Humans will do as much as they can physically get away with, barring the securing mechanism is sufficiently complex to avoid them deactivating it.
You say that as if it's a universal truth. But it's not. It didn't used to be this way. Back a few decades and people knew they should be quiet in theatres and libraries, and used to be pretty good at respecting that.
Not that all "The Good Old Days" were like this. Back in the 19th century and earlier, many theatres were places of noise and debauchery. Theatre etiquette was fought for and won. It could be won again.
How the hell did you get "Informative"? Not only the number of years and battery life were wrong. The post I responded to said this: "i BET google would cut the school A LOT better deal then apple did."
Google. Not Samsung.
If instead we talk about your Samsung device, his other statement "Yea chromebook might not be much better" would be wrong. The Samsung Chromebook of two years ago is significantly worse than the iPad.
TFA talks about software and resources. But beyond that, and the copious amount of educational software available on the App Store, there's Apple's interactive textbooks technology and content. The iPad is the best platform for education content these days.
They might be 2s. They might be 3s. Or they might be minis. The article doesn't say, and there's no reason to conclude one way or the other from the given information.
Apart from the included software, one reason they might cost more than retail is that Apple is covering them for broken, lost and stolen devices. Which presumably won't be insignificant for school kids.
There's no technical reason why the Apple TV they are selling now couldn't run apps. All it needs is as SDK for developers and an App Store.
Apps need to be written to work with a TV sized screen and controllers, regardless of whether they actually run on the iPhone or the Apple TV. So whilst it is strictly speaking fragmentation, as it's a different category, rather than just another random variation of a phone, it's not pointless fragmentation.
$99 is already cheap for an Apple Product. Whilst the iPod Shuffle with no screen is $49, it seems like too cheap a price point for a set-top box/app/console.
And what about the wireless controllers? Needing controllers, a phone and an AppleTV all working together to run a game on a TV doesn't seem like the kind of simplicity Apple strives for.
apple uses flash memory. you can't have a good console with 16GB flash
Note that Ouya has 8GB flash and Nvidia Shield has 16GB flash. And Moore's law would indicate that the next Apple TV release would have 32GB flash.
iPhone and iPad are indeed great mobile device platforms. They've already taken that market from Nintendo and Sony. But they can have all the graphical power of a 360, they don't compete against TV and game-controller based consoles. Apple TV could.
I have no doubt at all that the next Apple TV will be capable of running apps. But maybe Apple won't launch it specifically as a console. Releasing public specs for controllers now implies that they aren't going to be doing their own. They're perhaps encouraging 3rd parties to add the missing pieces to make Apple TV into a console, with them only adding an Apple TV SDK and App Store and controller spec to the mix.
So the Ouya is out, and Apple, Google, and Valve are all working on consoles. I'll be interested in seeing how they develop, but the more competition for Microsoft/Sony, the better for the consumer.
Except of course when the game you want is on a different console to the one you own. Dedicated console gamers have bought all three consoles in the past for this reason. Will they fee they have to buy even more now?
Possibly. However people tend to undervalue software. People that complain that a phone app costs 99c, then go spend $3 on a coffee. There seem to be plenty of people that see hardware as tangible and something they won't get for free so they'll pay for it. But then software cost is avoidable, either by just sticking to free software or by pirating commercial stuff.
So I expect there's an awful lot of people that would buy hardware add-ons that won't pay for games.
You said "tend", and I think that's right. But it may be a pretty weak tendency.
I'm well aware it's a different category of product. But in terms of technology it's not too disimilar: an ARM powered computer that plugs into a HDTV, and has a wireless controller. And the price is the same.
If I'd wanted to score points with a "random" product, I'd point out that Apple has the iPod Shuffle available at half the price of an Ouya.
The OP assured us that it'd be way more expensive if it was an Apple device. I'm just demonstrating that not all Apple devices are expensive. The Apple TV is the closest device they do to the Ouya, and it's just $99. It may not have a game controller, but it does have a TV remote. So it's not dissimilar in what it consists of, even if it's a TV set top box, not a console.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans will do as much as they can physically get away with, barring the securing mechanism is sufficiently complex to avoid them deactivating it.
You say that as if it's a universal truth. But it's not. It didn't used to be this way. Back a few decades and people knew they should be quiet in theatres and libraries, and used to be pretty good at respecting that.
Not that all "The Good Old Days" were like this. Back in the 19th century and earlier, many theatres were places of noise and debauchery. Theatre etiquette was fought for and won. It could be won again.
How the hell did you get "Informative"? Not only the number of years and battery life were wrong. The post I responded to said this: "i BET google would cut the school A LOT better deal then apple did."
Google. Not Samsung.
If instead we talk about your Samsung device, his other statement "Yea chromebook might not be much better" would be wrong. The Samsung Chromebook of two years ago is significantly worse than the iPad.
4th generation iPad and iPad Mini came out in November 2, 2012. Idiot.
My Galaxy S3 has a combined USB, HDMI and audio port.
No in the same way it doesn't. You can't plug a HDMI plug directly into the S3, it requires a dongle adapter.
Neither can you plug an audio jack in to that port. That USB can carry audio signals is not the point. This is a physical interface patent.
TFA talks about software and resources. But beyond that, and the copious amount of educational software available on the App Store, there's Apple's interactive textbooks technology and content. The iPad is the best platform for education content these days.
http://www.apple.com/education/ipad/
Staff, software, training, insurance. etc.
They might be 2s. They might be 3s. Or they might be minis. The article doesn't say, and there's no reason to conclude one way or the other from the given information.
Apart from the included software, one reason they might cost more than retail is that Apple is covering them for broken, lost and stolen devices. Which presumably won't be insignificant for school kids.
Chromebook is a browser in a box, useless when offline, as they may well be when a kid needs to do homework.
And the ChromeBook has only 5 hours battery life. Not long enough. The iPad has 10 hours, which is plenty.
The cheapest option is rarely the one that meets the requirements.
If my boss threatened to punch me for being a slacker I'd get the fuck to work.
You're in a tiny minority. Most would go work somewhere else. A fair proportion would bring legal repercussions down on the bully.
But that doesn't happen because I'm a productive worker.
Without your boss threatening to punch you... Guess there was another more effective motivation, eh?
"Less than a century of limp-wristed modern "child psychology",
As I said, it's ignorance. As is that comment.
There's no technical reason why the Apple TV they are selling now couldn't run apps. All it needs is as SDK for developers and an App Store.
Apps need to be written to work with a TV sized screen and controllers, regardless of whether they actually run on the iPhone or the Apple TV. So whilst it is strictly speaking fragmentation, as it's a different category, rather than just another random variation of a phone, it's not pointless fragmentation.
$99 is already cheap for an Apple Product. Whilst the iPod Shuffle with no screen is $49, it seems like too cheap a price point for a set-top box/app/console.
And what about the wireless controllers? Needing controllers, a phone and an AppleTV all working together to run a game on a TV doesn't seem like the kind of simplicity Apple strives for.
The return of Clippy: "You look like you are in a bad mood. Would you like me to help you with that?"
Spanking a motivation? Talk about a lack of parenting skills.
Tell me, in whatever job is id you do, would you feel motivated if the boss told you to do something otherwise he'd punch you?
Parenting in a complicated thing. But "spare the rod and spoil the child" belongs in bygone centuries. It's ignorance.
Whatever politicians do, there will always be stupid kids that don't pass tests.
Whoosh!
apple uses flash memory. you can't have a good console with 16GB flash
Note that Ouya has 8GB flash and Nvidia Shield has 16GB flash. And Moore's law would indicate that the next Apple TV release would have 32GB flash.
iPhone and iPad are indeed great mobile device platforms. They've already taken that market from Nintendo and Sony. But they can have all the graphical power of a 360, they don't compete against TV and game-controller based consoles. Apple TV could.
I have no doubt at all that the next Apple TV will be capable of running apps. But maybe Apple won't launch it specifically as a console. Releasing public specs for controllers now implies that they aren't going to be doing their own. They're perhaps encouraging 3rd parties to add the missing pieces to make Apple TV into a console, with them only adding an Apple TV SDK and App Store and controller spec to the mix.
Android is the Windows of the mobile world. The default OS for people that don't know any better.
So the Ouya is out, and Apple, Google, and Valve are all working on consoles. I'll be interested in seeing how they develop, but the more competition for Microsoft/Sony, the better for the consumer.
Except of course when the game you want is on a different console to the one you own. Dedicated console gamers have bought all three consoles in the past for this reason. Will they fee they have to buy even more now?
So it's impossible to create a single game that works on both Android phones and Android console?
Possibly. However people tend to undervalue software. People that complain that a phone app costs 99c, then go spend $3 on a coffee. There seem to be plenty of people that see hardware as tangible and something they won't get for free so they'll pay for it. But then software cost is avoidable, either by just sticking to free software or by pirating commercial stuff.
So I expect there's an awful lot of people that would buy hardware add-ons that won't pay for games.
You said "tend", and I think that's right. But it may be a pretty weak tendency.
Because that's what failed and needed a recall.
He's the President, he doesn't "handle" individual cases.
I'm well aware it's a different category of product. But in terms of technology it's not too disimilar: an ARM powered computer that plugs into a HDTV, and has a wireless controller. And the price is the same.
If I'd wanted to score points with a "random" product, I'd point out that Apple has the iPod Shuffle available at half the price of an Ouya.
This is not about whether Apple makes a console.
The OP assured us that it'd be way more expensive if it was an Apple device. I'm just demonstrating that not all Apple devices are expensive. The Apple TV is the closest device they do to the Ouya, and it's just $99. It may not have a game controller, but it does have a TV remote. So it's not dissimilar in what it consists of, even if it's a TV set top box, not a console.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/ipod_accessories/apple_tv