For $20 bucks your "wins" come down to programming, application availability and device compatibility. Personally I would argue the last two. The iPad can send files to any other device you want via e-mail, or programs like drop box. Sure you can't use a file browser to do it, but does it really matter? As far as applications go, those windows applications are not designed for mobile computing. Yes you can run Photoshop on your laptop, your 4 hour battery life also dropped to 2.5 while it's open. Find a task you actually want to do while mobile, and there is likely and app for it. Hardly stomped. In your opinion, in your mindset, for your purposes maybe, but not in the general sense.
Your netbook has a metal unibody frame? Your netbook has a 10 hour battery life while playing video? Your netbook has an IPS display? Your netbook is the thinnest netbook on the market?
For years this site has discussed the mantra of 90% of home users only read e-mail and surf the web. Out comes a device, the iPad, that is really useful for reading e-mail and surfing the web, oh and listing to music, watching video and reading books. Yet the IT tech "gurus" still can't figure out why they sell well. I mean no one needs one!
The truth is, every household does not need a PC/Mac. Every household was getting one because it was the only device that could get them access to the web. The iPad is changing this and as upgrade cycles come up on those home computers, I think you will see a lot of people ditch the PC for the iPad. If you need a laptop and or a PC get one. A lot of people would be much happier with just an iPad.
All I can say is go to your nearest Apple store, pick up and iPad, go into the Calendar app. Yes, the calendar app from the iPhone would have worked fine on the iPad, but the iPad version is 1000 times more useful and WOULD NOT work on an iPhone. Can work and optimized are two different things.
I choose every piece of software loaded on my iPhone. Apple has never installed something on it I did not request. If I want to write my own apps, all I need is to get the developer tools and do it. The average person will never need the developer tools, why make them mandatory?
I was trying to check this a few months ago and did not have access. It's weird but you have to log in with a "Comcast" ID. Since I used my gmail address when setting up my account I didn't have access. I got on with their online support and in 30 minutes they switched the log in to a comcast login and now I can view my monthly usage.
This isn't about bandwidth. It's about preventing the populace from getting information. It's about keeping the populace from organizing. Its about control.
Define safe. Will you get hosed like a windows machine, no. Can you run malicious and false advertised code, yes. A cell phone is a much more critical device than a computer. Mobility brings greater demands such as battery life. Software, unlike a computer needs to be optimized to the device and targeted to the device. It really is a different world.
Jailbreak. Do what you want. Face the reality. Their needs to be a high barrier to being able to do anything with your phone. The average person can not tell legitimate software from a keylogger if you write the word "free" on it. Jailbreaking puts a barrier to ensure only technical people do anything with their phone. And Apple doesn't get a phone call from your grandma cause she installed solitaire and it rooted her phone and stole her identity. Everybody wins!
Brand new Android devices finally outsold new sales of a 7 month old phone. Apple is shaking I tell you. Next Tuesday, the iPhone will be available on Verizon, watch the carnage.
Incorrect. The bill passed with exactly ZERO republican votes. Any concessions to the bill were made not to secure republican votes, but to secure moderate and rogue democrat votes. Straw polls showed no support for a public option from the democrats themselves.
As for the rest of your statement I agree 100%. There is no need for insurance companies. Let the Government pay the bill and we'll all pay our "premiums" to the tax man.
excuse me, but judging from the amount of filth perpetrated, us is currently the biggest creator of all incidents, causes and issues worldwide. strictest regimes pale in comparison.
Just an honest question: How many other countries are having their filthy laundry aired on Wiki Leaks? So how do we know their hands are any cleaner?
Exactly. Except the phone has ALWAYS been an appliance. Carriers set the rules. Apple has started to change this mainstream, by taking control away from the carrier. Android is only a framework. The carriers are paying for the phone development and locking the Android features down as they see fit. Everyone complains about Apple's control, but I prefer a tech company making these decisions over a service provider.
Yes, you can load a "Google" build on your phone. If you jail break that is. Same as my iPhone.
Unless you are developing a telecommunications app, there is no difference to you as a developer between iOS on the iPhone and iOS on the iPod Touch. Android may win as a phone platform as you say, but developers are not jumping ship to code for Android, they are supporting both platforms. I 100% guarantee the iPhone will not be niche in 5 years. Won't be dominant either.
1: You develop on Macs only. Hackintoshes do not count because the BSA comes down hard on people using pirated operating systems for commercial gain. Android code is happily written on Windows, OS X, Linux or BSD.
Apple does not provide iOS development tools for non OS-X computers, correct. Third parties do provide such tools.
2: You have your ducks in a row 100% before submitting the app for approval. If something causes it to be rejected, your app won't be in the new apps list and will have no visibility in Apple's App Store. There is also a delay when getting critical updates out. Your app has a show stopping bug that is causing customers to demand refunds from Apple? Expect to wait 1-2 weeks if not more time before your update gets on the store to fix things. Android, initial app submittal and updates are immediate. In fact, one of the cool things about Android's store is how often and fast devs update their apps. Some devs are *extremely* responsive, and I've seen apps take a suggestion one day, and have it in the app the next.
This is a pro/con. The great thing about Marketplace is any app can get in. The bad thing about Marketplace is any app can get in. The good thing about App Store is not every app can get in. The bad thing about the App Store is not every app can get in. As a user, I have never been in a situation I could not get functionality I needed from the App Store. As a user that is all I care about.
3: I do not need to jailbreak for basic functionality. Say an app crashes and I need the files it is storing. On Android, I can just fire up adb, tar off the files. On iOS, unless I jailbreak and ssh in, all my work would be lost.
Everyone has their own definition of basic functionality. I can't recover data from an encrypted OS Hard drive either. If data is important, back it up in multiple locations, same as it has always been. I haven't jail broken my phone, and I have rarely wished for additional functionality.
4: I have to JB iOS devices in order to get widget functionality. To some, it is ugly, but to others, being able to see weather, a snippet of E-mail, tasks, and maybe the latest FB gossip is a good thing.
Again its a pro/con thing and user preference. Customization is great, until you try to walk someone through something and they've customized beyond the point of being able to follow the same steps. Apple is a "whole picture" company. They make decision based on this. User experience drives repeat business.
5: Android devices don't need to be tied to one single PC. All they really need from a PC is perhaps to have the memory card backed up once in a while, or music copied to the device. iOS devices will not work unless they have a "home" machine that activates them and copies music. Of course, there are third party utilities to help with this... for now. Apple can easily change the connection spec between iTunes and the iPhone to render those products irrelevant in a heartbeat.
iPhones are activated in the store. You never have to plug it into a computer. If you have it shipped to your house, you can go to AT&T store and get it activated. No computer needed.
Of course, jailbreaking is what a lot of people do and as of now is a solution... but there may come a time where the iPhone is so difficult to jailbreak that it does not get Cydia on it until the next model is out.
And you have to jail break android in the US to install a non carrier supported ROM. You trust the carriers to never modify android to the point of removing its openness? They already have. Tethering is not available in carrier supported ROMs without paying for it. Same as iOS.
Not relevant. Do you trust that open today means open tomorrow? If the arrangement changes to my disliking, I'll vote with my wallet and feet. As long as the terms are acceptable, I will continue to make the choice based on my desired functionality and usability.
BS. Hardware manufacturers in the cell phone market do NOT compete on price. All the smart phones are priced the same INCLUDING the iPhone. Android may outsell iOS in the future mostly due to user preference. Not of the OS, but of the hardware. There will never be a iOS device with a physical keyboard. The iPhone will continue to be the most popular individual handset. Android will also find a home on quasi smart phones that lack the all the features.
iOS is JUST as open to third party development as Android. iPhone hardware is just as open to hacking as any Android phone bought in the US. The average American is never going to order the unlocked version from overseas. The only thing closed on iOS is App distribution. And, if you really care about that, get a developer licenses and load your own apps manually. Sad fact is, the average user shouldn't have the ability to install anything. Windows and the Internet taught us this.
I for one can't accept the notion that we shouldn't *try* to secure air travel. You either have to accept that all security is a waste of time - and thereby accept a substantially high number of highjackings and bombs, or you make a best-effort approach. I'm not naive enough to think that we can stop all terrorist plans, but all we really have to do is make it hard enough that we substantially reduce the frequency at which they are successful. If we didn't try security at all, highjackings and bombings would probably happen on a weekly basis. As it stands, while I'm sure at some point another terrorist attack could and probably will succeed at some point in the future, we seem to be keeping it to something like a once-or-twice-a-decade success rate.
As for the Constitution: there's no Constitutional right to fly. Flying is a privilege. If you want that privilege, you have to agree to the rules, that's just how it works. You don't *have* to fly.
No one is saying we should have no security. I can put explosives in my rectum and probably get past the current "upgraded" measures. Does that mean we should mandate rectal exams before boarding? They secured the cockpit already. The only risk is 150-300 people dying in an airborne explosion. Maybe a few ground casualties from falling debris. 9-11 cannot happen again. Is this worth the security measures, or is the old method of metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs and the old pat downs / wands enough? The answer is it is more than enough.
Flying is a privilege. If you feel the old security isn't enough to protect you, YOU drive. Let us fly while still maintaining our dignity.
They were not confiscated at the door of HIS plane. They were confiscated at Airport security. He could have given those weapons to someone on the other side of the checkpoint and then they end up on a public flight. The Airport was definitely in the right.
In my opinion that a lot of leaps of faith. For me 3D doesn't add anything to the experience. Color adds to the experience. Surround sound adds to the experience, but 3-D doesn't. Why? The fact is every movie I've ever seen was in 3D. Not on the screen, but in my brain. It did the work and it did it well. To me, standard movies to 3D movies is like CD to HD-CD, even most audiophiles don't care.
Let's examine it more closely. Surround sound brought you into the audio of the movie. You could hear things behind you, to the side, below or above. With 3D video, you are still looking at a scene. You can't look to the side, look up or down, you can't significantly change the artistic shot of the camera. What you get is a depth perception, that is really already there. It is enhanced, sometime to the point of being distracting.
And this is another reason directors should dislike 3D. Directors are acclaimed by the shot they produce. 3D removes from their shot by providing slightly different angles, or possibly in the future drastically different angles. This is the only value add to 3D in my opinion, providing the ability to pan around a scene and change the angle. This removes the art aspect of the film, and would force reliance on the story. This would also require an insane amount of cameras to shoot.
In closing, full disclosure, I have seen one recent 3D movie. I am not sure if it was post production or not. I left the theater with a headache. The 3D effect was ok, but the backgrounds of the sets were blurry. I attributed this to cameras focusing on the foreground leaving the background slightly out of focus. This provides depth in a 2D setting, but in 3D you should set the focus not the camera. This is ultimately while I do not expect 3D to take off. The directors want artistic control of the shot, and should have it in my opinion. Yet this limitation negates the only benefit 3D has to offer. I'd prefer to watch a good movie in 2D.
Slashdot Mirror
http://compare.ebay.com/like/190489776460?rvr_id=220051207344&tm_kw=bluetooth+keyboard+iPad&crlp=8524794330_1439982&MT_ID=1040&tm_kw_mt=5401908393_1042&tt_encode=raw&keyword=i190489776460%3A%3Aleather+case+wireless+bluetooth+keyboard+ipad&geo_id=1&adgroup_id=2657474850
For $20 bucks your "wins" come down to programming, application availability and device compatibility. Personally I would argue the last two. The iPad can send files to any other device you want via e-mail, or programs like drop box. Sure you can't use a file browser to do it, but does it really matter? As far as applications go, those windows applications are not designed for mobile computing. Yes you can run Photoshop on your laptop, your 4 hour battery life also dropped to 2.5 while it's open. Find a task you actually want to do while mobile, and there is likely and app for it. Hardly stomped. In your opinion, in your mindset, for your purposes maybe, but not in the general sense.
And how much does an iPhone cost off contract?
Your netbook has a metal unibody frame? Your netbook has a 10 hour battery life while playing video? Your netbook has an IPS display? Your netbook is the thinnest netbook on the market?
For years this site has discussed the mantra of 90% of home users only read e-mail and surf the web. Out comes a device, the iPad, that is really useful for reading e-mail and surfing the web, oh and listing to music, watching video and reading books. Yet the IT tech "gurus" still can't figure out why they sell well. I mean no one needs one!
The truth is, every household does not need a PC/Mac. Every household was getting one because it was the only device that could get them access to the web. The iPad is changing this and as upgrade cycles come up on those home computers, I think you will see a lot of people ditch the PC for the iPad. If you need a laptop and or a PC get one. A lot of people would be much happier with just an iPad.
All I can say is go to your nearest Apple store, pick up and iPad, go into the Calendar app. Yes, the calendar app from the iPhone would have worked fine on the iPad, but the iPad version is 1000 times more useful and WOULD NOT work on an iPhone. Can work and optimized are two different things.
I choose every piece of software loaded on my iPhone. Apple has never installed something on it I did not request. If I want to write my own apps, all I need is to get the developer tools and do it. The average person will never need the developer tools, why make them mandatory?
I was trying to check this a few months ago and did not have access. It's weird but you have to log in with a "Comcast" ID. Since I used my gmail address when setting up my account I didn't have access. I got on with their online support and in 30 minutes they switched the log in to a comcast login and now I can view my monthly usage.
1) Apple is overpriced, I can get by with a $600 PC
2) Yeah, but Dell's are crap!
3) Dell isn't the only PC manufacturer. Not a fair comparison.
4) Who? Alienware? Now they aren't cheaper than Apple!
This isn't about bandwidth. It's about preventing the populace from getting information. It's about keeping the populace from organizing. Its about control.
Answer: Everyone but the buyer.
The seller benefits from an inflated price. Check
The seller's agent gets a % commission. Check
The buyer's agent gets a % commission. Check
The county tax assessor gets higher taxes for the county. Check
The bank sells the mortgage on the stock market to retirement funds. Check
The seller over pays, and his retirement fund tanked after buying his mortgage! Check
Define safe. Will you get hosed like a windows machine, no. Can you run malicious and false advertised code, yes. A cell phone is a much more critical device than a computer. Mobility brings greater demands such as battery life. Software, unlike a computer needs to be optimized to the device and targeted to the device. It really is a different world.
Jailbreak. Do what you want. Face the reality. Their needs to be a high barrier to being able to do anything with your phone. The average person can not tell legitimate software from a keylogger if you write the word "free" on it. Jailbreaking puts a barrier to ensure only technical people do anything with their phone. And Apple doesn't get a phone call from your grandma cause she installed solitaire and it rooted her phone and stole her identity. Everybody wins!
Brand new Android devices finally outsold new sales of a 7 month old phone. Apple is shaking I tell you. Next Tuesday, the iPhone will be available on Verizon, watch the carnage.
Moderate democrats would not go for it. ZERO republicans voted for the current bill.
Incorrect. The bill passed with exactly ZERO republican votes. Any concessions to the bill were made not to secure republican votes, but to secure moderate and rogue democrat votes. Straw polls showed no support for a public option from the democrats themselves.
As for the rest of your statement I agree 100%. There is no need for insurance companies. Let the Government pay the bill and we'll all pay our "premiums" to the tax man.
excuse me, but judging from the amount of filth perpetrated, us is currently the biggest creator of all incidents, causes and issues worldwide. strictest regimes pale in comparison.
Just an honest question: How many other countries are having their filthy laundry aired on Wiki Leaks? So how do we know their hands are any cleaner?
Exactly. Except the phone has ALWAYS been an appliance. Carriers set the rules. Apple has started to change this mainstream, by taking control away from the carrier. Android is only a framework. The carriers are paying for the phone development and locking the Android features down as they see fit. Everyone complains about Apple's control, but I prefer a tech company making these decisions over a service provider.
Yes, you can load a "Google" build on your phone. If you jail break that is. Same as my iPhone.
Unless you are developing a telecommunications app, there is no difference to you as a developer between iOS on the iPhone and iOS on the iPod Touch. Android may win as a phone platform as you say, but developers are not jumping ship to code for Android, they are supporting both platforms. I 100% guarantee the iPhone will not be niche in 5 years. Won't be dominant either.
iOS is open provided:
1: You develop on Macs only. Hackintoshes do not count because the BSA comes down hard on people using pirated operating systems for commercial gain. Android code is happily written on Windows, OS X, Linux or BSD.
Apple does not provide iOS development tools for non OS-X computers, correct. Third parties do provide such tools.
2: You have your ducks in a row 100% before submitting the app for approval. If something causes it to be rejected, your app won't be in the new apps list and will have no visibility in Apple's App Store. There is also a delay when getting critical updates out. Your app has a show stopping bug that is causing customers to demand refunds from Apple? Expect to wait 1-2 weeks if not more time before your update gets on the store to fix things. Android, initial app submittal and updates are immediate. In fact, one of the cool things about Android's store is how often and fast devs update their apps. Some devs are *extremely* responsive, and I've seen apps take a suggestion one day, and have it in the app the next.
This is a pro/con. The great thing about Marketplace is any app can get in. The bad thing about Marketplace is any app can get in. The good thing about App Store is not every app can get in. The bad thing about the App Store is not every app can get in. As a user, I have never been in a situation I could not get functionality I needed from the App Store. As a user that is all I care about.
3: I do not need to jailbreak for basic functionality. Say an app crashes and I need the files it is storing. On Android, I can just fire up adb, tar off the files. On iOS, unless I jailbreak and ssh in, all my work would be lost.
Everyone has their own definition of basic functionality. I can't recover data from an encrypted OS Hard drive either. If data is important, back it up in multiple locations, same as it has always been. I haven't jail broken my phone, and I have rarely wished for additional functionality.
4: I have to JB iOS devices in order to get widget functionality. To some, it is ugly, but to others, being able to see weather, a snippet of E-mail, tasks, and maybe the latest FB gossip is a good thing.
Again its a pro/con thing and user preference. Customization is great, until you try to walk someone through something and they've customized beyond the point of being able to follow the same steps. Apple is a "whole picture" company. They make decision based on this. User experience drives repeat business.
5: Android devices don't need to be tied to one single PC. All they really need from a PC is perhaps to have the memory card backed up once in a while, or music copied to the device. iOS devices will not work unless they have a "home" machine that activates them and copies music. Of course, there are third party utilities to help with this... for now. Apple can easily change the connection spec between iTunes and the iPhone to render those products irrelevant in a heartbeat.
iPhones are activated in the store. You never have to plug it into a computer. If you have it shipped to your house, you can go to AT&T store and get it activated. No computer needed.
Of course, jailbreaking is what a lot of people do and as of now is a solution... but there may come a time where the iPhone is so difficult to jailbreak that it does not get Cydia on it until the next model is out.
And you have to jail break android in the US to install a non carrier supported ROM. You trust the carriers to never modify android to the point of removing its openness? They already have. Tethering is not available in carrier supported ROMs without paying for it. Same as iOS.
Not relevant. Do you trust that open today means open tomorrow? If the arrangement changes to my disliking, I'll vote with my wallet and feet. As long as the terms are acceptable, I will continue to make the choice based on my desired functionality and usability.
BS. Hardware manufacturers in the cell phone market do NOT compete on price. All the smart phones are priced the same INCLUDING the iPhone. Android may outsell iOS in the future mostly due to user preference. Not of the OS, but of the hardware. There will never be a iOS device with a physical keyboard. The iPhone will continue to be the most popular individual handset. Android will also find a home on quasi smart phones that lack the all the features.
iOS is JUST as open to third party development as Android. iPhone hardware is just as open to hacking as any Android phone bought in the US. The average American is never going to order the unlocked version from overseas. The only thing closed on iOS is App distribution. And, if you really care about that, get a developer licenses and load your own apps manually. Sad fact is, the average user shouldn't have the ability to install anything. Windows and the Internet taught us this.
I for one can't accept the notion that we shouldn't *try* to secure air travel. You either have to accept that all security is a waste of time - and thereby accept a substantially high number of highjackings and bombs, or you make a best-effort approach. I'm not naive enough to think that we can stop all terrorist plans, but all we really have to do is make it hard enough that we substantially reduce the frequency at which they are successful. If we didn't try security at all, highjackings and bombings would probably happen on a weekly basis. As it stands, while I'm sure at some point another terrorist attack could and probably will succeed at some point in the future, we seem to be keeping it to something like a once-or-twice-a-decade success rate.
As for the Constitution: there's no Constitutional right to fly. Flying is a privilege. If you want that privilege, you have to agree to the rules, that's just how it works. You don't *have* to fly.
No one is saying we should have no security. I can put explosives in my rectum and probably get past the current "upgraded" measures. Does that mean we should mandate rectal exams before boarding? They secured the cockpit already. The only risk is 150-300 people dying in an airborne explosion. Maybe a few ground casualties from falling debris. 9-11 cannot happen again. Is this worth the security measures, or is the old method of metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs and the old pat downs / wands enough? The answer is it is more than enough.
Flying is a privilege. If you feel the old security isn't enough to protect you, YOU drive. Let us fly while still maintaining our dignity.
They were not confiscated at the door of HIS plane. They were confiscated at Airport security. He could have given those weapons to someone on the other side of the checkpoint and then they end up on a public flight. The Airport was definitely in the right.
In my opinion that a lot of leaps of faith. For me 3D doesn't add anything to the experience. Color adds to the experience. Surround sound adds to the experience, but 3-D doesn't. Why? The fact is every movie I've ever seen was in 3D. Not on the screen, but in my brain. It did the work and it did it well. To me, standard movies to 3D movies is like CD to HD-CD, even most audiophiles don't care.
Let's examine it more closely. Surround sound brought you into the audio of the movie. You could hear things behind you, to the side, below or above. With 3D video, you are still looking at a scene. You can't look to the side, look up or down, you can't significantly change the artistic shot of the camera. What you get is a depth perception, that is really already there. It is enhanced, sometime to the point of being distracting.
And this is another reason directors should dislike 3D. Directors are acclaimed by the shot they produce. 3D removes from their shot by providing slightly different angles, or possibly in the future drastically different angles. This is the only value add to 3D in my opinion, providing the ability to pan around a scene and change the angle. This removes the art aspect of the film, and would force reliance on the story. This would also require an insane amount of cameras to shoot.
In closing, full disclosure, I have seen one recent 3D movie. I am not sure if it was post production or not. I left the theater with a headache. The 3D effect was ok, but the backgrounds of the sets were blurry. I attributed this to cameras focusing on the foreground leaving the background slightly out of focus. This provides depth in a 2D setting, but in 3D you should set the focus not the camera. This is ultimately while I do not expect 3D to take off. The directors want artistic control of the shot, and should have it in my opinion. Yet this limitation negates the only benefit 3D has to offer. I'd prefer to watch a good movie in 2D.
It's all relative. If 76% of the curriculum is vital for everyday use, they should fail you if you fail to learn it.