Searching \ for '[OT] The only thing iPad is not as good as a 1990' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=only+thing+ipad
Search entire site for: 'The only thing iPad is not as good as a 1990'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] The only thing iPad is not as good as a 1990 '
2010\04\15@073319 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
mph.puddingbowl.org/2010/04/portable-computing/

You'd think 20 years of technology will bring better spec in
terms of every aspect. Unfortunately not. The battery life
of iPad is actually only half of the Tandy 102 even with
a more powerful battery. ;-)

That being said, who's going to buy the iPad other than
Apple fans?

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\15@081504 by Picbits Sales

flavicon
face
The Tandy 102 ruled !!!!

I used to work at Tandy in the UK and we used it for stocktaking. It would
take around 5-6 downloads/printouts to do the whole store as it was severely
limited in memory. Counting the components was a royal pain in the arse.

Our part time saturday worker wrote the software for it in his own time and
a lot of the stores in the UK adopted it for their own stocktakes.
Ironically our "saturday worker" earned probably more than all the sales
staff put together from his normal week job ! He only came in because he
enjoyed the work and appreciated a few extra pennies.

I have a horrible feeling our Saturday worker has since passed away at not a
good age but I still have to confirm this :-(

Ahh the memories .......

Dom
{Original Message removed}

2010\04\15@153921 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Xiaofan Chen <spam_OUTxiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> That being said, who's going to buy the iPad other than
> Apple fans?

In a year or so, when the next version comes out, and there are a
significant number of applications for it, expect Apple to launch a
marketing blitz toward non-technical users.  That's when I expect it
to hit its stride.  At the moment it really is intended for developers
and early adopters - ie, fans.

I don't think of myself as an Apple Fan.  I prefer PCs and windows
(build my own computers) and go for power and cheap over glossy and
shiny.

I wasn't tempted by the iPhone until last year when they added 3G,
magnetometer, autofocus camera, and up'ed the processor speed, and the
possibility of tethering.  Unfortunately tethering hasn't panned out,
but the switch from Windows Mobile to iPhone was night and day.  I
can't go back.  My wife got an Android based phone this January, and
it's nice, but I'm not convinced that it's quite 'there' yet.  Still
leaps and bounds above windows mobile was last year.

I did buy a little refurbished mac mini so I could start developing
for it, but it's only been on a few times since I purchased it.  I am
part of the dev program, and have the made for iPod documents so I can
develop hardware for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

I would like to get an iPad, and if I did, I know I'd use it a lot,
but I can't justify the cost at the moment as I'm leaving my job for a
work break for a few months.

But during that break I expect I'll develop some iPhone stuff, and if
something comes of that, then I'll get an iPad so I can work on it as
well.

So:

> who's going to buy the iPad other than Apple fans?

Right now? No one - the iPad is mainly for Apple fans.

In a year? The iPad has a much larger market.  Expect Apple to
transform more and more into an content and _experience_ distributer,
and creator of consumer devices that deliver that content and those
experiences.  They didn't remove the "Computer" from "Apple Computer
Inc." just for fun.

It's neat stuff.  I know I'm not the only one that thought about the
data pad in Ender's Game when the iPad was released.  Technologically
it's barely evolutionary.  But the vision they are trying to implement
may well be revolutionary.

-Adam

--
http://chiphacker.com/ - EE Q&A site

2010\04\15@160152 by solarwind

picon face
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mph.puddingbowl.org/2010/04/portable-computing/
>
> You'd think 20 years of technology will bring better spec in
> terms of every aspect. Unfortunately not. The battery life
> of iPad is actually only half of the Tandy 102 even with
> a more powerful battery. ;-)
>
> That being said, who's going to buy the iPad other than
> Apple fans?

Guessing it's probably because of the huge backlit colour LCD screen.

2010\04\15@164309 by MCH

flavicon
face
Don't the iPhone apps work on the iPad?

Joe M.

M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\04\15@164353 by MCH

flavicon
face
Related question: Is the iPad (or even iPhone) OLED or otherwise-based?

Joe M.

solarwind wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\04\15@170231 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:43 PM, MCH <EraseMEmchspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnb.net> wrote:
> Don't the iPhone apps work on the iPad?

I believe the answer is that most of them do. I think they are doing
some pixel doubling or something like that, so you don't gain much
unless the app is just easier to use or see with a larger screen. The
"HD" apps are ones that run at the iPad's native resolution.

At least, that's what I've gathered so far.

Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

2010\04\15@170659 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 16:44 -0400, MCH wrote:
> Related question: Is the iPad (or even iPhone) OLED or otherwise-based?

It's just LCD. When it first came out the LCD in the iPhone was amazing
looking.

These days the competition is vastly better, have a look at the OLED
screen on the Nexus and going back to an LCD based tech is hard to do.

TTYL

2010\04\15@190433 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Herbert Graf <hkgrafspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 16:44 -0400, MCH wrote:
>> Related question: Is the iPad (or even iPhone) OLED or otherwise-based?
>
> It's just LCD. When it first came out the LCD in the iPhone was amazing
> looking.
>
> These days the competition is vastly better, have a look at the OLED
> screen on the Nexus and going back to an LCD based tech is hard to do.

There are many colleagues here who are using iPhone, there is only
one (who follows the Apple Philosophy to think differently) Nexus user.
Nexus seems to be more fun to play with for those who want to mess
with the phones (alternative firmware available, etc). But iPhone's user
experiences seem to be very good and it is much cheaper than the
Nexus due to the subsidy from telecom providers here.

I am the minority who still like the old Pocket PC PDA better than
a smart phone -- better battery life, bigger screen for ebooks.
But this may be due to the reason that I seldom use my cell phone.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\16@010719 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:39 AM, M. Adam Davis <@spam@stienmanKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

>> who's going to buy the iPad other than Apple fans?
>
> Right now? No one - the iPad is mainly for Apple fans.
>
> In a year? The iPad has a much larger market.  Expect Apple to
> transform more and more into an content and _experience_ distributer,
> and creator of consumer devices that deliver that content and those
> experiences.  They didn't remove the "Computer" from "Apple Computer
> Inc." just for fun.
>

Ah, this makes sense. My younger brother is also eying on the iPad
even though he has no interests with the iPhone (he is using
Nokia E71 which is a very nice phone and he has the iPod Touch).

My youngest brother likes the Android platform better and is a
registered developer. But he is still mainly using a Nokia phone.
http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/tools/ystopwatch_rfu.html


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\16@084908 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
Somewhat related to the iPad, iPhone, iPod discussion... I'm surprised
that it appears that the video output on these (at least the iPod and
iPhone) does not show screen video but, apparently, only video playback. I
have an application where I'd like to drive an external display with an
iPhone web browser. Does anyone know a way to do this? Is there maybe an
application that redirects the main screen to external video?

Thanks!

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\04\16@092002 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
You can do this if you have the development software, but Apple won't
approve an application that does this, and their official API wouldn't
support this usage.  They allow only a very limited set of uses for
video out.

This means you couldn't easily distribute such an application, but if
it was only for personal use then you'd probably be fine.

The graphics chip treats the displays seperately, so you can display
different things on them, and with the development software you can
display whatever you want on them.  I haven't fiddled with this much,
though, so it is likely to be more (or less) complex than that, but
this is what I've heard from those trying to do this.  They indicate
that if you want to go through the official API you have to navigate
quite a twisted route.  It only displays video through the apple
codec, and won't play video that is stored on the iphone itself - only
through an internet connection.  What they did was to create a simple
webserver in their iphone application, direct the video codec to
connect to their server, and they served the graphics as a movie.
They haven't attempted to pass it through the app store, though, and I
suspect it may receive extra scrutiy due to the way its circumventing
the no-video-from-onboard-storage-to-TV fence that appears to be in
place.  But they are generating the graphics in real time, not really
displaying video, so who knows.

Suffice to say, it's messy.

You can do it in a variety of other ways if you don't mind ignoring
Apple's rules and fences, and don't expect to be distributing the
application through the app store.

-Adam

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Harold Hallikainen
<KILLspamharoldKILLspamspamhallikainen.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\04\16@104352 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

Thanks for the details! I'm really not familiar with iPhone development at
all. Any idea why they don't want the main screen image to appear on the
video out? Where is this documented?

THANKS!

Harold




--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\04\16@110824 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Harold Hallikainen
<RemoveMEharoldTakeThisOuTspamhallikainen.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the details! I'm really not familiar with iPhone development at
> all. Any idea why they don't want the main screen image to appear on the
> video out?

I can only speculate.  Apple is an interesting company.  Some things
they block because they want to control the user experience (ie, you
can't write mail, music and video players, and other apps that compete
with their apps), others they block because it might eat into their
profits, and still others are blocked due to copyright and/or
licensing issues (content providers want to be paid differently/more
if their content is displayed on a larger screen, for instance).

The restrictions are certianly _not_ technical.

> Where is this documented?

I don't have a reference at the moment, and even if I did it's
probably covered by the NDA.  You'll have to join the apple developer
program to get access to the documentation.

-Adam

--
http://chiphacker.com/ - EE Q&A site

2010\04\18@034032 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> Any idea why they don't want the main screen image to appear on the
>> video out?

...

> ... Apple is an interesting company.

> The restrictions are certianly _not_ technical.

>> Where is this documented?

Probably covered by one of their corporate objectives -


     "Don't be Apple"



                      R

2010\04\18@042656 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Russell McMahon <spamBeGoneapptechnzspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:

>> ... Apple is an interesting company.
>> The restrictions are certianly _not_ technical.
>
>>> Where is this documented?
>
> Probably covered by one of their corporate objectives -
>      "Don't be Apple"

Why not? Apple is now a successful company by providing
superior user experience with "closed" technology and they
are now a powerful company by being the content (and
content platform) provider.

That being said, currently I have no plan to buy anything
from Apple since I do not need either an iPhone or a Mac,
let alone an iPAD.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\18@044057 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> Probably covered by one of their corporate objectives -
>>      "Don't be Apple"

> Why not? Apple is now a successful company by providing
> superior user experience with "closed" technology and they
> are now a powerful company by being the content (and
> content platform) provider.

It was a (purposeful) misquote.
Big Steve understands perfectly.

      http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/

               Russell

2010\04\18@054214 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:38 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<TakeThisOuTwestfwEraseMEspamspam_OUTmac.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:26 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> Apple is now a successful company by providing
>> superior user experience with "closed" technology
>
> It's not THAT closed.  The development environment for an iPhone is a
> lot more extensive and easier to get than for most other cell phones,

You need to pay to be a developer (which is quite reasonable as Android
charges money as well) and you need to have a Mac. So it is still kind of
closed.

> and OSX comes with a more complete development environment than most
> windows systems.

That is arguable. You still need to download xcode. Under Windows,
you can get the free Cygwin/MinGW or download the Windows SDK/WDK
or Visual Studo Express edition.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\18@060243 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

or indeed many, many other environments on Windows to develop for Posix/
Linux/ARM/Windows and many many others.

The Mac / OS X is an expensive designer toy. If  I want "pretty" and
*nix based I can dual boot / separate laptop/ VM a Linux (I have all 3).
You can only legally run OS X on a  Mac.  How many people develop PIC,
ARM, ATMEGA, 8051, C, JAL, Pascal, Modula-2, Forth, Ada, Python, PHP,
etc etc  on  MAC/OS X  compared to Linux or Windows.

How many people use Mac / OS X as a server  or Router/Firewall?

The ONLY thing you need one for is develop for iPad/iPhone/iTouch.  You
don't even need it for iTunes.

And yes, I've used OS9 and  OS X.


2010\04\18@143622 by Alan B Pearce

face picon face

>> who's going to buy the iPad other than Apple fans?
>
> Right now? No one - the iPad is mainly for Apple fans.

My take on the iPad is that the one thing they should have done to make it
attractive is fit it with an OLED screen from the outset. Yes it would have
made it quite a lot more expensive, but it would have set it apart from the
competition.

As it is it is just another e-reader with not a lot to set it apart from the
rest of the market.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...