I love this article. Here, educators had the integrity to demand systems that are suitable for education. At best, a Dell or similar is a business PC, at worst, it's an I-T project. Students shouldn't be forced into business or I-T. They need a broad focus system that can do anything reliably without requiring them to learn I-T.
I wish there was another system other than Apple that was suitable for students right now, but there is not. The rest of the PC makers joined a cartel that was run by an illegal monopolist and shat out unstable DOS+ systems with malware and proprietary formats that you have to handhold and babysit and troubleshoot and patch constantly. There's no excuse for how shitty a Dell is today and giving one to a kid is like tying a hand behind their back.
Kids need to be focused on their work, using a stable, functional system. They need to be thinking about literature in English class. They need creative tools for audio video and photography because that's part of their language today. They need Unix and HTML5 and standard networking for computer science. They need standard formats so they can share their work with each other. They need systems that don't crash and don't force them into I-T work in the middle of their homework.
The economic argument is bullshit. A MacBook for education is $900. The equivalent PC is more than $900, because you not only need the hardware, you need Windows Ultimate, anti-virus, and $500 of applications. You need to pay a Slashdot reader twice a year to clean viruses off it. And that doesn't even count time lost to unreliability and the extra work you have to do. The opportunity cost.
So these educators are not only preparing the kids to actually be educated, they're educating the parents not to drop $500 on a shitty PC and expect it to just be the right solution because it has a keyboard and display. You have to get the right tool for the task. It's good that they're sticking up for these kids, 90% of whom are not computer nerds. The classroom will feature kids doing much higher-quality broad spectrum work because of this. Kids will be better communicators, with multimedia skills. And even computer nerds are encouraged to do productive programming work instead of rebooting and patching. there are 10 open source languages built-in and free Mac/iOS tools.
It's really past time to keep trying to force everybody to be computer nerds. If you are pissed about this, you should be pissed at Dell et al for making such shitty systems.
IPhone is the phone to get if you want to run the software you want. In the first place, it has C apps, not baby Java apps, so it actually has the software I want to run, like audio tools and 3D games. Secondly, it has 250,000 apps, including 10,000 that run on a big screen. Third, the apps are already audited so I know there is no malware and do not have to run a virus scanner. Fourth, the apps install or uninstall with 1-click. Fifth, I can install hundreds of apps without the phone slowing down or being adversely affected in any way.
The number of apps that Google excluded from Android by closing the native C API is much greater than the number Apple has rejected.
And the HTML5 Web apps on both iPhone and Android are thanks to Apple's work to bring WebKit to ARM.
So in all in all, apps are a major reason iOS outsells Android by over 10:1.
Most print artwork is done at 300 dpi. It's a magic number in publishing. iPhone 4 is the first screen device that can show print artwork. We've been looking forward to this for about 20 years. You have to be a fucking idiot to piss on it.
The MSNBC Countdown site is a great comparison of what Flash costs in inefficiency. On a notebook it is Flash, but on iPad it is HTML5. The Flash site runs the fan on my MacBook Air and uses battery such that it would last for 2 hours. (Typically it gets 5.) On iPad, the HTML5 site runs cool and uses battery such that it would last for over 10 hours. The video also looks better on iPad, and the scrolling works as you'd expect whereas the Flash version has choppy video and the scroller doesn't work unless you click on it. I know my GPU has an H.264 decoder and I think Apple has provided access just recently (but probably not early enough to get into FlashPlayer v10.1) but I prefer the HTML5 version's interactivity also. It's just better.
Ironically, Microsoft doesn't have an HTML5 browser yet and NBC was the one TV company that said it was sticking with Flash for now. But whoever did the HTML5 site did a nice job.
Developers are not prohibited from using 3rd party ads, that is plainly false. It's only 3rd party ads done by mobile device makers that are prohibited. That is why Google is shitting their pants.
It's Google that is the monopoly here. It's Google that is anti-competitive. It's Google who is doing mobile device development just to protect their online ad monopoly.
Apple is under no obligation to run ads or run 3rd party ads at all. Apple is only responsible to their users. That is who pays 100% of the bills on Apple platforms. Even if they were, all ad companies violated the previous agreement and are lucky if they get back on at all. And even if that weren't the case, the Apple terms can change at any time if it's in the interest of Apple and their users, who are the only interests that Apple must protect. They sell diirect to consumer, not B2B, they have no obligation to please a hardware maker or carrier.
Apple is not some government agency that exists to make any kind of platform for markets and hold no monopolies that might obligate them to do so. They work only for their users, which is why they have the highest user satisfaction rating in *all* of their markets.
No, it's the reverse of DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run. This is Lotus saying they won't run on DOS because Microsoft is both an operating systems vendor and a Lotus competitor in applications. It's Lotus saying to Microsoft: you have a conflict of interest that is designed to fuck us and so no thanks.
In this case Apple is saying they won't run AdMob ads because Google is both an advertising vendor and an Apple competitor in mobile device development. It's Apple saying to Google: you have a conflict of interest that is designed to fuck us so no thanks.
In the first place, they did not create zero competition. Only advertisers who are also mobile phone developers are shut out. In other words, Google, Microsoft, HP, Nokia, RIM. They compete with iPhone so they can't receive ad analytics from iPhone users.
In the second place, Apple are under no obligation to create or provide any competition in the ads in the native app platform on their own system. If they want to do all the ads, they can just do all the ads. I would prefer if they did and so would many users, and we are the ones who pay the bills, not Google or Microsoft. If Apple did all the ads they would be high quality with no information released to 3rd parties. They would do them in such a way that they please users because on Apple platforms, the users pay the bills.
Google's customers are advertisers, and Microsoft's customers are PC makers, but Apple's customers are the actual users of Apple platforms. Apple only has to answer to their users, not a bunch of frowning suits with business plans and monopolies they want to leverage.
> What Apple has done is not explicitly ban third party advertisers, but instead > achieve that goal through crafty wording in their developer agreement.
No, no, no. You missed that the only advertisers that are banned are ones that are run by Apple's competitors in the mobile phone market. That is why Google is crying like a spoiled little rich kid.
If Apple wanted to do all the ads on iOS they could do it, they don't have to be sneaky about it. It's their fucking platform.
All the miserable chicanery that you describe and which fuels your cynicism is not possible on iOS. An app update that does dirty tricks will not get approved by Apple. Before an app gets to actual users, it is first run by users at Apple who can veto it. If an app pisses on the user they simply send it back to the developer and say fix that shit.
Further, you make money on iOS when users like your app and recommend it, because there is massive competition, with hundreds ofnapps in every category, and word of mouth is key to good sales. You increase sales by improving your app, not sabotaging it. There is plenty of money to go around if you claim your part with a good app.
The issue is not Apple leverage. The issue is Google leverage. Google is the one who wants to both receive ad data from iPhone users and compete with iPhone at the same time. Apple is saying "pick one." If you're a competitor you don't get the keys to the kingdom so you have an anti-competitive advantage over us.
Apple is not an ISP, and they are only on open carriers that use open standard GSM technology that can run any phone in the world. Anyone can compete with Apple on every network they are on without even getting the participation of the carrier. Apple WebKit makes it easy to create a phone with HTML5 browser and Web apps. The MPEG-4 file format Apple gave up for standardization makes it easy to run what is essentially open QuickTime audio video. So even if Apple had a monopoly in mobiles there are no barriers to entering that market and competing with them. And Apple are like #3 in market share. So nothing in what you said legitimizes Google's anti-competitive behavior.
Google's monopoly in Web ads is not theoretical. The idea that Google is protecting us from some future theoretical Apple monopoly and that gives Google license to be anti-competitive is fucking asinine. I thought so even when the idea was shat out of Vic Gundotra's fool mouth at the Google I/O dopefest.
So what you're saying is that Google makes no money from Android but rather uses it as a tool to gain advantage in the mobile advertising market? Android is not a legitimate mobile phone software business but rather a way to leverage Google's Web ad monopoly into mobile ads? I don't think you're helping Google by telling the truth about them. Just say they are "open" in spite of their black box ads and Android and Chrome OS both having closed native C API's and remind us again that they're not evil. Because when you're not evil, you really need people to remind everybody that you're not evil. Right?
Also, try to ignore the fact that if Google didn't have Android, they wouldn't be locked out of iOS. Because it really fucks up your whole argument.
> Saying that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products is the > same as saying that Toyota has a monopoly on the Toyota Prius
You're making perfect sense, but you have to understand that Toyota does not allow Google to put ads all over every Prius and track the location and store information about every Prius driver and therefore Toyota is a monopoly.
The difference is Apple users use the word "monopoly" in the dictionary definition of the word, but you're using it in the Google definition, where a "monopoly" is any company that dares to compete with Google. That is the same way Microsoft uses the word. Words actually have meanings, though. Google actually has a monopoly. There needs to be a wall between Google's ad business and Google's other businesses so that they don't do something anti-competitive. If Google is not going to put one up, they certainly have no right to expect Apple not to do so on their own platform.
But I bet you think Apple should just quietly acquiesce to the anti-competitive wishes of a company with half their market share and half their market value? I mean, if you were competing with Google you'd just roll over for a belly rub, right? You'd be happy to see them leverage their monopoly so they don't have to compete with you, right? You'd open up your front door wide and pucker up and let Google apply their ass directly to your face?
The Apple terms prevent anti-competitive behavior by Google, Microsoft, and others. Complaining that the terms are anti-competitive is the same old bizzaro Google bullshit. Like how they claim iPhone's curated native C app platform is closed, but Android's native C app platform actually is closed. Only Google can make native C Android apps. No 3rd parties have access. Same with Chrome OS. And Google now claims Adobe Flash is open, and WebM is a standard. And iOS is North Korea, because you know how in North Korea they enjoy massive commercial success, right? They're rolling in money in North Korea. Same as iOS. iOS developers getting monthly checks is just like North Korea and Android developers working for free is just like the US. Right?
Google is actually making me weary of nerds. Not only have they damaged their brand with Android, they've damaged the Ph.D brand. When I meet a Ph.D now I think this is a person who doesn't know anything about people or the real world.
It's about publishing, not anatomy. This argument is like saying we should have celebrated the millenium in 2001.
Jobs said "300 dpi is a magic number" and indeed it is. He is referring to an ancient publishing standard. In print publishing, 300 dpi is "laser quality". It is very common for a graphic artist to create a "print" version of an artwork at 300 dpi and an "online" version at 72 dpi (effectively zero, or "resolution unknown", or 1:1 pixel ratio). We have looked forward to 300 dpi screens for many years because then you just make one 300 dpi version for both print and screen. The most important number on the dpi resolution ruler is 300. It is extremely significant to ship the first 300+ dpi screen.
A similar magic number in audio is 20kHz, the generally accepted upper limit of human hearing and the standard for "CD audio". The CD was significant because it passed the 20kHz magic number, and consumer audio still uses that frequency range today, 30 years later.
The key thing with these magic numbers is that below them you get dramatically lower quality but above them you get severely limited returns. 300 dpi and 20kHz are the points where it takes an expert to tell the difference between them and a higher quality. Most people can tell the difference between 200 and 300 dpi, but most people cannot tell te difference between 300 dpi and 600 dpi.
So the author of this article should have done some publishing industry research, some graphic arts research, instead of researching the eye. That is what Steve Jobs talks about when he says Apple is not just technology but also liberal arts, a broader knowledge of the world than just science.
This article is not just ignorant, it's also mean-spirited, small-minded. Like people who say "Think Different" is bad grammar. It's poetry you fuck. Broaden your horizons.
Intel Macs all have EFI, that was the beginning of the end of BIOS, 4-5 years ago.
The wireless keyboard and mouse are another step. The Mac's Bluetooth keyboard and mouse stay paired even when the Mac OS is not running.
The next step towards the end of BIOS is 3TB disks, which BIOS cannot support.
A generic PC maker upgrading their technology is the end of the end, they pretty much have to have a gun to their heads to make any improvement at all.
I would rather see every lamp post have a Wi-Fi base station on it and cell phone carriers cease to exist. The Internet itself only runs at Wi-Fi speeds (or less) so pervasive Wi-Fi is better than fiber that is only in my home and which I'm going to turn into Wi-Fi anyway and have to manage it.
There is no lack of connectivity on iPad. It has a 30-pin iPod dock connector, which is multiple ports in one, for the same reason as an iPod: it's too thin for the other ports it replaces. There is USB, video out, and a number of other cables in an iPod dock connector, so there is no lack of connectivity. A device with a micro-USB port is no better off, you still need a cable with the right ends for whatever device. iPad supports USB audio, hubs, keyboards, and card readers. It supports VGA, component, and composite video out. iPad also works with many iPod accessories, such as credit card readers, which is something other tablets can't say. iPad connects directly to iTunes, which makes it easy to transfer music, movies, books, documents, podcasts onto and off of the device. And it supports Bonjour (zero configuration networking) so it appears as "iPad.local" on the network. Bluetooth keyboards, audio, and controls. It jumps on and off Wi-Fi networks very easily as you move around. There's no shortage of connectivity.
When comparing iPad competitors, it's going to be way, way, way more instructive to compare software, which is 95% of this kind of device. Look at firmware, system, native C apps, HTML5 Web apps, and cloud services. The software that runs the touchscreen is very important to whether the device is practical. Also, usability is very important in consumer electronics.
Maybe the summary means other tablets are vying for pole position in the race to compete with iPad, but if talking about the market as a whole, iPad is way out in front by any measure. They already outsold all other tablets from the past 25 years.
You're right not to feel sorry for Steve Jobs. iPhone is outselling Android by more than 3:1, and outselling Android v2.x by over 10:1. Every July iPhone sales double when they introduce a new model and stay doubled all year. And nobody else has an iPod touch or iPad at all. There is no lack of speed in A4, and the software is fast also, and gets great battery life. So there really isn't any reason to feel sorry for him.
The reason Apple is doing iAds is to improve the experience of in-app ads. User like free and $1-2 apps, and so developers have been putting ads in their apps and the ads are very basic and they take you out to the Web. So iAds are advertising-focused mini HTML5 apps that run inside native C apps, and keep you in your app.
If used in a media app, they may support media, like a free Hulu app. But they work on all kinds of apps.
Besides, $8.99 a month for Netflix on iPad absolutely destroys Hulu. There is no shortage of TV already on Apple devices.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this article. Here, educators had the integrity to demand systems that are suitable for education. At best, a Dell or similar is a business PC, at worst, it's an I-T project. Students shouldn't be forced into business or I-T. They need a broad focus system that can do anything reliably without requiring them to learn I-T.
I wish there was another system other than Apple that was suitable for students right now, but there is not. The rest of the PC makers joined a cartel that was run by an illegal monopolist and shat out unstable DOS+ systems with malware and proprietary formats that you have to handhold and babysit and troubleshoot and patch constantly. There's no excuse for how shitty a Dell is today and giving one to a kid is like tying a hand behind their back.
Kids need to be focused on their work, using a stable, functional system. They need to be thinking about literature in English class. They need creative tools for audio video and photography because that's part of their language today. They need Unix and HTML5 and standard networking for computer science. They need standard formats so they can share their work with each other. They need systems that don't crash and don't force them into I-T work in the middle of their homework.
The economic argument is bullshit. A MacBook for education is $900. The equivalent PC is more than $900, because you not only need the hardware, you need Windows Ultimate, anti-virus, and $500 of applications. You need to pay a Slashdot reader twice a year to clean viruses off it. And that doesn't even count time lost to unreliability and the extra work you have to do. The opportunity cost.
So these educators are not only preparing the kids to actually be educated, they're educating the parents not to drop $500 on a shitty PC and expect it to just be the right solution because it has a keyboard and display. You have to get the right tool for the task. It's good that they're sticking up for these kids, 90% of whom are not computer nerds. The classroom will feature kids doing much higher-quality broad spectrum work because of this. Kids will be better communicators, with multimedia skills. And even computer nerds are encouraged to do productive programming work instead of rebooting and patching. there are 10 open source languages built-in and free Mac/iOS tools.
It's really past time to keep trying to force everybody to be computer nerds. If you are pissed about this, you should be pissed at Dell et al for making such shitty systems.
IPhone is the phone to get if you want to run the software you want. In the first place, it has C apps, not baby Java apps, so it actually has the software I want to run, like audio tools and 3D games. Secondly, it has 250,000 apps, including 10,000 that run on a big screen. Third, the apps are already audited so I know there is no malware and do not have to run a virus scanner. Fourth, the apps install or uninstall with 1-click. Fifth, I can install hundreds of apps without the phone slowing down or being adversely affected in any way.
The number of apps that Google excluded from Android by closing the native C API is much greater than the number Apple has rejected.
And the HTML5 Web apps on both iPhone and Android are thanks to Apple's work to bring WebKit to ARM.
So in all in all, apps are a major reason iOS outsells Android by over 10:1.
Most print artwork is done at 300 dpi. It's a magic number in publishing. iPhone 4 is the first screen device that can show print artwork. We've been looking forward to this for about 20 years. You have to be a fucking idiot to piss on it.
This really smacked of New Coke. They should have left it off and let anyone who wanted it turn it on. Recalls the Buzz launch.
The MSNBC Countdown site is a great comparison of what Flash costs in inefficiency. On a notebook it is Flash, but on iPad it is HTML5. The Flash site runs the fan on my MacBook Air and uses battery such that it would last for 2 hours. (Typically it gets 5.) On iPad, the HTML5 site runs cool and uses battery such that it would last for over 10 hours. The video also looks better on iPad, and the scrolling works as you'd expect whereas the Flash version has choppy video and the scroller doesn't work unless you click on it. I know my GPU has an H.264 decoder and I think Apple has provided access just recently (but probably not early enough to get into FlashPlayer v10.1) but I prefer the HTML5 version's interactivity also. It's just better.
Ironically, Microsoft doesn't have an HTML5 browser yet and NBC was the one TV company that said it was sticking with Flash for now. But whoever did the HTML5 site did a nice job.
MSNBC Countdown
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_
To see the HTML5 version on a notebook, spoof iPad's UA string with Safari's Develop menu. On iPad the scrollers are invisible.
Developers are not prohibited from using 3rd party ads, that is plainly false. It's only 3rd party ads done by mobile device makers that are prohibited. That is why Google is shitting their pants.
It's Google that is the monopoly here. It's Google that is anti-competitive. It's Google who is doing mobile device development just to protect their online ad monopoly.
Apple is under no obligation to run ads or run 3rd party ads at all. Apple is only responsible to their users. That is who pays 100% of the bills on Apple platforms. Even if they were, all ad companies violated the previous agreement and are lucky if they get back on at all. And even if that weren't the case, the Apple terms can change at any time if it's in the interest of Apple and their users, who are the only interests that Apple must protect. They sell diirect to consumer, not B2B, they have no obligation to please a hardware maker or carrier.
Apple is not some government agency that exists to make any kind of platform for markets and hold no monopolies that might obligate them to do so. They work only for their users, which is why they have the highest user satisfaction rating in *all* of their markets.
No, it's the reverse of DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run. This is Lotus saying they won't run on DOS because Microsoft is both an operating systems vendor and a Lotus competitor in applications. It's Lotus saying to Microsoft: you have a conflict of interest that is designed to fuck us and so no thanks.
In this case Apple is saying they won't run AdMob ads because Google is both an advertising vendor and an Apple competitor in mobile device development. It's Apple saying to Google: you have a conflict of interest that is designed to fuck us so no thanks.
In the first place, they did not create zero competition. Only advertisers who are also mobile phone developers are shut out. In other words, Google, Microsoft, HP, Nokia, RIM. They compete with iPhone so they can't receive ad analytics from iPhone users.
In the second place, Apple are under no obligation to create or provide any competition in the ads in the native app platform on their own system. If they want to do all the ads, they can just do all the ads. I would prefer if they did and so would many users, and we are the ones who pay the bills, not Google or Microsoft. If Apple did all the ads they would be high quality with no information released to 3rd parties. They would do them in such a way that they please users because on Apple platforms, the users pay the bills.
Google's customers are advertisers, and Microsoft's customers are PC makers, but Apple's customers are the actual users of Apple platforms. Apple only has to answer to their users, not a bunch of frowning suits with business plans and monopolies they want to leverage.
> What Apple has done is not explicitly ban third party advertisers, but instead
> achieve that goal through crafty wording in their developer agreement.
No, no, no. You missed that the only advertisers that are banned are ones that are run by Apple's competitors in the mobile phone market. That is why Google is crying like a spoiled little rich kid.
If Apple wanted to do all the ads on iOS they could do it, they don't have to be sneaky about it. It's their fucking platform.
All the miserable chicanery that you describe and which fuels your cynicism is not possible on iOS. An app update that does dirty tricks will not get approved by Apple. Before an app gets to actual users, it is first run by users at Apple who can veto it. If an app pisses on the user they simply send it back to the developer and say fix that shit.
Further, you make money on iOS when users like your app and recommend it, because there is massive competition, with hundreds ofnapps in every category, and word of mouth is key to good sales. You increase sales by improving your app, not sabotaging it. There is plenty of money to go around if you claim your part with a good app.
The issue is not Apple leverage. The issue is Google leverage. Google is the one who wants to both receive ad data from iPhone users and compete with iPhone at the same time. Apple is saying "pick one." If you're a competitor you don't get the keys to the kingdom so you have an anti-competitive advantage over us.
The developers of the apps also want to keep people in the apps, and so do the users of the apps.
Apple is not an ISP, and they are only on open carriers that use open standard GSM technology that can run any phone in the world. Anyone can compete with Apple on every network they are on without even getting the participation of the carrier. Apple WebKit makes it easy to create a phone with HTML5 browser and Web apps. The MPEG-4 file format Apple gave up for standardization makes it easy to run what is essentially open QuickTime audio video. So even if Apple had a monopoly in mobiles there are no barriers to entering that market and competing with them. And Apple are like #3 in market share. So nothing in what you said legitimizes Google's anti-competitive behavior.
Google's monopoly in Web ads is not theoretical. The idea that Google is protecting us from some future theoretical Apple monopoly and that gives Google license to be anti-competitive is fucking asinine. I thought so even when the idea was shat out of Vic Gundotra's fool mouth at the Google I/O dopefest.
So what you're saying is that Google makes no money from Android but rather uses it as a tool to gain advantage in the mobile advertising market? Android is not a legitimate mobile phone software business but rather a way to leverage Google's Web ad monopoly into mobile ads? I don't think you're helping Google by telling the truth about them. Just say they are "open" in spite of their black box ads and Android and Chrome OS both having closed native C API's and remind us again that they're not evil. Because when you're not evil, you really need people to remind everybody that you're not evil. Right?
Also, try to ignore the fact that if Google didn't have Android, they wouldn't be locked out of iOS. Because it really fucks up your whole argument.
> Saying that Apple has a monopoly on Apple products is the
> same as saying that Toyota has a monopoly on the Toyota Prius
You're making perfect sense, but you have to understand that Toyota does not allow Google to put ads all over every Prius and track the location and store information about every Prius driver and therefore Toyota is a monopoly.
I missed the part where 28% is a monopoly. Explain that to me again.
The difference is Apple users use the word "monopoly" in the dictionary definition of the word, but you're using it in the Google definition, where a "monopoly" is any company that dares to compete with Google. That is the same way Microsoft uses the word. Words actually have meanings, though. Google actually has a monopoly. There needs to be a wall between Google's ad business and Google's other businesses so that they don't do something anti-competitive. If Google is not going to put one up, they certainly have no right to expect Apple not to do so on their own platform.
But I bet you think Apple should just quietly acquiesce to the anti-competitive wishes of a company with half their market share and half their market value? I mean, if you were competing with Google you'd just roll over for a belly rub, right? You'd be happy to see them leverage their monopoly so they don't have to compete with you, right? You'd open up your front door wide and pucker up and let Google apply their ass directly to your face?
The Apple terms prevent anti-competitive behavior by Google, Microsoft, and others. Complaining that the terms are anti-competitive is the same old bizzaro Google bullshit. Like how they claim iPhone's curated native C app platform is closed, but Android's native C app platform actually is closed. Only Google can make native C Android apps. No 3rd parties have access. Same with Chrome OS. And Google now claims Adobe Flash is open, and WebM is a standard. And iOS is North Korea, because you know how in North Korea they enjoy massive commercial success, right? They're rolling in money in North Korea. Same as iOS. iOS developers getting monthly checks is just like North Korea and Android developers working for free is just like the US. Right?
Google is actually making me weary of nerds. Not only have they damaged their brand with Android, they've damaged the Ph.D brand. When I meet a Ph.D now I think this is a person who doesn't know anything about people or the real world.
It's about publishing, not anatomy. This argument is like saying we should have celebrated the millenium in 2001.
Jobs said "300 dpi is a magic number" and indeed it is. He is referring to an ancient publishing standard. In print publishing, 300 dpi is "laser quality". It is very common for a graphic artist to create a "print" version of an artwork at 300 dpi and an "online" version at 72 dpi (effectively zero, or "resolution unknown", or 1:1 pixel ratio). We have looked forward to 300 dpi screens for many years because then you just make one 300 dpi version for both print and screen. The most important number on the dpi resolution ruler is 300. It is extremely significant to ship the first 300+ dpi screen.
A similar magic number in audio is 20kHz, the generally accepted upper limit of human hearing and the standard for "CD audio". The CD was significant because it passed the 20kHz magic number, and consumer audio still uses that frequency range today, 30 years later.
The key thing with these magic numbers is that below them you get dramatically lower quality but above them you get severely limited returns. 300 dpi and 20kHz are the points where it takes an expert to tell the difference between them and a higher quality. Most people can tell the difference between 200 and 300 dpi, but most people cannot tell te difference between 300 dpi and 600 dpi.
So the author of this article should have done some publishing industry research, some graphic arts research, instead of researching the eye. That is what Steve Jobs talks about when he says Apple is not just technology but also liberal arts, a broader knowledge of the world than just science.
This article is not just ignorant, it's also mean-spirited, small-minded. Like people who say "Think Different" is bad grammar. It's poetry you fuck. Broaden your horizons.
Intel Macs all have EFI, that was the beginning of the end of BIOS, 4-5 years ago.
The wireless keyboard and mouse are another step. The Mac's Bluetooth keyboard and mouse stay paired even when the Mac OS is not running.
The next step towards the end of BIOS is 3TB disks, which BIOS cannot support.
A generic PC maker upgrading their technology is the end of the end, they pretty much have to have a gun to their heads to make any improvement at all.
I would rather see every lamp post have a Wi-Fi base station on it and cell phone carriers cease to exist. The Internet itself only runs at Wi-Fi speeds (or less) so pervasive Wi-Fi is better than fiber that is only in my home and which I'm going to turn into Wi-Fi anyway and have to manage it.
There is no lack of connectivity on iPad. It has a 30-pin iPod dock connector, which is multiple ports in one, for the same reason as an iPod: it's too thin for the other ports it replaces. There is USB, video out, and a number of other cables in an iPod dock connector, so there is no lack of connectivity. A device with a micro-USB port is no better off, you still need a cable with the right ends for whatever device. iPad supports USB audio, hubs, keyboards, and card readers. It supports VGA, component, and composite video out. iPad also works with many iPod accessories, such as credit card readers, which is something other tablets can't say. iPad connects directly to iTunes, which makes it easy to transfer music, movies, books, documents, podcasts onto and off of the device. And it supports Bonjour (zero configuration networking) so it appears as "iPad.local" on the network. Bluetooth keyboards, audio, and controls. It jumps on and off Wi-Fi networks very easily as you move around. There's no shortage of connectivity.
When comparing iPad competitors, it's going to be way, way, way more instructive to compare software, which is 95% of this kind of device. Look at firmware, system, native C apps, HTML5 Web apps, and cloud services. The software that runs the touchscreen is very important to whether the device is practical. Also, usability is very important in consumer electronics.
Maybe the summary means other tablets are vying for pole position in the race to compete with iPad, but if talking about the market as a whole, iPad is way out in front by any measure. They already outsold all other tablets from the past 25 years.
You're right not to feel sorry for Steve Jobs. iPhone is outselling Android by more than 3:1, and outselling Android v2.x by over 10:1. Every July iPhone sales double when they introduce a new model and stay doubled all year. And nobody else has an iPod touch or iPad at all. There is no lack of speed in A4, and the software is fast also, and gets great battery life. So there really isn't any reason to feel sorry for him.
Microsoft should shut up and ship.
The reason Apple is doing iAds is to improve the experience of in-app ads. User like free and $1-2 apps, and so developers have been putting ads in their apps and the ads are very basic and they take you out to the Web. So iAds are advertising-focused mini HTML5 apps that run inside native C apps, and keep you in your app.
If used in a media app, they may support media, like a free Hulu app. But they work on all kinds of apps.
Besides, $8.99 a month for Netflix on iPad absolutely destroys Hulu. There is no shortage of TV already on Apple devices.