There are a lot of responses here that say "All tablets are like that".
First, Many of those tablets cost $200 (Nexus). It is a lot more acceptable to have a sealed $200 device than a sealed $1000 device, regardless of form factor.
Second, Almost no other computing device is sealed to this extent with an inch wide strip of tar like adhesive that needs a heat-gun to pry apart (who knows how well it will go back together). I take nearly everything apart, but I would mess with this kind of extreme adhesive job, especially on a $1000 device.
Third. It isn't even about repairs. If this was pure reliable solid state, it wouldn't be a big deal, those parts could run for decades. But this has two fans, meaning they will accumulate dust/have bearing failures, and in few years need replacing/cleaning, it has batteries with short finite life that will fail in few years, the SSD is small size and has an OS with propensity to write a lot to it (swap files) etc, and has a significant chance of failure. These should be considered serviceable components, because chances are significant that one or more of them will need service in a few years. Having them sealed, non-serviceable in $1000 device is unacceptable (IMO).
That said, for people with projectors and large screens (or walls) or for people using large monitors up close, 4K could still be relevant. Even though I wouldn't purchase a 4K TV for my living room, I may very well purchase a 4K monitor for use at my desk at some point.
I agree. That is why I said almost everyone. But even for Home Theater with a projector, the viewing distance increases with screen size, essentially making 1080p just as viable there. You really have to get to the people that like to sit much closer than most people.
Monitors are different. We tend to sit closer to those and 4K 27" (I expect a Retina iMac like this soon) would be a reasonable DPI to banish pixels completely for most people. Though you would need some scaling mechanism to make fonts bigger since interfaces for PCs/Macs were really designed with 90-100 dpi monitors in mind. There is teething issues going on right now as Macs/PCs try to work with higher DPI displays now.
TV makers are mostly losing massive amounts of money, so they are desperate for the next big thing, 3D wasn't it, and likely this won't be it either.
I understand your points, but eventually we have to take some small risk to move beyond a nearly century old frame rate and it's artifacts just because people are used to them, toward something better.
The killer for me, is that I can stand juddering pans, they look horrid. I can't believe we are stuck on century old frame-rate that traps us with this artifact.
I find it particular galling when people get snobbish about those artifacts as the only way to shoot movies (which thankfully you haven't done).
For me it is just unfortunate that Edison didn't win his 46 FPS argument in his day.
Most of the time you can't even tell the difference between frame rates, except when it emerges as artifacts at 24 fps.
24 fps movies are purposefully shot with more motion blur to hide the jerkiness. But nothing really gets around it when panning.
So 24fps primarily equals artifacts: Blurring, jerky motion, and juddering pans.
How nonsensical is it, and how resistant change do you have to be, to worship these artifacts. They are no more beneficial than ticks/pops were on Vinyl. There is certain nostalgia value to listening to something with ticks/pops sometimes, but it isn't something we put everywhere because we can't do without it.
So these resistant to change, Luddites in love with quite irritating artifacts have taken to calling superior motion video with less blur, less judder and less jerking: "The Soap Opera Effect".
Do a freeze frame on a soap opera and good movie. You can still tell which is which when frozen. Soaps look like crap, because they have crap production values. Poor sets, poor lighting, poor cameras, shot without any flair.
Shoot 48fps (or 60 fps or 120 fps for that matter) with great sets, great lighting, great cameras and great flair and it will be amazing and have nothing in common with soap operas.
ARM chips are still slower than the PowerPC chips Apple moved away from in 2005.
This is rumor is pure BS.
2013 is bringing out an all new OOO execution Intel Atom core on 22nm process. Intel might start dominating Android phones leading to next years rumor that Apple will be moving iOS to Intel.
I don't see either move as likely in the foreseeable future. Beyond that is pure 100% BS.
Really, which LCD displays do they supply to Apple? LG and Samsung are major suppliers, I can't remember the last time I saw an LCD in an Apple product wasn't LG/Sharp.
Perhaps if Sharp actually was a major supplier they wouldn't be in quite so close to bankruptcy.
The product has to exist first. I'd gladly pay the price of a standard laptop plus the price of one of these high-res tablets to get the two pieces of hardwaree married (assuming there's linux driver support), and that's a price premium in itself. Except it has to be made by anybody other than Apple - I can't support company that's aggressively using the courts to make my industry worse. OK, not HP either, they have a 24% failure rate, but that leaves a dozen other manufacturers.
But... so far as I can tell it doesn't exist. My laptop just crapped out so I'll probably get a $500 refurb with a crummy screen, hoping that when that one dies this product will exist. Maybe the tablet market can drive it into being a commodity part, the way HDTV ruined computer displays.
Yes. I am sure there are companies that just can't wait to service it Anti-Apple, Anti-HP, Linux Users, who buy cheap refurbs, but assure us they are willing to spend big bucks if only someone that isn't one of the above companies would ship such a product complete with proper Linux drivers. That market must contain literally Dozens of potential sales.
Keep waiting, I am sure they can't resist that market potential much longer.
You know what drives changes like this. People showing they will pay a premium to have it.
By a 2880x1800 or 2560x1600 Retina Macbook, when they sell in numbers, competitors will follow.
You know why there is a 2560x1600 Tablet. Because Apple sold shipping containers full of Retina iPads (2048x1536) and Google took notice and decided to one up them.
Putting your money where your mouth is, trumps whining on a blog every time.
If they didn't charge $100 for 16GB upgrade, I would say those were solid reasons. But since they are gouging massively on the Flash upgrade (just like Apple) those reason carry less weight.
All the people thinking Apple has to compete with Nexus/Fire are forgetting something. Those products have essentially no profit margin, they are non-profit products.
Apple doesn't work that way. Apple makes its money with nice healthy profit margins, of which there would be zero in an 8" 4:3 iPad. That is another thing, did everyone forget how rounding works. The iPad Mini rumors state the display is 7.85". If you going to round off to the nearest inch, that is 8" not 7" like everyone keeps stating.
Basically there is no way in Hell that (we exist for profit margins) Apple is going to sell an 8" iPad for less than $300.
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software",
Does a non-technical person buying a tablet even care?
Is there anything else they would care about? I can't think of anything more important than running your software that an OS has to do.
I remember the outcry when Vista was incompatible initially with a handful of applications. In this case nothing would run, if you end up with WinRT without the implications being clear.
They are not totally different at all. Windows 8 is a super set of windows RT.
That they have some similarities that can lead to confusion is all the more reason to work that much harder at strong brand differentiation.
Because they differ in one highly important and critical way.
Only one of them actually runs what we know of today as "Windows Software".
That is about as huge a difference as it gets for a "Windows" operating system. I can't think of a more critical difference.
The ONLY reason I use Windows, is because it runs "Windows Software". If it doesn't run "Windows Software", then IMO it shouldn't be called Windows.
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software", it should be blindingly obvious, but instead because of poor branding it will likely be lost on MOST consumers and that is a massive screw up.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a misconception on the temperature difference.
Go Read Broders piece, He said he recieved the car on a Sunny 30F day. He mentioned the temperature while driving was in 30's on day 1.
It only hit 10F overnight while the car was parked. This was the major difference. He parked the car overnight, CNN kept going.
There are a lot of responses here that say "All tablets are like that".
First, Many of those tablets cost $200 (Nexus). It is a lot more acceptable to have a sealed $200 device than a sealed $1000 device, regardless of form factor.
Second, Almost no other computing device is sealed to this extent with an inch wide strip of tar like adhesive that needs a heat-gun to pry apart (who knows how well it will go back together). I take nearly everything apart, but I would mess with this kind of extreme adhesive job, especially on a $1000 device.
Third. It isn't even about repairs. If this was pure reliable solid state, it wouldn't be a big deal, those parts could run for decades. But this has two fans, meaning they will accumulate dust/have bearing failures, and in few years need replacing/cleaning, it has batteries with short finite life that will fail in few years, the SSD is small size and has an OS with propensity to write a lot to it (swap files) etc, and has a significant chance of failure. These should be considered serviceable components, because chances are significant that one or more of them will need service in a few years. Having them sealed, non-serviceable in $1000 device is unacceptable (IMO).
Less money, higher screen resolution, Micro-SD memory slot, no adware.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/nook-hd-plus-barnes-noble/1110060512
Workarounds for side-loading apps:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/nook-hd-plus-barnes-noble/1110060512
Root:
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/permanent-root-for-the-nook-hd-and-hd-unofficial-cm10-for-the-hd/
The point is that applies to playing normal games, going for a jog, having beers with your buddies.
Almost anything you do that engages in life will have a positive effect on the brain.
There is no evidence that brain games are any better than other activities for brain health.
In fact simple exercise, and socializing are likely better.
Brain training games are basically Snake Oil.
They don't improve intelligence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22708717
There is also no evidence they will keep your brain healthy in old age or anything else they are claiming they will do.
Playing any game, will improve your ability to play that game. That is about it.
Yeah I am sure that is real usable.
Personally I can barely stand the latency of using Linux in a VM on my 3.2GHz quad core desktop.
Don't reward Trolls like this guy.
He is clearly posting outrageous nonsense for page hits, and the /. just gave it to him (I did not follow the link, but many will).
Remember when I wrote this:
"This kind of TV resolution is irrelevant in a normal home setup."
What part of your post refers to TV in a normal home setup?
Computer monitors are a separate issue.
That said, for people with projectors and large screens (or walls) or for people using large monitors up close, 4K could still be relevant. Even though I wouldn't purchase a 4K TV for my living room, I may very well purchase a 4K monitor for use at my desk at some point.
I agree. That is why I said almost everyone. But even for Home Theater with a projector, the viewing distance increases with screen size, essentially making 1080p just as viable there. You really have to get to the people that like to sit much closer than most people.
Monitors are different. We tend to sit closer to those and 4K 27" (I expect a Retina iMac like this soon) would be a reasonable DPI to banish pixels completely for most people. Though you would need some scaling mechanism to make fonts bigger since interfaces for PCs/Macs were really designed with 90-100 dpi monitors in mind. There is teething issues going on right now as Macs/PCs try to work with higher DPI displays now.
TV makers are mostly losing massive amounts of money, so they are desperate for the next big thing, 3D wasn't it, and likely this won't be it either.
Remember when Blu Ray came out and a number of people were claiming they couldn't see much difference.
Well this time it will actually be true for almost everyone.
Most people don't even have their TV's close enough to visually discern 1080p.
This kind of TV resolution is irrelevant in a normal home setup.
They can have a new line of faddish skinny machines with chicklet keys.
The can also have a classic line of thicker solid machines with real decent keys.
Trying to walk the line in the middle seems to satisfy neither.
I understand your points, but eventually we have to take some small risk to move beyond a nearly century old frame rate and it's artifacts just because people are used to them, toward something better.
The killer for me, is that I can stand juddering pans, they look horrid. I can't believe we are stuck on century old frame-rate that traps us with this artifact.
I find it particular galling when people get snobbish about those artifacts as the only way to shoot movies (which thankfully you haven't done).
For me it is just unfortunate that Edison didn't win his 46 FPS argument in his day.
Most of the time you can't even tell the difference between frame rates, except when it emerges as artifacts at 24 fps.
24 fps movies are purposefully shot with more motion blur to hide the jerkiness. But nothing really gets around it when panning.
So 24fps primarily equals artifacts: Blurring, jerky motion, and juddering pans.
How nonsensical is it, and how resistant change do you have to be, to worship these artifacts. They are no more beneficial than ticks/pops were on Vinyl. There is certain nostalgia value to listening to something with ticks/pops sometimes, but it isn't something we put everywhere because we can't do without it.
So these resistant to change, Luddites in love with quite irritating artifacts have taken to calling superior motion video with less blur, less judder and less jerking: "The Soap Opera Effect".
Do a freeze frame on a soap opera and good movie. You can still tell which is which when frozen. Soaps look like crap, because they have crap production values. Poor sets, poor lighting, poor cameras, shot without any flair.
Shoot 48fps (or 60 fps or 120 fps for that matter) with great sets, great lighting, great cameras and great flair and it will be amazing and have nothing in common with soap operas.
Looks like the levy on media is there; I guess music downloading will continue being legal in Canada. I'm fine with that.
Levy is still there, but downloading music is not legal. I believe there are now specified damages of $5000 for infringement.
The free for all is now over.
ARM chips are still slower than the PowerPC chips Apple moved away from in 2005.
This is rumor is pure BS.
2013 is bringing out an all new OOO execution Intel Atom core on 22nm process. Intel might start dominating Android phones leading to next years rumor that Apple will be moving iOS to Intel.
I don't see either move as likely in the foreseeable future. Beyond that is pure 100% BS.
That isn't evidence. They are just repeating the rumor, much like the rumor for iPad mini, where Samsung was out, and Sharp was in.
But when they dissected a Mini, it had a Samsung screen. So much for rumors.
There is also one other problem. Sharp doesn't build IPS screens. LG and Samsung do (though Samsung calls it PLS).
Sharp is heavily invested ASV technology which is a VA offshoot with inferior viewing angles.
I have yet to see any evidence that Sharp screens are used in any of Apple products.
That was the rumor, the only thing anyone has seen in a Mini, is a Samsung display. Which wasn't part of the Rumor.
Yeah, that was a typo, I meant to say Samsung/LG.
Really, which LCD displays do they supply to Apple? LG and Samsung are major suppliers, I can't remember the last time I saw an LCD in an Apple product wasn't LG/Sharp.
Perhaps if Sharp actually was a major supplier they wouldn't be in quite so close to bankruptcy.
The product has to exist first. I'd gladly pay the price of a standard laptop plus the price of one of these high-res tablets to get the two pieces of hardwaree married (assuming there's linux driver support), and that's a price premium in itself. Except it has to be made by anybody other than Apple - I can't support company that's aggressively using the courts to make my industry worse. OK, not HP either, they have a 24% failure rate, but that leaves a dozen other manufacturers.
But ... so far as I can tell it doesn't exist. My laptop just crapped out so I'll probably get a $500 refurb with a crummy screen, hoping that when that one dies this product will exist. Maybe the tablet market can drive it into being a commodity part, the way HDTV ruined computer displays.
Yes. I am sure there are companies that just can't wait to service it Anti-Apple, Anti-HP, Linux Users, who buy cheap refurbs, but assure us they are willing to spend big bucks if only someone that isn't one of the above companies would ship such a product complete with proper Linux drivers. That market must contain literally Dozens of potential sales.
Keep waiting, I am sure they can't resist that market potential much longer.
You know what drives changes like this. People showing they will pay a premium to have it.
By a 2880x1800 or 2560x1600 Retina Macbook, when they sell in numbers, competitors will follow.
You know why there is a 2560x1600 Tablet. Because Apple sold shipping containers full of Retina iPads (2048x1536) and Google took notice and decided to one up them.
Putting your money where your mouth is, trumps whining on a blog every time.
If they didn't charge $100 for 16GB upgrade, I would say those were solid reasons. But since they are gouging massively on the Flash upgrade (just like Apple) those reason carry less weight.
The flagship device for RT, along with the OS, and weak buggy ecosystem seem destined to flop.
Extensive Verge review.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface-review
All the people thinking Apple has to compete with Nexus/Fire are forgetting something. Those products have essentially no profit margin, they are non-profit products.
Apple doesn't work that way. Apple makes its money with nice healthy profit margins, of which there would be zero in an 8" 4:3 iPad. That is another thing, did everyone forget how rounding works. The iPad Mini rumors state the display is 7.85". If you going to round off to the nearest inch, that is 8" not 7" like everyone keeps stating.
Basically there is no way in Hell that (we exist for profit margins) Apple is going to sell an 8" iPad for less than $300.
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software",
Does a non-technical person buying a tablet even care?
Is there anything else they would care about? I can't think of anything more important than running your software that an OS has to do.
I remember the outcry when Vista was incompatible initially with a handful of applications. In this case nothing would run, if you end up with WinRT without the implications being clear.
They are not totally different at all.
Windows 8 is a super set of windows RT.
That they have some similarities that can lead to confusion is all the more reason to work that much harder at strong brand differentiation.
Because they differ in one highly important and critical way.
Only one of them actually runs what we know of today as "Windows Software".
That is about as huge a difference as it gets for a "Windows" operating system. I can't think of a more critical difference.
The ONLY reason I use Windows, is because it runs "Windows Software". If it doesn't run "Windows Software", then IMO it shouldn't be called Windows.
But now that ship has sailed. We have Two versions of "Windows" launching on tablets at the same time, that look the same, but only one runs "Windows Software", it should be blindingly obvious, but instead because of poor branding it will likely be lost on MOST consumers and that is a massive screw up.