into the OS and into Safari...?
Certainly, and my personal preference would be an iPad, even at $100 more, but my point was just because I would choose an iPad doesn't mean I don't think the Transformer is a viable product or that I "conveniently forget" about it or that it "goes over my head".
I'm afraid there's not "no reason" that tablets should cost $500 (excuse the double negative) - the touch screen and LCD panel are expensive.
If it cost HP $318 to make a TouchPad, then factor in a few dollars for profit and you're at $350+ to $400 - which is just around the price of the Transformer. Funny that.
They don't just pick prices out of the air, and prices of good are not decided on what people "think" they should be. It costs money to make them.
I have an unlocked 3GS running on O2 with unlimited data for £20/month (rolling 1 month long contract).
Upgrading for me is just not financially sensible - much cheaper to just buy an unlocked, unsubsidised phone and just swap sim cards, then still no long term contract. It is possible to get decent deals, but you have to ask.
You might want to make that move - I know it's Apples and Oranges, but the move from iOS4 to iOS5 on the 3GS was excellent - performance is much better now.
Obvious troll is obvious, but "10 hours over a couple of days" describes laptops too, if you don't charge them up. What makes that more appropriate to hold the coveted "expensive tool" moniker?
(Although of the tools I use, an iPad is a drop in the bucket, but that's neither here nor there [I do not own an iPad]).
Why? I think it's a very nice tablet that has similar features to the iPad, and crucially for the market, is slightly cheaper (although only by $100 or so).
If you want a tablet and don't want an iPad for any reason, then it would be my major suggestion.
And how does this relate to a standard being open?
It may not be endorsed by W3C, but that does not mean it is not an open standard.
I'm not arguing the patent issue here, merely the definition of the words "open" and "closed" as they relate to published standards - eg, GSM, TCP/IP, H.264, WMV, the dimensions of screw heads and threads....
The defining characteristic is that you can take a published spec and make something compatible. That is what makes an open standard. Whether you then have further licensing issues on top of that is a separate issue.
The FSF/W3C/BSA/NSA/FBI/LOL/ROFLMAO might try to claim that they have the exclusive definition of the term, but it's just not so. It's no different to the two separate meanings of "free" software.
Sorry, but that's precisely what you're doing. There's no value in arguing semantics here. In the context of the Web when someone describes something as being "open" they always mean both open and royalty-free.
No, they really don't.
An open standard is one with published specs so that anyone can make software/hardware/a widget that interfaces with it without the need for reverse engineering or guessing.
Thus, TCP/IP is an open standard, so is H.264.
The two differ in how they are licensed, but this does not make H.264 not an open standard.
The alternative is a closed standard - for example, Sony's ATRAC codec, which you need to get specifically from them.
You can argue whether the MPEG LA is a bad thing (personally I think it is), but that still doesn't make H.264 non-open.
Hardly "famously", and it featured information on *why* they were browser sniffing the HTML5 showcase - it was very much in beta at the time, and what a way to showcase the future of the web if half the stuff was broken due to not being implemented in the current market leading browser....
H.264 and AAC are both open. They might not be royalty free, but they are open standards in a way that something like WMV or ATRAC aren't. You can't simply redefine the word "open" when it suits.
Apple chose the KHTML project, and turned it (with others) into Webkit.
I'm not seeing how they are trying to push developers away from W3C standards given the work that has gone into getting Webkit to support those very standards you accuse them of trying to suppress.
I figured people reading would be able to determine that "the box has a handle" was one of several criteria that goes along with the form factor (the others being, not exhaustively, size, weight, [lack of] fan noise), and I threw in just one example to refute the initial point that "iMacs are for iChallenged people".
I'm sorry I didn't go into my life story as a requirement for not looking like a hipster. Next time I'll add a ton of disclaimers, as I've started doing on any comment that is even a tiny bit critical of Android so I don't get accused of being a paid shill.
Those weren't my only two criteria, no, but you're trying awfully hard to pigeonhole me into a box for some reason.
That $5 investment is entirely a bodge job for portability. Put that on your computer and then check it through with your suitcase and see how long it survives (my iMac has crossed the Atlantic as checked baggage in its original box multiple times). The handle on the box is just the icing on the cake - not essential, but it adds extra convenience when moving it around. I would still have chosen the iMac without the handle on the box, it just would take an extra trip to put it in the car when I travel since I then couldn't carry suitcase and iMac at the same time.
I honestly couldn't care less that I look like "a hipster desperately trying to justify myself" since what I purchased worked extremely well for me for the money I paid for it. It's going on for 5 years old and still going strong.
I drive a diesel minivan, does that make me an aspiring mom with 2.4 children? I didn't choose it because I was trying to say something about myself, I bought it for the features it had. My computer is no different.
My laptop runs Ubuntu. Does this make me a neckbeard living in my mom's basement, subsisting on Mountain Dew and store brand Cheetos, thinking I know everything about the life experiences of others sufficiently well to judge them as inferior?
Of course they could handle it if they wanted - but that's the entire point of this thread, they simply don't want to - there are strong echoes of the "thoughts on music" open letter from Jobs a few years ago, except this time applied to video.
Well, the answer isn't "no" - the answer is "well, you could dual boot into Windows, or you could use some open source tools to rip the stream from the disc itself".
I would wager that there are very few people asking that question - most people watch BluRays on their TV, so would have a player for it.
It's certainly a "missing feature" of OS X, but it's not through trying to "control what customers want", it's entirely because the requirements to offer it legally are just unnecessarily onerous (and pointless anyway).
Hardly a day goes by when someone on slashdot complains that there's not nearly enough DRM and Trusted Computing in their hardware and software! Or not....
What virus was it? What version of OS X was he running? I'm genuinely curious - the number of in-the-wild viruses for OS X is vanishingly small. I'm not saying they are immune (far, far from it), I'm just curious how his machine got infected.
What about those of us who bought an iMac because of its form factor?
I wanted Unix under there, but I also wanted to be able to unplug it from the wall and box it up in under 2 minutes (its box has a carrying handle) so I can move it easily between places. I didn't want a laptop screen.
And what about iChat? It does brainlessly easy A/V chatting along with file transfers, text chat and so on and is just a front end for the AIM protocol. How is that for people who are "iChallenged"? Sure, less tech-savvy people can *use* it, because it is easy to use - this doesn't automatically mean that "nerds" can't use it because it's too easy.
This isn't like setting the difficulty on a video game. No one is going to judge you for playing on "easy". Well, no one smart anyway.
You sound like a hipster desperately looking for something to define himself by. "Oh, iChat?! pff! That's for lusers! MUD clients are where the cool kids are hanging out!"
So wait, Apple taking a stand against the absolutely *absurd* restrictions in the BluRay format is "taking away choice" but when slashdot does it, or those who are "aligned" with slashdot's interests then it's perfectly fine?
BluRay is not in OS X because Apple don't want to have to put in all the DRM crap that is required to create a "trusted path" from disc to screen.
Ultimately I am hoping (and I think Apple is too, except they're trying to actively "hope") that DRM will go the way of the dinosaur - it has happened for music, and soon it will happen for movies and TV. Make the content affordable and convenient and people will buy it - the current price of video content in iTunes is still too high, especially with DRM on it. Music on the other hand, is just about right.
It's why Apple chose H.264 and AAC as their formats of choice - when DRM free they are open standards that anyone can use (albeit ones that have other issues like licensing costs, but they are not proprietary). The music I buy in iTunes (and FWIW I haven't downloaded any music from file sharing sites since I could obtain it cheaply online) is in unencumbered AAC and works just fine in all of the playback devices I have, and crucially can be moved between them all as much as I like without restriction.
That is what I want to see for video in the future, and if the content owners have any sense, they are seeing that too - they're never going to eliminate piracy, but that doesn't mean they can't get rich on the back of legal online downloads. This is "home videotaping is killing the movie industry/home audio taping is killing music" all over again. The music industry adapted. One more to go on the passive entertainment front, then it's on to video games...
Look at the cost breakdown of HP's fire-sold tablet, according to them the display assembly was the biggest portion. Note we're talking about tablets here, so the price of the screens goes up *considerably* over phone-size displays. Large high quality displays (and large high quality touch interfaces) cost money.
Here the claim is that the 9.7" display in the Touchpad is $70 alone (not including the touch interface, which is $63.50). So, if you put one of those in one of these theoretically cheap tablets that you want to buy for $230, then right off the bat you're down to $160 for everything else combined (including your profit margin), or down to $96.50 if you include the touch interface too.
According to HP's breakdown the touch driver chip is $11.75.
I know everyone automatically jumps on the "whatever Apple's price is, that's obviously with a gigantic markup" bandwagon, but in the case of tablets, they really are quite expensive to make at this time if you want a good one (be it Android or iOS). The best pricing I've seen is (ironically enough given the subject of the article) a Transformer which you could get for $100 less than the equivalent iPad. That still puts it in the $400 region.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says it uses water for cooling? Oh yes, the fucking article. ;)
Oh I don't know, given the larger-than-expected percentage of climate change deniers and misinformed scaremongers on every nuclear related story. I wouldn't expect it for such an "educated" audience (you need a minimum level of literacy and tech literacy to really understand a lot of the topics on here).
I mean, look at the story about the molten sodium sphere modelling the earth's core - a whole bunch of non-ironic comments proclaiming how flawed it all was and how they'd clearly not accounted for x, y or z really obvious thing.
I think we might have to go back to the Bhor model of the atom at this rate.
Oh *that's* what this is about.
I should have added a massive disclaimer that two open standards (H.264 and AAC) does not a "push away" make, when you consider the other W3C standards involved that Apple has been working hard on getting into Safari (via work on Webkit).
If they're not 100% in lockstep with the W3C on every single issue they're "pushing developers away" then? All that work on getting CSS up to date in Webkit and so on was all a Machiavellian plan to drive developers away into a locked down web? The strong promotion of HTML5 over Flash? Integration of RSS into the OS and into Safari...?
Certainly, and my personal preference would be an iPad, even at $100 more, but my point was just because I would choose an iPad doesn't mean I don't think the Transformer is a viable product or that I "conveniently forget" about it or that it "goes over my head".
I'm afraid there's not "no reason" that tablets should cost $500 (excuse the double negative) - the touch screen and LCD panel are expensive.
If it cost HP $318 to make a TouchPad, then factor in a few dollars for profit and you're at $350+ to $400 - which is just around the price of the Transformer. Funny that.
They don't just pick prices out of the air, and prices of good are not decided on what people "think" they should be. It costs money to make them.
I have an unlocked 3GS running on O2 with unlimited data for £20/month (rolling 1 month long contract).
Upgrading for me is just not financially sensible - much cheaper to just buy an unlocked, unsubsidised phone and just swap sim cards, then still no long term contract. It is possible to get decent deals, but you have to ask.
You might want to make that move - I know it's Apples and Oranges, but the move from iOS4 to iOS5 on the 3GS was excellent - performance is much better now.
Obvious troll is obvious, but "10 hours over a couple of days" describes laptops too, if you don't charge them up. What makes that more appropriate to hold the coveted "expensive tool" moniker?
(Although of the tools I use, an iPad is a drop in the bucket, but that's neither here nor there [I do not own an iPad]).
Why? I think it's a very nice tablet that has similar features to the iPad, and crucially for the market, is slightly cheaper (although only by $100 or so).
If you want a tablet and don't want an iPad for any reason, then it would be my major suggestion.
And how does this relate to a standard being open?
It may not be endorsed by W3C, but that does not mean it is not an open standard.
I'm not arguing the patent issue here, merely the definition of the words "open" and "closed" as they relate to published standards - eg, GSM, TCP/IP, H.264, WMV, the dimensions of screw heads and threads....
The defining characteristic is that you can take a published spec and make something compatible. That is what makes an open standard. Whether you then have further licensing issues on top of that is a separate issue.
The FSF/W3C/BSA/NSA/FBI/LOL/ROFLMAO might try to claim that they have the exclusive definition of the term, but it's just not so. It's no different to the two separate meanings of "free" software.
Sorry, but that's precisely what you're doing. There's no value in arguing semantics here. In the context of the Web when someone describes something as being "open" they always mean both open and royalty-free.
No, they really don't.
An open standard is one with published specs so that anyone can make software/hardware/a widget that interfaces with it without the need for reverse engineering or guessing.
Thus, TCP/IP is an open standard, so is H.264.
The two differ in how they are licensed, but this does not make H.264 not an open standard.
The alternative is a closed standard - for example, Sony's ATRAC codec, which you need to get specifically from them.
You can argue whether the MPEG LA is a bad thing (personally I think it is), but that still doesn't make H.264 non-open.
Hardly "famously", and it featured information on *why* they were browser sniffing the HTML5 showcase - it was very much in beta at the time, and what a way to showcase the future of the web if half the stuff was broken due to not being implemented in the current market leading browser....
H.264 and AAC are both open. They might not be royalty free, but they are open standards in a way that something like WMV or ATRAC aren't. You can't simply redefine the word "open" when it suits.
Wait, I thought "we" were the people that the "normals" came to for computer advice?
Or do we just blag it when asked if we actually read around the subject?
What? How does this make sense?
Apple chose the KHTML project, and turned it (with others) into Webkit.
I'm not seeing how they are trying to push developers away from W3C standards given the work that has gone into getting Webkit to support those very standards you accuse them of trying to suppress.
I figured people reading would be able to determine that "the box has a handle" was one of several criteria that goes along with the form factor (the others being, not exhaustively, size, weight, [lack of] fan noise), and I threw in just one example to refute the initial point that "iMacs are for iChallenged people".
I'm sorry I didn't go into my life story as a requirement for not looking like a hipster. Next time I'll add a ton of disclaimers, as I've started doing on any comment that is even a tiny bit critical of Android so I don't get accused of being a paid shill.
Those weren't my only two criteria, no, but you're trying awfully hard to pigeonhole me into a box for some reason.
That $5 investment is entirely a bodge job for portability. Put that on your computer and then check it through with your suitcase and see how long it survives (my iMac has crossed the Atlantic as checked baggage in its original box multiple times). The handle on the box is just the icing on the cake - not essential, but it adds extra convenience when moving it around. I would still have chosen the iMac without the handle on the box, it just would take an extra trip to put it in the car when I travel since I then couldn't carry suitcase and iMac at the same time.
I honestly couldn't care less that I look like "a hipster desperately trying to justify myself" since what I purchased worked extremely well for me for the money I paid for it. It's going on for 5 years old and still going strong.
I drive a diesel minivan, does that make me an aspiring mom with 2.4 children? I didn't choose it because I was trying to say something about myself, I bought it for the features it had. My computer is no different.
My laptop runs Ubuntu. Does this make me a neckbeard living in my mom's basement, subsisting on Mountain Dew and store brand Cheetos, thinking I know everything about the life experiences of others sufficiently well to judge them as inferior?
Of course they could handle it if they wanted - but that's the entire point of this thread, they simply don't want to - there are strong echoes of the "thoughts on music" open letter from Jobs a few years ago, except this time applied to video.
Well, the answer isn't "no" - the answer is "well, you could dual boot into Windows, or you could use some open source tools to rip the stream from the disc itself".
I would wager that there are very few people asking that question - most people watch BluRays on their TV, so would have a player for it.
It's certainly a "missing feature" of OS X, but it's not through trying to "control what customers want", it's entirely because the requirements to offer it legally are just unnecessarily onerous (and pointless anyway).
The touch driver chip in the HP Touchpad is about $11 wholesale.
You think customers want that?!
Wait, are you reading the same slashdot as me?!
Hardly a day goes by when someone on slashdot complains that there's not nearly enough DRM and Trusted Computing in their hardware and software! Or not....
[Citation needed]
What virus was it? What version of OS X was he running? I'm genuinely curious - the number of in-the-wild viruses for OS X is vanishingly small. I'm not saying they are immune (far, far from it), I'm just curious how his machine got infected.
What about those of us who bought an iMac because of its form factor?
I wanted Unix under there, but I also wanted to be able to unplug it from the wall and box it up in under 2 minutes (its box has a carrying handle) so I can move it easily between places. I didn't want a laptop screen.
And what about iChat? It does brainlessly easy A/V chatting along with file transfers, text chat and so on and is just a front end for the AIM protocol. How is that for people who are "iChallenged"? Sure, less tech-savvy people can *use* it, because it is easy to use - this doesn't automatically mean that "nerds" can't use it because it's too easy.
This isn't like setting the difficulty on a video game. No one is going to judge you for playing on "easy". Well, no one smart anyway.
You sound like a hipster desperately looking for something to define himself by. "Oh, iChat?! pff! That's for lusers! MUD clients are where the cool kids are hanging out!"
So wait, Apple taking a stand against the absolutely *absurd* restrictions in the BluRay format is "taking away choice" but when slashdot does it, or those who are "aligned" with slashdot's interests then it's perfectly fine?
BluRay is not in OS X because Apple don't want to have to put in all the DRM crap that is required to create a "trusted path" from disc to screen.
Ultimately I am hoping (and I think Apple is too, except they're trying to actively "hope") that DRM will go the way of the dinosaur - it has happened for music, and soon it will happen for movies and TV. Make the content affordable and convenient and people will buy it - the current price of video content in iTunes is still too high, especially with DRM on it. Music on the other hand, is just about right.
It's why Apple chose H.264 and AAC as their formats of choice - when DRM free they are open standards that anyone can use (albeit ones that have other issues like licensing costs, but they are not proprietary). The music I buy in iTunes (and FWIW I haven't downloaded any music from file sharing sites since I could obtain it cheaply online) is in unencumbered AAC and works just fine in all of the playback devices I have, and crucially can be moved between them all as much as I like without restriction.
That is what I want to see for video in the future, and if the content owners have any sense, they are seeing that too - they're never going to eliminate piracy, but that doesn't mean they can't get rich on the back of legal online downloads. This is "home videotaping is killing the movie industry/home audio taping is killing music" all over again. The music industry adapted. One more to go on the passive entertainment front, then it's on to video games...
Look at the cost breakdown of HP's fire-sold tablet, according to them the display assembly was the biggest portion. Note we're talking about tablets here, so the price of the screens goes up *considerably* over phone-size displays. Large high quality displays (and large high quality touch interfaces) cost money.
http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/HP-TouchPad-Carries-$318-Bill-of-Materials.aspx
Here the claim is that the 9.7" display in the Touchpad is $70 alone (not including the touch interface, which is $63.50). So, if you put one of those in one of these theoretically cheap tablets that you want to buy for $230, then right off the bat you're down to $160 for everything else combined (including your profit margin), or down to $96.50 if you include the touch interface too.
According to HP's breakdown the touch driver chip is $11.75.
I know everyone automatically jumps on the "whatever Apple's price is, that's obviously with a gigantic markup" bandwagon, but in the case of tablets, they really are quite expensive to make at this time if you want a good one (be it Android or iOS). The best pricing I've seen is (ironically enough given the subject of the article) a Transformer which you could get for $100 less than the equivalent iPad. That still puts it in the $400 region.