Personally I do all my chatting on my phone or tablet.
I have one app (beejive, in this case) which handles basically everything. yahoo, msn (dunno if that's relevant after the skype buyout.. I don't use it any more), gtalk, aim, facebook, etc.
The only other thing is iMessage.. which, frankly, is where I do the majority of my talking.
On my desktop I used to use Adium which, similar to beejive, handled everything I needed. Haven't used that in years though.
It's not an illusion of instantaneous update... it *is* one. When a new version of iOS ships *all* devices that are announced to support the update get the update right away. What happens behind the scenes is immaterial (certainly there is alot of effort involved).. as a consumer I get it right away.
I can understand a couple or three months for a company as large as samsung to get everything working on a brand new device... but seven?! That's nonsense to me. We're not talking about a device they stopped selling a year prior.. this was (is?) the current product lineup. If that doesn't get top priority for software updates then I don't know what to say.
It was my first (and very likely) only android purchase. It seemed inconceivable to me that a device shipping 2 months after the OS was released wouldn't come with the current OS on it (or have an update readily downloadable at time of purchase). The idea that a brand new device would have to wait 5 months to get an update to an OS that shipped 2 months prior to purchase was an impossibility in my mind. There was no precedent in all of my computing experience to make me think it would have been something to consider before purchase.
I don't know about Samsung phones.. but my Samsung tablet (a galaxy tab 2 7") was hideously out of date. I bought it in September.. it had 4.0 on it rather than Jelly bean (4.1) which was released in June. The software update to 4.1 *finally* came in January (making it over 6 months behind the times).. who knows when it will be updated to 4.2...
And there's no carrier involved on this... it's a wifi only device. The delay is *all* samsung.
The first time an app wants to access my contacts a popup comes up and says something to the effect of "App A wants access to your contacts. Allow? Deny?" or "App B wants to access your location. Allow? Deny?"
That choice is remembered but can be changed in the settings:
I didn't say Android devices aren't secure. I said they don't provide the security I want -- namely fine grained control over application access permissions. Was that too much to grasp?
Or. you know.. maybe I get enough of fiddling with tech 8 hours a day (and more) at work. At home I just want to use what I've got in a way that I want without resorting to backflips.
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
How do you know that, by the time you disable the permission, the app hasn't already uploaded your info to their servers?
because (sensibly) by default apps have no such permission. I get asked if I want to allow the action the very first time.
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
Except, with Android, I can root my phone and do whatever the heck I want with it.
And what about those of us that don't want to bother with such things? I don't build my own computers. I don't jailbreak my iDevices.. I don't tinker with my car.. I don't mod my fridge. If I have to immediately start hacking my device in order to get the security I want then it's not really much good to me.
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
If a GPS application wants access to my contacts and location I can let it.. but if it asks for access to my photos and bluetooth sharing I can disallow it.
It's quite nice, actually.
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
She has itunes.. she's already copied music from her computer to her phone so she knows how to do that. Why would you not just tell her to rip the CD in itunes:
insert CD select tracks click on "Import CD" button wait.. Eject CD
It's just about as simple a process as it can get. In fact I think all the modern versions of iTunes just ask you if you want to import the CD as soon as you put one in so the above becomes:
insert CD click OK wait... Eject CD
After that it's just copying the music to her phone which she already knows how to do.
No need to make things any more complicated than they need to be.
...and just one of the many reasons I have hundreds of CDs lying around. I've bought some music and videos from iTunes. I prefer buying CDs because they're physical and tangible. Google or Apple can't decide to "close the service" and take all of my CDs away.
Apple can't do anything to your purchased music once it's on your hard drive. There's no DRM whatsoever on the music files. Do with them as you please. Movies can be re-encoded (probably lose quality but for me that's not a huge deal) or have their DRM stripped. Books can have their DRM stripped. I'm pretty sure that it's still legal in the US to strip DRM for your personal stuff and it definitely is in Canada (the efforts of our current government to ban it notwithstanding).
I don't see how that can make any difference at all in their relative sales figures. If the American system of phone purchases is as you say it is then it would affect both Apple's and Samsung's sales, no?
Indeed. And relative to the iPhone very few Galaxy phones are sold in the USA (the numbers from the court are only for up to and including the SII but when you combine all of the Galaxy phones together you still don't get even the barest fraction of iPhone sales. I can't imagine that the SIII will have already gotten to such huge sales numbers but you never know.
What's interesting is that in the USA quite the opposite is true. According to the documents released as part of the current lawsuit Samsung has sold 21 million smartphones since 2010. Apple has sold 19 million iPhones in its first and second quarters (ending sometime in April, I think). For the same period Samsung only sold something like 4 or 5 million phones. Again.. this is USA only but it's an interesting look at things. I have no proof of it but my gut feeling is that in markets where people can afford the price of the iPhone.. they choose the iPhone. When they can't afford it they choose a cheaper Android phone.. hence the world sales numbers being so out of whack with the US sales numbers.
I haven't had cable in years. I've got an Apple TV 2 plugged in to my TV and it's fantastic. We watch a ton of stuff on Netflix. I also download full seasons of some of the shows I watch from iTunes. A bunch of other stuff I watch on the various TV stations' apps on my iPad (which I could Airplay to the TV but I don't). It's just about a perfect setup for the type and amount of TV that we watch.
I read a non-zero number of scientific papers in a month. Most of them have colour illustrations, diagrams and charts. If an e-reader doesn't allow me to view those in colour.. what point is it? For not much more than a Kindle DX (only readers of that size are useful for reading high resolution PDFs) I can get a tablet which *will* view those PDFs in colour *and* will allow me to read books *and* will allow me to zoom in smoothly and quickly to the images in the PDF *and* will let me watch a movie *and* will let me surf the net *and* will let me reply to emails from the office *and* will let me play a few games while I'm sitting on the plane, etc.
In the case of an eePad transformer (by all accounts a great little tablet) we're only talking $20. That's a whole lot of extra value for my $20. If I go for an iPad I have to shell out $120. Still money well spent.
Sure I lose the really amazing readability of the e-ink display. But most high-end tablet displays are *very* readable for me and, personally, I don't spend much time reading outside in the sun so glare is not an issue. Also, I don't have to deal with any of the drawbacks of e-ink either. If they manage to make an e-ink based device of the right size, with fast enough refresh and rendering *then* we can talk. Until then, for my reading dollars, a tablet is the way to go.
The e-ink display is what makes these things worth owning and why not to just get a tablet. If you want a tablet, fine and well, go right ahead, but don't say it is a replacement for an eReader until you've tried one. It is no more a replacement for an eReader than a stove is a replacement for a toaster.
The reason is the display. It really does look like paper. The e-ink name isn't bullshit, it really does work like ink and is fully reflective. The battery life is also really nice. It is a device that doesn't have to be plugged in every day.
I've played with tablets and they hold no interest for me. I don't find they fill any useful niche what with owning a laptop and smartphone. However I do have a Kindle and like it very much. It is because while it only does one thing, it does it very well. I would liken it to my toaster, or rice cooker. Those are specialty devices. I have another device that can do everything they do and more. However though they only do one thing, they do it really well, and that makes them worth owning despite having a stove, oven, microwave, and so on.
I have a kindle DX and before the iPad came out I *loved* it. The display is *amazing* and is extremely easy to read.
The problem is that in addition to reading books I read *alot* of pdf scientific papers. the Kindle (neither the small one nor the DX) is just plain old not suited to this task. The rendering is *very* slow. The display has the resolution but I find that the iPad's display can render the text so much cleaner and readable. I ended up turning the kindle sideways and reading that way but that's a sub-optimal way to read multi-column text (especially when coupled with the slow rendering). Add to that instant zooming and full color images and in the arena of reading not just books but also pdfs the iPad (and any other tablet for that matter) wins hands down.
If e-ink tech can get rendering and refresh rates similar to an LCD then I would return to that market because the screen really is incredible. But until then I can't justify a single purpose device that doesn't fill the actual purpose (for me).
You guys are adorable. I say I'm replacing my laptop with an iPad and you say "yeah.. But you can't do all the stuff you can do on a desktop". No kidding! I have a desktop. I use it when the task requires. I can't use it on the plane though. I can't use it while sitting on a curb while waiting for the crew to move on to the nextt shot while we're on location. Can you?
I say I want a boat and people like you keep telling me I should buy a car. Goodness.
I'd like to think touch pads are a bubble, that people will realize that if they want to PRODUCE to COMMUNICATE they need a real interface. But once again it will be the mainstream taking over. As went Film, As went the Internet, so go computers. We told them they were important, they listened, they came, they nerfed.
In the mean time look at tablet users like couch potatoes, and iPhone users the same way. With pity. Eventually they'll realize they've become couch potatoes too... but we don't have to wait.
This is such a short sighted way of looking at things. I do *alot* of work on my iPad. Real money making stuff. What you (and all the rest who dismiss tablets) is that there's no such thing as a "real interface". What I need is the *right* interface. And more than 9 times out of 10 a laptop is just plain old the wrong interface, the wrong layout and the wrong form factor. Pity away.. I'll be over here being productive and making money.
I guess there's not much point to replying to an AC.. but I would *love* to know how it is that you are certain I do all of the things that I do *less* well on the iPad. In fact the work tasks I use my iPad for I do *more* well and more productively than I ever could with a laptop. But hey.. you keep on thinking that you've got it all figured out. I'll be over here making money.
And as to your last suggestion. Yeah.. I *definitely* want to carry around *two* devices neither of which does what I want.
Try reading dense scientific PDFs on a Kindle. It's a nightmare. It's slow and low resolution and generally not up to the task. You know how I know that? Because I *have* one. A Kindle DX. It's currently gathering dust next to my laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I do all my chatting on my phone or tablet.
I have one app (beejive, in this case) which handles basically everything. yahoo, msn (dunno if that's relevant after the skype buyout.. I don't use it any more), gtalk, aim, facebook, etc.
The only other thing is iMessage.. which, frankly, is where I do the majority of my talking.
On my desktop I used to use Adium which, similar to beejive, handled everything I needed. Haven't used that in years though.
When you die the rights to that music dies with you.
It does? Where does it say that? I've looked over the TOS and I can't find that anywhere. What have I missed?
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
It's not an illusion of instantaneous update... it *is* one. When a new version of iOS ships *all* devices that are announced to support the update get the update right away. What happens behind the scenes is immaterial (certainly there is alot of effort involved).. as a consumer I get it right away.
I can understand a couple or three months for a company as large as samsung to get everything working on a brand new device... but seven?! That's nonsense to me. We're not talking about a device they stopped selling a year prior.. this was (is?) the current product lineup. If that doesn't get top priority for software updates then I don't know what to say.
It was my first (and very likely) only android purchase. It seemed inconceivable to me that a device shipping 2 months after the OS was released wouldn't come with the current OS on it (or have an update readily downloadable at time of purchase). The idea that a brand new device would have to wait 5 months to get an update to an OS that shipped 2 months prior to purchase was an impossibility in my mind. There was no precedent in all of my computing experience to make me think it would have been something to consider before purchase.
Live and learn I guess.
I don't know about Samsung phones.. but my Samsung tablet (a galaxy tab 2 7") was hideously out of date. I bought it in September.. it had 4.0 on it rather than Jelly bean (4.1) which was released in June. The software update to 4.1 *finally* came in January (making it over 6 months behind the times).. who knows when it will be updated to 4.2...
And there's no carrier involved on this... it's a wifi only device. The delay is *all* samsung.
And no. I don't want to install community ROMs.
I agree about this. I would love to be able to control how and when an app can access my data network (eg. Cell only, Wifi only, Both, None).
Close.
The first time an app wants to access my contacts a popup comes up and says something to the effect of "App A wants access to your contacts. Allow? Deny?" or "App B wants to access your location. Allow? Deny?"
That choice is remembered but can be changed in the settings:
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/privacy.jpg (iPad)
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Privacy-iOS-6.jpg (iPhone).
I can't give you any further cites beyond the fact that that's how my phone and iPad work. I'm sure they're out there if you care enough to look.
I didn't say Android devices aren't secure. I said they don't provide the security I want -- namely fine grained control over application access permissions. Was that too much to grasp?
Or. you know.. maybe I get enough of fiddling with tech 8 hours a day (and more) at work. At home I just want to use what I've got in a way that I want without resorting to backflips.
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
How do you know that, by the time you disable the permission, the app hasn't already uploaded your info to their servers?
because (sensibly) by default apps have no such permission. I get asked if I want to allow the action the very first time.
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
Except, with Android, I can root my phone and do whatever the heck I want with it.
And what about those of us that don't want to bother with such things? I don't build my own computers. I don't jailbreak my iDevices.. I don't tinker with my car.. I don't mod my fridge. If I have to immediately start hacking my device in order to get the security I want then it's not really much good to me.
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
If a GPS application wants access to my contacts and location I can let it.. but if it asks for access to my photos and bluetooth sharing I can disallow it.
It's quite nice, actually.
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
I'm confused. Why would there be scrolling semantics when there is no scrolling? Do you want to see scroll bars when there's no scrolling content too?
She has itunes.. she's already copied music from her computer to her phone so she knows how to do that. Why would you not just tell her to rip the CD in itunes:
insert CD
select tracks
click on "Import CD" button
wait..
Eject CD
It's just about as simple a process as it can get. In fact I think all the modern versions of iTunes just ask you if you want to import the CD as soon as you put one in so the above becomes:
insert CD
click OK
wait...
Eject CD
After that it's just copying the music to her phone which she already knows how to do.
No need to make things any more complicated than they need to be.
I must admit.. *someone* has done a great job brainwashing you into thinking that people who buy Apple products are brainwashed.
The license says that your music is "non-transferable".
Where does it say that? I can't find it:
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
...and just one of the many reasons I have hundreds of CDs lying around. I've bought some music and videos from iTunes. I prefer buying CDs because they're physical and tangible. Google or Apple can't decide to "close the service" and take all of my CDs away.
Apple can't do anything to your purchased music once it's on your hard drive. There's no DRM whatsoever on the music files. Do with them as you please. Movies can be re-encoded (probably lose quality but for me that's not a huge deal) or have their DRM stripped. Books can have their DRM stripped. I'm pretty sure that it's still legal in the US to strip DRM for your personal stuff and it definitely is in Canada (the efforts of our current government to ban it notwithstanding).
I don't see how that can make any difference at all in their relative sales figures. If the American system of phone purchases is as you say it is then it would affect both Apple's and Samsung's sales, no?
Indeed. And relative to the iPhone very few Galaxy phones are sold in the USA (the numbers from the court are only for up to and including the SII but when you combine all of the Galaxy phones together you still don't get even the barest fraction of iPhone sales. I can't imagine that the SIII will have already gotten to such huge sales numbers but you never know.
What's interesting is that in the USA quite the opposite is true. According to the documents released as part of the current lawsuit Samsung has sold 21 million smartphones since 2010. Apple has sold 19 million iPhones in its first and second quarters (ending sometime in April, I think). For the same period Samsung only sold something like 4 or 5 million phones. Again.. this is USA only but it's an interesting look at things. I have no proof of it but my gut feeling is that in markets where people can afford the price of the iPhone.. they choose the iPhone. When they can't afford it they choose a cheaper Android phone.. hence the world sales numbers being so out of whack with the US sales numbers.
I haven't had cable in years. I've got an Apple TV 2 plugged in to my TV and it's fantastic. We watch a ton of stuff on Netflix. I also download full seasons of some of the shows I watch from iTunes. A bunch of other stuff I watch on the various TV stations' apps on my iPad (which I could Airplay to the TV but I don't). It's just about a perfect setup for the type and amount of TV that we watch.
I read a non-zero number of scientific papers in a month. Most of them have colour illustrations, diagrams and charts. If an e-reader doesn't allow me to view those in colour.. what point is it? For not much more than a Kindle DX (only readers of that size are useful for reading high resolution PDFs) I can get a tablet which *will* view those PDFs in colour *and* will allow me to read books *and* will allow me to zoom in smoothly and quickly to the images in the PDF *and* will let me watch a movie *and* will let me surf the net *and* will let me reply to emails from the office *and* will let me play a few games while I'm sitting on the plane, etc.
In the case of an eePad transformer (by all accounts a great little tablet) we're only talking $20. That's a whole lot of extra value for my $20. If I go for an iPad I have to shell out $120. Still money well spent.
Sure I lose the really amazing readability of the e-ink display. But most high-end tablet displays are *very* readable for me and, personally, I don't spend much time reading outside in the sun so glare is not an issue. Also, I don't have to deal with any of the drawbacks of e-ink either. If they manage to make an e-ink based device of the right size, with fast enough refresh and rendering *then* we can talk. Until then, for my reading dollars, a tablet is the way to go.
The e-ink display is what makes these things worth owning and why not to just get a tablet. If you want a tablet, fine and well, go right ahead, but don't say it is a replacement for an eReader until you've tried one. It is no more a replacement for an eReader than a stove is a replacement for a toaster.
The reason is the display. It really does look like paper. The e-ink name isn't bullshit, it really does work like ink and is fully reflective. The battery life is also really nice. It is a device that doesn't have to be plugged in every day.
I've played with tablets and they hold no interest for me. I don't find they fill any useful niche what with owning a laptop and smartphone. However I do have a Kindle and like it very much. It is because while it only does one thing, it does it very well. I would liken it to my toaster, or rice cooker. Those are specialty devices. I have another device that can do everything they do and more. However though they only do one thing, they do it really well, and that makes them worth owning despite having a stove, oven, microwave, and so on.
I have a kindle DX and before the iPad came out I *loved* it. The display is *amazing* and is extremely easy to read.
The problem is that in addition to reading books I read *alot* of pdf scientific papers. the Kindle (neither the small one nor the DX) is just plain old not suited to this task. The rendering is *very* slow. The display has the resolution but I find that the iPad's display can render the text so much cleaner and readable. I ended up turning the kindle sideways and reading that way but that's a sub-optimal way to read multi-column text (especially when coupled with the slow rendering). Add to that instant zooming and full color images and in the arena of reading not just books but also pdfs the iPad (and any other tablet for that matter) wins hands down.
If e-ink tech can get rendering and refresh rates similar to an LCD then I would return to that market because the screen really is incredible. But until then I can't justify a single purpose device that doesn't fill the actual purpose (for me).
You guys are adorable. I say I'm replacing my laptop with an iPad and you say "yeah .. But you can't do all the stuff you can do on a desktop". No kidding! I have a desktop. I use it when the task requires. I can't use it on the plane though. I can't use it while sitting on a curb while waiting for the crew to move on to the nextt shot while we're on location. Can you?
I say I want a boat and people like you keep telling me I should buy a car. Goodness.
I'd like to think touch pads are a bubble, that people will realize that if they want to PRODUCE to COMMUNICATE they need a real interface. But once again it will be the mainstream taking over. As went Film, As went the Internet, so go computers. We told them they were important, they listened, they came, they nerfed.
In the mean time look at tablet users like couch potatoes, and iPhone users the same way. With pity. Eventually they'll realize they've become couch potatoes too... but we don't have to wait.
This is such a short sighted way of looking at things. I do *alot* of work on my iPad. Real money making stuff. What you (and all the rest who dismiss tablets) is that there's no such thing as a "real interface". What I need is the *right* interface. And more than 9 times out of 10 a laptop is just plain old the wrong interface, the wrong layout and the wrong form factor. Pity away.. I'll be over here being productive and making money.
I guess there's not much point to replying to an AC.. but I would *love* to know how it is that you are certain I do all of the things that I do *less* well on the iPad. In fact the work tasks I use my iPad for I do *more* well and more productively than I ever could with a laptop. But hey.. you keep on thinking that you've got it all figured out. I'll be over here making money.
And as to your last suggestion. Yeah.. I *definitely* want to carry around *two* devices neither of which does what I want.
Try reading dense scientific PDFs on a Kindle. It's a nightmare. It's slow and low resolution and generally not up to the task. You know how I know that? Because I *have* one. A Kindle DX. It's currently gathering dust next to my laptop.