No I did not. Please read what I wrote. I wrote specifically that Apple could use the technology which is both a display and an input and merge it into their TrackPad which is also force sensitive.
No, you wrote (and, again, this is a direct quote):
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
As for the rest of your post, I refer you to what I wrote in reply to you asking the same questions in another post:
Primary vs secondary display really just comes off as you nitpicking to be "right", which ultimately falls flat when you can't even get the details of what you initially said right even when they're right there on the page in front of you.
I said specifically with TouchBar technology, Apple could make their TrackPad into a force sensitive secondary display.
Actually, no. As I've quoted multiple times now (and as you can scroll up to read for your damned self if you don't want to trust my quoting abilities), you asked if they could. And I pointed out that "TouchBar technology" is, literally, touch display technology that we've had for decades, which should have rendered to you as an unequivocal "YES! THEY COULD!"
Primary vs secondary display really just comes off as you nitpicking to be "right", which ultimately falls flat when you can't even get the details of what you initially said right even when they're right there on the page in front of you.
As for what I'm smoking: nothing. I do vape, however. For medicinal purposes, purified cannabidiol oil (e.g. sans the psychoactive components) as I've found it to be the only painkiller that has any effect on my chronic back condition (slipped disc and sciatica). On top of that, it's the only painkiller I've found that lacks any psychoactive effect. I originally started using it for migraines, but I eventually identified and remedied the condition that was triggering those; there was a good year or so where I neither needed nor used this medication, for which I do have a current recommendation.
And even at that, I only bother with it in the evenings, just in case.
Oh, wait, was that a weak attempt to insult me? Ah, got it. You see, that particular insult only works on drug addicts and those ignorant of the topic altogether. Neither of those describe me.
Please show me where I said "Apple would be the first to implement a capactive touch screen"
You asked it Apple might be able to implement a specific bit of tech which, as you described it, happens to be a touch screen. Since they've actually done so, the answer is yes, in case you weren't yet able to discern that from my previous comments. We'll get to the whole "first" thing, don't worry.
I never said it.
You did, just not in a single post.
I didn't even say in that sentence that Apple would be first.
Indeed, you did not. You asked if Apple would be able to implement it, as though nobody else had; the implication, then, is that they would be the first.
Either you are imaging words that don't appear or you are lying.
Or, you literally said (and I quoted in the above post):
I said if Apple implements a force-sensitive touchpad that doubles as a screen, they would be the first.
But, of course, they would not be, since the technology already exists and has existed for decades.
Me: Apple could implement technology in this way. You: "It's been around for decades, you fanboi, and they aren't the first."
Actually, no. It's more like:
YOU: Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen? (a direct quote)
ME: You mean capacitive touch screen technology? (a direct quote)
YOU: So my question again is who has uses a force sensitive track pad as a secondary screen? (a direct quote)
ME: It's fine if you want to be an ignorant fanboi, just please label yourself accordingly so we don't waste our time any further. (a direct quote)
I didn't jump right into calling you a fanboi, I let you prove it out first. And you've continued to do so since. Further, I answered your initial question with an implicit "yes"; Apple could implement it just as everyone else has been doing for literal decades. They could (and have, even) utilize the innate (and inaccurate) pressure sensitivity of the typical capacitive touch interface to detect press-vs-tap; but, then, so did Synaptics in the 1990's. True, Synaptics didn't do so "on a display", but the capability isn't new, it's as old as capacitive touch screens. Seriously. Apple's just the first to actually use that because they're the first to think up a use for which it's (marginally) accurate enough; even they admit (through using an active stylus for actual accurate pressure input) that it's not accurate enough for anything more than detecting press-vs-tap.
You're welcome to call me out when I'm wrong, but please don't do it when I'm right.
Details don't seem to matter to as you will deny basic facts.
Details like the fact that a touch pad over a display is a touch screen? Or like the fact that all capacitive touch interfaces are pressure sensitive? I repeat myself, yet again (and as I often have to do for you): every capacitive touch screen that exists is a pressure sensitive touch pad over a display. That's a hell of a detail, i'nn'it?
So, being a bit more direct this time, yes, Apple could implement just that; in fact, they have. Perhaps you've heard of the iPhone?
Please show me one laptop manufacturer that has a force-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen. Show me one.
Ok. Remember, a touch screen is nothing more than a touch pad overlaid on top of a display, and that all capacitive touch pads are pressure sensitive. That literally means that every capacitive touch display is exactly that. It's not accurate enough to serious use, which is why there's an optional active stylus available (and why the iPad Pro uses an active stylus -- the Apple Pencil -- rather than force touch). Force touch existed in the 90's (though not under that name) as nothing more than a gimmick, and that's all it remains to this day.
But, there you have it. There's your "one manufacturer with a touch-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen."
Again. I have never said Apple was the first with a capacitive screen. NEVER. I said if Apple implements a force-sensitive touchpad that doubles as a screen, they would be the first.
What you actually said was:
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
And what I actually did was point out that what you describe is, in fact, a touch screen, which we've had for literal decades. So, no, Apple would not be the first.
Hmm... literally every tablet computer and PDA since the 90's, every touch-capable smartphone, most Chromebooks, and many current model Windows laptops seem to fit that bill, actually. If you really want to limit it to PCs (and assuming you don't consider a Chromebook to be a PC), well, I've got 5 of them in my office right now. Again, a touch screen is nothing more than a touch pad overlaid onto a display; in other words, a touch pad that doubles as a programmable MDF.
Yes, they're a dime a dozen, you can pick them up for around $30.
You're acting as if you believe Apple to have invented this technology. It's literally the same capacitive touch screen technology we've had for decades, back when the Newton used a resistive stylus-based tap interface.
I was merely correcting your apparent misconception, as I assume wed128 was also attempting to do.
A capacitive touch screen is merely a capacitive trackpad overlaid onto a display. We've had that technology for literal decades. It's even been pressure sensitive for as long, but it's never been (and still is not, even Apple's implementation) reliably accurate, so nobody but Apple has ever put the pressure-sensitive aspect of it into wide use. I recall my circa-1999 laptop having a pressure-sensitive touchpad, useful only for making an icon in the taskbar change colors based on how hard you pressed -- because it was never accurate enough for much else. And, again, it really still isn't. Yes, even Apple's implementation, which is about as accurate as Samsung's current implementation and really only good fir discerning a tap from a press; and then about half the "presses" it registers seem to be false positives.
At any rate, and I repeat myself, a capacitive (even pressure sensitive) touchscreen is merely that same 1980's technology overlaid onto a display of some sort. In other words, a touch pad that doubles as a display is... a... touchscreen. Which we've had since at least the late 80's.
It's fine if you want to be an ignorant fanboi, just please label yourself accordingly so we don't waste our time any further.
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
You mean capacitive touch screen technology? How cutting edge! I don't have a pocket sized device that can do that, nor have I had one for the past decade, so that would be totes amaze!
It, as anything else, becomes a problem when it's no longer worthy of a news report. When something is news, that means precisely that it is not a common occurrence.
Imagine if that were not true. Same headline, every day: Sun Rose Again After Setting Last Night.
When I stop hearing about police shootings, I'll either be relieved that things have settled down, or terrified that they've become the norm; which one will depend entirely on what news replaces them. Until then, I'll stay out of the way of police in general and, if I'm ever a first responder at an incident to which they report, will present myself very early on as willing and able to either help or the the fuck out of their way, at their sole option.
Yes, I'm white and yes, I realize that gives me that option where others may not have that luxury, if you want to call being able to be a decent human being without fear of being shot a luxury. I prefer to think of it as a luxury and benefit afforded to those I may help, regardless of their race. But, then, race is only an issue if you choose to make it one. We, as a nation, have chosen to do just that, sadly.
You sure have a bleak view. It also seems like a view from the outside, something which I can judge as I'm on the inside.
That said, do you think those dozen mega-corps will stand for being held liable for the behaviors of their products? Hell no, and your words above make that very clear. In other words, the end users will, ultimately, be held responsible.
Which is what I'm proposing in the first place.
Are we arguing this point simply because you haven't come around to the realization that you're still not sure what your point even is? Because, by now, you're supporting my position more than your own.
As far as users being responsible for their own actions (or inactions), ignorance and stupidity are a recognized defense in the legal system we have today, which no longer recognizes common sense.
So you're suggesting we shouldn't push to fix that? Because I'm arguing that we should.
I think you've missed my point. Users are currently buying devices that ship insecure by default because they can not be secured. Read what I've written a few more times, put that 6th grade education to work, and realize that I am suggesting that manufacturers ultimately secure their shit, but that users be held responsible for their own poor decisions in the interim.
The real laugh is that you think manufacturers have to make devices idiot-capable. If they stopped spending R&D money on that and, instead, spent that money on security, users would have to wise up and we'd get more secure devices. It'd be a win-win.
I say make the user responsible. After a few get locked up for attacks perpetrated by their light bulbs, they'll wise up and stop buying insecure shit products.
So you're saying they could connect a PC to both the PC+PS4 network and the PS4-only network? Why can't that same enterprising developer simply set that same PC up as a proxy to connect their gaming PC to the PS4-only network today, then? Is it because you're spouting bullshit? I think it's because you're spouting bullshit. Stop spouting bullshit.
How does your company pay your wages? Do they have a press in the back that just fucking prints money? No, I'm guessing they don't, in which case... ultimately... it's customers who pay your wages. Without them paying the company, the company has no money to pay you. Dumbass.
Yes, and the XBone owner will buy a game he maybe wouldn't have if he can play it with his PS4-owning friends. Of course, then one or two of them who haven't bought it yet will buy it because more of their friends are interacting and playing it, which means a greater potential benefit to Sony... all by agreeing to something that benefits the end users: gamers.
This is something these large corporations have seemingly forgotten. What's good for your customer is good for your company. That holds true so long as you properly define customer. When you cease to profit from someone, they no longer fit that definition. When you piss them off or refuse to give them what they want, you cease to profit from them. Likewise if you deliver goods or services that cost more than you're charging, but we're very clearly on the "piss off and refuse" side of the scale by quire a large margin; a large enough margin that we would all clearly benefit from swinging the other way for a while.
With cross-platform play these functions need to be reimplemented in the game and some are outright impossible to get.
Aye, well, today that's true. Once we have cross platform play, the various platforms can tout their own benefits, such as those you listed here, and users of one platform will jump to another if they like the features they see there (to which they're currently blind) better. Of course, then the losing platform will implement the feature and win those users back, the formerly-winning platform becomes the new losing platform and opens up their implementation, then everyone implements it in an interoperable way and we all win.
That's the endgame with corss-platform gaming, and that's why Sony doesn't like it.
Bingo. I blacklisted them for the same reason! Sad, too, because they were a great company putting out great quality and innovative (even if not always successful) products until they let their media division start calling the shots.
In my entire adult life, there have been two "must have Sony products; both were portable computers in unique form factors, both bought used (Sony didn't see a penny from me), and both regretted. Just further confirmation that Sony has perfected the art of polishing a turd. Their media and gaming divisions will keep them alive, though, because people need those distractions lest they have to actually think for a moment. Apparently, that's painful for a large portion of the population.
Yes, the 5 digit UID dates the name. It's just amusing to see "tsa" calling for actions which would surely see the TSA disbanded. You, sir, made my day and I thank you for that.
It works quite well, actually. Make others aware of the issue and they won't buy. And yes, eventually, I'm sure they'll want to upgrade, and will buy someone else's product when they do.
Or do you really only ever buy one of something for your entire life?
You see, while people who already bought it are either stuck with the inferior product, or stuck replacing it with something else (making two purchases instead of one), they can still strike a blow to the company that made the product defective in the first place. That works out for all of us, but only if we actually commit to doing it. If we keep bending over and taking it, more and more companies will learn that they can get away with it and every product will eventual be inferior, relative to our current technological capabilities... and overpriced, to boot. Why compete on price and quality when your target market has proven themselves to be wasteful idiots who know no better?
Slashdot Mirror
No I did not. Please read what I wrote. I wrote specifically that Apple could use the technology which is both a display and an input and merge it into their TrackPad which is also force sensitive.
No, you wrote (and, again, this is a direct quote):
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
Since you clearly don't trust me quoting it, here's the fucking post in which you said it. Go ahead, call me a liar again. I dare you.
As for the rest of your post, I refer you to what I wrote in reply to you asking the same questions in another post:
Primary vs secondary display really just comes off as you nitpicking to be "right", which ultimately falls flat when you can't even get the details of what you initially said right even when they're right there on the page in front of you.
I said specifically with TouchBar technology, Apple could make their TrackPad into a force sensitive secondary display.
Actually, no. As I've quoted multiple times now (and as you can scroll up to read for your damned self if you don't want to trust my quoting abilities), you asked if they could. And I pointed out that "TouchBar technology" is, literally, touch display technology that we've had for decades, which should have rendered to you as an unequivocal "YES! THEY COULD!"
Primary vs secondary display really just comes off as you nitpicking to be "right", which ultimately falls flat when you can't even get the details of what you initially said right even when they're right there on the page in front of you.
As for what I'm smoking: nothing. I do vape, however. For medicinal purposes, purified cannabidiol oil (e.g. sans the psychoactive components) as I've found it to be the only painkiller that has any effect on my chronic back condition (slipped disc and sciatica). On top of that, it's the only painkiller I've found that lacks any psychoactive effect. I originally started using it for migraines, but I eventually identified and remedied the condition that was triggering those; there was a good year or so where I neither needed nor used this medication, for which I do have a current recommendation.
And even at that, I only bother with it in the evenings, just in case.
Oh, wait, was that a weak attempt to insult me? Ah, got it. You see, that particular insult only works on drug addicts and those ignorant of the topic altogether. Neither of those describe me.
I'm talking about a display because that's what a Touch Bar is: A display and a touch sensitive trackpad all in one.
And a touch screen is chopped liver?
Please show me where I said "Apple would be the first to implement a capactive touch screen"
You asked it Apple might be able to implement a specific bit of tech which, as you described it, happens to be a touch screen. Since they've actually done so, the answer is yes, in case you weren't yet able to discern that from my previous comments. We'll get to the whole "first" thing, don't worry.
I never said it.
You did, just not in a single post.
I didn't even say in that sentence that Apple would be first.
Indeed, you did not. You asked if Apple would be able to implement it, as though nobody else had; the implication, then, is that they would be the first.
Either you are imaging words that don't appear or you are lying.
Or, you literally said (and I quoted in the above post):
I said if Apple implements a force-sensitive touchpad that doubles as a screen, they would be the first.
But, of course, they would not be, since the technology already exists and has existed for decades.
Me: Apple could implement technology in this way. You: "It's been around for decades, you fanboi, and they aren't the first."
Actually, no. It's more like:
YOU: Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen? (a direct quote)
ME: You mean capacitive touch screen technology? (a direct quote)
YOU: So my question again is who has uses a force sensitive track pad as a secondary screen? (a direct quote)
ME: It's fine if you want to be an ignorant fanboi, just please label yourself accordingly so we don't waste our time any further. (a direct quote)
I didn't jump right into calling you a fanboi, I let you prove it out first. And you've continued to do so since. Further, I answered your initial question with an implicit "yes"; Apple could implement it just as everyone else has been doing for literal decades. They could (and have, even) utilize the innate (and inaccurate) pressure sensitivity of the typical capacitive touch interface to detect press-vs-tap; but, then, so did Synaptics in the 1990's. True, Synaptics didn't do so "on a display", but the capability isn't new, it's as old as capacitive touch screens. Seriously. Apple's just the first to actually use that because they're the first to think up a use for which it's (marginally) accurate enough; even they admit (through using an active stylus for actual accurate pressure input) that it's not accurate enough for anything more than detecting press-vs-tap.
You're welcome to call me out when I'm wrong, but please don't do it when I'm right.
Details don't seem to matter to as you will deny basic facts.
Details like the fact that a touch pad over a display is a touch screen? Or like the fact that all capacitive touch interfaces are pressure sensitive? I repeat myself, yet again (and as I often have to do for you): every capacitive touch screen that exists is a pressure sensitive touch pad over a display. That's a hell of a detail, i'nn'it?
So, being a bit more direct this time, yes, Apple could implement just that; in fact, they have. Perhaps you've heard of the iPhone?
Please show me one laptop manufacturer that has a force-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen. Show me one.
Ok. Remember, a touch screen is nothing more than a touch pad overlaid on top of a display, and that all capacitive touch pads are pressure sensitive. That literally means that every capacitive touch display is exactly that. It's not accurate enough to serious use, which is why there's an optional active stylus available (and why the iPad Pro uses an active stylus -- the Apple Pencil -- rather than force touch). Force touch existed in the 90's (though not under that name) as nothing more than a gimmick, and that's all it remains to this day.
But, there you have it. There's your "one manufacturer with a touch-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen."
There are many, many more, as well.
Again. I have never said Apple was the first with a capacitive screen. NEVER. I said if Apple implements a force-sensitive touchpad that doubles as a screen, they would be the first.
What you actually said was:
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
And what I actually did was point out that what you describe is, in fact, a touch screen, which we've had for literal decades. So, no, Apple would not be the first.
Hmm... literally every tablet computer and PDA since the 90's, every touch-capable smartphone, most Chromebooks, and many current model Windows laptops seem to fit that bill, actually. If you really want to limit it to PCs (and assuming you don't consider a Chromebook to be a PC), well, I've got 5 of them in my office right now. Again, a touch screen is nothing more than a touch pad overlaid onto a display; in other words, a touch pad that doubles as a programmable MDF.
Yes, they're a dime a dozen, you can pick them up for around $30.
You're acting as if you believe Apple to have invented this technology. It's literally the same capacitive touch screen technology we've had for decades, back when the Newton used a resistive stylus-based tap interface.
I was merely correcting your apparent misconception, as I assume wed128 was also attempting to do.
A capacitive touch screen is merely a capacitive trackpad overlaid onto a display. We've had that technology for literal decades. It's even been pressure sensitive for as long, but it's never been (and still is not, even Apple's implementation) reliably accurate, so nobody but Apple has ever put the pressure-sensitive aspect of it into wide use. I recall my circa-1999 laptop having a pressure-sensitive touchpad, useful only for making an icon in the taskbar change colors based on how hard you pressed -- because it was never accurate enough for much else. And, again, it really still isn't. Yes, even Apple's implementation, which is about as accurate as Samsung's current implementation and really only good fir discerning a tap from a press; and then about half the "presses" it registers seem to be false positives.
At any rate, and I repeat myself, a capacitive (even pressure sensitive) touchscreen is merely that same 1980's technology overlaid onto a display of some sort. In other words, a touch pad that doubles as a display is... a... touchscreen. Which we've had since at least the late 80's.
It's fine if you want to be an ignorant fanboi, just please label yourself accordingly so we don't waste our time any further.
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
You mean capacitive touch screen technology? How cutting edge! I don't have a pocket sized device that can do that, nor have I had one for the past decade, so that would be totes amaze!
Wait...
It, as anything else, becomes a problem when it's no longer worthy of a news report. When something is news, that means precisely that it is not a common occurrence.
Imagine if that were not true. Same headline, every day: Sun Rose Again After Setting Last Night.
When I stop hearing about police shootings, I'll either be relieved that things have settled down, or terrified that they've become the norm; which one will depend entirely on what news replaces them. Until then, I'll stay out of the way of police in general and, if I'm ever a first responder at an incident to which they report, will present myself very early on as willing and able to either help or the the fuck out of their way, at their sole option.
Yes, I'm white and yes, I realize that gives me that option where others may not have that luxury, if you want to call being able to be a decent human being without fear of being shot a luxury. I prefer to think of it as a luxury and benefit afforded to those I may help, regardless of their race. But, then, race is only an issue if you choose to make it one. We, as a nation, have chosen to do just that, sadly.
Indeed. That's why the best of us here tend to post in disagreement and moderate in agreement. I'd give you a point but you're not logged in.
You sure have a bleak view. It also seems like a view from the outside, something which I can judge as I'm on the inside.
That said, do you think those dozen mega-corps will stand for being held liable for the behaviors of their products? Hell no, and your words above make that very clear. In other words, the end users will, ultimately, be held responsible.
Which is what I'm proposing in the first place.
Are we arguing this point simply because you haven't come around to the realization that you're still not sure what your point even is? Because, by now, you're supporting my position more than your own.
As far as users being responsible for their own actions (or inactions), ignorance and stupidity are a recognized defense in the legal system we have today, which no longer recognizes common sense.
So you're suggesting we shouldn't push to fix that? Because I'm arguing that we should.
I think you've missed my point. Users are currently buying devices that ship insecure by default because they can not be secured. Read what I've written a few more times, put that 6th grade education to work, and realize that I am suggesting that manufacturers ultimately secure their shit, but that users be held responsible for their own poor decisions in the interim.
The real laugh is that you think manufacturers have to make devices idiot-capable. If they stopped spending R&D money on that and, instead, spent that money on security, users would have to wise up and we'd get more secure devices. It'd be a win-win.
I say make the user responsible. After a few get locked up for attacks perpetrated by their light bulbs, they'll wise up and stop buying insecure shit products.
So you're saying they could connect a PC to both the PC+PS4 network and the PS4-only network? Why can't that same enterprising developer simply set that same PC up as a proxy to connect their gaming PC to the PS4-only network today, then? Is it because you're spouting bullshit? I think it's because you're spouting bullshit. Stop spouting bullshit.
How does your company pay your wages? Do they have a press in the back that just fucking prints money? No, I'm guessing they don't, in which case... ultimately... it's customers who pay your wages. Without them paying the company, the company has no money to pay you. Dumbass.
Millennial?
Yes, and the XBone owner will buy a game he maybe wouldn't have if he can play it with his PS4-owning friends. Of course, then one or two of them who haven't bought it yet will buy it because more of their friends are interacting and playing it, which means a greater potential benefit to Sony... all by agreeing to something that benefits the end users: gamers.
This is something these large corporations have seemingly forgotten. What's good for your customer is good for your company. That holds true so long as you properly define customer. When you cease to profit from someone, they no longer fit that definition. When you piss them off or refuse to give them what they want, you cease to profit from them. Likewise if you deliver goods or services that cost more than you're charging, but we're very clearly on the "piss off and refuse" side of the scale by quire a large margin; a large enough margin that we would all clearly benefit from swinging the other way for a while.
With cross-platform play these functions need to be reimplemented in the game and some are outright impossible to get.
Aye, well, today that's true. Once we have cross platform play, the various platforms can tout their own benefits, such as those you listed here, and users of one platform will jump to another if they like the features they see there (to which they're currently blind) better. Of course, then the losing platform will implement the feature and win those users back, the formerly-winning platform becomes the new losing platform and opens up their implementation, then everyone implements it in an interoperable way and we all win.
That's the endgame with corss-platform gaming, and that's why Sony doesn't like it.
The timing of this story...
Bingo. I blacklisted them for the same reason! Sad, too, because they were a great company putting out great quality and innovative (even if not always successful) products until they let their media division start calling the shots.
In my entire adult life, there have been two "must have Sony products; both were portable computers in unique form factors, both bought used (Sony didn't see a penny from me), and both regretted. Just further confirmation that Sony has perfected the art of polishing a turd. Their media and gaming divisions will keep them alive, though, because people need those distractions lest they have to actually think for a moment. Apparently, that's painful for a large portion of the population.
Yes, the 5 digit UID dates the name. It's just amusing to see "tsa" calling for actions which would surely see the TSA disbanded. You, sir, made my day and I thank you for that.
It works quite well, actually. Make others aware of the issue and they won't buy. And yes, eventually, I'm sure they'll want to upgrade, and will buy someone else's product when they do.
Or do you really only ever buy one of something for your entire life?
You see, while people who already bought it are either stuck with the inferior product, or stuck replacing it with something else (making two purchases instead of one), they can still strike a blow to the company that made the product defective in the first place. That works out for all of us, but only if we actually commit to doing it. If we keep bending over and taking it, more and more companies will learn that they can get away with it and every product will eventual be inferior, relative to our current technological capabilities... and overpriced, to boot. Why compete on price and quality when your target market has proven themselves to be wasteful idiots who know no better?
The irony of your username...