 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / February 2010The New Apple Tablet - $499!
Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... Price is $499, Huge 10" Color Screen, 1/2 inch thick... Wow! Never has so much UNIX power been available to the public! http://www.apple.com/ipad/ and all the deeper details can be found here... (view bottom to top) http://i.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-tablet-latest-creati on-event/ enjoy! oxford > Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will > give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > oxford LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! no, it has 2 keyboards, the excellent virtual one like the iPhone, or a physical one which can be seen here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-tablet-latest-crea tion-event/ Sorry, you were wrong on two levels... > > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sorry, you were wrong on two levels... like I said no keyboard. >>> LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! >> no, it has 2 keyboards, the excellent virtual one like the iPhone, or a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > like I said no keyboard. That's wrong, it has two and the built in keyboard is better than that of any current tablet offering in that you can use your fingers rather than a pen.  Signature. "A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy >> LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sorry, you were wrong on two levels... An optional keyboard like the Stowaway I use for my Treo (which has available for about 10 years). What will those clever, innovative devils at Apple think of next! SignatureRonB Registered Linux User #498581 CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in news:hjq6hf$qr4$2@news.eternal- september.org: > An optional keyboard like the Stowaway I use for my Treo (which has > available for about 10 years). What will those clever, innovative devils > at Apple think of next! No, look closer. The shitty keyboard is off the Mac. IT DOESN'T FOLD OR PROTECT THE KEYS FOR TRANSPORT....like your Stowaway does MUCH cheaper. How long will a THIN...oh, so thin...keyboard that doesn't fold up last with its keys exposed in your briefcase/computer bag/stuffed up your shirt held up by your jeans? Minutes? Days? Weeks at best? How do you keep from tearing the docking connector sticking up from being torn off or sticking you in the back? NO MOBILE CHARGING? WTF? > RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in news:hjq6hf$qr4$2@news.eternal- > september.org: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, look closer. The shitty keyboard is off the Mac. IT DOESN'T FOLD OR > PROTECT THE KEYS FOR TRANSPORT....like your Stowaway does MUCH cheaper. ...I really despise that keyboard. [deletia] Give us USB ports. Then we can plug our own stuff in including storage. '-p SignatureUnauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That ||| particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be / | \ cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you can be and alienate potential fans. > > RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in news:hjq6hf$qr4$2@news.eternal- > > september.org: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Give us USB ports. Then we can plug our own stuff in including storage. '-p It's a little more elaborate that you might think. Consider: the device has no file manager and does not expose the file system to the user. So how it would work with external storage is unclear. Getting rid of the file system (as far as users are concerned) is almost certainly the right choice if you're rethinking personal computing today. But it will take a while for these new approaches to solve all the problems that the approaches that have been around for a few decades have solved. That's fine. This device has lots of plausible real-world use cases now, and will have more over time as Apple figures these things out. Apple doesn't need to do everything at once. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-F3B0C8.23183728012010 @Port80.Individual.NET: > Getting rid of the file system (as far as users are concerned) is almost > certainly the right choice if you're rethinking personal computing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use cases now, and will have more over time as Apple figures these > things out. Apple doesn't need to do everything at once. God how easy they give up their FREEDOMS to do with their devices as they wish. This has the makings of some great Psychological papers for years to come. If you don't think the military junta isn't making note of this phenomenon, I think you're sadly mistaken. They BEG to give up their control of their devices! They even PAY FOR THE PRIVILEDGE! > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-F3B0C8.23183728012010 > @Port80.Individual.NET: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > They BEG to give up their control of their devices! They even PAY > FOR THE PRIVILEDGE! I understand that computing is largely about ideology for some of you open source types. For most other people, it's about getting things done. And anyway, for the geeks who demand full control, the iPad will no doubt be jailbroken. Apple appears to basically turn a blind eye to this. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > And anyway, for the geeks who demand full control, the iPad will no > doubt be jailbroken. Apple appears to basically turn a blind eye to > this. actually, they have been making it harder, and with the recent sshd jailbreak exploit, it would not surprise me if they made it a *lot* harder. nevertheless, the iphone dev team is amazing, so who knows. >> And anyway, for the geeks who demand full control, the iPad will no >> doubt be jailbroken. Apple appears to basically turn a blind eye to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > jailbreak exploit, it would not surprise me if they made it a *lot* > harder. nevertheless, the iphone dev team is amazing, so who knows. Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? Steve > Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? it's not locked. >> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? > > it's not locked. I can't get to the file system. Steve > >> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? > > > > it's not locked. > > I can't get to the file system. that's not what locking means. >> >> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > that's not what locking means. Sure it is. Why are Apple Fanboys engaging in Newspeak to defend this sort of nonsense? You don't need to take the regular wheels off of a bike in order to have the training wheels on there. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ >>>>> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sort of nonsense? You don't need to take the regular wheels off of a bike > in order to have the training wheels on there. No it isn't. Locking, in the wireless communication world, means that the device is specific to one carrier and one carrier only. For instance if you buy an AT&T phone, you will find that most of them won't allow you use that phone when and if you change carriers. This is called a "locked phone". I once bought a T-Mobile Blackberry GSM phone and when I was ready to go to England the next time, I bought a Telefonica SIM card for it. Luckily, I decided to try it out before I left for Merrie Olde and got a message on the phone to the effect that "This SIM card will not work on this phone because this phone is locked. Please contact your primary service provider and get this phone unlocked in order to use this card." I called my provider, T-Mobile, and because I had a two-year contract with them and I was more than six months into it, they agreed to give me the 6-digit code I needed to unlock the phone. Then the Telefonica card worked. If you go to: http://www.roamsimple.com/products/Roam-Simple-UK-SIM-Card.aspx You will see that these people will not only sell you a Telefonica SIM card, but they will also sell you an UNLOCKED GSM phone in case you do not already have one. So you see LOCKED does mean EXACTLY what nospam says it means. In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >>>>>> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> sort of nonsense? You don't need to take the regular wheels off of a bike >> in order to have the training wheels on there. [...] > You will see that these people will not only sell you a Telefonica SIM card, > but they will also sell you an UNLOCKED GSM phone in case you do not already > have one. > > So you see LOCKED does mean EXACTLY what nospam says it means. I thought this thing was supposed to be a computer. You mean it's a cell phone?! LOL. That's one giant a.s cell phone! I'll bet Flava gets one. > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > cell phone?! LOL. That's one giant a.s cell phone! I'll bet Flava > gets one. Unfortunately, you are wrong on both counts. It's not a computer (in the traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated portable media device. It's what a netbook is supposed to be, but isn't. Apple was clever enough to make that distinction when designing it. No one is going to have a chance to buy one of these thinking it's a cheap laptop, only to find that when trying to use it like a laptop, that it's too slow and too limited to operate that way. They took a completely different tack. A purpose-built device with a purpose built OS. Brilliant, as usual. In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> I thought this thing was supposed to be a computer. You mean it's a >> cell phone?! LOL. That's one giant a.s cell phone! I'll bet Flava [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to operate that way. They took a completely different tack. A purpose-built > device with a purpose built OS. Brilliant, as usual. http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/1289872.jpg > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/1289872.jpg I see that you don't just don't "get it". Well, you won't be the only one, I'm sure. Most people with a PC geek mindset don't and won't get it. Luckily, that type of person is not who the iPad is aimed at. In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm sure. Most people with a PC geek mindset don't and won't get it. Luckily, > that type of person is not who the iPad is aimed at. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQQLuCMaBwc > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQQLuCMaBwc We can always hope that it will go away. Perhaps to a more appropriate newsgroup. >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: [deletia] >> http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/1289872.jpg > > I see that you don't just don't "get it". Well, you won't be the only one, > I'm sure. Most people with a PC geek mindset don't and won't get it. Luckily, > that type of person is not who the iPad is aimed at. ...yes. Because "geeks" are the only ones that might want to move their stuff from place to place, person to person, device to device or from platform to platform. Only "geeks" would want to trade documents, photos and vidoes with friends, family and colleagues. It's interesting how Apple and it's fanboys are redefining "geek". SignatureOn the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes... When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were ||| meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \ arbitrarily assigned. In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >>> I thought this thing was supposed to be a computer. You mean it's a >>> cell phone?! LOL. That's one giant a.s cell phone! I'll bet Flava [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> to operate that way. They took a completely different tack. A purpose-built >> device with a purpose built OS. Brilliant, as usual. Wow, you make it sound like Apple came up with this whole product category. http://www.archos.com/products/nb/archos_9/design.html?country=us&lang=en Steve > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve We'll see at the end of the year who actually defines what sells in this category. Hint: It won't be Archos. Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- D8845B.07160731012010@port80.individual.net: > We'll see at the end of the year who actually defines what sells in this > category. > > Hint: It won't be Archos. Isn't it interesting how much Apple's CUSTOMERS think like product managers worrying over what sells and what doesn't sell, how many units sell, profit margins, etc., etc. How do they get the customers so interested in sales that they forget all about NOT having common functions much cheaper equipment takes for granted (think multitasking, cut and paste, a simple file manager, a keyboard INCLUDED). Even if Archos included a 19-year-old blonde bombshell to sleep with, Apple customers would be worrying over sales figures while sleeping alone. The psychology of Apple never ceases to amaze. Total loyalty, no matter what it does or doesn't do, no matter what is done to them, or at ANY PRICE. If GM had customers that crazy, there wouldn't have been a bankruptcy. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- > D8845B.07160731012010@port80.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > If GM had customers that crazy, there wouldn't have been a bankruptcy. It is the customers that count, or at least it is for those companies wanting to thrive. Or did you miss that in business class? > Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- > D8845B.07160731012...@port80.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > worrying over what sells and what doesn't sell, how many units sell, profit > margins, etc., etc. And this is different from non-Apple customers caring about market share? There is a reason that there are over 140,000 apps for the iPhone and many from major developers. How many major developers target Android? How many websites go out of their way to make an "Android optimized" web page? > How do they get the customers so interested in sales > that they forget all about NOT having common functions much cheaper > equipment takes for granted (think multitasking, cut and paste, a simple > file manager, a keyboard INCLUDED). So how does copy and paste compare on a Blackberry to the iPhone? I have a BlackBerry and the copy and paste functionality sucks. My Blackberry can't surf the web on the (very rudimentary) browser while you're talking on the phone. Why does neither the BB or WinMo phones have browsers as capable as what the iPhone had in 2007, in 2010? So can you really dismiss the much better browser that the iPhone introduced and compare it to copy and paste? > Even if Archos included a 19-year-old > blonde bombshell to sleep with, Apple customers would be worrying over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what it does or doesn't do, no matter what is done to them, or at ANY > PRICE. So, now you're going to find comparable products that are much cheaper than the Touch or the iPad? > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- > D8845B.07160731012010@port80.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > If GM had customers that crazy, there wouldn't have been a bankruptcy. The tablet platforms that fail to build real user bases will be substantially less useful to their customers. There will be many fewer applications, they will probably be lower quality because those platforms won't attract the best developers, and when you want to upgrade to a new device, the vendor might have abandoned the platform for lack of sales in the meantime. In contrast, a tablet platform that establishes a major niche in the industry will attract a lot of innovative application development and have a lot of compelling content neatly packaged up for it, and will see rapid improvements over time as its vendor invests in it. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-6EE9B1.12443331012010 @Port80.Individual.NET: > The tablet platforms that fail to build real user bases will be > substantially less useful to their customers. There will be many fewer > applications, they will probably be lower quality because those > platforms won't attract the best developers, and when you want to > upgrade to a new device, the vendor might have abandoned the platform > for lack of sales in the meantime. That will be true for tablets like this iPad appliance. However, it's not true for tablets that run on ESTABLISHED platforms, whether that is Windows, real OSX, Linux that will run the same software UNHOBBLED on the tablet that it runs on the desktop on your desk. Don't think so? Check out netbook sales. Your XXX netbook runs the same software the same way as your XXX desktop, both under XP or 7 or Ubuntu. The interface drivers allow the user to talk to the software with the multitouch screen. This isn't true with iPad unless you consider it the same appliance as iTouch, which I suppose if fine as long as noone tries to equate the iwhatever to a useful real computer, like a netbook or notebook. Like iTouch, iPad is a controlled toy. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-6EE9B1.12443331012010 > @Port80.Individual.NET: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Windows, real OSX, Linux that will run the same software UNHOBBLED on the > tablet that it runs on the desktop on your desk. and the touch won't be useful at all for that software. In fact, it will be more of a PITA. > Don't think so? Check out netbook sales. Your XXX netbook runs the same > software the same way as your XXX desktop, both under XP or 7 or Ubuntu. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Like iTouch, iPad is a controlled toy. A netbook is fine for doing certain things, it is much less than fine for a much bigger list. The screen is way too small and the keyboards on most are a bit scrunched for long term typing comfort. > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-6EE9B1.12443331012010 > @Port80.Individual.NET: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That will be true for tablets like this iPad appliance. Well, the question was why Apple fans, as end users, cared how many units Apple sold, and what I explain above is the big reason. > However, it's not true for tablets that run on ESTABLISHED platforms, > whether that is Windows, real OSX, Linux that will run the same > software UNHOBBLED on the tablet that it runs on the desktop on your > desk. The problem is, running software that isn't actually designed for a tablet means that you're not getting most of the potential benefits of tablet computing. This is especially true with finger-based systems (rather than stylus-based systems). There are several considerations here: - Precision. A finger really isn't as precise as a mouse. Interface needs to be designed with that in mind. Trying to position a cursor between a specific two characters (at a normal body text size) with a finger is pretty frustrating, unless the UI is optimized for it. - Multitouch and gestures. Generic desktop apps are not going to do pinch-to-zoom, they're not going to let you use multitouch to handle multiple items at once. They're probably not going to let you do flick-scrolling. Of course these tablet systems based on established platforms might add some system-wide gestures to minimize windows or launch a browser or something, but that's not really the same. - Explicit mouse/keyboard assumptions. Many generic desktop applications -- especially games -- simply assume the user is using a mouse and either can't be controlled efficiently through touch or can't be controlled at all through touch. - Screen size. Many modern desktop apps are not going to do well on 10" screens. Of course you could make those screens high-res and make everything smaller, but see above point about precision. You could, try, say, a 15" screen, but at that point you have a device that's probably too large and heavy to comfortably hold in one hand. What ends up happening with these touch screen systems (see HP's, for instance) is that the vendor will create some shallow touch-optimized interface that does a couple of things, and the platform *as a touch platform* never grows beyond that. I mean, what third-party developer is going to write touch-optimized software for these devices, when their vendors aren't even really committed enough to them to make them something besides generic Windows machines with some extra bundled software? It's not hard to see why these devices haven't caught on. Nobody ever really saw the point. Why pay more for touch when it's just an inferior way of interacting with the mouse-oriented software you'll mostly end up using? There are a couple of niche markets -- people who need to use computers standing up, like doctors and warehouse staff -- but it has never gone much beyond that. Geeks *say* they like the flexibility of these more open and established platforms more than the iPad platform, but geeks don't actually see the point of these things either, and mostly don't buy them. I mean, really, does anyone *actually* think these supposedly superior "unhobbled" tablets will outsell the iPad over the next 12 months? I gather they sold about 1M units last year. [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Hint: It won't be Archos. The result will have little to do with the actual products themselves. It will be all about "salesmanship" and which one has the best advertising campaign and generates the most media buzz. SignatureApple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! ||| / | \ >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Hint: It won't be Archos. Hint: That wasn't the topic under discussion. Steve > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Steve Sure it was. But OK, the Archos and the iPad are not the same thing at all. The Archos is a Netbook with touchscreen. The iPad is an internet appliance. Win7 sucks on a 10" screen, and will suck even worse on a 8.9" one. > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Steve Products in this category has been around for ten years but Apple is certainly going to be the first company to actually sell mass quantities because they are able to take ideas and make them into compelling consumer products and then market them. They don't get caught up in trying to make a product that is all things to all people. The earlier tablets tried to do too much. The Archos tablet is one of a string of products that will fail. Running Windows 7 on an Atom processor, performance will suck and battery life will suck. They did at least get the weight down to an acceptable level. You have to be under 2 pounds on a tablet or no one will want to hold it for very long. The lack of Flash on a media tablet is a problem, but there are workarounds to this, and those sites that want to be seen on an iPad will do doubt make those changes. > It's not a computer (in the > traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated portable > media device. It's what a netbook is supposed to be, but isn't. Not really- a netbook is supposed to be a compromise between the portability of a smartphone and the power of a laptop. Not an internet appliance. Jobs' quote about netbooks being just small cheap laptops got some laughs, but they're exactly what they're intended to be. "Cheap" apparently is a dirty word in Cupertino, so I understand Jobs' reluctance to enter that market! ;) >> It's not a computer (in the >> traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not really- a netbook is supposed to be a compromise between the > portability of a smartphone and the power of a laptop. A netbook was never intended to be compared to a smartphone. Not an internet > appliance. Jobs' quote about netbooks being just small cheap laptops > got some laughs, but they're exactly what they're intended to be. "Cheap" > apparently is a dirty word in Cupertino, so I understand Jobs' reluctance > to enter that market! ;) It was a smart thing to say because the iPad wants to capitalize on the success of the netbooks. A lot of netbook sales are to people that want a small, inexpensive, portable web access device. Unfortunately, a lot of people now realize how versatile a netbook actually is and those people would probably be unhappy with an iPad. A netbook runs Microsoft Office just fine, it's a back-up system for digital cameras and camcorders, it's a movie watching machine when you rip DVDs to the hard disk, it's a GPS with a USB dongle, and it streams your music over Bluetooth to your car stereo. > >> It's not a computer (in the > >> traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > disk, it's a GPS with a USB dongle, and it streams your music over > Bluetooth to your car stereo. Okay I agree with most of those but you can rip dvds and put them on your iPad, the 3G versions have GPS, and bluetooth streaming already works on 2G iPod Touches and iPhones. > >> It's not a computer (in the traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated > > portable > >> media device. It's what a netbook is supposed to be, but isn't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A netbook was never intended to be compared to a smartphone. Not directly, but they share one important quality- they're both compromise devices intended to let you perform tasks normally performed on a laptop or desktop. The smartphone offers far less performance and functionality than a "real" computer, but offers _huge_ advantages in portability. Netbooks are less of a compromise- not as portable as a smartphone, but almost as functional as a laptop. No one typing on a netbook thinks "this cramped keyboard and tiny screen is way better than my usual computer!" It's a compromise. > Not an internet > > appliance. Jobs' quote about netbooks being just small cheap laptops [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > disk, it's a GPS with a USB dongle, and it streams your music over > Bluetooth to your car stereo. Maybe yours does. Most people have $269 netbooks with 2.5 hours of battery life, and can't figure out how to install their Office discs since the netbook doesn't have a built-in DVD drive. ;) I still get the occasional dirty look from my neighbor who bought a netbook to replace his broken laptop after I raved about mine! > No one typing on a netbook thinks "this cramped keyboard and tiny screen > is way better than my usual computer!" It's a compromise. The keyboards are not that small. The netbook I have has a 92% keyboard, and there are several netbooks with 95% keyboards. A 10" screen is not "tiny." It's not something to have several feet away from you, but in the situations you're most likely to be using a netbook in, it's fine. I.e. on an airplane. > Maybe yours does. Most people have $269 netbooks with 2.5 hours of > battery life, and can't figure out how to install their Office discs > since the netbook doesn't have a built-in DVD drive. ;) Maybe you could start a business walking around with an external optical drive and installing software. I put only Open Office on my netbook even though I could install Office at no extra cost. My daughter kept asking to use the netbook instead of her Dell laptop to take to the library or to school, but she won't use Open Office so she doesn't take it. > I still get the occasional dirty look from my neighbor who bought a > netbook to replace > his broken laptop after I raved about mine! Hopefully you told him both the pros and cons of your netbook. > > No one typing on a netbook thinks "this cramped keyboard and tiny screen > > is way better than my usual computer!" It's a compromise. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > away from you, but in the situations you're most likely to be using a > netbook in, it's fine. I.e. on an airplane. Agreed- remember, I like netbooks just fine. I do think some (many?) buy them on price alone and regret it later. > > Maybe yours does. Most people have $269 netbooks with 2.5 hours of > > battery life, and can't figure out how to install their Office discs > > since the netbook doesn't have a built-in DVD drive. ;) > > Maybe you could start a business walking around with an external > optical drive and installing software. I did just that with my neighbor's netbook! ;) > > I still get the occasional dirty look from my neighbor who bought a > > netbook to replace > > his broken laptop after I raved about mine! > > Hopefully you told him both the pros and cons of your netbook. Yes, but like most consumers he heard what he wanted to hear! > > It's not a computer (in the > > traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > apparently is a dirty word in Cupertino, so I understand Jobs' reluctance > to enter that market! ;) So netbooks make phone calls? Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks after 36 hours" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/14/michael_dell_churchill_club_speech/ >> > It's not a computer (in the >> > traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/14/michael_dell_churchill_club_speech/ Most people I know with them are very happy now they have "their XP" on them. personally I think you're better off going with a top quality older Thinkpad or something - get them for a snip off ebay, wipe Windows and install Linux. The older HW means Linux will usually install with no problems - and all the benefits of a pretty safe, stable system. Just make sure suspend/hibernate works as that is a hit and miss affair. >> > It's not a computer (in the >> > traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So netbooks make phone calls? iPads don't make phone calls. > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > after 36 hours" Michael Dell can say anything he wants . . . that doesn't make it true. SignatureEnkidu > > > It's not a computer (in the > > > traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So netbooks make phone calls? Mine does, on a choice of several VoIP services, but that isn't my point. I meant from the internet/computing perspective. Smartphone users perform most the same tasks as netbook users- email, browsing, document review, a little media playing, etc. > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > after 36 hours" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/14/michael_dell_churchill_club_speech / Probably because "most people" are buying them for the wrong reasons- soley on price, to substitute for a more featured laptop they really want/need but don't want to invest in. As a dumb analogy, most people who buy Smart cars for "green" reasons are probably happy. Someone who buys one just because it's $20,000 less than the Minivan he really needed will be unhappy in far less than 36 hours! We take the netbook on long trips primarily to let the kids play online Flash games and watch videos, and for tasks awkward (or impossible) to do on our phones- like upload our digital camera SD cards to our home PC while still on vacation, or print out coupons, tickets, itineraries, etc. (Neither task isimpossible to do on my phone, but it's certainly slower and more awkward than using the netbook!) > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > after 36 hours" Is that why they keep buying them? Steve > > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > > after 36 hours" > > Is that why they keep buying them? > > Steve So am I going to take your word when it comes to consumer satisfaction of netbooks or the word of the CEO of Dell? >>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So am I going to take your word when it comes to consumer satisfaction > of netbooks or the word of the CEO of Dell? That's why he builds them, right? > >>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's why he builds them, right? He builds them because they make money (barely). As long as he can fool people into buying something that they actually won't like, why shouldn't he? >>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's why he builds them, right? He builds them because he wants to keep Dell customers Dell customers, not have them run off to HP, Toshiba, Samsung, Sony, Asus, Lenovo, MSI, etc. for their netbooks. Netbooks have positive margins, just not nearly as high margins as laptops or desktops. Michael Dell says the thing he says about netbooks for the same reasons Apple says what they say about netbooks. A motherboard company like Asus, who invented the netbook segment, is used to <10% margins, and to them a netbook with a 25% margin is a boon compared to selling motherboards. There is no way that mainstream PC manufacturers, like Dell and Apple, could survive if many of their products had 25% margins. The difference is that Dell can't walk away from those low margin segments, while Apple won't get caught up in that kind of race to the bottom in margins. The top tier manufacturers were surprised and upset when the Asus eee PC netbook became such a hit and created the netbook segment, taking sales away from their high margin laptops. Apple was upset when people that wanted a small form factor OSX system started installing OSX on netbooks, and they have taken steps to make it more difficult to do this. And now they have an alternative to the netbook that will appeal to some buyers that would otherwise buy a netbook. >>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He builds them because he wants to keep Dell customers Dell customers Uh-huh. With a product they aren't happy with? Within only a few hours? >>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Uh-huh. With a product they aren't happy with? Within only a few hours? Why on earth would you think that customers aren't happy with the Dell netbooks? Surely you don't believe Michael Dell when he says something like that. >>>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > netbooks? Surely you don't believe Michael Dell when he says something > like that. If it fits into a pro-Apple argument I have found that people will believe most anything, even if from people they "despise", like Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates. Steve >> > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >> > after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So am I going to take your word when it comes to consumer satisfaction > of netbooks or the word of the CEO of Dell? So why do you care? Are you unsatisfied with your netbook? SignatureEnkidu > >> > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >> > after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Enkidu No, I am not one of the suckers he sold one to. >> >> > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >> >> > after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, I am not one of the suckers he sold one to. So you don't have any actual experience with one, yet you're the expert. Got it. SignatureEnkidu > >> >> > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >> >> > after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Enkidu If the CEO tells me his products suck...I tend to believe him. >> >> >> > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >> >> >> > after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If the CEO tells me his products suck...I tend to believe him. My last full sized PC notebook was a Dell . . . I agree with him, Dell makes some shitty stuff. That's why I don't buy from Dell anymore. SignatureEnkidu >>> > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>> > after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So why do you care? Are you unsatisfied with your netbook? My cheap asus one is cool but it's a little small to fit my hands. I bought it for dirt cheap just for kicks so it's not such a big deal that I don't think it's tall that. Our more expensive Dell netbook has issues with mouse ghosting that's positively annoying. A lot of netbooks have that problem. Then again, we had a similar Sony laptop from back in the day that had the same problem. It was more or less the same size and specs but was bought when that kind of machine went for 2 grand rather than $400. Build quality on PCs varies widely and doesn't seem to be directly related to MSRP. Macs have their own problems in this regard too. SignatureApple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! ||| / | \ >>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So am I going to take your word when it comes to consumer satisfaction > of netbooks or the word of the CEO of Dell? Don't take the word of a CEO who has a vested interest in people NOT buying netbooks. Take the word of actual netbook users. >>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Don't take the word of a CEO who has a vested interest in people NOT > buying netbooks. Take the word of actual netbook users. This was so obvious I am surprised it had to be pointed out to KDT. But I guess I should have realized the Jobs' Reality Distortion Field effect is in full operation this week. Steve >>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So am I going to take your word when it comes to consumer satisfaction > of netbooks or the word of the CEO of Dell? It isn't "most people" that are unhappy with netbooks, it's _Michael Dell_ that is unhappy with netbooks, for a very good reason. Suddenly people are buying $300 netbooks instead of $500-2000 laptops. You can't run a business like Dell if too many people buy low margin products and avoid your high margin products. Of course he's going to make disparaging statements about netbooks. Apple is right to not get into the netbook trap. They have a choice. If Dell declined to sell netbooks then people would go elsewhere for them. No Mac user is going to buy a $500 iPad _instead_ of a Mac, it'll be in _addition_ to a Mac. Many owners of laptop PCs will consider an iPad instead of a netbook as a more portable device. It's a win-win for Apple. But it has nothing to do with Michael Dell's self-serving comments. >>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Dell_ that is unhappy with netbooks, for a very good reason. Suddenly > people are buying $300 netbooks instead of $500-2000 laptops. You can't Yup. Our new Dell netbook is pretty much identical to our really old Sony compact notebook. The main difference between the two is pricetag. They have similar hardware specs, the same OS and similar quirks/faults. > run a business like Dell if too many people buy low margin products and > avoid your high margin products. Of course he's going to make [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No Mac user is going to buy a $500 iPad _instead_ of a Mac, it'll be in > _addition_ to a Mac. ...or a $200 PC. [deletia] SignatureApple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! ||| / | \ SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b65ae00$0$1581 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > Many owners of laptop PCs will consider an iPad instead of a netbook as > a more portable device. only the teens...... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry >>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So am I going to take your word when it comes to consumer satisfaction > of netbooks or the word of the CEO of Dell? My statement had fact in it, his was just an unsubstantiated opinion. You can't be that dense to realize a CEO of a company wouldn't be too happy with a super slim profit margin product taking away sales of high-margin products. Steve > >>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve I don't see Steve Jobs telling people not to buy $59 Shuffles and instead by $399 64GB Touches. Apple do >>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > instead by $399 64GB Touches. > Apple do Profit MARGINS we're talking about. Why don't you quit before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Steve > >>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Steve So you really think that the profit margin is the same on a $59 Shuffle as it will be on a $850 3G iPad? >>>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So you really think that the profit margin is the same on a $59 > Shuffle as it will be on a $850 3G iPad? Keep digging. Factor in Volume to that equation while you're at it. Steve > >>>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >>>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Steve Now who is moving goalposts? You said it was about profit *margin*. So clearly you think that somehow the profit margin on a $850 3G iPad could possible be the same or smaller than that of a $59 Shuffle. But if you want to talk volume and profit margin, Apple was selling more iPhones than iPod Touches and the profit margin for the iPhone is much larger than the Touch. But do you hear Jobs saying that people aren't happy with the Touch after 36 hours? > Now who is moving goalposts? You said it was about profit *margin*. > So clearly you think that somehow the profit margin on a $850 3G iPad > could possible be the same or smaller than that of a $59 Shuffle. Clearly you have no idea what "profit margin" actually means. It's very possible that the profit margin on a Shuffle is greater than the profit margin on an iPad, even though the dollar profit per unit is greater on an iPad. > But if you want to talk volume and profit margin, Apple was selling > more iPhones than iPod Touches and the profit margin for the iPhone is > much larger than the Touch. But do you hear Jobs saying that people > aren't happy with the Touch after 36 hours? There is nothing to suggest that the profit margin on an iPhone is greater than the profit margin on an ipod Touch. > much larger than the Touch. But do you hear Jobs saying that people > aren't happy with the Touch after 36 hours? It's netbooks that all the CEOs of top tier manufacturers hate. They have very poor margins compared to laptops and desktops. Anything the CEOs can do to disparage netbooks they'll do. They are very unhappy about the spectacular growth of the netbook market, with good reason. Netbooks are now 27% of all portable computer sales in the U.S., 33% in Europe. Apple was so unhappy with people installing Snow Leopard on netbooks that they now detect the Atom processor and prevent OSX from running on a netbook. What Apple realized from the tremendous popularity of netbooks, including all the people installing OSX on netbooks, is that a large number of users don’t need much more than net access when away from the home or office. The iPad supplies that net access, and adds some features that the netbook isn't great at, while sacrificing some other functionality. Of course the iPad will cost about $850 by the time you get a 64GB model with 3G and the connectivity kit, close to 3x the cost of the typical netbook. By comparison, in December, Micro Center was selling a 13.3" MacBook for $800, and Dell was selling their Mini10V netbook for $240. It's the low cost 3G plans that will drive sales of the iPad. In 24 months, you'll pay $720 less for unlimited 3G access on an iPad than you'll pay for 5GB/month on a netbook or laptop. If the iPad's price meets consumer resistance then the price can be cut, just as was done with original 2G iPhone. > There is nothing to suggest that the profit margin on an iPhone is > greater than the profit margin on an ipod Touch. oh yes there is. an iphone is basically an ipod touch with a cellphone, gps and camera. an unsubsidized iphone is $600 and an ipod touch is $200. do you really think that a 3g radio, gps and camera cost $400 more? >> There is nothing to suggest that the profit margin on an iPhone is >> greater than the profit margin on an ipod Touch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > do you really think that a 3g radio, gps and camera cost $400 more? It's not $400 more, but of course you already knew that. A 32GB iPod touch is $300. A 32GB iPhone has a subsidized price of $300. The unsubsidized price is totally bogus. The question is how much is the actual subsidy AT&T is paying Apple for each iPhone. It's a secret, but it's estimated to be $200. That extra stuff doesn't cost $200, but you can't look only at the component cost when you calculate margins. > A 32GB iPod touch is $300. A 32GB iPhone has a subsidized price of $300. > The unsubsidized price is totally bogus. The question is how much is > the actual subsidy AT&T is paying Apple for each iPhone. It's a secret, > but it's estimated to be $200. That extra stuff doesn't cost $200, but > you can't look only at the component cost when you calculate margins. i've seen higher estimates, but even if it is $200, the extra stuff does not cost that much, so apple is basically getting a much higher profit on each sale. >> There is nothing to suggest that the profit margin on an iPhone is >> greater than the profit margin on an ipod Touch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > do you really think that a 3g radio, gps and camera cost $400 more? No but some people will pay it! I will not be among them!!! >>>>>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > much larger than the Touch. But do you hear Jobs saying that people > aren't happy with the Touch after 36 hours? Idiot. I was commenting on "I don't see Steve Jobs telling people not to buy $59 Shuffles and instead by $399 64GB Touches." Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a good profit for them. In other words, they don't need to push $399 Touches to make money. Steve > >>>>>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > >>>>>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > good profit for them. In other words, they don't need to push $399 > Touches to make money. And of course you have real world numbers to back this up..... >>>>>>>>>>> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >>>>>>>>>>> after 36 hours" [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > And of course you have real world numbers to back this up..... Yes, Apple's financial statements. You lost the argument and so you now completely change the subject. Great. Steve > >> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit > >> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, Apple's financial statements. apple does not provide product specific breakdowns in their financial statements. > You lost the argument and so you now completely change the subject. and you are a liar. >>>> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit >>>> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > and you are a liar. How many here think I am a "liar" by saying "I am sure Steve has a good profit margin on the Shuffles"? A show of hands please. Steve > >>>> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit > >>>> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > How many here think I am a "liar" by saying "I am sure Steve has a > good profit margin on the Shuffles"? when asked to back up your statement about the profits on the shuffle versus the touch, you said it was in their financial reports. since apple does not break things down by specific product, your statement is *false*. >>>>>> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit >>>>>> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > since apple does not break things down by specific product, your > statement is *false*. I think it should have been clear that their profits demonstrate they don't price their products to break even or lose money. Haven't seen any hands go up yet. Steve > > when asked to back up your statement about the profits on the shuffle > > versus the touch, you said it was in their financial reports. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think it should have been clear that their profits demonstrate they > don't price their products to break even or lose money. that much should be obvious. so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? >>> when asked to back up your statement about the profits on the shuffle >>> versus the touch, you said it was in their financial reports. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make > a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? It's in their financial statements. Steve > > so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make > > a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? > > It's in their financial statements. which one and on what page? as i said they don't do product specific breakdowns, so this ought to be good. >>> so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make >>> a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as i said they don't do product specific breakdowns, so this ought to > be good. The proof is in there that they are making plenty of money, and have a healthy profit margin. These are not disputable topics. Steve > >>> so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make > >>> a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The proof is in there that they are making plenty of money, and have a > healthy profit margin. These are not disputable topics. nobody said they weren't making money. you said they didn't need to push the higher priced touches over the shuffles. you can't substantiate it, now you're weaseling and trying to say something else. >>>>> so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make >>>>> a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > shuffles. you can't substantiate it, now you're weaseling and trying to > say something else. It's obvious, idiot. Do you see Apple pushing Touches over lower-cost iPods? Do you see Jobs or other execs making public comments disparaging shuffles? The world is round too. Steve > > you said they didn't need to push the higher priced touches over the > > shuffles. you can't substantiate it, now you're weaseling and trying to > > say something else. > > It's obvious, idiot. another ad hominem. you lose. > Do you see Apple pushing Touches over lower-cost > iPods? Do you see Jobs or other execs making public comments > disparaging shuffles? do you? i don't see them pushing any particular model over any other model. >>> you said they didn't need to push the higher priced touches over the >>> shuffles. you can't substantiate it, now you're weaseling and trying to >>> say something else. >> It's obvious, idiot. > > another ad hominem. you lose. I'm sorry, but you have to be one of the worst "debaters" I've run across here. >> Do you see Apple pushing Touches over lower-cost >> iPods? Do you see Jobs or other execs making public comments >> disparaging shuffles? > > do you? i don't see them pushing any particular model over any other > model. Exactly. That was my point. Steve > >>> you said they didn't need to push the higher priced touches over the > >>> shuffles. you can't substantiate it, now you're weaseling and trying to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm sorry, but you have to be one of the worst "debaters" I've run > across here. because i keep refuting your bullshit? > >> Do you see Apple pushing Touches over lower-cost > >> iPods? Do you see Jobs or other execs making public comments [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Exactly. That was my point. no, that wasn't your original point. >>>>> you said they didn't need to push the higher priced touches over the >>>>> shuffles. you can't substantiate it, now you're weaseling and trying to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > because i keep refuting your bullshit? Nice try. Don't think anyone here disagrees with what I have said. Steve > >>>>> so where's the proof that they don't need to push touches and can make > >>>>> a lot of money by pushing a shuffle? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Steve Do you think that executives of companies would normally disparage their own products? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > >>> when asked to back up your statement about the profits on the shuffle > >>> versus the touch, you said it was in their financial reports. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve No, Steve. It's not. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > How many here think I am a "liar" by saying "I am sure Steve has a > good profit margin on the Shuffles"? > > A show of hands please. Well, I'm undecided. I wasn't following this discussion, so the question for me is did you "show your work" to provide a reasonable basis for your claim? FWIW, its okay if you didn't...so long as you then afford that courtesy towards others. Otherwise, you're on the slippery slope of "Do as I say, not as I do" of hypocrisy. -hh >> How many here think I am a "liar" by saying "I am sure Steve has a >> good profit margin on the Shuffles"? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -hh I didn't show any work. It just is illogical to think that when Apple priced the Shuffle they wouldn't work in a healthy profit margin. They OWN that market. I don't think there is anyone here who believe that Apple TV has sold that 8 or 9 million you gathered from your estimates. I'll give you the courtesy though, and ask for a share of hands for that also. Steve > >> How many here think I am a "liar" by saying "I am sure Steve has a > >> good profit margin on the Shuffles"? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I didn't show any work. yet you expect others to do so? hypocrisy is what it's called. > It just is illogical to think that when Apple > priced the Shuffle they wouldn't work in a healthy profit margin. They > OWN that market. obviously they priced it higher than what it cost to make, but how much profit do you think they are making on a $49 device (2nd gen)? the entry price went *up* to $59 (3rd gen) because the margins are so small. > I don't think there is anyone here who believe that Apple TV has sold > that 8 or 9 million you gathered from your estimates. I'll give you > the courtesy though, and ask for a share of hands for that also. moving goalposts again i see. who said anything about apple tv? > > >> How many here think I am a "liar" by saying "I am sure Steve has a > > >> good profit margin on the Shuffles"? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > yet you expect others to do so? hypocrisy is what it's called. And Steve chose to embrace it, despite the clear warning. > > It just is illogical to think that when Apple > > priced the Shuffle they wouldn't work in a healthy profit margin. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > entry price went *up* to $59 (3rd gen) because the margins are so > small. AFAIC, either argument sounds pretty reasonable, which is simply more the reason why an outside reference is important to decide between. > > I don't think there is anyone here who believe that Apple TV has sold > > that 8 or 9 million you gathered from your estimates. I'll give you > > the courtesy though, and ask for a share of hands for that also. > > moving goalposts again i see. who said anything about apple tv? Sorry - my fault. This tangent comes from the "Why the iPad will fail and help Windows 7 to succeed" discussion, where Steve is trying to berate me for drawing conclusions from indirect sources, since Apple hasn't clearly published in open literature what the sales of the Apple TV have been. To briefly summarize, there's more unofficial and official (Apple conference call statements) information present on the Apple TV than on Apple's profit levels on the shuffle, yet Steve ...over there... is trying to use that 'information dearth' as the entire basis for refusing to even try to estimate how well/poorly the Apple TV has done versus Windows Tablets sales. The underlying issue that Steve's desperately trying to avoid is that if one calls the Apple TV a "flop", then by the metric of respective units sold, the Windows Tablets are something worse, and with the latter being suggested as the benchmark for future sales of the iPad, the bar is being set extremely low. Its almost not hyperbola to say that if all of the intended purchases that we've seen posted just in CSMA & COLA over the past two weeks are true, then the iPad will have been a better marketplace success than Windows tablets. All in all, I think that the sales potential of the iPad is a very interesting question. Time will tell. And in regards to the Apple TV, what I think is needed to understand if Apple is running a 'dark horse' is how many units all of its relevant competitors (slingbox, etc) are selling. -hh > To briefly summarize, there's more unofficial and official (Apple > conference call statements) information present on the Apple TV than > on Apple's profit levels on the shuffle, yet Steve ...over there... is > trying to use that 'information dearth' as the entire basis for > refusing to even try to estimate how well/poorly the Apple TV has done > versus Windows Tablets sales. No, I took no position on Windows Tablet sales. Have no idea how many were sold, I could care less. > The underlying issue that Steve's desperately trying to avoid is that > if one calls the Apple TV a "flop", then by the metric of respective > units sold, the Windows Tablets are something worse, You're putting words into my mouth. I simply stated that Apple has not published ANY sales figures for Apple TV. Am I incorrect? Most reasonable people assume that is because it has not sold well. I made no connection or correlation to "Windows Tablets" and probably didn't even read that part of the posts. Steve > > To briefly summarize, there's more unofficial and official (Apple > > conference call statements) information present on the Apple TV than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, I took no position on Windows Tablet sales. But others did, with clear benchmarking occurring vs. the Apple TV. > Have no idea how many were sold, I could care less. Yet you jumped right in on that subthread. > > The underlying issue that Steve's desperately trying to avoid is that > > if one calls the Apple TV a "flop", then by the metric of respective > > units sold, the Windows Tablets are something worse, > > You're putting words into my mouth. I simply stated that Apple has > not published ANY sales figures for Apple TV. Am I incorrect? Yes, because that fact wasn't disputed. But it also wasn't the point. And if you had ... as you claimed above ... no interest, then you had no reason to post any reply whatsoever. Since you did reply, the implications are that you chose to interrupt with using a narrow fact in an attempt to try to redirect the discussion away from its original point. > Most reasonable people assume that is because it has not sold well. And Windows tablets even worse. > I made no connection or correlation to "Windows Tablets" and > probably didn't even read that part of the posts. Since the very first new line of the post you responded (directly!) to was: "Perhaps someone will have better fortune searching for the answer to the question of how may Windows OS Tablets were sold last year." And that very same quoted post concluded with: "Overall, it would appear that the potential exists for the iPad to 'catch up' with Windows Tablets within its first year of sales." It is quite clear that your attempt to excuse your errors is pretty damn lame. IMO, I consider it to be so lame as to be implausible, but in the words of Scott Adams: “You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public”, it may be that I underestimated you. -hh >> > To briefly summarize, there's more unofficial and official (Apple >> > conference call statements) information present on the Apple TV than [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Yes, because that fact wasn't disputed. But it also wasn't the >point. FYI - <quote> Apple TV Sales Triple Bolstered by a big sales increase, Apple's happy little hobby keeps plugging along. Yoni Heisler, NetworkWorld Feb 3, 2009 Lost in the shuffle of Apple's record breaking earnings last quarter, and the hoopla over the potential for an Apple v. Palm courtroom showdown, is the fact that Apple's beloved hobby, the Apple TV, is still chugging along and ratcheting up impressive sales. Apple's earnings report shows that sales of Apple TV are up three-fold from the same quarter a year-ago, and Tim Cook's comments during the conference call indicate that not only has Apple not given up on this 'hobby', but that it plans to keep on investing in it. "We still consider this a hobby, but it is clear that the movie rental business has really helped Apple TV, and there are more and more customers that want to try it. We will continue to invest there because wefundamentally believe there is something there for us in the future." </quote> http://www.pcworld.com/article/158874/apple_tv_sales_triple.html >>>> To briefly summarize, there's more unofficial and official (Apple >>>> conference call statements) information present on the Apple TV than [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > http://www.pcworld.com/article/158874/apple_tv_sales_triple.html Why did you post that article? That doesn't list any Apple TV sales figures. It doesn't even indicate if Apple TV is profitable. Steve >>> To briefly summarize, there's more unofficial and official (Apple >>> conference call statements) information present on the Apple TV than [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > -hh I skipped most of this when I saw it talking about "Windows Tablets". As I told you, I could care less how many they sold or if they were successful or not. I stated only that Apple has not stated sales figures for Apple TV. End of story. Steve >>>>> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit >>>>> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Steve Why are you posting this drivel to alt.cellular.verizon? Tell it to someone who cares! Alt.cellular.verizon removed from distribution! >>>>>> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit >>>>>> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Tell it to someone who cares! Alt.cellular.verizon removed from > distribution! Sorry, I'm kinda new to this Google group stuff. Steve > Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit > margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a > good profit for them. In other words, they don't need to push $399 > Touches to make money. unsubstantiated. >> Unlike Dell and their netbooks, I am sure Steve has a good profit >> margin on the Shuffles, and when factored in with volume, produces a >> good profit for them. In other words, they don't need to push $399 >> Touches to make money. > > unsubstantiated. Right, because Apple is known for giving products away and making up for it "in volume". Give it up. Steve > > In article <5OOdna2LjKtRD_bWnZ2dnUVZ_vhi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve Well they do have this little online outfit where they sell a few songs, movies, etc. where the profit margins are quite slim. You may have heard of it. KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2514651a-40ac-4628-95a0- 19f36d9171d6@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com: > Well they do have this little online outfit where they sell a few > songs, movies, etc. where the profit margins are quite slim. You may > have heard of it. alt.binaries.sounds.mp3......? That's the best place.... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > >>>>> On Jan 31, 2:47 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> > >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > good profit for them. In other words, they don't need to push $399 > Touches to make money. This is incoherent. Apple might make more money overall (though I doubt it) selling Shuffles vs. Touches because they sell in higher volume, but this is meaningless at the level of an individual customer. For any individual customer, Apple clearly makes more money if they buy a Touch. It's not like that single customer is going to buy either one Touch or seven Shuffles. Apple clearly has a motivation to encourage people to buy Touches over Shuffles. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks >> after 36 hours" > > Is that why they keep buying them? > > Steve The #1 sales item at Amazon.com is a netbook..... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > The #1 sales item at Amazon.com is a netbook..... And I'd bank on the fact that in 2-3 months iPads will be #1 by a huge margin. Wonder if you'll post us that stat when it becomes available. > "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" "Larry is to usenet what a hemorrhoid is to an a.shole!" >> The #1 sales item at Amazon.com is a netbook..... > > And I'd bank on the fact that in 2-3 months iPads will be #1 by a huge > margin. Wonder if you'll post us that stat when it becomes available. Not likely, but time will tell. SignatureEnkidu Spencer Tracy <one@nospam.com> wrote in news:one-2B382B.11090431012010 @news.giganews.com: > And I'd bank on the fact that in 2-3 months iPads will be #1 by a huge > margin. Wonder if you'll post us that stat when it becomes available. iPad will never be a COMPUTER. iTouch isn't a computer, nor is iPhone or iPod. These are all APPLIANCES, not computers. "Network Appliance" is an apt description of what iPad does.... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Spencer Tracy <one@nospam.com> wrote in news:one-2B382B.11090431012010 > @news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Network Appliance" is an apt description of what iPad does.... so your point is? Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- B8C5E6.22071731012010@port80.individual.net: >> Spencer Tracy <one@nospam.com> wrote in news:one-2B382B.11090431012010 >> @news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > so your point is? The fanboiz are making this out to be a TABLET COMPUTER....which it's NOT. It's a net appliance, just like iPhone. But, I said that already..... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Spencer Tracy <one@nospam.com> wrote in news:one-2B382B.11090431012010 > @news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Network Appliance" is an apt description of what iPad does.... And as I've pointed out a couple of times, it's quite possible these computing appliances will eventually emerge as the mainstream consumer choice. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > So netbooks make phone calls? A lot of people use them for that while traveling overseas via VOIP services. You'll be able to do the same thing with the iPad as long is it can run VOIP programs. > Besides as Michael Dell said "most people aren't happy with netbooks > after 36 hours" > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/14/michael_dell_churchill_club_speech/ LOL, _of course_ he's going to say that. Netbooks have hurt sales of high margin higher end laptops big time. Michael Dell doesn't want people buying netbooks any more than Steve Jobs wants them buying them. People are _very_ happy with netbooks, that's why you Michael Dell saying things like that. People realize that at home they want a $1000 desktop with terabyte hard drives, a 20" screen, a full size keyboard and mouse, and for traveling they want something small and light, not a $1200 laptop that ends up weighing 10 pounds by the time you add in the power brick, case, and wireless mouse. The 10" screen on a netbook is just fine if you're not doing video editing or running Photoshop, two thing that you'd never want to do on a netbook anyway because of the processor. Michael Dell has no choice but to be selling netbooks since if he doesn't, people will buy them from HP, Asus (who invented the category), or five other manufacturers. Jobs does have the choice not to see an OSX netbook (though Apple is very unhappy about so many Dell netbooks running OSX). Like a netbook, the iPad is going to fill the niche of a travel system for a lot of people, though not for a business person that needs to run mainstream applications. The reason netbooks took off is because they do what most people need them to do, both business travelers and leisure travelers. Check e-mail, give a power point presentation, edit documents, etc. The iPad is going to be a better eBook reader than a netbook, and a better platform for displaying photos and watching videos. They'll sell a lot of them to people that still bring a laptop or netbook along on trips. The big appeal of the iPad is the pricing of the 3G data service. If you want 3G on a netbook you pay $60/month for 5GB (no more unlimited). On the iPad it's $15 for 250MB and $30 for unlimited. This is a tremendous selling point for the iPad, and kudos to Apple for negotiating rates like this with AT&T. For those that complain about the lack of Flash and lack of multitasking on the iPad, just realize that the reason Apple could negotiate such low 3G rates, and have unlimited rather than just 5GB, is _because_ they have taken those steps to discourage excessive data usage in the design. Don't wish for tethering, it's unlikely to happen. >> It's not a computer (in the >> traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > apparently is a dirty word in Cupertino, so I understand Jobs' reluctance > to enter that market! ;) "Cheap" is a feature . . . you can take it places you wouldn't take your expensive notebook. Send your kid to high school with a $199 netbook in her backpack and you can replace it if it gets stolen or broken. Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. SignatureEnkidu > >> It's not a computer (in the > >> traditional sense) and it's not a cell phone. It's an integrated [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. Well, given that a netbook and a laptop are nearly the same in price in many instances, why buy a netbook at all? A good Netbook is about $325-$500 and a cheap 15" laptop is in that same range... >> Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A good Netbook is about $325-$500 and a cheap 15" laptop is in that same > range... Good point. For some people, screen size, performance of a cheap laptop win. For others, size, battery life win. Choice is good. SignatureEnkidu > >> Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Choice is good. With the netbooks you have to be careful when considering battery life. The cheap ones have very poor battery life as you would expect, about 3 hours. The more expensive ones sometimes have much better battery life, in the 6-8 hour range (real, not just advertised), but others don't. What I see with the netbook is that the windows OS screen really sucks on a 10" screen, or at least it does for my old eyes. Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- 4643A2.09021231012010@port80.individual.net: > With the netbooks you have to be careful when considering battery life. > The cheap ones have very poor battery life as you would expect, about 3 > hours. > > The more expensive ones sometimes have much better battery life, in the > 6-8 hour range (real, not just advertised), but others don't. $299 Samsung netbook runs 8-10 hours on the stock battery, 12-15 hours on the 9-cell ($52 from China postpaid). So much for that theory. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- > 4643A2.09021231012010@port80.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So much for that theory. Real world testing, or just on a spec sheet? Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- 176C9E.10143431012010@port80.individual.net: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- >> 4643A2.09021231012010@port80.individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Real world testing, or just on a spec sheet? It ran 12.5 hours today. My buddy's little kids hijacked it on his wifi and had internet TV and silly Flash games playing on it all day.... I managed to divert their attention during dinner to wrestle it back into its carrying case long enough to get to dinner on the way home at a wifi restaurant. There, it ran Livestation on wifi to have a look at the news, then I plugged in the digital TV USB plug to watch the Grammys for a while. I just plugged it in at 10PM, its "all day use" done for another day. I'd never even think about going back to any kind of superlaptop that only runs 1-3 hours. How stupid that is! It's almost as stupid as buying an internet appliance that won't play FLASH! Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry >> >> Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What I see with the netbook is that the windows OS screen really sucks > on a 10" screen, or at least it does for my old eyes. I wear reading glasses myself. But as I lay here in bed recovering from a back injury, a netbook is perfect. A year old nine-cell battery gives me better than six hours, and I have the original 4 cell in a drawer. I don't run Windows, so I can't comment on it, but Ubuntu works great. SignatureEnkidu >>> Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Choice is good. For most screen size == size. The only advantage "netbooks" used to have was price and weight pretty much. Now they have got bigger then the boundaries have crumbled. Far better getting a second hand compaq or thinkpad off ebay IMO and running Linux on it. Its like a new heart for the older machine. In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Really, cheap /is/ a feature, just like battery life or built-in wifi. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The only advantage "netbooks" used to have was price and weight pretty > much. Now they have got bigger then the boundaries have crumbled. Price and weight went up with the introduction of Windoze and its requirements for a hard drive and a larger screen. Netbooks are now so bizarrely overpriced and oversized, contrary to what I hoped would be the trend, that I am no longer in the market for one. There is no reason why quantity sales could not have pushed the netbook into a 9-inch format with hugh SSDs and gobs of RAM at a price of around $150. No reason except for Windoze, that is. You can thank Microsoft for yet another technology shutdown. > Far better getting a second hand compaq or thinkpad off ebay IMO and > running Linux on it. Its like a new heart for the older machine. Who needs another big-a.s laptop? owl stated in post 8xdfw.09serf@rooftop.invalid on 1/31/10 9:32 AM: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > $150. No reason except for Windoze, that is. You can thank Microsoft > for yet another technology shutdown. How did MS stop Linux from being put on such machines? >> Far better getting a second hand compaq or thinkpad off ebay IMO and >> running Linux on it. Its like a new heart for the older machine. >> > Who needs another big-a.s laptop? Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > owl stated in post 8xdfw.09serf@rooftop.invalid on 1/31/10 9:32 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How did MS stop Linux from being put on such machines? By wielding the monopoly hammer. Netbooks with Linux were selling just fine, and sales would have continued to increase, driving down price and driving up features. Microsoft got nervous and dredged up XP, which they had already decided to abandon, just to stop the bleeding in the heavy laptop market. Now you have to search high and low for a Linux- based netbook. owl stated in post srfz9ar.pe@rooftop.invalid on 1/31/10 10:03 AM: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> owl stated in post 8xdfw.09serf@rooftop.invalid on 1/31/10 9:32 AM: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > heavy laptop market. Now you have to search high and low for a Linux- > based netbook. If Linux based ones would be better though, what stops companies from selling them? Heck, they would not have to pay MS... they could make more profit. So why give up profit? It makes no sense. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > By wielding the monopoly hammer. Netbooks with Linux were selling just > fine, and sales would have continued to increase, driving down price and > driving up features. Microsoft got nervous and dredged up XP, which > they had already decided to abandon, just to stop the bleeding in the > heavy laptop market. Now you have to search high and low for a Linux- > based netbook. XP adds very little cost to a netbook, about $10. You are free to install Ubuntu, Windows 7, or other OSes if you don't want Windows. For a while Dell sold their netbooks with Linux at a slight discount, but the market for such a product was tiny. What's most likely is that you'd want to dual boot Linux and Windows which is easy to do. > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> owl stated in post 8xdfw.09serf@rooftop.invalid on 1/31/10 9:32 AM: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > heavy laptop market. Now you have to search high and low for a Linux- > based netbook. You didn't answer the question "How did MS stop Linux from being put on such machines?" Sounds like once Windows was available, consumers voted with the credit cards and paid the $25 or so extra bucks to get a real OS. Steve > You didn't answer the question "How did MS stop Linux from being put > on such machines?" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve Define "real OS." >> You didn't answer the question "How did MS stop Linux from being put >> on such machines?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Define "real OS." I don't have to, consumers have done that for me. Steve >>> You didn't answer the question "How did MS stop Linux from being put >>> on such machines?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't have to, consumers have done that for me. ...well, if you are an Apple fanboy that's a place you really don't want to go. SignatureNothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit > How did MS stop Linux from being put on such machines? LOL, of course it was not Microsoft. The fact is, like most platforms, what the manufacturer originally thinks it will be used for is often not what the market decides. There was a huge market for a low-cost, small, Windows machine that could run mainstream programs that did not require high speed processors or huge screens. In Japan, small systems have been popular for a decade, beginning with the Toshiba Libretto, "http://img.tomshardware.com/de/2006/02/27/klein_aber_oho_toshiba_libretto_u100_s 213/toshiba_libretto_u100_s213_opening_shot.jpg" but they were not inexpensive. Remember who started the netbook craze. It was Asus, a motherboard company that was used to very low margin products. No mainstream PC company would have undermined their own market like that. Most netbooks are now 10", only 1" larger than the original 9" screens, and this is more because people wanted the larger keyboard so the machine grew slightly. In December Dell was selling their extremely popular Mini10V for under $200 on sale. SMS stated in post 4b65b965$0$1668$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net on 1/31/10 10:10 AM: >> How did MS stop Linux from being put on such machines? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > In December Dell was selling their extremely popular Mini10V for under > $200 on sale. So companies could make more profit selling better machines with Linux... and they just opt not to. Why? Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] <snip> > So companies could make more profit selling better machines with Linux... > and they just opt not to. Why? The market for Linux machines is miniscule. Why would they want to add another SKU for that. You're free to install Linux and get rid of XP if you hate XP and love Linux so much. XP adds very little to the retail price of a netbook. SMS stated in post 4b65bc0b$0$1662$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net on 1/31/10 10:22 AM: > <snip> > >> So companies could make more profit selling better machines with Linux... >> and they just opt not to. Why? > > The market for Linux machines is miniscule. Pretty much my point. So now the question becomes what direction can desktop Linux grow to make it more marketable? > Why would they want to add > another SKU for that. You're free to install Linux and get rid of XP if > you hate XP and love Linux so much. XP adds very little to the retail > price of a netbook. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > SMS stated in post 4b65bc0b$0$1662$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net on 1/31/10 10:22 > AM: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So now the question becomes what direction can desktop Linux grow to make it > more marketable? None. It's a great OS for back end stuff. It lacks the eco-system of applications and ease of use for the end user and there are far too many versions of Linux to solve these problems. OSX is the only GUI for Unix/Linux that is marketable. SMS stated in post 4b65c1fe$0$1634$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net on 1/31/10 10:47 AM: >> SMS stated in post 4b65bc0b$0$1662$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net on 1/31/10 10:22 >> AM: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > None. I disagree. I think desktop Linux has grown a lot and will continue to. > It's a great OS for back end stuff. It lacks the eco-system of > applications and ease of use for the end user and there are far too many > versions of Linux to solve these problems. > > OSX is the only GUI for Unix/Linux that is marketable. For now, yes... but I think desktop Linux will grow to be a real competitor. Of course, OS X and other OSs are not going to stand still. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > $150. No reason except for Windoze, that is. You can thank Microsoft > for yet another technology shutdown. "Windoze" is what required a larger screen? Huh? With ultra small & light 250GB drives out there that's a non argument. Steve <snip> > A good Netbook is about $325-$500 and a cheap 15" laptop is in that same > range... The sub-$400 15" laptops are something to usually avoid. They use higher power, higher thermal, desktop processors. The fan is almost always running, they get very hot, and they often will shut down from thermal overload if you have the CPU at 100% for very long. Battery life sucks and they are heavy. That said, for a desktop replacement that you're not going to be carrying around, running on batteries, or trying to run Autocad or Avid, they are okay for most tasks. I bought a $300 Acer with a 16" screen as a desktop replacement for a relative and she's been happy with it for the past year. You want to avoid the store brand el-cheapo laptops which are put together from "parts from all over the world which no one else wants." BTW, good netbooks are sub-$300 on sale. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > are put together from "parts from all over the world which no one else > wants." There is a Compaq Presario w/out camera a few other things people could do without, for $330 at BB. Not a barn burner, but actually looks pretty good, especially considering the price. > BTW, good netbooks are sub-$300 on sale. Well, I was at BB yesterday and I didn't see any good ones, with long battery life for under $300. The had a few that had 3 hour battery life in real world useage for that range. They were very busy back by the netbooks. about 1/2 dozen people keeping the sales people busy answering questions and buying them. I saw 4 sales completed in a very short period of time, all for more than $300, 3 of the 4 @$350 for a Gateway. Interestingly, the Gateway was sitting next to a couple of Asus' and boy did those Asus screens look pathetic in comparison. Fuzzy as hell. > Well, I was at BB yesterday and I didn't see any good ones, with long > battery life for under $300. In my experience, Best Buy is not the best place to buy anything. SignatureEnkidu > > Well, I was at BB yesterday and I didn't see any good ones, with long > > battery life for under $300. > > In my experience, Best Buy is not the best place to buy anything. It may not always be the cheapest, but for around here, it is where you go to see it. And if I were buying, I'd probably have bought the Asus based on many reviews, but after seeing them, no way. Too fuzzy on the screen. >> Well, I was at BB yesterday and I didn't see any good ones, with long >> battery life for under $300. > > In my experience, Best Buy is not the best place to buy anything. For a Netbook you have to be careful, since not all netbooks can run all operating systems. Check "http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/17/osx-netbook-compatib.html" before buying. The Dell Mini10V is very popular for a reason! Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> Well, I was at BB yesterday and I didn't see any good ones, with long >> battery life for under $300. How long are you looking for? http://bit.ly/b8ovVC Steve > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Steve The link died! :) But it was about an Asus from what I could see when the link expanded. I saw 3 of the Asus models yesterday in BB. Very fuzzy screens, unreadable to me. The Gateway right next to it was crisp and fairly easy to read although I have problems reading tiny text without big reading glasses... :) Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons- 3600D0.07342331012010@port80.individual.net: > why buy a netbook at all? Size, weight, RUNTIME is the biggest. A super laptop runs an hour or two on a charge. My Samsung NC10 at full brightness with the 9cell battery pack from China runs 12-15 hours, 10 even playing movies or powering my digital tv USB receiver. You can't watch the football game on a super laptop unless you're plugged in because it simply won't run that long. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cell phone?! LOL. That's one giant a.s cell phone! I'll bet Flava > gets one. Crikey. I think Koehlmann was right about something for a change : the Mac group has more clueless idiots than COLA! The "Owl" is unable to google up a spec sheet and, instead, just spews nonsense which has zero basis in truth. He appears to be some CSMA retarded clone of WronG/Jed. In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote: >> I thought this thing was supposed to be a computer. You mean it's a >> cell phone?! LOL. That's one giant a.s cell phone! I'll bet Flava [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nonsense which has zero basis in truth. He appears to be some CSMA retarded > clone of WronG/Jed. Spec sheet? Is the target market interested in reading a spec sheet? I heard about this thing the other day and youtube'ed Turtleneck's presentation. I was about to fall asleep when a subconscious LOL brought me back. Did you know that you can actually change the desktop wallpaper on this thing? > Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? > > Steve To restrict access to the device to the APP STORE so they can sell you something more (software)...and more (content)...and a keyboard ($69)...and a dock ($29)...and a case ($39)....and a Camera card dongle ($29)....and a ??? MaxiPad is a portable BOX OFFICE for Apple and ATTWS. ....just like Iphone, Itouch. > > Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? > > To restrict access to the device to the APP STORE so they can sell you > something more (software)...and more (content)...and a keyboard ($69)...and > a dock ($29)...and a case ($39)....and a Camera card dongle ($29)....and a > ??? that has absolutely nothing to do with locking. >>> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >> To restrict access to the device to the APP STORE so they can sell you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > that has absolutely nothing to do with locking. Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. Steve > Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we > have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? there really isn't that much of interest to the typical user. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100422593085% nospam@nospam.invalid: > different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical > cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? > there really isn't that much of interest to the typical user. MOTOROLA Z6M on Alltel. The file manager lets me move and copy files from the EXTERNAL microSD card to the INTERNAL memory or vice versa....pictures, music, movies, apps, even stupid things it has no idea what to do with. Open the menu from the main screen.... Click MEDIA GALLERY Click PICTURES Click OPTIONS Click VIEW STORAGE DEVICES Click MEMORY CARD move down list of hundreds of pictures and highlight the one you want Click OPTIONS button Pick MANAGE from the list by right arrowing Pick DELETE or MOVE or COPY Move or copy ask where you want to put it. Pick INTERNAL MEMORY and it moves or copies the file. Music works the same way with either the SOUNDS or MUSIC PLAYER apps. You can tell the camera to either put it in internal memory, then copy/move the movies/pictures to the external card.....or you can just tell the camera to put its pictures directly onto the external memory card....no expensive emailing/MMS bullshit to add to your billing necessary..... Store as many tiny microSD cards in your wallet as you like. They don't weigh much, compared to the $100 notes. If you create a ringtone or the home screen background out of an MP3 file on the external card, it's best to copy it to the internal memory so the phone can find it when you change cards. Makes good sense.... Any MP3 file that will fit on a card makes a ringtone with a few keystrokes. No need to add to your bill again for a stupid ringtone file you already have thousands of on the computer. I miss Alltel. Verizon customers with the SAME phone don't have these choices....none of them. Verizon wants you to PAY for your pictures, over and over and over if they can. > > different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical > > cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > versa....pictures, music, movies, apps, even stupid things it has no > idea what to do with. pictures, music, movies and apps can all be moved onto or off of an ipod or iphone. there isn't a need for a file manager. can you get to the file system of the motorola z6m itself? that's what jailbreaking does, and very few people are interested in mucking around in there. > Open the menu from the main screen.... > Click MEDIA GALLERY [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Move or copy ask where you want to put it. > Pick INTERNAL MEMORY and it moves or copies the file. compared to one click in itunes. guess which one is more appealing. >>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical >>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pictures, music, movies and apps can all be moved onto or off of an > ipod or iphone. there isn't a need for a file manager. No, you can't move music off of an iPhone, unless you bought it off of iTunes on the phone. It's a one-way operation. Steve > >>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical > >>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve Really? That's different from video then. I can and do move my ripped DVD to a from my Touch with no problems and I didn't buy them with iTunes. >>>>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical >>>>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > DVD to a from my Touch with no problems and I didn't buy them with > iTunes. You can move your own ripped music on and off an iPod, Touch, or iPhone. I suspect that you can move move music bought from the iTunes Store on and off one's iPhone, Touch, or iPod as well. That kind of restriction would have most iPod users up in arms, and such a shortcoming would certainly be common knowledge by now! > No, you can't move music off of an iPhone, unless you bought it off of > iTunes on the phone. It's a one-way operation. there are dozens of apps that let you do that. >> No, you can't move music off of an iPhone, unless you bought it off of >> iTunes on the phone. It's a one-way operation. > > there are dozens of apps that let you do that. We're talking natively here. You find it acceptable this can't be done natively without having to buy a 3rd party app that may cease to function with an OS update in the future? Steve > >> No, you can't move music off of an iPhone, unless you bought it off of > >> iTunes on the phone. It's a one-way operation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > done natively without having to buy a 3rd party app that may cease to > function with an OS update in the future? all of my music is on my desktop machine. i plug in my ipod and whatever music i want is copied to it. there is no need to copy it back off the ipod since it's still on the desktop machine and easily accessible. it's also lets apple say they're making pirating music more difficult. it's not hard to circumvent, but at least they can say they did something. >>>> No, you can't move music off of an iPhone, unless you bought it off of >>>> iTunes on the phone. It's a one-way operation. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it's not hard to circumvent, but at least they can say they did > something. And one day your desktop drive crashes. Uh oh. Glad you're happy with Apple controlling that process for you. Steve > And one day your desktop drive crashes. > > Uh oh. that's what backups are for. if you don't have a backup of your desktop drive when it crashes (not if), the lack of music is going to be the *least* of your worries. > Glad you're happy with Apple controlling that process for you. how are they controlling anything? >> And one day your desktop drive crashes. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drive when it crashes (not if), the lack of music is going to be the > *least* of your worries. Great way to explain-away the lack of this functionality on the iPhone. Laughing my a.s off. >> Glad you're happy with Apple controlling that process for you. > > how are they controlling anything? Read above. No ability to copy music back off of your iPhone. Steve >> And one day your desktop drive crashes. >> >> Uh oh. > > that's what backups are for. if you don't have a backup of your desktop > drive when it crashes (not if), the lack of music is going to be the What moronic cultic tripe. Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of "automatic" offsite backup. [deletia] SignatureOn the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes... When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were ||| meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \ arbitrarily assigned. > >> And one day your desktop drive crashes. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of "automatic" > offsite backup. nonsense. an ipod or any other music player is far more expensive per megabyte than an ordinary external hard drive. backing up to one is stupid. plus, they don't make them big enough for a full backup either. i have nearly two terabytes on my computers. which music player has a 2 terabyte drive, let alone flash? >>>> And one day your desktop drive crashes. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > plus, they don't make them big enough for a full backup either. That's a pretty bold statement. Steve > >> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff > >> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of "automatic" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's a pretty bold statement. it's a true statement. >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of "automatic" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > it's a true statement. No. It might be true for YOU, but you made a general statement, not specific. Steve > >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff > >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No. It might be true for YOU, but you made a general statement, not > specific. it's very specific. you can buy a *lot* more storage in a 3.5" hard drive than in an ipod and most people have more than 160 gig (the largest ipod) in their computer. an ipod is one of the worst choices for backup. >> >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >> >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > it's very specific. you can buy a *lot* more storage in a 3.5" hard A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. [deletia] SignatureNothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit > A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. nonsense. it's very convenient. >> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. > > nonsense. it's very convenient. A lot depends on where you have to install it and what it has to interface with. It's no big deal to install one on a desktop computer. A laptop can be a bit more difficult. Installing one in a cell phone and interfacing it would be quite challenging! >>> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Installing one in a cell phone and interfacing it would be quite > challenging! An external USB drive is quite large when compared to a 2.5 drive or an ipod or an iphone. It also requires external power and a place where you can plug into local electrical power. This is in contrast to a 2.5 drive which is quite smaller and can usually be powered by the cable it is connected to the PC with. That cable is standardized so you could even leave that at home. Losing a wall wart for a 3.5 USB drive is more interesting. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ >>>> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Losing a wall wart for a 3.5 USB drive is more interesting. As usual you havent got a clue. There exist external mini drives. I have one and it doesn't even need an external power adaptor. Here is a beginneres site. Start at the beginning. You're not WronG are you? You wrong often enough to be: http://www.helpwithpcs.com/buy-guides/external-hard-drives.html >>>>> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > As usual you havent got a clue. Not at all. That site didn't contradict a thing I said. [deletia] Of course they spin the whole wall wart thing into a "benefit" rather than a nuissance. This is an idea flatly contradicted by classic ipods and other disk based PMPs. You need to stop your cyber stalking and get a life. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ >> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. > > nonsense. it's very convenient. It's big and it requires a wall wart. I suspect you don't even use this sort of gear. At least have half a brain and advocate the bus powered drives that even the Apple Store itself sells. They are pocket sized and don't require an extra doo-dad to trail along behind them. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > >> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. > > > > nonsense. it's very convenient. > > It's big and it requires a wall wart. so what. do you not have outlets where you live? > I suspect you don't even use this sort of gear. daily. > At least have half a brain and advocate the bus powered drives that > even the Apple Store itself sells. They are pocket sized and don't > require an extra doo-dad to trail along behind them. that has a better price/gigabyte but not as good as 3.5" drives. it's a backup. there's no need to do it where there's no power outlet. > > >> A 3.5 inch hard drive is not terribly convenient. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > so what. do you not have outlets where you live? Sort of removes some of the portable aspect of the thing if you have to plug in :) My iMac is very portable too if there's a plug around. SignatureChris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!" 'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts' > > > It's big and it requires a wall wart. > > > > so what. do you not have outlets where you live? > > > Sort of removes some of the portable aspect of the thing if you have to > plug in :) My iMac is very portable too if there's a plug around. plug it in at nite, then you have at least 10 hours of run time during the day. i suspect most people will get a few days run time out of it before needing to be recharged. who sits and reads 10 hours non stop? people are really grasping at straws here. >>> >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >>> >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > [deletia] Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. LOL. You really are a complete cretin! >>>> >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >>>> >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > LOL. You really are a complete cretin! No. I am someone that actually uses this stuff rather than being a poser like you. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ >>>>> >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >>>>> >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No. I am someone that actually uses this stuff rather than being a poser > like you. Poser?!?!?!?! Because you are wrong, yet again, about yet another subject? There exist mini drives too which are small and slimline. >>>>>> >>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >>>>>> >>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Poser?!?!?!?! Because you are wrong, yet again, about yet another > subject? There exist mini drives too which are small and slimline. Most certainly you are a poser. At least a SATA cradle makes a better "defense" of 3.5 inch drives. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ > At least a SATA cradle makes a better "defense" of 3.5 inch drives. what exactly are you going to put in this sata cradle, if not a 3.5" drive? >>>>>> Your PMP is the PERFECT backup mechanism (assuming you can get stuff >>>>>> back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > largest ipod) in their computer. an ipod is one of the worst choices > for backup. We were talking about music collections. Most people do not have that much. Steve > > In article <ksidnf1f94xw6_7WnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > back off of it again). Being portable, it's an obvious sort of "automatic" > offsite backup. So, when you back up your hard drive, you exclude your media library? My media library (music + movies) is over 5x larger than any iPod. >>> In article <ksidnf1f94xw6_7WnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, when you back up your hard drive, you exclude your media library? > My media library (music + movies) is over 5x larger than any iPod. Mine (music alone) is 3TB. But for most people a large iPod is larger than their collection will ever grow to be. Steve > >>> In article <ksidnf1f94xw6_7WnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Steve And you what part of your body did you pull out the average size of most people's media collection? But the fact is, *most* people aren't buying the Classic. They are buying Nano's, shuffles, Touch's, etc. that until last September maxxed out at 32GB. In article <0f51b172-b726-4d8c-a326-3ac4330b207f@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> In article <ksidnf1f94xw6_7WnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > buying Nano's, shuffles, Touch's, etc. that until last September > maxxed out at 32GB. and why would you ever want to keep a 3TB music library on a portable device. You'd spend all your time looking for that one piece of music you just had to hear right now! :) > In article ><0f51b172-b726-4d8c-a326-3ac4330b207f@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > device. You'd spend all your time looking for that one piece of music > you just had to hear right now! :) A 3TB video library isn't terribly big actually and is not that difficult to "search". It's certainly no worse than iTunes itself. With "smart playlists" and such, no Apple fan should be terribly intimidated by multiple tens of terabytes of stuff to wade through. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ > In article > <0f51b172-b726-4d8c-a326-3ac4330b207f@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > device. You'd spend all your time looking for that one piece of music > you just had to hear right now! :) I have no intention of keeping my whole collection on a portable device. I have two 4G(?) iPods, a 60GB and an 80GB one, an iPod Nano (the new 16GB one), and an iPhone 3GS. For trips I take them all, normally just the iPhone. I have special smart playlists created for them all. I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB collection, and one offsite in another city. Steve > I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB > collection, and one offsite in another city. why do you need to copy music off the ipod if by your own admission, you have more than one copy of it on site? >> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >> collection, and one offsite in another city. > > why do you need to copy music off the ipod if by your own admission, > you have more than one copy of it on site? It's always better to have more copies of something. SignatureMy macintosh runs Ubuntu. ||| / | \ >> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >> collection, and one offsite in another city. > > why do you need to copy music off the ipod if by your own admission, > you have more than one copy of it on site? I don't need to copy the music off my iPod. Show where I said *I* wanted to do that. You see, I don't just consider myself when I consider user needs, I look at the big picture. Steve >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't need to copy the music off my iPod. Show where I said *I* > wanted to do that. ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP as another backup. Beyond the whole "backup my photos to my PHP" thing, there is also the problem of iTunes wanting to wipe any new iPod it sees. That's terribly annoying. > You see, I don't just consider myself when I consider user needs, I > look at the big picture. > > Steve An open device is easier to deal with. You don't need to impose a proprietary API device in order to bolt shiny happy interfaces on top of it. SignatureMy macintosh runs Ubuntu. ||| / | \ > ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP > as another backup. This is a pretty good idea from the perspective of wanting to easily handle / have remote storage, although it does also strike me as being relatively ungainly versus simply having a thumb drive - - plus it would appear to beg the question of storage capacity fairly quickly. On the latter, my digital photo library was in excess of 160GB the last time that I bothered to look at its size, and I've (a) not yet digitized my film collection, which probably numbers at around 20K images, and (b) just upgunned my rig, which will roughly double my rates of storage consumption (18MP vs 8 MP). A couple of years ago, I did look into the idea of using an iPod classic as a photo storage device, specifically as a Digital Wallet to download from my cameras' CF cards...long story short, it would have been a bag of hurt on several levels (I/O speed, battery life, total capacity, cost), with the only redeeming factor being that it could at least be a non-sucky MP3 player while it sucked at everything else. I instead bought a pair (for redundancy) of Hyperdrive HD-80's. For an easy & cheap remote storage, my current thoughts are for toting a bare 3.5" drives as required. Newegg has one of the plug-in readers at roughly 2.5x the cost of cheap external USB cases. The next step would be to upload to a Cloud repository, but consumer-level bandwidth speeds generally makes it impractically long for the time required for the initial big upload. > Beyond the whole "backup my photos to my PHP" thing, > there is also the problem of iTunes wanting to wipe any new iPod it > sees. > > That's terribly annoying. Haven't looked too far into this, but this sounds like merely a default setting that's relatively easy to change, since I recall that there is the "use as a mass storage device" box to click somewhere. -hh > A couple of years ago, I did look into the idea of using an iPod > classic as a photo storage device, specifically as a Digital Wallet to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > least be a non-sucky MP3 player while it sucked at everything else. I > instead bought a pair (for redundancy) of Hyperdrive HD-80's. I used one as a hdisk mp3 storage /player for one of my cars. The display was dead but I could display the play list etc on the car's audio system. I loaded it up, plugged it in and mounted it up under the dash. Works great! Signature2/2/2010 6:15:34 PM >> ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP >> as another backup. > > This is a pretty good idea from the perspective of wanting to easily > handle / have remote storage, although it does also strike me as being > relatively ungainly versus simply having a thumb drive - - plus it Thumb drives are puny and I'm already carrying around the PMP. [deletia] SignatureNothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's ||| continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \ simple date manipulations in postgres. > >> ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP > >> as another backup. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thumb drives are puny and I'm already carrying around the PMP. Puny in physical size, but thumb drives are now in the ballpark of 16B, which is larger than most PMP's, which merely is observing that the generic mainstream PMP today is no longer hard drive based, but solid state. And the routine carrying-around of a device is in some ways a double- edged sword: its good from the perspective that it is remote (removed) from your primary data repository, but its also at incrementally higher risk off loss due to it being "constantly" (sic) carried around and thus subject to being dropped, misplaced/lost, subject to environmental extremes (rain/snow/hot-cold), etc, which makes a mechanical breakage/failure more likely. Of course, it can also be a convenience from the perspective of having your library with you, to show off pictures of the kids, etc, but that's functionally a utility that's not germane to the capability of a data backup repository. FWIW, I can recall opening up an iPod mini awhile back, and the little ~0.8" HD in it was IIRC exactly the form factor of a standard Compact Flash media card. As such, if the need is simply for remote data storage, what's wrong with figuratively just throwing away all of the case & battery and simply just use a CF card? -hh In article <3718b9c1-9d36-4314-96aa-50520d8b8041@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > FWIW, I can recall opening up an iPod mini awhile back, and the little > ~0.8" HD in it was IIRC exactly the form factor of a standard Compact > Flash media card. it *was* a standard compact flash microdrive. > As such, if the need is simply for remote data > storage, what's wrong with figuratively just throwing away all of the > case & battery and simply just use a CF card? that's exactly what people did initially. the price of a microdrive was about the same as an ipod mini, maybe even higher. apple obviously got a good deal on them. people bought ipod minis, removed the microdrive and tossed the ipod mini carcass on ebay. these days, you can replace the microdrive with a cf flash card, but putting the mini back together is a bitch. :) > > FWIW, I can recall opening up an iPod mini awhile back, and the little > > ~0.8" HD in it was IIRC exactly the form factor of a standard Compact > > Flash media card. > > it *was* a standard compact flash microdrive. Good to know. That way, when my wife finally will give up on her iPod mini, I'll be able to rework it some. I'm thinking about jumping through some hoops (deauthorization workaround) and then permanently installing it in her car. > > As such, if the need is simply for remote data > > storage, what's wrong with figuratively just throwing away all of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > these days, you can replace the microdrive with a cf flash card, but > putting the mini back together is a bitch. :) The dis/re-assembly really wasn't too bad. I'm just hoping that I can finally convince my wife to just finally get a new iPod rather than to have me replace the battery pack yet again. :-) -hh In article <3718b9c1-9d36-4314-96aa-50520d8b8041@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > >> ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP > > >> as another backup. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the generic mainstream PMP today is no longer hard drive based, but > solid state. You're talking to a COLA poster. You shouldn't discount the possibility that he's using an Ubuntu-running minitower with a 4 TB internal striped RAID as his portable media player. [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > > > >> ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP > > > >> as another backup. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that he's using an Ubuntu-running minitower with a 4 TB internal striped > RAID as his portable media player. Hahaha! SignatureSandman[.net] >> > > >> ...I'm the one that wants to be able to treat whatever I put on a PMP >> > > >> as another backup. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Hahaha! No. Just something that doesn't have a half bitten Apple on it. SignatureIn a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only ||| has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a / | \ new version of the relevant shovelware is released. > In article > <3718b9c1-9d36-4314-96aa-50520d8b8...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that he's using an Ubuntu-running minitower with a 4 TB internal striped > RAID as his portable media player. Humor noted, but the fringe cases merely serve to accentuate the issue here, which is in the trade-space of how big (& expensive) the redundant data storage device becomes as the desired backup capacity grows. As such, for Grandma Ethyl, who has just a couple of small .jpgs of the family and her Living Will, it can all fit onto a 1GB thumb drive that she can wear around her neck if she wants. OTOH, the classical geek propellerhead won't accept anything less than everything, including a few years worth of music & video files that he's ripped - - if he were to go the thumb drive route, not only would he have a mess of a whole pile of them to lug around, but he would also be in the poorhouse because of their relatively high cost per GB. As such, he's probably better off with media that's cheap per GB and deal with its other trades...which may also include how to cobble the system together with portable power & display to be able to show his friends a photo of his Grandma Ethyl :-) Taking a quick look at NewEgg.com for convenience, it looks like the largest capacity 2.5" notebook drive that one can thus easily obtain today is 750GB. Sure, there's probably comparable smaller (IIRC, 1.8" and 0.8"?) HDs today as well, although they'll naturally have a lower total capacity and also a higher cost per GB. SSD is now competing in this space, so these small HDs are clearly on their way out as a technology. Another alternative for consideration would be storage on the cloud, but as I already mentioned, the big issue here can be one of bandwidth and the subsequent time element to store/retrieve. If we thought that USB was slow, the retail cost for respectable bandwidth speeds in the USA are still pretty rude..and if you then dare to really use them, you're potentially subject to being throttled/capped as an 'abuser'. -hh >> Beyond the whole "backup my photos to my PHP" thing, >> there is also the problem of iTunes wanting to wipe any new iPod it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -hh He's talking about the checkbox "Prevent ipods and iPhones from syncing automatically", which is unchecked by default. Steve > >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB > >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's terribly annoying. What it is, is trivial, at least for normal users. Most people have a media player with 16 GB or less of storage. I suspect this has actually come *down* over the last couple of years as the mainstream has mostly ditched HD-based players for flash-based players. This means using your PMP to back up your media collection so you can exclude your iTunes library from your backups probably saves you less than $2 worth of disk space. Of course I'm sure you personally have some strange use case or some esoteric need that this doesn't work for, but that's not especially relevant to an advocacy context. > > You see, I don't just consider myself when I consider user needs, I > > look at the big picture. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a proprietary API device in order to bolt shiny happy interfaces on > top of it. The shiny happy interface works better for the things 95% of people want to do. This is what virtually all criticism of Apple products comes down to these days: geeks upset that Apple doesn't account for every edge case. They know this makes Apple products worse than some alternatives; I mean, they can *prove* it. Apple products have fewer features and don't let you do as many things. That means they're worse, right? Well, it would. Except the Apple products usually do the things *normal users actually care about* better than the geek-oriented products. The geeks, of course, are oblivious to this. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What it is, is trivial, at least for normal users. Most people have a No it isn't. The interfaces suck and everything has to be managed manually. > media player with 16 GB or less of storage. I suspect this has actually The Apple players that are pushed the hardest are the ones with the anemic storage. It's like a blast from the past from the earliest generations of ipods. > come *down* over the last couple of years as the mainstream has mostly > ditched HD-based players for flash-based players. ...a claim from your nether regions. [deletia] SignatureIn a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only ||| has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a / | \ new version of the relevant shovelware is released. > >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB > >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The interfaces suck and everything has to be managed manually. I didn't mean that is was trivial to pull music back off an iPod (though it is pretty easy). I meant that even if there were no way to do this at all, it would not be a substantive reason to pick one PMP over another. > > media player with 16 GB or less of storage. I suspect this has actually > > The Apple players that are pushed the hardest are the ones with the > anemic storage. It's like a blast from the past from the earliest > generations of ipods. Apple sells something like 80% of music players. You can probably gauge where consumer demand is pretty accurately from what models they offer. The notion that people really prefer physically larger (and less reliable) HD-based music players with tons of storage capacity over physically smaller flash-based players is a perfect textbook example of technology geeks erroneously projecting their own preferences onto the mass market. > > come *down* over the last couple of years as the mainstream has mostly > > ditched HD-based players for flash-based players. > > ...a claim from your nether regions. Nope. Try this Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Players-Portable-Audio-Video/b/ref=amb_link_850 17551_15?ie=UTF8&node=1264866011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_ rd_r=0KSW8FT8SDMY0MW1DG2J&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=485929471&pf_rd_i=172630 Of Amazon's top 30 best-selling music players only *two* have hard drives. The largest capacity flash players are 64 GB, and 8 GB actually seems to be the most common capacity. Even at 64 GB, being able to exclude all the data on your PMP from your HD-based backups will save you less than $6. IOW, a PMP that lets you easily copy files back from it, so you don't have to back them up elsewhere, provides only a very trivial benefit. It is, yet again, a class example of a geeky edge case. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I didn't mean that is was trivial to pull music back off an iPod (though I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about "managing" an iPod that is smaller than ones mp3 collection. It really is a remarkably crude interface considering all of the hoo-hah surrounding it. > it is pretty easy). I meant that even if there were no way to do this at > all, it would not be a substantive reason to pick one PMP over another. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > technology geeks erroneously projecting their own preferences onto the > mass market. Without actual real numbers from somewhere all you're doing is just passing gas. >> > come *down* over the last couple of years as the mainstream has mostly >> > ditched HD-based players for flash-based players. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > drives. The largest capacity flash players are 64 GB, and 8 GB actually > seems to be the most common capacity. ...you mean they overhyped newest ipods? Like I said. Apple sales respresent what is being pushed. The fact that people are willing to pay for a 64G solid state based PMP supports my contention that bigger is better all things being equal. Your own numbers demonstrate a clear split between those that are trying to pay as little as they can get away with and those that want the biggest device they can lay their hands on. > Even at 64 GB, being able to exclude all the data on your PMP from your > HD-based backups will save you less than $6. IOW, a PMP that lets you > easily copy files back from it, so you don't have to back them up > elsewhere, provides only a very trivial benefit. It is, yet again, a > class example of a geeky edge case. Having stuff on your PMP just means that you have another copy of it and you don't have to futz with anything else if you want to do something terribly simple like visit the relatives and give them a bunch of photos or home videos. Ok, so perhaps sharing family photos is only something that "geeks" do. Then again it's easy to say that "only geeks do foo" when the predominant vendor tends to prevent people from doing just that. When stuff becomes unecessarily difficult, of course it will "skew statistics" and such. SignatureMSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact ||| that it is most compatable with itself. / | \ > >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB > >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that is smaller than ones mp3 collection. It really is a remarkably crude > interface considering all of the hoo-hah surrounding it. Haha. Given that iTunes supports, with respect to choosing what content goes on the device, everything from fully manual song-level management to playlist-level management, and automatic management based on song metadata (including things like times played, last played date, most recent unplayed episodes for podcasts, etc.) I really actually have a sort of perverse curiosity which hilariously obscure and geeky edge case you're complaining about here. [snip] > > Nope. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Like I said. Apple sales respresent what is being pushed. Even if true, this would be irrelevant. My argument is based on what media players people actually buy, not what media players you believe they should buy. > The fact > that people are willing to pay for a 64G solid state based PMP supports > my contention that bigger is better all things being equal. But all else isn't equal. Players with more capacity are either more expensive, or they're HD-based and therefore larger and less reliable. > Your own numbers demonstrate a clear split between those that are > trying to pay as little as they can get away with and those that want [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > stuff becomes unecessarily difficult, of course it will "skew > statistics" and such. If you're arguing it would be more convenient for users if iTunes worked precisely like it does now, but also transferred everything in both directions, this is obviously true. If you're arguing that this use case is significant enough that regular uses would be better off switching to devices that just showed up as mass storage devices so they could gain this capability, this is obviously *not* true. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >> >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > sort of perverse curiosity which hilariously obscure and geeky edge case > you're complaining about here. You'll be lucky. Jed is a loony. >>> >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >>> >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > You'll be lucky. Jed is a loony. Yep. He certainly marches to his own beat. Problem is, he is playing "air drums".... Signature2/3/2010 4:53:58 PM >>>> >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >>>> >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > He certainly marches to his own beat. Not really. This is just the Cupertino reality distortion field talking. Don't let the fact that Hadron will contradict any Linux user here just for the sake of contradicting them go to your head. > Problem is, he is playing "air drums".... SignatureApple: because you really don't want to take any more video ||| than your camera can hold. Really. / | \ >>>>> >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >>>>> >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Don't let the fact that Hadron will contradict any Linux user here just > for the sake of contradicting them go to your head. It has nothing to do with Hadron or anyone else jedi. It has to do with the fact that for better or worse you are living in the past. Way, in the past. You really have a knack for not knowing what average Joe is interested in doing and it's painfully obvious. Signature2/3/2010 8:51:33 PM >>> >> >> >>> I also have three complete onsite backups of the entire 3TB >>> >> >> >>> collection, and one offsite in another city. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > You'll be lucky. Jed is a loony. You have a bunch of checkboxes and nothing to indicate when you will fill up the device. This is 2010. It should be all drag & drop and there should be some means to indicate that you've gone over the storage limit of your device. Once you get more than a couple of videos in your library, that part of the interface must be positively unmanageable. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > >>> I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about "managing" an > >>> iPod [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of your device. Once you get more than a couple of videos in your library, > that part of the interface must be positively unmanageable. There's a bar at the bottom of the screen that comes up when you select the device, that shows exactly what types of content are taking up what space and how much space is free. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >>> I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about "managing" an >> >>> iPod [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the device, that shows exactly what types of content are taking up what > space and how much space is free. That only tells you what's already there. SignatureApple: because you really don't want to take any more video ||| than your camera can hold. Really. / | \ > >> >>> I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about "managing" an > >> >>> iPod [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That only tells you what's already there. This is, once again, an almost ludicrously trivial complaint, particularly given that your preferred media file management mechanism appears to be dragging things around in the file system. You continuously appear to hold Apple products to a standard which, if you applied it more generally, would require you to live in a cave with no modern technology because you would never be willing to purchase anything. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes [deletia] >> > Try this Amazon page: >> > http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Players-Portable-Audio-Video/b/ref=amb_link_850 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Even if true, this would be irrelevant. My argument is based on what Not at all. This is an advertising driven market clearly demonstrated by Apple's own success in general. Plus, for a large device that can play video the larger size of iTouch screens is another variable. It's not just about the capacity or price of the device. > media players people actually buy, not what media players you believe > they should buy. By your own stated numbers, people are "actually" buying what's cheap and what has the largest capacity. >> The fact >> that people are willing to pay for a 64G solid state based PMP supports >> my contention that bigger is better all things being equal. > > But all else isn't equal. Players with more capacity are either more > expensive, or they're HD-based and therefore larger and less reliable. Apple players with more capacity have smaller screens. What type of storage being used is probably academic and not something that the customers in question are even aware of. That information is probably "too geeky" for them. [deletia] SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > >> >> >> >> In article <c56dna2mUrB6b_rWnZ2dnUVZ_sZi4p2d@giganews.com>, Steve > >> >> >> >> de [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > video the larger size of iTouch screens is another variable. It's not just > about the capacity or price of the device. The question is how useful it would if people could exclude the files on their PMP from their other backups, which a player that functioned as a mass storage device would let them do. My argument is "not very useful" because it wouldn't save them most than a few dollars worth of disk space. The only thing that is relevant to this is what capacity players people buy, not why they buy them or what you think they should buy instead. [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >> >> >> In article <c56dna2mUrB6b_rWnZ2dnUVZ_sZi4p2d@giganews.com>, Steve >> >> >> >> >> de [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The question is how useful it would if people could exclude the files on > their PMP from their other backups, which a player that functioned as a Why would anyone bother? You seem fixated on this idea of making backups more complicated just because you can also copy your stuff some where else. It seems like some entirely artificial means to make something quite simple more complicated. It's fear mongering and an attempt to make people unecessarily dependent. [deletia] SignatureApple: because you really don't want to take any more video ||| than your camera can hold. Really. / | \ [snip] > >> Not at all. This is an advertising driven market clearly > >> demonstrated by Apple's own success in general. Plus, for a large [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > something quite simple more complicated. It's fear mongering and an > attempt to make people unecessarily dependent. You appear to have lapsed into incoherency again. Are you trying to claim that it's somehow *more* complicated to back up media files to the same place as all your other files, instead of backing up media files to a PMP and backing up other files elsewhere? Because with most user-friendly consumer backup utilities, it's the other way around: backing up all your files is the default behavior, and selecting files to exclude is more complicated. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > > In article <slrnhmh8db.6g5.j...@nomad.mishnet>, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a / | \ > new version of the relevant shovelware is released. Do you really think that Apple sells more Classics than shuffles, nanos, and touches? Who else even makes hard drive players but Archos? >>>>> In article <ksidnf1f94xw6_7WnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > buying Nano's, shuffles, Touch's, etc. that until last September > maxxed out at 32GB. You can try. And you have. But you still can't justify why Apple doesn't let you copy your music off of all of their devices in a simple manner. Without 3rd party apps. So many people I know have a small little rack or stack of CDs, absolutely nothing at all. A 16GB Nano would hold it all, provided they actually ripped them all, which they probably haven't. Steve > >>>>> In article <ksidnf1f94xw6_7WnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > doesn't let you copy your music off of all of their devices in a > simple manner. Without 3rd party apps. Sure I can: it was a part of what got the record labels to buy into the program. > So many people I know have a small little rack or stack of CDs, > absolutely nothing at all. A 16GB Nano would hold it all, provided > they actually ripped them all, which they probably haven't. > > Steve Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > Mine (music alone) is 3TB. But for most people a large iPod is larger > than their collection will ever grow to be. Good lord, how did you get so much music? That's enough space for something in the neighborhood of 5000 full CDs stored uncompressed, or around 10000 CDs stored with lossless compression like FLAC or Apple Lossless. There's gotta be an interesting story behind a collection that big. Signature--Tim Smith >> Mine (music alone) is 3TB. But for most people a large iPod is larger >> than their collection will ever grow to be. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There's gotta be an interesting story behind a collection that big. Just a lifelong obsession with record collecting, since I was a kid and would use my lunch money to buy 1-2 used LPs rather than eat. Working for years in a classical radio station help me build the collection too. It's 305,777 tracks so I think more CDs than you estimate. I currently use Apple Lossless for all new rips but a lot of the rips in the library I did a long long time ago in MP3 (LAME VBR), or awhile ago (AAC 256kbps). I Steve >>> Mine (music alone) is 3TB. But for most people a large iPod is larger >>> than their collection will ever grow to be. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Working for years in a classical radio station help me build the > collection too. Oh yeah! Remember those Columbia Radio Station Subscription discs with the "playlist" glued to the front covers? My classical music collection is full of them! Working for a classical radio station was a bonanza. Many record companies used to send multiple copies of new releases to radio stations and, of course, those extra copies would wind-up in MY collection! > > In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And one day your desktop drive crashes. How much straw does it take for you to come up with these arguments? Are you saying you don't back up your hard drive? >> > In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > How much straw does it take for you to come up with these arguments? > Are you saying you don't back up your hard drive? A disk drive failure? What? Did you just get off the turnip truck? As a potentially large storage device (Of course this doesn't really apply to anemic iphones), a PMP is the perfect place do duplicate information. Why bother with a separate storage device (or application), when you've already got something right there that's quite literally got a backup copy of the relevant information. SignatureOn the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes... When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were ||| meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \ arbitrarily assigned. > As a potentially large storage device (Of course this doesn't really > apply to anemic iphones), a PMP is the perfect place do duplicate > information. Why bother with a separate storage device (or application), > when you've already got something right there that's quite literally got > a backup copy of the relevant information. what if it's stolen or lost? having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. >> As a potentially large storage device (Of course this doesn't really >> apply to anemic iphones), a PMP is the perfect place do duplicate [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. Gotta ask buddy - How can you defend Apple's restrictive copying policy? Steve > > having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. > > Gotta ask buddy - How can you defend Apple's restrictive copying policy? there's no limit on copying it. make as many backup copies as you want. you just can't give other people copies (well you can but they can't do anything with it). try again. > > > having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > try again. I think he's talking about not being able to copy things bought directly on the iPod or AppleTV back to the computer. And that is true, you can't. If you buy them on the computer, then you can back them up practically anywhere you want. > I think he's talking about not being able to copy things bought directly > on the iPod or AppleTV back to the computer. And that is true, you > can't. of course you can. in fact, it happens automatically. > > I think he's talking about not being able to copy things bought directly > > on the iPod or AppleTV back to the computer. And that is true, you > > can't. > > of course you can. in fact, it happens automatically. Not with the AppleTV it doesn't. That's a consistent complaint in the Apple user forums. >>> having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. >> Gotta ask buddy - How can you defend Apple's restrictive copying policy? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > try again. You can't copy the music back from the device. That's restrictive to me. Steve > >>> having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. > >> Gotta ask buddy - How can you defend Apple's restrictive copying policy? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You can't copy the music back from the device. That's restrictive to me. maybe you can't. others can, and quite easily too. my original point is that the music is already on the computer so why bother copying it back, and that you can make as many copies of the files as you want, from the computer. >> >>> having two copies is vital. one on the device and one on the computer. >> >> Gotta ask buddy - How can you defend Apple's restrictive copying policy? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > maybe you can't. others can, and quite easily too. You perhaps can with 3rd party hacks. Attempting to claim that it can be done "easily" is remarkably disengenous considering the "target user" that we're supposed to be talking about here. It's certainly not as easy as getting data off of a proper Mac or a PMP that follows some sort of more widely used (industry or vendor) standard. > my original point is that the music is already on the computer so why > bother copying it back, and that you can make as many copies of the > files as you want, from the computer. SignatureNothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit > >> You can't copy the music back from the device. That's restrictive to me. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be done "easily" is remarkably disengenous considering the "target user" > that we're supposed to be talking about here. no hack required. download any of a number of utilities and run it. it's child's play. > It's certainly not as easy as getting data off of a proper Mac or a PMP > that follows some sort of more widely used (industry or vendor) standard. it's just as easy, in fact, in some ways it's easier. > > In article <LPGdnWKPmuGPGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It's certainly not as easy as getting data off of a proper Mac or a PMP > that follows some sort of more widely used (industry or vendor) standard. Seeing that Apple has 70-80% of the market, that kind of makes it the standard..... >> > In article <LPGdnWKPmuGPGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Seeing that Apple has 70-80% of the market, that kind of makes it the > standard..... I have a strange feeling of Deja Vu... it's like I am talking to a DOS user from the 80s... SignatureTruth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \ > > In article <3OSdnfyYv7-gQfjWnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve Sure you can. What's restrictive to you is your inability to use Google and download an additional program. Is it restrictive that you can't use your computer to create spreadsheets without downloading additional software? >>> In article <3OSdnfyYv7-gQfjWnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > can't use your computer to create spreadsheets without downloading > additional software? It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF instead of being an advocate for Apple. Steve > It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem > bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF > instead of being an advocate for Apple. actually, it was the record companies that wanted it. >> It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem >> bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF >> instead of being an advocate for Apple. > > actually, it was the record companies that wanted it. Sorry, don't buy it. Every other MP3 player allows this. Steve > >> It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem > >> bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sorry, don't buy it. Every other MP3 player allows this. other mp3 players don't also come with a music store which has contracts with the record companies. >>>> It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem >>>> bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other mp3 players don't also come with a music store which has > contracts with the record companies. The iPod and the ITS are two separate things. And back when this started all music in the ITS was DRMd, so you couldn't copy music off an iPod and play it on any non-registered PC. Don't buy it. Steve > >>>> It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem > >>>> bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't buy it. You don't buy that the record labels might have balked at contributing to a online store whose whole purpose was (at first) to complement the iTunes/iPod system that already existed? That they might have been more than a little unwilling to do business with Apple if Apple hadn't acted to limit the ability of people to use the iPod (small and portable) to transfer the music that the owner had put on it onto a friend's system; music that could be ripped from CDs; music that could be purchased, burnt to CD and then ripped without DRM back into iTunes? LOL Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > > other mp3 players don't also come with a music store which has > > contracts with the record companies. > > The iPod and the ITS are two separate things. And back when this > started all music in the ITS was DRMd, so you couldn't copy music off > an iPod and play it on any non-registered PC. actually no. the ipod came out 18 months before the itunes music store launched, so the only music that you could put on an ipod was either stuff you encoded yourself or pirated music. apple was either in negotiations with the record companies or planning on it, so they had to do something to look good. >>> other mp3 players don't also come with a music store which has >>> contracts with the record companies. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > negotiations with the record companies or planning on it, so they had > to do something to look good. Still waiting for this proof that they scrambled file names & made it difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record companies. Steve >>>> other mp3 players don't also come with a music store which has >>>> contracts with the record companies. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Steve Ye Gods! Just look into the iPod filesystem for once, and then come back to us. Is it really *that* difficult for you apple fanboiz to do such extremely simple tasks? It seems the whole bunch of you guys combined is dumber than dirt SignatureI refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. > >>> other mp3 players don't also come with a music store which has > >>> contracts with the record companies. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record > companies. the name scrambling as you call it is actually a database hash to make the device faster and more efficient, particularly on a device with limited memory and an embedded microcontroller. it's a very simple optimization. a fast and responsive user interface is something consumers want *far* more than they want the song to have its original file name. > > Still waiting for this proof that they scrambled file names & made it > > difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > limited memory and an embedded microcontroller. it's a very simple > optimization. That's very impressive... ...that you managed to type that with a straight face, I mean! ;) >> Still waiting for this proof that they scrambled file names & made it >> difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a fast and responsive user interface is something consumers want *far* > more than they want the song to have its original file name. Wow, even more unsubstantiated facts. Anything to redirect from Apple's controlling nature. Steve > >> Still waiting for this proof that they scrambled file names & made it > >> difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wow, even more unsubstantiated facts. Anything to redirect from > Apple's controlling nature. translated: if it proves me wrong, it must be unsubstantiated. >> >> Still waiting for this proof that they scrambled file names & made it >> >> difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > translated: if it proves me wrong, it must be unsubstantiated. You don't need to scramble your filesystem data in order to take advantage of the "performance benefits" of an artifical key in your data structure. The real filename just becomes another piece of the metadata. The idea that you need to dump that is much like the idea that you need to dump any human readable attributes. SignatureTruth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \ > You don't need to scramble your filesystem data in order to take > advantage of the "performance benefits" of an artifical key in your > data structure. The real filename just becomes another piece of the > metadata. The idea that you need to dump that is much like the idea > that you need to dump any human readable attributes. first of all, it's not scrambled. second, filenames can be as much as 255 characters long. moving everything to 8.3, and particularly with a name that speeds lookups is faster and saves on memory too. the user never sees the file name when using an ipod (everything is off the id3 tags), so it's a very obvious optimization. >> You don't need to scramble your filesystem data in order to take >> advantage of the "performance benefits" of an artifical key in your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > never sees the file name when using an ipod (everything is off the id3 > tags), so it's a very obvious optimization. Don't think it makes a difference. Steve >> You don't need to scramble your filesystem data in order to take >> advantage of the "performance benefits" of an artifical key in your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 255 characters long. moving everything to 8.3, and particularly with a > name that speeds lookups is faster and saves on memory too. the user No. Using a modern search algorithm speeds up lookups. Even if you do decide to use a hash based approach, you don't have to scramble the original data to take advantage. The hash and the filename just become 2 more keys among many. > never sees the file name when using an ipod (everything is off the id3 > tags), so it's a very obvious optimization. So that points to an obvious approach of laying out files and directories base on the contents of the ID3 tags. This is an approach that quite likely would mirror what the user did in the first place. At the very least, it would represent a sort of conceptual "consistency". SignatureApple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! ||| / | \ > >> You don't need to scramble your filesystem data in order to take > >> advantage of the "performance benefits" of an artifical key in your [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > original data to take advantage. The hash and the filename just become > 2 more keys among many. Assuming the iPod's file system supports this, or you want to keep some extra table around linking hashes with file paths. (The latter approach probably has negative performance implications.) This whole thread is the usual silly armchair engineering: a bunch of people who don't really know the relevant considerations second guessing the choices made by people who worked full time on these problems and produced a product that worked pretty well in the relevant respect. (Providing an extremely responsive interface for browsing thousands of items on a device with slow storage and a low-powered embedded processor.) > > never sees the file name when using an ipod (everything is off the id3 > > tags), so it's a very obvious optimization. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would mirror what the user did in the first place. At the very least, it would > represent a sort of conceptual "consistency". My understanding is that for performance reasons, iPods work entirely off of their song databases, only looking at the rest of the file system when they go to read audio data from music files. So why bother with any of this? What's wrong with Apple's approach of just organizing the file system so it's as easy as possible to find a given file based on its database entry? This is, once again, just a bunch of geeks complaining that Apple designs for the 99% case, not their geeky edge cases. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> You don't need to scramble your filesystem data in order to take >> >> advantage of the "performance benefits" of an artifical key in your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Assuming the iPod's file system supports this, or you want to keep some What happened to the "database" people were talking about? > extra table around linking hashes with file paths. (The latter approach > probably has negative performance implications.) > > This whole thread is the usual silly armchair engineering: a bunch of > people who don't really know the relevant considerations second guessing In the absence of any real technical information being presented by the Cheerleading squad here, it will have to do. > the choices made by people who worked full time on these problems and > produced a product that worked pretty well in the relevant respect. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > when they go to read audio data from music files. So why bother with any > of this? What's wrong with Apple's approach of just organizing the file It unecessarily complicates data recovery. In general, Apple tools have an annoying habit of taking whatever data they get and "flattening" it out so any sort of extra heirarchy information is effectively wiped out. > system so it's as easy as possible to find a given file based on its > database entry? > > This is, once again, just a bunch of geeks complaining that Apple > designs for the 99% case, not their geeky edge cases. Ah yes... the Apple standby: try to demean anyone that might be prone to stray off the reservation by calling them a "geek". Do you people have a "pod person" shrill call to go along with that mindless dedication. SignatureNothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's ||| popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \ manipulations in postgres. > >> > first of all, it's not scrambled. second, filenames can be as much as > >> > 255 characters long. moving everything to 8.3, and particularly with a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What happened to the "database" people were talking about? it's there. > > extra table around linking hashes with file paths. (The latter approach > > probably has negative performance implications.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In the absence of any real technical information being presented by > the Cheerleading squad here, it will have to do. in the absence of any evidence that disproves it, it stands. > > My understanding is that for performance reasons, iPods work entirely > > off of their song databases, only looking at the rest of the file system > > when they go to read audio data from music files. So why bother with any > > of this? What's wrong with Apple's approach of just organizing the file > > It unecessarily complicates data recovery. the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the music is on the user's computer, so if something goes wrong, you resync. plus, device failure is relatively rare anyway. > In general, Apple tools have an annoying habit of taking whatever data > they get and "flattening" it out so any sort of extra heirarchy information > is effectively wiped out. nonsense. the hierarchy is based on id3 tags and *far* more flexible than simple file/folder. > > This is, once again, just a bunch of geeks complaining that Apple > > designs for the 99% case, not their geeky edge cases. > > Ah yes... the Apple standby: try to demean anyone that might be prone > to stray off the reservation by calling them a "geek". Do you people have > a "pod person" shrill call to go along with that mindless dedication. nothing demeaning about it. the vast majority of people don't give a flying fig about what goes on inside an ipod. only techies and geeks do, and they're a very small part of the user base. > the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the music > is on the user's computer, so if something goes wrong, you resync. > plus, device failure is relatively rare anyway. I accidentally deleted a couple of albums in my iTunes library a couple of years ago. It should have been easy for me to bring them back. In iTunes I should have been able to click on the iPod and see the files in the right-hand pane, in un-scrambled form, where I could simply drag them back to "Music". In other words, I should: Not have to "Google" for 3rd party solutions Not have to possibly pay for that 3rd party solutions Not have to wade through the many 3rd party solutions to find one that I was sure to be compatible with my OS/iTunes version/hardware Not have to argue about such an obvious omission in a Usenet newsgroup Steve > > the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the music > > is on the user's computer, so if something goes wrong, you resync. > > plus, device failure is relatively rare anyway. > > I accidentally deleted a couple of albums in my iTunes library a > couple of years ago. It should have been easy for me to bring them back. in fact, it is very easy to restore from a backup. if you are using a mac, it's extremely simple - one click to go into time machine and another to restore the files. it doesn't get any easier than that. > In iTunes I should have been able to click on the iPod and see the > files in the right-hand pane, in un-scrambled form, where I could > simply drag them back to "Music". why, when it's even easier without itunes at all? > In other words, I should: > Not have to "Google" for 3rd party solutions > Not have to possibly pay for that 3rd party solutions > Not have to wade through the many 3rd party solutions to find one that > I was sure to be compatible with my OS/iTunes version/hardware > Not have to argue about such an obvious omission in a Usenet newsgroup no need for any of that. nice try though. >>> the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the music >>> is on the user's computer, so if something goes wrong, you resync. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mac, it's extremely simple - one click to go into time machine and > another to restore the files. it doesn't get any easier than that. (1) Time Machine didn't exist at the time (2) Never got Time Machine to work when it came out, abandoned it. >> In iTunes I should have been able to click on the iPod and see the >> files in the right-hand pane, in un-scrambled form, where I could [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > no need for any of that. nice try though. I'm speechless. Steve > (2) Never got Time Machine to work when it came out, abandoned it. if you can't figure out time machine which is mind numbingly simple (one big switch to turn it on), then it's not surprising that you have problems with itunes. > >> In other words, I should: > >> Not have to "Google" for 3rd party solutions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm speechless. does that mean you will cease posting? >> (2) Never got Time Machine to work when it came out, abandoned it. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > does that mean you will cease posting? As long as you post drivel that can't be left to stand on its own, no. Steve > > does that mean you will cease posting? > > As long as you post drivel that can't be left to stand on its own, no. if refuting your bullshit is drivel, so be it. >> the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the music >> is on the user's computer, so if something goes wrong, you resync. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Steve Next time you're buying a music player, make SURE that when you plug it into a computer it acts like a USB hard drive. Then, restoring the 1,826 music files can be done in a couple of minutes by SIMPLY opening the file manager in the computer and COPYing them to whatever directory YOU choose to put them in on the device. Such devices search themselves and don't give a sh.t if you have the right credentials and format in their special secret file structure. This proprietary bullshit to satisfy the record company bureaucrats is nonsense. iTunes has NEVER been easier than Windows Explorer at moving a thousand files to the player.....or its removable cards. It copies the files over as fast as the memory can burn them.... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Next time you're buying a music player, make SURE that when you plug it > into a computer it acts like a USB hard drive. Then, restoring the > 1,826 music files can be done in a couple of minutes by SIMPLY opening > the file manager in the computer and COPYing them to whatever directory > YOU choose to put them in on the device. or get an ipod and click sync and it happens automatically. > Such devices search themselves and don't give a sh.t if you have the > right credentials and format in their special secret file structure. none required. > This proprietary bullshit to satisfy the record company bureaucrats is > nonsense. what's nonsense are your idiotic posts. > iTunes has NEVER been easier than Windows Explorer at moving a thousand > files to the player.....or its removable cards. It copies the files > over as fast as the memory can burn them.... clicking one button and letting the computer do the work is *much* easier than drag/drop files into specific folders. >> Next time you're buying a music player, make SURE that when you plug it >> into a computer it acts like a USB hard drive. Then, restoring the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > clicking one button and letting the computer do the work is *much* > easier than drag/drop files into specific folders. ...except that's not how it works. You have to click off a bunch of checkboxes figuring out what you have room for on the device. You only have a certain level of granularity. So if you want to do something like only include one album (or song) from a particualar artist (due to the aforementioned lack of space), you will have to do a special workaround to get that album on the ipod (or do without). Compared to dragging and dropping things between windows. That's not at all "easier". If I have room for "everything" then dragging a single icon across will do. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > > clicking one button and letting the computer do the work is *much* > > easier than drag/drop files into specific folders. > > ...except that's not how it works. yes it is > You have to click off a bunch of checkboxes figuring out what you have > room for on the device. nope > You only have a certain level of granularity. individual songs is as granular as it can get, regardless of how it's copied > So if you want to do something like only include one album (or song) > from a particualar artist (due to the aforementioned lack of space), > you will have to do a special workaround to get that album on the > ipod (or do without). nope. > Compared to dragging and dropping things between windows. That's not > at all "easier". wrong > If I have room for "everything" then dragging a single icon across will do. if you have room for everything, it's one click. period. there is no need to 'click off a bunch of checkboxes figuring out what you have room for on the device'. it will all fit. > You have to click off a bunch of checkboxes 1,826 checkboxes for 1,826 files? Hmm...I didn't realize it was that bad. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > > You have to click off a bunch of checkboxes > > 1,826 checkboxes for 1,826 files? Hmm...I didn't realize it was that bad. there is no reason you need to check each checkbox. you are an idiot. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:050220102126166931% nospam@nospam.invalid: > or get an ipod and click sync and it happens automatically. er, ah, the music is stored on a Debian Linux computer....How do I sync it to iPod? ___________________________________________________________________________ Moving music on OR OFF of a player that acts like a USB hard drive isn't dependent on anything except the OS must support USB ports, which they all do. I simply plug my ancient Archos Jukebox 20(MB) MP3 player from Christmas 2001 into my 2008 Diablo Maemo Linux tablet and use the File Manager on Maemo to move any files I want on AND OFF the ancient MP3 player via its LEGACY COMPATIBLE USB ver1.1 cable. I can't plug an Ipod into the Linux tablet because the goddamned iTunes bullshit prevents it, even though I can plug the ipod into its USB port. Bullshit....pure bullshit proprietary nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > > or get an ipod and click sync and it happens automatically. > > er, ah, the music is stored on a Debian Linux computer....How do I sync it > to iPod? file sharing. duh. > >> the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the > music [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > iTunes has NEVER been easier than Windows Explorer at moving a > thousand files to the player.....or its removable cards. Sure. Unless you want to automatically copy: 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). 2) The last five unplayed episodes of each of ten selected podcasts (which were automatically downloaded). 3) All the songs by five specific artists that you rated three stars or higher and haven't listed to in the last month. 4) A few specific ordered playlists. 5) All of your equalizer settings, where you left off listening to every podcast and audio book, etc. 6) Randomly selected songs as necessary to fill any extra space left over. But hey, by using your media player to back up your media library instead of just backing it up to the external drive you back the rest of your data up to, you might save like $5 worth of hard drive space, so it's totally worth it. > It copies the files over as fast as the memory can burn them.... Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the >> music [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about an entirely unecessary inconvience. Any time you need to "process" data in order to get it onto a PMP, that's a usability FAIL. > 2) The last five unplayed episodes of each of ten selected podcasts > (which were automatically downloaded). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But hey, by using your media player to back up your media library I would rather just have EVERYTHING. This isn't the 80s. I don't need to be restricted to individual albums or mix tapes. The coolest thing about an mp3 player is I don't have to figure out ahead of time what I might want to play later. > instead of just backing it up to the external drive you back the rest of > your data up to, you might save like $5 worth of hard drive space, so > it's totally worth it. > >> It copies the files over as fast as the memory can burn them.... SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > >> >> the ipod is not supposed to have the only copy of the music. the > >> music [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > an entirely unecessary inconvience. Any time you need to "process" > data in order to get it onto a PMP, that's a usability FAIL. Because the scaled down photos are fine for viewing on the device, and you can fit a lot more of them into less storage space. You appear to favor players with gobs of storage over more portable models, but the mainstream consumer market seems to disagree with you. > > 2) The last five unplayed episodes of each of ten selected podcasts > > (which were automatically downloaded). [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > thing about an mp3 player is I don't have to figure out ahead of time > what I might want to play later. Even if you are taking all your music with you, there's still quite a lot of benefit in your player automatically syncing your playlists, ratings, etc. > > instead of just backing it up to the external drive you back the rest of > > your data up to, you might save like $5 worth of hard drive space, so > > it's totally worth it. > > > >> It copies the files over as fast as the memory can burn them.... Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnhmrbep.pj7.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/6/10 10:58 AM: >> Sure. Unless you want to automatically copy: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an entirely unecessary inconvience. Any time you need to "process" > data in order to get it onto a PMP, that's a usability FAIL. He did use the word "want". >> 2) The last five unplayed episodes of each of ten selected podcasts >> (which were automatically downloaded). [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > thing about an mp3 player is I don't have to figure out ahead of time > what I might want to play later. So get one large enough for all of your music and move it all over. >> instead of just backing it up to the external drive you back the rest of >> your data up to, you might save like $5 worth of hard drive space, so >> it's totally worth it. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > > 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). > > Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about > an entirely unecessary inconvience. Any time you need to "process" > data in order to get it onto a PMP, that's a usability FAIL. because there's absolutely no point in loading the full size image for a 3.5" display with only 153,600 pixels. most people will look at the whole image and not zoom, but it's scaled to a bit larger so you can zoom in a bit. > I would rather just have EVERYTHING. This isn't the 80s. I don't > need to be restricted to individual albums or mix tapes. The coolest > thing about an mp3 player is I don't have to figure out ahead of time > what I might want to play later. buy a 160 gig ipod then. maybe everything will fit. >>> 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). >> Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whole image and not zoom, but it's scaled to a bit larger so you can > zoom in a bit. Maybe I'm taking it to a friend's house and want to hook it up to their 100" television to view the pictures? Steve > >>> 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). > >> Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Maybe I'm taking it to a friend's house and want to hook it up to > their 100" television to view the pictures? nothing stops you from doing that, but that's an edge case. i doubt you know anyone with a tv that big anyway, not to mention that you still don't need full resolution images for that. are those pictures of straw men? >>>>> 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). >>>> Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > are those pictures of straw men? I can't believe you thought I really meant a 100" TV. How old are you? OK, I want to share with a friend with a 24" LCD monitor. I don't want to show him images converted to look good on a 3" screen. It's like when you mail a photo from an iPhone. It does you the favor of reducing the quality, with no easy configuration setting to disable that and attach the full image. Steve > >>>>> 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). > >>>> Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of reducing the quality, with no easy configuration setting to disable > that and attach the full image. You mean, aside from where it pops up a dialog box and asks you if you want to attach it: Full size, Large, Medium, or Small... ...and informs you what it estimates that size of all the photos will be at the requested resolution... ...and asks what information you want to include with it... ...aside from that, right? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > Maybe I'm taking it to a friend's house and want to hook it up to > their 100" television to view the pictures? Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry net............................................book Plugs right in....stores them all. Also plays the divx movies off alt.binaries.movies.divx to make up for you boring the hell out of them with your slide show....(c;] > > 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). > > Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about > an entirely unecessary inconvience. Any time you need to "process" > data in order to get it onto a PMP, that's a usability FAIL. Unless your originals are tiny, the image is going to have to be scaled in order to view it. The implications of this fact are that if you don't use your host PC to "pre-digest" the image, then you're going to be asking your PMP, which is a comparatively low performance, power limited device to do the work. Not only for every single image stored, but also for every time that you go to display that image. The result is that its going to be not only slow and eat power, but you're not going to be able to store as much, either. > I would rather just have EVERYTHING. We always want to have our cake and eat it too. However, the non-naive trade-off is that you have to choose between having either 20 no-compromise 'full rez' images that are subsequently very slow to load (and unable to discern their higher resolution on your tiny screen) -or- you can have 200+ 'low rez' images that come up quickly, and will look exactly the same. Given that your application is on a mall portable device of limited battery, limited screen resolution and limited CPU performance and that its not intended to be the "digital wallet" sole copy, which approach is superior is quite obvious. FWIW, for a point of reference, can you tell me what the performance benchmark is for your PMP for working with a 23.7 megabyte file? -hh >>> 1) Scaled down versions of your photos (suitable for iPod viewing). >> Why bother? Why should I have to scale my photos down. Talk about [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to be not only slow and eat power, but you're not going to be able to > store as much, either. The iPhone is resizing large images all day long if you use Safari and browse web sites with large photos. >> I would rather just have EVERYTHING. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -hh My god, another spew of too much data. It's simple, have a checkbox under options, "Compress Photos" yes or no. Done deal. Steve > The iPhone is resizing large images all day long if you use Safari and > browse web sites with large photos. those aren't stored on the device, and downloading large photos takes time. > My god, another spew of too much data. It's simple, have a checkbox > under options, "Compress Photos" yes or no. Done deal. you get your wish. the ipad has a shared folder so you can bulk it up with 60 megapixel images from a phase one back if you want. > > The iPhone is resizing large images all day long if you use Safari and > > browse web sites with large photos. > > those aren't stored on the device, and downloading large photos takes > time. And very little web browsing involves 8+ megapixel photos. Those are what's sitting in people's iPhoto libraries, since even cheap computer cameras do at least that now. > > My god, another spew of too much data. It's simple, have a checkbox > > under options, "Compress Photos" yes or no. Done deal. > > you get your wish. the ipad has a shared folder so you can bulk it up > with 60 megapixel images from a phase one back if you want. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> The iPhone is resizing large images all day long if you use Safari and >> browse web sites with large photos. > > those aren't stored on the device, and downloading large photos takes > time. Huh? The difference, in terms of battery and CPU, is exactly WHAT? >> My god, another spew of too much data. It's simple, have a checkbox >> under options, "Compress Photos" yes or no. Done deal. > > you get your wish. the ipad has a shared folder so you can bulk it up > with 60 megapixel images from a phase one back if you want. Doubt you know what options the iPad has for its Photo app. Steve > > The implications of this fact are that if you don't use your host PC > > to "pre-digest" the image, then you're going to be asking your PMP, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The iPhone is resizing large images all day long if you use Safari and > browse web sites with large photos. Where "large" is defined as what? Websites aren't going to be trying to display anything larger than 1080p HDTV, and probably a lot less. Yet 1080 is "only" 1920×1080, which is <2 megapixels. 2MP and even 4MP cameras are things of the past. There were $100 P&S being sold for Christmas...2008... that were already 12 MP systems. And state-of-the-shelf dSLRs are now even higher: the Sony IIRC is 25MP. So what you're claiming is "easy" is easy, but its because it is 1/10th of what's now being asked for. -hh >>> The implications of this fact are that if you don't use your host PC >>> to "pre-digest" the image, then you're going to be asking your PMP, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -hh The cumulative time/CPU power used to resize web photos (day in and day out) is going to be higher than the once a month you browse photos. Just give me a f.cking checkbox "Resize Photos?" Yes or No. Simple as that. Next? Steve > I would rather just have EVERYTHING. This isn't the 80s. I don't > need to be restricted to individual albums or mix tapes. The coolest > thing about an mp3 player is I don't have to figure out ahead of time > what I might want to play later. precisely why I upgraded the 20GB drive in my 2nd MP3 player, an Xclef 500 beast, to 120GB for free. It uses a standard laptop drive, hence the size of it, acts as a USB hard drive (which I'm now using as a self-powered data drive for the little Nokia N800 Linux tablet) and can store an IMMENSE amount of MP3 files if you load it up full! http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/dmc-xclef-hd-500/4505-6490_7- 31212346.html Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-B69811.00275006022010 @Port80.Individual.NET: > 3) All the songs by five specific artists that you rated three stars or > higher and haven't listed to in the last month. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 6) Randomly selected songs as necessary to fill any extra space left > over. For those specific moving/copying to the USB-drive MP3 player, I use the same program I use for playing the vast array of millions of MP3 files, MP3 Catalog Pro: http://www.wizetech.com/amc/ from some Russians. It's the finest MP3 catalogging, searching and file management software on the planet! It takes it ONE SECOND to list all the "Pretty Baby" songs across 5TB of previously-automatically-catalogged network drives with millions of files on them. I've never found anything even close. It even does string searches that fast! "Sure honey, which of these 384 artists singing "Pretty Baby" did you want to hear?", I reply noting her astonishment at the rapid response.....(c;] Oops...sorry. Don't wait for the Mac port....my bad. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry [snip] > > My understanding is that for performance reasons, iPods work entirely > > off of their song databases, only looking at the rest of the file system > > when they go to read audio data from music files. So why bother with any > > of this? What's wrong with Apple's approach of just organizing the file > > It unecessarily complicates data recovery. I've already thoroughly debunked the claim that there's any significant value in using a portable media player has a backup. > In general, Apple tools have an annoying habit of taking whatever data > they get and "flattening" it out so any sort of extra heirarchy information > is effectively wiped out. Any interesting hierarchies in this case are represented in the metadata. > > system so it's as easy as possible to find a given file based on its > > database entry? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to stray off the reservation by calling them a "geek". Do you people have > a "pod person" shrill call to go along with that mindless dedication. I'm not using the term "geek" in a particularly abusive way here; I'm merely using it to refer to people who have significant knowledge of and interest in technology for its own sake, as opposed to people who merely use it to accomplish things. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Still waiting for this proof that they scrambled file names & made it >> difficult to copy music OFF of an iPod "to look good" to the record [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a fast and responsive user interface is something consumers want *far* > more than they want the song to have its original file name. OK, I'll spell it out for you. All that "hash" is to further lock people into the iTunes software (locked into Apple device only) and hence lure people into using the ITS and spending lots of money. Steve > OK, I'll spell it out for you. All that "hash" is to further lock > people into the iTunes software (locked into Apple device only) and > hence lure people into using the ITS and spending lots of money. nonsense. as i said, the hash makes the ipod work faster. customers like devices that are fast, not sluggish. >> OK, I'll spell it out for you. All that "hash" is to further lock >> people into the iTunes software (locked into Apple device only) and >> hence lure people into using the ITS and spending lots of money. > > nonsense. as i said, the hash makes the ipod work faster. customers > like devices that are fast, not sluggish. The hash does no such thing. Nice try though. http://ostatic.com/blog/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-doesnt-like-apples-at titude I'm sure that new checksum hash mentioned above, introduced in 2007, was to "speed up" people's iPods even more??? Steve > >> OK, I'll spell it out for you. All that "hash" is to further lock > >> people into the iTunes software (locked into Apple device only) and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The hash does no such thing. Nice try though. based on what? > http://ostatic.com/blog/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-doesnt-like-apples- > attitude > > I'm sure that new checksum hash mentioned above, introduced in 2007, > was to "speed up" people's iPods even more??? that guarantees the integrity of the file. if anyone can write to it, the chances of it being corrupted go up, which would mean the ipod would not sync properly. customers don't like it when things don't work the way they expect. why is this so hard to understand? >>>> OK, I'll spell it out for you. All that "hash" is to further lock >>>> people into the iTunes software (locked into Apple device only) and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > based on what? Based on the zero proof you have provided. >> http://ostatic.com/blog/the-electronic-frontier-foundation-doesnt-like-apples- >> attitude [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > why is this so hard to understand? That has to be the lamest explanation I've heard since....... since...... one of you other recent posts. I like this one better: "In iPods released after September 2007, however, Apple introduced a checksum hash to make it difficult for applications other than iTunes to write new data to the iTunesDB file, thereby hindering an iPod owner's ability to use alternative software (like gtkpod, Winamp, or Songbird) to manage the files on her iPod."" Steve > >>> nonsense. as i said, the hash makes the ipod work faster. customers > >>> like devices that are fast, not sluggish. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Based on the zero proof you have provided. what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to the music? if they really wanted to prevent you from accessing it, they could have encrypted it or put it in a nonstandard file system with virtually no way to read it. >> >>> nonsense. as i said, the hash makes the ipod work faster. customers >> >>> like devices that are fast, not sluggish. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to > the music? It doesn't matter. You still never substantiated the idea that scrambling the filenames makes anything faster. [deletia] SignatureTruth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \ > > what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to > > the music? > > It doesn't matter. You still never substantiated the idea that > scrambling the filenames makes anything faster. it's obvious to anyone who knows anything about databases. >>> what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to >>> the music? >> It doesn't matter. You still never substantiated the idea that >> scrambling the filenames makes anything faster. > > it's obvious to anyone who knows anything about databases. It's not obvious to me. So enlighten me. Steve >>>>> nonsense. as i said, the hash makes the ipod work faster. customers >>>>> like devices that are fast, not sluggish. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to > the music? Because of the additions they made in 2007, which I refer to elsewhere. You gotta nothing to back up your statements, so just go back in the corner and watch while the grownups talk. Steve > > what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to > > the music? > > Because of the additions they made in 2007, which I refer to elsewhere. changes in 2007 are irrelevant. file name hashing appeared two years earlier in 2005. > You gotta nothing to back up your statements, so just go back in the > corner and watch while the grownups talk. if you are going to drop to insults, then it's your argument that's empty. >>> what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to >>> the music? >> Because of the additions they made in 2007, which I refer to elsewhere. > > changes in 2007 are irrelevant. file name hashing appeared two years > earlier in 2005. "In iPods released after September 2007, however, Apple introduced a checksum hash to make it difficult for applications other than iTunes to write new data to the iTunesDB file, thereby hindering an iPod owner's ability to use alternative software (like gtkpod, Winamp, or Songbird) to manage the files on her iPod." >> You gotta nothing to back up your statements, so just go back in the >> corner and watch while the grownups talk. > > if you are going to drop to insults, then it's your argument that's > empty. Ouch! Steve >>> what proof do *you* have that says the hash was for blocking access to >>> the music? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > if you are going to drop to insults, then it's your argument that's > empty. Argumentum ad hominem speaks for itself! :-) > > In article <be2dnYtLs59f4_fWnZ2dnUVZ_qidn...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Steve 1. A checksum is not encryption -- it is a method for verifying file integrity. 2. Please explain how you reliable encrypt data using a public/private keypair when the end user has access to both the public key and the private key? 3. Songbird works with the latest iPods. I havent checked the other programs. > 1. A checksum is not encryption -- it is a method for verifying file > integrity. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3. Songbird works with the latest iPods. I havent checked the other > programs. Songbird I think stopped working with the 5G iPods, right about the time of the 2007 changes I documented. http://lifehacker.com/5295821/songbird-12-integrates-into-itunes-and-ipods "...you just have to actually sync the device through iTunes and set it to grab those Songbird-managed playlists. " "Songbird is a powerful, clever music manager, but iPod/iPhone integration is its Achilles' heel." http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon/12 "This add-on is no longer developed or supported by the Songbird development team. It may or may not work for you." Steve > KDTwrote: > > 1. A checksum is not encryption -- it is a method for verifying file [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Songbird I think stopped working with the 5G iPods, right about the > time of the 2007 changes I documented. http://wiki.songbirdnest.com/Docs/IPod_Device_Support >> KDTwrote: >>> 1. A checksum is not encryption -- it is a method for verifying file [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://wiki.songbirdnest.com/Docs/IPod_Device_Support That hasn't been updated in a year. Addon development has ceased. Issues reported (on that very page) with iPod 6g. Steve > >> KDTwrote: > >>> 1. A checksum is not encryption -- it is a method for verifying file [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Steve So because it has been discontinued means that they dropped support for something that was working? You can still download it. >>>> KDTwrote: >>>>> 1. A checksum is not encryption -- it is a method for verifying file [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So because it has been discontinued means that they dropped support > for something that was working? You can still download it. I was reading a couple of forums and you'd need a very loose definition of "working" to use this app with latter iPods. Steve >> OK, I'll spell it out for you. All that "hash" is to further lock >> people into the iTunes software (locked into Apple device only) and >> hence lure people into using the ITS and spending lots of money. > > nonsense. as i said, the hash makes the ipod work faster. customers > like devices that are fast, not sluggish. Well, you are certainly free to believe that bullshit about the reasons for that hash Just don't assume that all people are as gullible SignatureTwenty Percent of Zero is Better than Nothing. -- Walt Kelly > >> It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem > >> bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve But how many of those MP3 player makers have to negotiate a deal with the record companies to put their music on a store? SignatureAndy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/> >>>> It's Apple who created this restriction. You folks don't seem >>>> bothered by that. Amazing. How about being an advocate for YOURSELF [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But how many of those MP3 player makers have to negotiate a deal with > the record companies to put their music on a store? Still don't buy it. Show me proof. Steve > >> > In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > when you've already got something right there that's quite literally got > a backup copy of the relevant information. Since the most popular iPods are the Nano's, shuffles, and iPod Touches -- none of which have "large" amounts of storage space by any modern definition of large, that's kind of a moot point. The only iPod that has a "large" amount of storage is the Classic, which can be mounted as a mass storage device, and you can copy the songs directly off of the device. > The only iPod > that has a "large" amount of storage is the Classic, which can be > mounted as a mass storage device, and you can copy the songs directly > off of the device. Right.....aren't all the files and folder names mangled? Steve > > The only iPod > > that has a "large" amount of storage is the Classic, which can be > > mounted as a mass storage device, and you can copy the songs directly > > off of the device. > > Right.....aren't all the files and folder names mangled? not hard to unmangle them, which is exactly what the various utilities do. >>> The only iPod >>> that has a "large" amount of storage is the Classic, which can be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not hard to unmangle them, which is exactly what the various utilities > do. Ah, so now the truth comes out. You need a 3rd party utility to do this. It's not as easy as you make it sound. Steve > >> Right.....aren't all the files and folder names mangled? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, so now the truth comes out. You need a 3rd party utility to do > this. It's not as easy as you make it sound. how hard is it to download a utility? some of them even look at your playlists and give you virtual folders of artists/albums, rather than one big list of songs. >> >> Right.....aren't all the files and folder names mangled? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > how hard is it to download a utility? What's your personal favorite? [deletia] SignatureNothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: culture, like science and ||| technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \ building on the works of those that came before. Judge Alex Kozinski US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit > > In article <LPGdnZyOmuFlGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What's your personal favorite? For the Mac, Senuti (http://www.fadingred.com/senuti/docs/) >> > In article <LPGdnZyOmuFlGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > For the Mac, Senuti (http://www.fadingred.com/senuti/docs/) ...now all the random consumer needs is a Mac. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ > >> What's your personal favorite? > > > > For the Mac, Senuti (http://www.fadingred.com/senuti/docs/) > > ...now all the random consumer needs is a Mac. there are windows and linux utilities too. you do know how to use google, right? > >> > In article <LPGdnZyOmuFlGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| > choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / \ But I would hope that random consumers could go on google. You asked me what do I use not for an exhaustive list of every solution available. >>> In article <LPGdnZyOmuFlGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > For the Mac, Senuti (http://www.fadingred.com/senuti/docs/) That's $18. How about a free one that works? Steve >>>> In article <LPGdnZyOmuFlGPvWnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's $18. How about a free one that works? My preference would be that you can hook it up to a PC running any OS and it "just" works like any other USB mass storage device. Special proprietary apps need to be maintained and updated for new OS versions and are subject to being orphaned (like books). [deletia] SignatureMy macintosh runs Ubuntu. ||| / | \ >>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How much straw does it take for you to come up with these arguments? > Are you saying you don't back up your hard drive? People crazily assume their iPhone/iPod *is* a backup of the iTunes content, that they can easily restore. Steve > >>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Steve It is easy for most people who can use Google..... >>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It is easy for most people who can use Google..... Amazing how powerful that Kool-Aid is. Steve >>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How much straw does it take for you to come up with these arguments? > Are you saying you don't back up your hard drive? Why are you defending Apple not allowing us to freely copy to/from our devices? Steve > >>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Steve You never did answer the question, do you exclude your media when backing up your hard drive? Copying from any iPod except for the Touch/iPhone is a simple matter of mounting the iPod as a Mass storage device and showing invisible files. Copying from the iPod Touch/ iPhone is just a Google search away. >>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > device and showing invisible files. Copying from the iPod Touch/ > iPhone is just a Google search away. My system is not typical. Close to 10TB storage. I mounted my iPod Classic. Don't see any music files in the Finder. If there are steps one need to take to see them the average user will never do it. End of story. (But I'll continue and say that even if they could see the files all they would see is a mish-mash of folers with names like F32, F33, F35, etc and files ALL renamed with unintelligle names). Keeping defending Apple for no good reason! Steve > >>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Steve This coming from the same person who was afraid to buy non Apple brand iPod cables? >>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > This coming from the same person who was afraid to buy non Apple brand > iPod cables? You stated how "easy" it was for me to copy files from my iPod. And I illustrated how that is a false statement. And then you threw out something about iPod CABLES. Wow, good one. Steve > >>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So easy is not going to google and searching for a program? >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > So easy is not going to google and searching for a program? Average user can't do that. Thanks for Apple they have to. Steve > >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Steve The average user can't use Google? >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [deletia] >> >>> This coming from the same person who was afraid to buy non Apple brand >> >>> iPod cables? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The average user can't use Google? The average user can't jailbreak their phone. Nor should they be forced to. SignatureMetallica is not worth the ruination of someone ||| who has pirated their music / | \ > >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone ||| > who has pirated their music / | \ So should the average user not be *forced* to download software when they want to do something with their computer that was not bundled with it? >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > they want to do something with their computer that was not bundled > with it? You are trying to conflate breaking into your own hardware with whether or not you might want or need to download Perian, or Plex, or Firefox or Picasa. How does that Kool-aid taste. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| > / | \ So I shouldn't buy a device because I might need to download a free program to get additional functionality? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > So I shouldn't buy a device because I might need to download a free > program to get additional functionality? Sorry, if its not included it don't count. That's the same rules that you guys have applied to Windows since Day 1. Steve > KDTwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Steve Well iTunes isn't included with iPods you have to download it if you have Windows and you probably have to download a later version with Macs. So do you just look at your iPod dumbfounded or do you download iTunes? >> KDTwrote: >>>>>>>> KDTwrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Macs. So do you just look at your iPod dumbfounded or do you download > iTunes. That's a fair statement. I actually didn't think the programs that pull music off an iPod intelligibly were free. The one I got a few years ago that was mentioned here (Senuti?) wasn't free. I think you have to download iTunes for both Macs and Windows. Steve > > Well iTunes isn't included with iPods you have to download it if you > > have Windows and you probably have to download a later version with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pull music off an iPod intelligibly were free. The one I got a few > years ago that was mentioned here (Senuti?) wasn't free. some are free, some aren't. > >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| > / | \ So downloading software to allow extra functionality is "breaking into my own hardware?" So do you also criticize computer makers for the DRM used to "prevent" copying DVD's or do you just download a program that circumvents the restriction? >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > DRM used to "prevent" copying DVD's or do you just download a program > that circumvents the restriction? The DRM is on the media you boob. It has nothing to do with the device or the computer. In these sorts of discussions, it helps to have at least something resembling a clue when it comes to tech. OTOH, computer vendors give me the option of attaching things to my computer. This includes IDE connectors, SATA connectors, firewire connectors and USB connectors. I can read and write CDs, DVDs and BDs to my hearts content. Whether or not a bit of data is encrypted is up to the person that creates it. This is as true for PGP as it is for CSS or AACS. You could do a bit level copy of a DVD and put it on a flash drive and it would still require something that understands CSS and has the right decrypt keys. OTOH, if your computer vendor strictly controls what software you may install on your "appliance" the prospect of decyrpting stuff like CSS or AACS may simply not be an option. The control freak in charge might not allow it. That same control freak might also prevent you from downloading 2 of the 5 most popular Mac downloads on CNET. SignatureTruth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \ > > So downloading software to allow extra functionality is "breaking into > > my own hardware?" So do you also criticize computer makers for the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > CSS or AACS may simply not be an option. The control freak in charge > might not allow it. The implicit argument here is that *every single user in the world* should have a system that runs unsigned software, just so that the geeks can have the freedom to run software the vendor doesn't approve of. But of course using a system that will unquestioningly run malware, doesn't sandbox apps, allows buggy kernel extensions to be installed, etc. has substantial negative impact for average users. A better approach is for regular people to have systems that only run approved apps, and for the geeks to modify their systems to run unapproved apps. There are presently two ways to do this with iPhone OS devices: you can jailbreak (at which point you can basically do anything on the device), or you can join the developer program, which keeps most device security mechanisms in place (sandboxing, only running signed apps, etc.), but lets you compile, sign and install your own apps. > That same control freak might also prevent you from downloading > 2 of the 5 most popular Mac downloads on CNET. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > device or the computer. In these sorts of discussions, it helps to > have at least something resembling a clue when it comes to tech. So Windows "Secure Media Path" is built into Blu-Ray? You do know that MS built in DRM to keep you from outputting protected media to non-protected video and audio sources right? You have also heard of region locking that is built into almost every DVD drive haven't you? > OTOH, computer vendors give me the option of attaching things to > my computer. This includes IDE connectors, SATA connectors, firewire > connectors and USB connectors. I can read and write CDs, DVDs and BDs > to my hearts content. So try connecting a non-approved video source to your Windows computer and outputting video from your Blu-Ray drive to it and see how far you get. > Whether or not a bit of data is encrypted is up to the person that > creates it. This is as true for PGP as it is for CSS or AACS. > > You could do a bit level copy of a DVD and put it on a flash drive > and it would still require something that understands CSS and has the > right decrypt keys. And the DVD writers you buy make it impossible to write to a specific portion of the DVD make copying protected DVD's harder. > OTOH, if your computer vendor strictly controls what software you > may install on your "appliance" the prospect of decyrpting stuff like > CSS or AACS may simply not be an option. The control freak in charge > might not allow it. You mean like 64-bit Vista and unsigned drivers? >> OTOH, if your computer vendor strictly controls what software you >> may install on your "appliance" the prospect of decyrpting stuff like >> CSS or AACS may simply not be an option. The control freak in charge >> might not allow it. > > You mean like 64-bit Vista and unsigned drivers? No, requiring signed drivers is not prohibiting the software. Just sign the drivers. Steve > >> OTOH, if your computer vendor strictly controls what software you > >> may install on your "appliance" the prospect of decyrpting stuff like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, requiring signed drivers is not prohibiting the software. Just > sign the drivers. and what apple is doing isn't prohibiting anything either. >>>> OTOH, if your computer vendor strictly controls what software you >>>> may install on your "appliance" the prospect of decyrpting stuff like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > and what apple is doing isn't prohibiting anything either. Apple, and Apple alone, control what apps are approved for the app store, and thus make their way onto iPhones, iPod Touches and upcoming iPads. They have prohibited many apps. Steve > >>> You mean like 64-bit Vista and unsigned drivers? > >> No, requiring signed drivers is not prohibiting the software. Just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > store, and thus make their way onto iPhones, iPod Touches and upcoming > iPads. which has what to do with getting music off an ipod? move the goalposts much? > They have prohibited many apps. actually, they've rejected relatively few. 98% are approved, and of the ones that are rejected, many are because of bugs and are approved when the bugs are fixed. >>>>> You mean like 64-bit Vista and unsigned drivers? >>>> No, requiring signed drivers is not prohibiting the software. Just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > which has what to do with getting music off an ipod? move the goalposts > much? How have I moved the goal posts? This post has nothing to do with getting music off of an iPod. >> They have prohibited many apps. > > actually, they've rejected relatively few. 98% are approved, and of the > ones that are rejected, many are because of bugs and are approved when > the bugs are fixed. Right, the only reason Apple has blocked apps is because of "bugs". Do YOUU even believe that? Your credibility has dropped another couple of notches. Steve > >>>>> You mean like 64-bit Vista and unsigned drivers? > >>>> No, requiring signed drivers is not prohibiting the software. Just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How have I moved the goal posts? This post has nothing to do with > getting music off of an iPod. the thread started off about music, not apps. > >> They have prohibited many apps. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Right, the only reason Apple has blocked apps is because of "bugs". > Do YOUU even believe that? nobody said it was the *only* reason. apple has stated that most (not all) rejections are due to bugs. cite evidence that *they* are lying. > Your credibility has dropped another couple of notches. and yours is nonexistent. > > In article <TMOdnYxcmv5jCPbWnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Steve Apple doesn't *prevent* you from compiling an app and installing it on *your* device.. >>> In article <TMOdnYxcmv5jCPbWnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Apple doesn't *prevent* you from compiling an app and installing it > on *your* device.. Did you write that with a straight face? Steve > > Apple doesn't *prevent* you from compiling an app and installing it > > on *your* device.. > > Did you write that with a straight face? what he wrote is correct. >>> Apple doesn't *prevent* you from compiling an app and installing it >>> on *your* device.. >> Did you write that with a straight face? > > what he wrote is correct. If that is supposed to mean I can install "any app I want", it's miles off the mark. Steve > >>> Apple doesn't *prevent* you from compiling an app and installing it > >>> on *your* device.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If that is supposed to mean I can install "any app I want", it's miles > off the mark. not at all. you can write *any* app you want, even using private apis, full of porn or doing something illicit. you just can't sell that app on the app store. go write a password cracker and see if best buy or amazon will carry it. good luck. > > In article <TMOdnYxcmv5jCPbWnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Steve Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? In article <36c028c1-e1db-4171-af67-cb39502bde98@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > In article <TMOdnYxcmv5jCPbWnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? reports are about 2% and even some of them end up getting approved if they make changes. > In article > <36c028c1-e1db-4171-af67-cb39502bde98@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > reports are about 2% and even some of them end up getting approved if > they make changes. So that would be thousands. I'd consider that "many". Steve > > In article > > <36c028c1-e1db-4171-af67-cb39502bde98@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Steve Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any undertaking. >>>> Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? >>> reports are about 2% and even some of them end up getting approved if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any > undertaking. And it's just a report. Could be much higher. Steve > > Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any > > undertaking. > > And it's just a report. Could be much higher. provide proof. are you really accusing apple of lying? >>> Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any >>> undertaking. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > are you really accusing apple of lying? Did Apple provide the 2% figure? I usually read 5% and also that it is "skyrocketing" higher. Am I "really accusing Apple of lying"? You must be naive to word it that way, as if they were beyond reproach. Steve > >>> Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any > >>> undertaking. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Did Apple provide the 2% figure? I usually read 5% and also that it is > "skyrocketing" higher. like you read the non-existent data in the financial reports? cite a source, or this is nothing more than more unsubstantiated bull. and yes, apple said it, phil schiller if i'm not mistaken, in an interview i can't locate at the moment. a year ago, it was 96% but it's gone up. > Am I "really accusing Apple of lying"? You must be naive to word it > that way, as if they were beyond reproach. if you dispute their statement without any evidence, then what else is one to conclude? >>>>> Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any >>>>> undertaking. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > if you dispute their statement without any evidence, then what else is > one to conclude? Ok, here is the exact, complete, Phil Schiller interview you cited as backing up your 2% rejection rate statement: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091120_354597.htm I read it all. No specific percentage or number is stated concerning rejections or approvals. He simply says that "most" are approved. Steve > Ok, here is the exact, complete, Phil Schiller interview you cited as > backing up your 2% rejection rate statement: i didn't cite any particular thing, other than i thought it was phil schiller who said it. i seem to recall it was not a formal interview too. nevertheless, the businessweek interview cites that 90% of rejected apps are due to bugs, so even if we use your unsubstantiated 5% reject rate, that leaves 0.5% rejected due to inappropriate content, which is *very* low. the buggy apps presumably are fixed, resubmitted and approved. anyway, scroll to the bottom of this page: <http://www.loopinsight.com/2009/08/01/apple-final-gives-iphone-devs-est imated-app-approval-time/> in the itunes connect page, This page has a box that says 97% of apps are approved in 15 days. (Updated Oct 15, 2009) >> Ok, here is the exact, complete, Phil Schiller interview you cited as >> backing up your 2% rejection rate statement: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > *very* low. the buggy apps presumably are fixed, resubmitted and > approved. I'd like to use a substantiated rejection rate, but there is none. > anyway, scroll to the bottom of this page: > <http://www.loopinsight.com/2009/08/01/apple-final-gives-iphone-devs-est [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This page has a box that says 97% of apps are approved in 15 days. > (Updated Oct 15, 2009) 97% of 100% of the approved apps. Doesn't indicate rejection rate. Duh. Steve > > This page has a box that says 97% of apps are approved in 15 days. > > (Updated Oct 15, 2009) > > 97% of 100% of the approved apps. Doesn't indicate rejection rate. Duh. reading is not your strong suit i see. > >>>>> Consider it what you will, but 2% is a pretty low rejection rate in any > >>>>> undertaking. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Steve <http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/> "95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted. If we find that an application has a problem, for example, a software bug that crashes the application, we send the developer a note describing the reason why the application will not be approved as submitted. In many cases we are able to provide specific guidance about how the developer can fix the application. We also let them know they can contact the app review team or technical support, or they can write to us for further guidance." Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > <http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/> > > "95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted. 96% a year ago <http://www.macworld.com/article/139435/2009/03/iphone_stats.html> There has been a 96 percent approval rate for App Store submissions, 98 percent of which were approved within a week after submission. so far, there have been cites for 95, 96 & 97%, so obviously it varies a little. >> > In article <TMOdnYxcmv5jCPbWnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? Irrelevant The fact that they did not approve, often for *very* questionable reasons, is enough SignatureMeddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For thou art crunchy, and good with ketchup! >>> In article <TMOdnYxcmv5jCPbWnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? I have no idea. Do you think they have NOT prohibited "many apps"? Steve > >> They have prohibited many apps. > > > Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? > > I have no idea. yet you say they're lying when they say it's mostly due to bugs. > Do you think they have NOT prohibited "many apps"? not many. only 2% are rejected, according to them, and when the bugs are fixed, many of those 2% are approved, so figure less than 1% are rejected for inappropriate content. do you really think there should be apps like baby shaker? >>>> They have prohibited many apps. >>> Out of 140,000+ apps how many have they not approved? What percentage? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > do you really think there should be apps like baby shaker? I don't believe in Apple's policy of censorship like that. Steve > > In article <OLGdnTCzR_rQWfHWnZ2dnUVZ_g5i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So do you believe it's censorship if they deny an app that is crash prone, invades users privacy, or uses private api's? In other words, have you actually *read* the SDK guidelines? >>> In article <OLGdnTCzR_rQWfHWnZ2dnUVZ_g5i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > In other words, have you actually *read* the SDK guidelines? I don't need to read the SDK. I don't approve of their censorship, period. Let me make those decisions, like we can on our Macs or Windows machines. Steve > >>> In article <OLGdnTCzR_rQWfHWnZ2dnUVZ_g5i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You didn't answer the question, is it "censorship" to not approve an app that is crash prone, violates user's privacy, or uses private api's that will cause the application to break with the next OS update? Do you realize how many hacks are in both the MacOS and Wndows just to ensure compatibility with older software that uses undocumented APIs? Well the market will tell the tale. According to IDC, only 1 million tablets were sold in all last year. How much do you want to bet that Apple alone won't sell five times that many in a year? >>>>> In article <OLGdnTCzR_rQWfHWnZ2dnUVZ_g5i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > api's that will cause the application to break with the next OS > update? Yes it is. Was my "I don't approve of censorship, period" somehow unclear?? How much clearer could I have been? I guess we should expect Apple to ban Safari on the Macs, as it is crash prone. Steve > I guess we should expect Apple to ban Safari on the Macs, as it is > crash prone. most safari crashes are due to third party plugins, not safari, which is one reason why apple runs them in a separate process in 64 bit safari. extra work apple has to do, just to deal with inept developers. it's much easier and a better solution to bounce an app back to the developer and make them fix it. > > So do you believe it's censorship if they deny an app that is crash > > prone, invades users privacy, or uses private api's? > > > > In other words, have you actually *read* the SDK guidelines? > > I don't need to read the SDK. of course not. why let facts get in the way of your rants. >>> So do you believe it's censorship if they deny an app that is crash >>> prone, invades users privacy, or uses private api's? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > of course not. why let facts get in the way of your rants. If someone asks me if I approve of Apple app store censorship or not, why would I need to have read the SDK? Steve > >>> So do you believe it's censorship if they deny an app that is crash > >>> prone, invades users privacy, or uses private api's? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If someone asks me if I approve of Apple app store censorship or not, > why would I need to have read the SDK? do you really think that rejecting an app because it's a buggy piece of sh.t is the same as censorship? what about when a developer distributes their app to beta testers and they come back and say 'it crashed.' should the developer ignore that and ship it anyway, because who is anyone else to tell the developer what to do? > >>> In article <OLGdnTCzR_rQWfHWnZ2dnUVZ_g5i4...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Steve Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. So if you don't like that: TDBO Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy > apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. Most of the Apple users I know would never think to ask such a question, would use the product for years and never wonder if it could have been designed differently, with other sources of software and music. Indeed, that's one of the features . . . there isn't any place else to look, so there's no need to look anyplace else. Look around . . . it's sure as hell working for Apple, and it's sure as hell working for millions of Apple users. It just doesn't work for me. SignatureEnkidu > > Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy > > apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as hell working for millions of Apple users. It just doesn't work for > me. How nice it is that you don't have to buy one, then. Also, it isn't generally what Apple users have had: it's only iPhone OS users. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> > Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy >> > apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How nice it is that you don't have to buy one, then. Yep. No complaints here about people who choose Apple. Choice is good. > Also, it isn't generally what Apple users have had: it's only iPhone OS > users. iPod is a similar business model . . . plug it in, pay iTunes, download the songs you want, all from Apple, no other choices unless you hunt around for them. And many people are happy with that. If they're happy, I'm happy for them. I choose otherwise, and choice is good. SignatureEnkidu > >> > Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy > >> > apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > around for them. And many people are happy with that. If they're > happy, I'm happy for them. Ummm... ...completely wrong. Download iTunes (free), rip your own CDs (free), import MP3s (depends on the source)... > I choose otherwise, and choice is good. Terrific. But at least understand what you're not choosing before you decide... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> >> > Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy >> >> > apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Download iTunes (free), rip your own CDs (free), import MP3s (depends on > the source)... You live in a different world than I do . . . I teach middle school, and iPods are as common as dirt. The majority of the kids use iTunes as the only source of legally purchased music. There are others who can burn iTunes-sourced music to CD, then re-rip them to mp3 for their friends. In my experience, the vast majority of young people with iPods get their music exclusively from iTunes, or from a friend who got it from iTunes. Apple came up with a kick-a.s business model along with hardware, design, and marketing, and lots of people are very happy with what Apple has put together. Happiness is good. >> I choose otherwise, and choice is good. > > Terrific. But at least understand what you're not choosing before you > decide... I don't do proprietory formats of any kind. That's why I didn't get an iPod in the early days. I took a different approach. Apple may have loosened up their DRM since then, but I've already moved on. SignatureEnkidu > >> >> > Nope. Apple hasn't concealed the fact that the only place you can buy > >> >> > apps for iPhones, iPod Touches and now iPads is the App Store. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > In my experience, the vast majority of young people with iPods get their > music exclusively from iTunes, or from a friend who got it from iTunes. None of which translates into "no other choices unless you hunt around for them". > Apple came up with a kick-a.s business model along with hardware, > design, and marketing, and lots of people are very happy with what [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > iPod in the early days. I took a different approach. Apple may have > loosened up their DRM since then, but I've already moved on. Great. But don't pretend that they *ever* forced you to only use proprietary formats, because it just ain't so. :-) Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> In my experience, the vast majority of young people with iPods get their >> music exclusively from iTunes, or from a friend who got it from iTunes. > > None of which translates into "no other choices unless you hunt around > for them". Depends on what your skills are . . . many people can't get the settings on a pop mail account correct. For these people, anything short of a link on iTunes is too difficult to find. And there's a whole lot of those people! They are among those Apple markets to . . . people who want their computer (mp3 player, TV, etc.) to "just work". Apple is selling a complete ecosystem to these people. They don't want to know how their computers, mp3 players, etc. work. They just want them to work. That you can load music from a CD onto your iPod doesn't matter if you don't buy CDs because you seem to find whatever you want on iTunes. That you could load unapproved software onto your hacked iPhone doesn't matter if you find the apps you want from Apple. There are millions, hundreds of millions of people who don't care, and who don't want to care how their technology works. Apple is happy to sell them technology that meets their wants and needs, and seems to be making tons of money doing it. Good for Apple. Me? I don't want to swim in a roped off sea, at least not where my computers are concerned. My car? It's a Volvo C70 hard-top convertable with a five cylinder turbocharged engine. I have it serviced. I want it to "just work". Choice is good. SignatureEnkidu > >> In my experience, the vast majority of young people with iPods get their > >> music exclusively from iTunes, or from a friend who got it from iTunes. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > those people! They are among those Apple markets to . . . people who > want their computer (mp3 player, TV, etc.) to "just work". Sorry, but burning CDs with iTunes is not a "hunt around" skill. Importing files isn't either. > Apple is selling a complete ecosystem to these people. They don't want > to know how their computers, mp3 players, etc. work. They just want them > to work. That you can load music from a CD onto your iPod doesn't matter > if you don't buy CDs because you seem to find whatever you want on > iTunes. That you could load unapproved software onto your hacked iPhone > doesn't matter if you find the apps you want from Apple. That some people don't avail themselves of these choices doesn't make your claims correct. > There are millions, hundreds of millions of people who don't care, and > who don't want to care how their technology works. Apple is happy to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Choice is good. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > I don't do proprietory formats of any kind. That's why I didn't get an > iPod in the early days. in the early days, the ipod *only* played non-proprietary formats. it has *always* played mp3, aiff, wav, etc. it wasn't until the music store when there was a drm'ed format and that was *completely* optional. > I took a different approach. Apple may have > loosened up their DRM since then, but I've already moved on. it was never required. >> How nice it is that you don't have to buy one, then. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I choose otherwise, and choice is good. Choice IS good. But, let's look a little beyond the end of our noses for just an instant...... Apple is wildly successful with these iphone/ipod/itouch devices which FORCE customers to only buy approved software from ONLY the company's software store. Sounds fine, doesn't it? Sound really nice, as long as it doesn't get into YOUR computer, right? But, we're not the only ones watching this unfold, for or against it. Every computer company on the planet has always dreamed of being able to control the SOFTWARE run on their products at great profit to the corporation...EVERY ONE of them! What happens to computing if, suddenly, this wildly successful "trend" spreads to the whole of computing? What happens if it spreads to just the Mac?! Suddenly, the REST of us, who are enjoying our freedom to choose what software we use from whatever source we want, are FORCED to buy ONLY the software Michael Dell approves of and provides at great profit to all Dell Computer owners! What happens if EVERYBODY gets on the bandwagon and you have NO MORE CHOICE what software you install on your Mac or Dell or HP or Asus or whatever?!....no more Tucows....no more freeware from the hackers who made it great, just for the hell of it....no more VLC to play what YOU want, not necessarily what THEY want, in cooperation with RIAA/MPAA or whatever other group of bureaucrats want to control the world. What then? This app store bullshit has very WIDE implications I feel MUST be resisted at all costs to preserve the freedom we've all enjoyed since building that first 4K 4004 machine in the basement. I THINK THEY WANT TO TURN ALL COMPUTERS INTO APP STORE BOX OFFICES! Let's discuss THOSE implications for a while, my sheeples..... Is the Apple App Store a testbed to see if the consumers will put up with being attached to the company Box Office for all of computing? Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > I THINK THEY WANT TO TURN ALL COMPUTERS INTO APP STORE BOX OFFICES! > > Let's discuss THOSE implications for a while, my sheeples..... > > Is the Apple App Store a testbed to see if the consumers will put up > with being attached to the company Box Office for all of computing? Don't worry, we Apple sheeple will be enjoying our AppStore apps, Apple developers will be rolling in loot, and the linux people will still have all the choice they want, or can create for themselves at least. It's in Apple's best corporate interests that developers feel wanted and make money from the platform, and that customers have maximum choice of software. Apple's products are useless without it! It is curious though that in Apple's long history the bulk of the monetization of the value inherent in the Apple II and Mac hardware was collected by third party app developers. Apple in the 80s and early 90s tried to build a gate for this by charging a lot of money for their pro developer programs. This was kinda self-defeating and absolutely pointless once the web got going in the mid-90s. Apple-NeXT losing its BSD roots is still kinda far off. I can certainly see it happening eventually, say 2030 or so. As an app developer and app user I'm not going to get my panties twisted over that possible future now, however. > >> How nice it is that you don't have to buy one, then. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Choice IS good. But, let's look a little beyond the end of our noses > for just an instant...... So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources and let's say for grins and giggles they called "secure media path". > So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only > allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources > and let's say for grins and giggles they called "secure media path". You mean "Protected Media Path" that protects AACS protected content like HD DVD and Blu-Ray, which are totally unavailable in OS X? Steve > > So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only > > allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve So it's okay for Microsoft to restrict what you can do with your computer as long as it allows you to pay protected content but it's not okay for Apple to apply restrictions even though it allows you to access a much wider variety of mobile apps than any other platform? >>> So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only >>> allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not okay for Apple to apply restrictions even though it allows you to > access a much wider variety of mobile apps than any other platform? Didn't say it was OK, but if Apple had Blu-Ray they'd have to do the same things as Microsoft. It's out of their control, or mine. Steve > >>> So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only > >>> allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Didn't say it was OK, but if Apple had Blu-Ray they'd have to do the > same things as Microsoft. It's out of their control, or mine. Gee... Do you think that one of the reasons that Apple hasn't adopted Blu-ray might be precisely that? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> >>> So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only >> >>> allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Do you think that one of the reasons that Apple hasn't adopted Blu-ray > might be precisely that? The only people that brought up Bluray in this thread were Apple fanboys trying to desperately justify what Apple does by making it look like someone else does something equally bad or worse. ...as if being the average level of sleaze ever excused anything. Not that the bluray and CC nonsense is anything even approaching the "evilness level" of locking down the entire platform entirely. Guess what? I can still install applications from sources hostile to Microsoft in Vista and Windows 7. Balmer must be jealous of the free pass that Jobs gets when acting like the monopolist Gates always dreamed about being. SignatureApple: Because a large harddrive is for power users. ||| / | \ > >> >>> So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only > >> >>> allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > fanboys trying to desperately justify what Apple does by making it > look like someone else does something equally bad or worse. Wow. Wrong yet again. > ...as if being the average level of sleaze ever excused anything. > > Not that the bluray and CC nonsense is anything even approaching > the "evilness level" of locking down the entire platform entirely. There's nothing evil about it. Sorry. > Guess what? I can still install applications from sources hostile > to Microsoft in Vista and Windows 7. Balmer must be jealous of the > free pass that Jobs gets when acting like the monopolist Gates always > dreamed about being. Yup. And I can do the same in Mac OS X. So? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only > allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources > and let's say for grins and giggles they called "secure media path". Run (or run for) Linux. SignatureEnkidu > > So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only > > allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Enkidu Microsoft already has limits built into the OS that prevents you from using unapproved video and audio hardware to view/listen to protected content. KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- 8e4f3a0caa92@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: >> > So what would happen if Microsoft put restrictions in their OS to only >> > allow approved devices to output audio and video from certain sources [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > using unapproved video and audio hardware to view/listen to protected > content. http://www.videolan.org/ Download VLC What restrictions? What won't it play? It plays so well RIAA/MPAA tried to sue them out of business. That failed. VLC is the best player with its own codecs, unhobbled by anyone. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- > 8e4f3a0ca...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What restrictions? What won't it play? Blu-Ray disks. You cannot output audio or video from a Blu-Ray disk to unapproved devices. >> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- >> 8e4f3a0ca...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Blu-Ray disks. You cannot output audio or video from a Blu-Ray disk > to unapproved devices. Sure you can. You can buy another app and get rid of that annoying encryption. This is what happens when you are free to run whatever app you like on a system. You have some means to route around the annoyances that might be put in place by the system vendor. Since Windows doesn't put too many barriers in my way when it comes to virtualization, I don't even have to run a Windows machine in order to use such an app. OTOH, a BD disk is not merely limited to being played back by a Microsoft product. I can play it back on devices from a number of competiting vendors. If I decide that I no longer like Sony, I am not "stuck" with the prospect of a large library expensive disks that I can no longer play. ...and VLC will play an m2ts file. SignatureMetallica is not worth the ruination of someone ||| who has pirated their music / | \ KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b7f6d4ba-8078-4b15-a506- ff8989dc0596@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com: > Blu-Ray disks. You cannot output audio or video from a Blu-Ray disk > to unapproved devices. True and not true..... You can PLAY Blu-Ray disks, right? Anything that will PLAY to HDTV is easily stolen to whatever format you like. It has to come out of the box unencoded at some point. You'll want proof, of course. "NO PROBLEM!" Take a real NNTP client to alt.binaries.movies.divx and you'll find lots of DivX movies made from BluRay disks, DVD's that will only play in Europe or Asia or America, ripped video straight off the cables....from any source, all free for the asking. Video/Audio encoding and locking only prevents the professional hackers from watching it for....perhaps....an hour or two, at the most. The movies have been posted in high def since about a day after BluRay was released. You need Grabit from shemes.com to download and decode it.... QuickPar to repair it if it gets trashed on usenet.... WinRAR to combine the pieces back into the 700MB to 1.8GB DivX high def movie and go to Divx.com and download the latest codecs for your favorite player...or VLC from videolan.org if you don't already have a great, unhobbled player. BluRay was simply an inconvenience to these guys. I'm but a simple observer....and have been for 30 years. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b7f6d4ba-8078-4b15-a506- > ff8989dc0...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Larry So Steve's point is you shouldn't have to download a third party app to retrieve music off of your iPod or jailbreak your ipod/iPhone to use unapproved applications. So what's the difference? >> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b7f6d4ba-8078-4b15-a506- >> ff8989dc0...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > to retrieve music off of your iPod or jailbreak your ipod/iPhone to > use unapproved applications. So what's the difference? What I suggested isn't breaking DMCA laws? Steve >> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- >> 8e4f3a0ca...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Blu-Ray disks. You cannot output audio or video from a Blu-Ray disk > to unapproved devices. I'll assume this works in OS X, as they don't have those evil "restrictions" that Microsoft put in their OS. Steve > >> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- > >> 8e4f3a0ca...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve So what's the difference between Apple restricting the use of the iPod/ iPhone/iPad and MS restricting the use of your computer -- both of which can be circumvented. Even more comparable, Google restricts you from storing apps on the SD card of Android based phones and you're stuck with using the puny amount of main memory -- often less than 1GB. >>>> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- >>>> 8e4f3a0ca...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > card of Android based phones and you're stuck with using the puny > amount of main memory -- often less than 1GB. I presume they didn't think apps would use up more space than that? Do they? Steve > >>>> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- > >>>> 8e4f3a0ca...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So you think it's okay that no matter how much storage space you have on your phone via an SD Card, it's okay that Google artificially restricts you to using the internal memory for all of your apps as a weak form of copy protection? >>> Even more comparable, Google restricts you from storing apps on the SD >>> card of Android based phones and you're stuck with using the puny [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > restricts you to using the internal memory for all of your apps as a > weak form of copy protection? No. To be honest, I haven't followed the Android subject much so didn't realize this was a problem until now Steve > >>> Even more comparable, Google restricts you from storing apps on the SD > >>> card of Android based phones and you're stuck with using the puny [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No. To be honest, I haven't followed the Android subject much so didn't realize this was a problem until now It's not a big problem, but it is annoying. Google restricts the executible file to main memory, but the app's data can be installed to storage. My usual example is a GPS app with on-device maps. The app's 5 or so MBs of executables would be in main memory, and the 1-2GB of map data would install to the card. Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:807cn.75451$JE2.21601 @newsfe09.iad: > It's not a big problem, but it is annoying. Google restricts the > executible file to main memory, but the app's data can be installed to > storage. My usual example is a GPS app with on-device maps. The app's 5 > or so MBs of executables would be in main memory, and the 1-2GB of map > data would install to the card. There's a dirty little problem with running apps on burnable memory...the burning process, itself. If an app is burned once into an SSD or SD card, and doesn't change anything as a result of its running, that's fine. But, software doesn't work that way. Software constant changes as it runs. It stores data about the user, data about itself, user preferences, bookmarking where it is and what it's doing so it opens there next time, not like an old dumb DOS program. This constant burning over burning over burning occurs at the same location as the old overwrites the new. And THAT will burn a hole in the memory chips, eventually, and it will all crash in on itself. Programs that constantly move memory addresses around the physical memory are just patches to the problem. It's like the NBC logo burning into that $12,000 DLP widescreen TV of a few years ago...permanently. SSD burnable transistors have a finite life they only HOPE will be longer than the warranty period..... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:807cn.75451$JE2.21601 > @newsfe09.iad: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > bookmarking where it is and what it's doing so it opens there next time, > not like an old dumb DOS program. Wouldn't software store all that stuff you talk about in external file(s)? I doubt software "changes itself". The binary files would remain static, no? Steve > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:807cn.75451$JE2.21601 > @newsfe09.iad: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > SSD burnable transistors have a finite life they only HOPE will be longer > than the warranty period..... With modern wear leveling techniques, this is simply not an issue within the expected lifespans of these sorts of devices. Not unless you do something pathological, anyway, like creating an app that just writes data as fast as possible and leaving it running many hours a day. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > This constant burning over burning over burning occurs at the same location > as the old overwrites the new. And THAT will burn a hole in the memory > chips, eventually, and it will all crash in on itself. flash uses wear leveling and this is not a major issue. ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). >> This constant burning over burning over burning occurs at the same location >> as the old overwrites the new. And THAT will burn a hole in the memory [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much > faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). They are also a lot more expensive and a lot smaller. OTOH, a crafty tech company might be able to get the best of both worlds by only spinning up the spinny drive on an as needed basis and powering it down otherwise. SignatureiTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. ||| / | \ > OTOH, a crafty tech company might be able to get the best of both > worlds by only spinning up the spinny drive on an as needed basis and > powering it down otherwise. I think drive power management like that has been common for years. Steve Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote in news:0dCdna4CDrpQi- _WnZ2dnUVZ_j1i4p2d@giganews.com: >> OTOH, a crafty tech company might be able to get the best of both >> worlds by only spinning up the spinny drive on an as needed basis and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve I've got the first hard drive MP3 player Archos ever made, a Jukebox Studio 20. When it plays, the hard drive spins up, loads the memory, spins down and parks, about every 3rd song. It spins for about 10 seconds. The unit has 4 AA Ni-MH cells for power and runs continuously for about 35 hours on 2500 MaH cells. Drive power management is really old.....This player dates back to 2002, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:090220100801190665% nospam@nospam.invalid: > ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much > faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read the file back off each and compare the time. Someone's going to point out the speed of the card interface, so hobble up the hard drive by doing it on a network drive plugged into your router. Yes, it has nearly 0 seek time....The modern hd is a few ms. But, storage memory is slow writing which more than making that up. ....then there's that nasty per gigabyte PRICE DIFFERENCE! Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard > drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read > the file back off each and compare the time. Someone's going to point out > the speed of the card interface, so hobble up the hard drive by doing it on > a network drive plugged into your router. different technology. how about a 6 gigabyte file? samsung spinpoint hard drive took 214 seconds, while the best ssd drive was just over 57 seconds, almost a 4x improvement. <http://www.techspot.com/review/181-solid-state-drive-roundup2/page11.ht ml> > ....then there's that nasty per gigabyte PRICE DIFFERENCE! that's the tradeoff. some people want speed and reliability (no moving parts, no head crashes, etc.), others want high capacity. a mix of both is probably the best option, at least short term. >> Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard >> drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > seconds, while the best ssd drive was just over 57 seconds, almost a 4x > improvement. That's fine if you are going to process it that fast. For anything but moving things place to place, it's probably not going to be terribly interesting. It's like a Ferarri engine in a VW. ><http://www.techspot.com/review/181-solid-state-drive-roundup2/page11.ht > ml> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > parts, no head crashes, etc.), others want high capacity. a mix of both > is probably the best option, at least short term. SignatureThe social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals ||| for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \ the social value of copyright to begin with. >>> Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard >>> drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read >>> the file back off each and compare the time. Someone's going to point out <K ><snip> >The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals ||| >for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \ >the social value of copyright to begin with. Would you feel differently is it was YOUR copyrighted material being used without permission or payment of any kind? Writing, believe it or not, is WORK. The novel that you burn through in two or three hours may represent six to twelve months of WORK. The publisher expects to be paid for his part and the author for his. It's rare for anyone to sue for copyright infringement over the use of two or three sentences especially when the material is enclosed in quotation marks and proper credit is given. Indeed, copyright law sees this as "fair usage". Copyright 2010 by Richard B. Gilbert All rights reserved. >>>> Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard >>>> drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Would you feel differently is it was YOUR copyrighted material being > used without permission or payment of any kind? Not everyone in content creation suffers from artistic megalomania. [deletia] Signature...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform. ||| / | \ > >> Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard > >> drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > but moving things place to place, it's probably not going to be terribly > interesting. It's like a Ferarri engine in a VW. Average users run few CPU-intensive long-running calculations, so they actually spend quite a lot of their time waiting (when they are waiting) on things like app launches and file copies. SSDs provide *much* better performance for these sorts of tasks, resulting in fairly substantial increases in perceived speed. In fact, if you've got enough RAM that you're not hitting swap with your usual workloads, and if you've already got a CPU from the last ~3 years, switching to an SSD is probably the single best way to make your computer feel substantially faster. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 RPM hard >> >> drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long it takes. Then read [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > actually spend quite a lot of their time waiting (when they are waiting) > on things like app launches and file copies. SSDs provide *much* better Better performance, probably. Enough to warrant extra cost and greatly reduced capacity, probably not. Even putting a network in between the disk and the CPU probably would not yield a sufficiently significant performance degredation from the point of view of the average pedestrian consumer. [deletia] Signature...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform. ||| / | \ > >> >> Do a speed test between an SDHC memory card and a regular 7200 > >> >> RPM hard drive. Store a 500MB file on each and note how long [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > significant performance degredation from the point of view of the > average pedestrian consumer. Again, making things like application launching 2-3 times as fast is going to be *very* noticeable for regular users. Now, I admit your average person buying a $500 laptop is probably not interested in spending an additional $250 for an 80 GB SSD or whatever. But there's more to the market than people buying generic Wintel machines to use for word processing and web browsing. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes [deletia] >> > Average users run few CPU-intensive long-running calculations, so >> > they actually spend quite a lot of their time waiting (when they [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But there's more to the market than people buying generic Wintel > machines to use for word processing and web browsing. Yes. There are people spending 3x the same money to do the same on MacOS. SignatureMy macintosh runs Ubuntu. ||| / | \ >> Better performance, probably. Enough to warrant extra cost and >> greatly reduced capacity, probably not. Even putting a network in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Again, making things like application launching 2-3 times as fast is >going to be *very* noticeable for regular users. There's not that much difference versus a current 5th generation 7200 RPM hard drive and maxed out RAM. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> Better performance, probably. Enough to warrant extra cost and > >> greatly reduced capacity, probably not. Even putting a network in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There's not that much difference versus a current 5th generation 7200 > RPM hard drive and maxed out RAM. Compare: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/PCMark-Vantage,919.html http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-2.5-mobile-hard-drive-charts/PCMark-Vant age,1123.html On tasks like application loading, which require lots of random access, SSDs murder mechanical drives. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> Better performance, probably. Enough to warrant extra cost and >> >> greatly reduced capacity, probably not. Even putting a network in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/PCMark-Vantage,919.html >http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-2.5-mobile-hard-drive-charts/PCMark-Vant age,1123.html "There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks." [with apologies to MT/SC] As you would know if you had actual real world experience. >On tasks like application loading, which require lots of random access, SSDs >murder mechanical drives. The difference even when the app isn't in RAM is relatively small, on the order of a few seconds, and zero when the app is cached in RAM. You must have a slow hard disk and little RAM. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> >> Better performance, probably. Enough to warrant extra cost and > >> >> greatly reduced capacity, probably not. Even putting a network in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks." [with apologies to MT/SC] > As you would know if you had actual real world experience. I have real-world experience *and* benchmarks. You have nothing. > >On tasks like application loading, which require lots of random access, SSDs > >murder mechanical drives. > > The difference even when the app isn't in RAM is relatively small, on > the order of a few seconds, and zero when the app is cached in RAM. If an app is cached in RAM there obviously won't be much difference, sure. > You must have a slow hard disk and little RAM. Nope. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >>Compare: >>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/PCMark-Vantage,919.html [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You must have a slow hard disk and little RAM. Case in point: * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with 5th gen 7200PRM hard disk: 5 secs * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with SSD: 3 secs * Cached launch of Word 2003 with hard disk or SSD: 2 secs <YAWN> SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with 5th gen 7200PRM hard disk: 5 secs > * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with SSD: 3 secs almost twice as fast, in *your* test. > * Cached launch of Word 2003 with hard disk or SSD: 2 secs if it's cached in ram, the disk or ssd speed is not a major factor, so this can be ignored. > >>Compare: > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/PCMark-Vantage,919. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > <YAWN> So, in other words, SSDs are twice as fast for loading apps, and you're trying to make this seem trivial by posting numbers for the launch of a single app that happens to load pretty fast... when of course in reality not all apps load that fast, and it's not hugely uncommon for users (particularly the sort of power users likely to be interested in SSDs at this stage) to launch multiple apps in quick succession either after boot or when they're switching to some new task. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Case in point: >> * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with 5th gen 7200PRM hard disk: 5 secs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So, in other words, SSDs are twice as fast for loading apps, Is your math really that bad? >and you're >trying to make this seem trivial It is trivial. >by posting numbers for the launch of a >single app that happens to load pretty fast... when of course in reality >not all apps load that fast, It is typical. If your apps don't load fast then you must have a slow machine. >and it's not hugely uncommon for users >(particularly the sort of power users likely to be interested in SSDs at >this stage) to launch multiple apps in quick succession either after >boot or when they're switching to some new task. Over the course of hours of typical computing the difference in app load time to RAM cache is on the order of seconds, which is trivial. Get a fast machine with a 5th gen 7200 RPM hard disk and as much RAM as it can handle with a 64-bit OS and you'll have no real need for SSD. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> Case in point: * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with 5th gen 7200PRM > >> hard disk: 5 secs * Uncached launch of Word 2003 with SSD: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is your math really that bad? I merely understand significant digits. > >and you're trying to make this seem trivial > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It is typical. If your apps don't load fast then you must have a > slow machine. That response is incoherent. > >and it's not hugely uncommon for users (particularly the sort of > >power users likely to be interested in SSDs at this stage) to launch [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Over the course of hours of typical computing the difference in app > load time to RAM cache is on the order of seconds, which is trivial. Similar or larger speedups are seen in other cases where random access is required. In general, machines booted from SSDs feel substantially more responsive. I have discussed application launching because it happens to be easier to benchmark than a general increase in responsiveness. > Get a fast machine with a 5th gen 7200 RPM hard disk and as much RAM > as it can handle with a 64-bit OS and you'll have no real need for > SSD. Most users don't "need" an SSD, sure. I merely said average users will see a noticeable difference in responsiveness. Which they will. Your attempts to claim otherwise by citing the launch times of a word processing app are almost entirely meaningless. Try searching YouTube for "SSD vs. HDD". Start here, maybe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqnL3jX3dik (Particularly watch the last demo, launching Photoshop and loading several images.) Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Is your math really that bad? > >I merely understand significant digits. Obviously not. >> It is typical. If your apps don't load fast then you must have a >> slow machine. > >That response is incoherent. Then you must have a reading comprehension problem. >> Over the course of hours of typical computing the difference in app >> load time to RAM cache is on the order of seconds, which is trivial. > >Similar or larger speedups are seen in other cases where random access >is required. In general, machines booted from SSDs feel substantially >more responsive. Gut feel is meaningless. >I have discussed application launching because it >happens to be easier to benchmark than a general increase in >responsiveness. So you can't prove it. >> Get a fast machine with a 5th gen 7200 RPM hard disk and as much RAM >> as it can handle with a 64-bit OS and you'll have no real need for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >attempts to claim otherwise by citing the launch times of a word >processing app are almost entirely meaningless. I've actually proven my contention. You haven't. >Try searching YouTube for "SSD vs. HDD". Start here, maybe: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqnL3jX3dik (Particularly watch the last >demo, launching Photoshop and loading several images.) I don't have to -- I've extensively tested it for myself, using both the fastest hard disks and a range of different SSDs. Photoshop, a notorious pig and hardly typical, takes about 18 secs to launch with an image the first time on my system, but only 4 secs from RAM cache thereafter. An SSD would thus save me less than 14 secs over a long photo editing session plus maybe 1 sec per image, and contribute nothing to "responsiveness". As I wrote, the benefit of SSD isn't terribly significant or cost-effective -- there are better ways to improve performance. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> Is your math really that bad? > > > >I merely understand significant digits. > > Obviously not. 3 < 5. any 1st grader can tell you that. > >Most users don't "need" an SSD, sure. I merely said average users will > >see a noticeable difference in responsiveness. Which they will. Your > >attempts to claim otherwise by citing the launch times of a word > >processing app are almost entirely meaningless. > > I've actually proven my contention. You haven't. actually, you didn't. you proved ssd is faster, almost twice as fast. you also only provided *one* example, and users do a *lot* more than launch an app. > Photoshop, a notorious pig and hardly typical, takes about 18 secs to > launch with an image the first time on my system, but only 4 secs from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > terribly significant or cost-effective -- there are better ways to > improve performance. why do you focus on only one metric? most people do a lot more than just launch photoshop and call it a day. quite a bit of what photoshop does is limited by disk bandwidth, which is why adobe suggests fast raid0 scratch drives, or better yet, lots of memory to avoid needing a scratch drive. that's why ssd will make using photoshop faster, and it does. >>>> Is your math really that bad? >>> I merely understand significant digits. >> Obviously not. > > 3 < 5. any 1st grader can tell you that. <snip> Why are you posting this drivel to alt.cellular.verizon?? Will Apple's "Tablet" work on VZW's network? I fail to see any reason why a VZW customer would have any interest. alt.cellular.verizon removed from distribution! [snip] > >Try searching YouTube for "SSD vs. HDD". Start here, maybe: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqnL3jX3dik (Particularly watch the last [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > terribly significant or cost-effective -- there are better ways to > improve performance. The video above clearly demonstrates to anyone who wants to watch it that an SSD provides a major performance boost for typical desktop tasks. Your denials of trivially observable reality are patheic. There is nothing else to say here. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > tasks. Your denials of trivially observable reality are patheic. There > is nothing else to say here. If your desktop is that IO bound, something is horribly broken. SignatureSophocles wants his cut. ||| / | \ > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > If your desktop is that IO bound, something is horribly broken. As I noted before, many desktop tasks *are* I/O bound, because few of them tax the CPU enough to become CPU-bound. Over the last, say, 15 years, hard drives in desktop machines have gotten perhaps 20-25 times as fast for sequential access (much less than that for random access), while processors have gotten hundreds or thousands of times as fast. So we logically expect a fair number of tasks that used to be CPU-bound to now be I/O-bound, and it makes sense that increasing I/O performance might provide larger benefits in a lot of cases than increasing CPU performance. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> If your desktop is that IO bound, something is horribly broken. > >As I noted before, many desktop tasks *are* I/O bound, because few of >them tax the CPU enough to become CPU-bound. Typical usage: 1. Most of the time idle. 2. Next largest percentage is CPU bound. 3. Smallest percentage is IO bound. >Over the last, say, 15 years, hard drives in desktop machines have >gotten perhaps 20-25 times as fast for sequential access (much less than >that for random access), while processors have gotten hundreds or >thousands of times as fast. And applications have massively increased in size, complexity, and compute intensiveness -- for example, it takes a reasonably current machine to do a good job of playing full screen HD video (a relatively common task). You've also left out how RAM is as subject to Moore's Law as computing, resulting in huge increases in available RAM at hugely lower cost. >So we logically expect a fair number of >tasks that used to be CPU-bound to now be I/O-bound, We don't from that reasoning. We'd have to have to have a much more complete set of assumptions, including assumptions on machine configuration, or better yet to survey actual tasks on properly configured machines. >and it makes sense >that increasing I/O performance might provide larger benefits in a lot >of cases than increasing CPU performance. It doesn't, assuming the machine isn't poorly configured, since typical use is still more compute bound than IO bound. It's possible to cook the books to make SSD look better than hard disk by limiting RAM, using a slow hard disk, running synthetic IO bound applications, etc, but that proves nothing. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> If your desktop is that IO bound, something is horribly broken. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2. Next largest percentage is CPU bound. > 3. Smallest percentage is IO bound. Except for a few cases, I would expect 2 and 3 to commonly be reversed on typical desktop systems. As a trivial illustration, consider that a user who has to wait 30 minutes for, say, his media library to copy from one place to another, probably *never* has to wait that long for *any* CPU-bound task. Obviously there are still CPU-bound tasks that take a while; HD video encoding, high-quality 3D rendering, various sorts of scientific and engineering copulations (genome searches, finite element analysis, whatever) but these tasks are usually rare or absent in typical end-user desktop workloads. > >Over the last, say, 15 years, hard drives in desktop machines have > >gotten perhaps 20-25 times as fast for sequential access (much less than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > machine to do a good job of playing full screen HD video (a relatively > common task). Well, the thing about playing HD video is either you can do it in real time or you can't. And once you can, there's not a lot of point in being faster at it. So it's not a great example of a task that's inevitably going to be bottlenecked by one thing or another; it's just something that basically becomes a solved problem one day. [snip] > >and it makes sense > >that increasing I/O performance might provide larger benefits in a lot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > by limiting RAM, using a slow hard disk, running synthetic IO bound > applications, etc, but that proves nothing. Or, you know, starting up the computer and copying files and launching apps, like the video you ignored. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Typical usage: >> 1. Most of the time idle. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Except for a few cases, I would expect 2 and 3 to commonly be reversed >on typical desktop systems. Go gather some real data, as I have (for professional clients). >> >Over the last, say, 15 years, hard drives in desktop machines have >> >gotten perhaps 20-25 times as fast for sequential access (much less than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >time or you can't. And once you can, there's not a lot of point in being >faster at it. ... Actually there is, because higher processing power can result in superior decoding. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> Typical usage: > >> 1. Most of the time idle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Go gather some real data, as I have (for professional clients). Uh huh. I'm sure the lurkers support you in e-mail as well. > >> >Over the last, say, 15 years, hard drives in desktop machines have > >> >gotten perhaps 20-25 times as fast for sequential access (much less than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Actually there is, because higher processing power can result in > superior decoding. To some limited extent. One still reaches the point where there's no real benefit to more CPU power. This is unlike operations which are not performed over some specific period of time like, say, transcoding video from one format to another, where there's a clear benefit to doing it much faster than real time, if you can. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> Typical usage: >> >> 1. Most of the time idle. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > To some limited extent. One still reaches the point where there's no > real benefit to more CPU power. This is unlike operations which are not One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it is suitable for playback on something like an iPhone. This is going to eat CPU cycles like crazy. If you have a lot of content, you can have multiple cores chugging along for days. OTOH, "moving things around" is more likely to bog down due to the slow speed of some external device (iphone again) or the relative slowness of some external bus (USB & iphone again). Moving things around from disk to disk is probably not something that a lot of people are sitting and waiting on (beyond the aformentioned syncing with the iDevice example). Either way, that brings us around to the key engineering question "but is it really worth the extra expense?". > performed over some specific period of time like, say, transcoding video > from one format to another, where there's a clear benefit to doing it > much faster than real time, if you can. Signature...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform. ||| / | \ > >> >> Typical usage: > >> >> 1. Most of the time idle. 2. Next largest percentage is CPU [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > eat CPU cycles like crazy. If you have a lot of content, you can have > multiple cores chugging along for days. Sure. But most end-users are working with pre-compressed stuff. [snip] > Either way, that brings us around to the key engineering question > "but is it really worth the extra expense?". Wholesale replacement of HDDs with SSDs in budget machines? Probably not for another couple of years. Power users, on the other hand, should carefully evaluate the speed/size/performance tradeoff. There are a lot of places where SSDs make sense. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >> Typical usage: >> >> >> 1. Most of the time idle. 2. Next largest percentage is CPU [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > carefully evaluate the speed/size/performance tradeoff. There are a lot > of places where SSDs make sense. No not really. The power users have already "been there" and "done that" in a professional capacity and haven't been terribly excited. Signature...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform. ||| / | \ > > Wholesale replacement of HDDs with SSDs in budget machines? Probably > > not for another couple of years. Power users, on the other hand, should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No not really. The power users have already "been there" and "done that" > in a professional capacity and haven't been terribly excited. I'm not sure which users you're talking to. I've seen considerable uptake in pro video, where a common pattern is now to have the OS and apps on an SSD, and the media files (of which there can be several terabytes for some individual projects) on external direct-attach RAID storage or a SAN. In addition to increasing general responsiveness, this helps prevent issues where hiccups caused by I/O contention on the boot/apps drive can cause dropped frames during playback or (even worse) capture. Silverado, a popular VAR in this market, now sells turn-key Mac Pro editing systems configured this way. We've been doing it in-house for a while. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it >> is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Sure. But most end-users are working with pre-compressed stuff. A great many users transcode regularly with apps like iTunes. >> Either way, that brings us around to the key engineering question >> "but is it really worth the extra expense?". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >carefully evaluate the speed/size/performance tradeoff. There are a lot >of places where SSDs make sense. Depends on your definition of "lot". SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > A great many users transcode regularly with apps like iTunes. how many, exactly? >> A great many users transcode regularly with apps like iTunes. > > how many, exactly? ...any that care about video quality. Apple's portable devices have fairly limited h264 support. SignatureSure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have ||| better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \ want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist. > Apple's portable devices have fairly > limited h264 support. they're portable. it's a tradeoff for size versus quality. bring a dvd if you are going to play it on a 60" tv. >> Apple's portable devices have fairly >> limited h264 support. > > they're portable. it's a tradeoff for size versus quality. bring a dvd > if you are going to play it on a 60" tv. It's probably good that Apple didn't have an attitude like that when it was getting into the music business. It would have been a real drag if they would have forced everyone to have separate datafiles for every device they might want to work with. Now the problem that exists here in particular is that APPLE SELLS A DEVICE MEANT TO BE ATTACHED TO A 60 TV. You may even heard of it. They sell them in the Apple store. They tend to be in the back by the printers. SignatureSome people have this nutty idea that in 1997 ||| reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \ both at the same time was something worth patenting. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:130220101510558913% nospam@nospam.invalid: >> Apple's portable devices have fairly >> limited h264 support. > > they're portable. it's a tradeoff for size versus quality. bring a dvd > if you are going to play it on a 60" tv. That must be why the iPhoners are alwasy in awe when my Nokia N800 Linuz tablet is playing a full-sized DivX movie straight off usenet in full resolution on its 800 pixel screen. I don't find many iPhoners watching movies on it, probably due to the necessity to sit for 2 hours holding it in their hands so they can see the screen. It sure sucks laying flat with the screen reflecting every light in front of them. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > > In article <k6sdn5hmvs98u7uarltrp5s735be3c6...@navasgroup.com>, John > > Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ...any that care aboutvideoquality. Apple's portable devices have fairly > limited h264 support. What's limited about this? http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3859 >> > In article <k6sdn5hmvs98u7uarltrp5s735be3c6...@navasgroup.com>, John >> > Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3859 It's missing about half of the available "consumer grade" profiles. If you don't cherry pick only the information that suits you from that site you will find that Handbrake itself has different presets for the iphone, the appletv and high quality film content. You would also notice forum discussions covering the problems involved in using one set of options to cover both the iphone and the appletv while maintaining the highest quality level. Too high of a bitrate or having certain features enabled will make a h264 encode unusable on the iphones or ipods and the files won't even get past iTunes. SignatureMetallica is not worth the ruination of someone ||| who has pirated their music / | \ > >> > In article <k6sdn5hmvs98u7uarltrp5s735be3c6...@navasgroup.com>, John > >> > Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > covering the problems involved in using one set of options to cover both the > iphone and the appletv while maintaining the highest quality level. Yes if you want video that will look good on the iPhone and you're not worried about it looking good on TV yes you can use a lower resolution preset and get a smaller video. Are you really going to say that you could get better quality from a DVD Rip than 5000kbps at 30fps at 720x480? > Too high of a bitrate or having certain features enabled will make a h264 > encode unusable on the iphones or ipods and the files won't even get past iTunes. And which of those features give you noticeable better quality than the highest resolution that the iPhone supports for external video? >> >> > In article <k6sdn5hmvs98u7uarltrp5s735be3c6...@navasgroup.com>, John >> >> > Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > say that you could get better quality from a DVD Rip than 5000kbps at > 30fps at 720x480? I don't have to say it. You can trawl the Handbrake forums for yourself. [deletia] SignatureIf you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDREDS of ||| hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \ > >> >> > In article <k6sdn5hmvs98u7uarltrp5s735be3c6...@navasgroup.com>, John > >> >> > Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I don't have to say it. You can trawl the Handbrake forums for yourself. I'm asking you, from your experience using Handbrake to rip a DVD and convert it to an H.264 formatted file. What are the best settings? >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it >>> is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A great many users transcode regularly with apps like iTunes. So that leads to an interesting question. You have an AppleTV and an iphone and you buy a movie from iTunes. Is that movie going to be degraded so that it can play on the iphone without any alteration or will it be high quality so that it will look good when you play it on a 60 inch monitor. In the first case, the video will look like crap on the AppleTV and in the second it will need to be transcoded for the iphone. [deletia] SignatureSure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have ||| better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \ want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist. > >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it > >>> is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > [deletia] iTunes sends the movie to the iPhone/iPod in a format it can deal with. If you then look at that same movie on your computer, or with the AppleTV it will be in the proper format for those devices also. >> >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it >> >>> is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If you then look at that same movie on your computer, or with the > AppleTV it will be in the proper format for those devices also. No not really. The two are mutually exclusive as I originally mentioned. SignatureSome people have this nutty idea that in 1997 ||| reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \ both at the same time was something worth patenting. > >> >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it > >> >>> is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > No not really. The two are mutually exclusive as I originally mentioned. Well since I do own an iMac, an AppleTV and an iPod Touch and move movies between them all the time, I'll call bullshit on your statement. Well, maybe not bullshit, just ignorance. >> >> >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that >> >> >>> it [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Well, maybe not bullshit, just ignorance. That's JED - he knows nothing about everything. He'll tell you how terrible the iPod touch is even though he's never owned one. He'll tell me how terrible dual-monitors are even though he's never used them. He'll claim how multi-threading *always* makes software more complex even though he's never written software. Etc, etc, etc.... He's nothing but a wanna-be poser who tries to talk big. >>> >> >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that >>> >> >>> it [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > That's JED - he knows nothing about everything. ...nice try. > He'll tell you how terrible the iPod touch is even though he's never owned > one. He'll tell me how terrible dual-monitors are even though he's never Not at all. > used them. He'll claim how multi-threading *always* makes software more > complex even though he's never written software. Etc, etc, etc.... You're doing more. It's a mathematical absurdity to think otherwise. > He's nothing but a wanna-be poser who tries to talk big. Yes. A "wanna-be-poser" with ipods, iphones, minis and an AppleTV of my own. Although the key here is not how much I own but how much I understand. Unlike most people that own Mac hardware, I actually understand what's going on under the covers. Apple's portable devices are intentionally limited in what they can do. There's just no getting around that. There's simply a lot more to "tweak" with a video codec than there is an audio one. The fact that Apple users are content to pay more for less doesn't really alter the reality of the situation. SignatureSome people have this nutty idea that in 1997 ||| reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \ both at the same time was something worth patenting. >> used them. He'll claim how multi-threading *always* makes software more >> complex even though he's never written software. Etc, etc, etc.... > > You're doing more. It's a mathematical absurdity to think otherwise. Like I said earlier - you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. > There's simply a lot more to "tweak" with a video codec > than there is an audio one. Most people do not have some false sense of self-importance because they "tweak" with video codecs. The rest of the world just expects software to work without having to "tweak" their video or audio codec. People want to *use* computers - not continually *tweak* with them. Those are the users the iPad is trying to attract. >>> used them. He'll claim how multi-threading *always* makes software more >>> complex even though he's never written software. Etc, etc, etc.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Most people do not have some false sense of self-importance because they Once again your complete ignorance shines through. This is not about how I personally "tweak" a video codec but how it is possible for ANY DEVICE VENDOR or ANY CONTENT CREATOR to "tweak" video codecs. > "tweak" with video codecs. The rest of the world just expects software to > work without having to "tweak" their video or audio codec. People want to This is probably why VLC is a very popular Mac download. [deletia] SignatureIf it were really about "being good", then Microsoft would ||| have been put out of business by Apple before the first line of / | \ the Linux kernel was ever written. > > In article <slrnhne9fa.t75.j...@nomad.mishnet>, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > No not really. The two are mutually exclusive as I originally mentioned. Yes if you download HD video from iTunes it will automatically download a HD and a SD video. But it does not send 320x240 (iPod Classic) or video in the native resolution of the iPhone/iPod Touch. I encode my video from DVD's at the maximum anamorphic resolution that the DVD supports at around 1500bps. These videos look just as good (or bad) as a DVD would on the same display when connecting my iPod to a TV. > >>> One obvious counterexample would be compressing video so that it > >>> is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In the first case, the video will look like crap on the AppleTV and > in the second it will need to be transcoded for the iphone. HD iTunes downloads come with two files, a 720p version for AppleTV (and computer playback), and a lower quality file (480p, I think) for iPods/iPhones. iTunes shows them as one item and syncs the correct version to the correct device automatically. The iPad, according to the spec sheet, should play the 720p files just fine. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Actually there is, because higher processing power can result in >> superior decoding. > >To some limited extent. Actually makes a big difference that's easily demonstrated. >One still reaches the point where there's no >real benefit to more CPU power. Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes more horsepower to decode properly. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> Actually there is, because higher processing power can result in > >> superior decoding. > > > >To some limited extent. > > Actually makes a big difference that's easily demonstrated. But this just doesn't scale over very large ranges. Define a processor sufficient for a basic real-time decode as "1x". If you have a processor 3x as fast you can use better smoothing algorithms, etc. and get better quality. But by the time you have a processor 10x as fast, moving to one 100x as fast is not going to do much for you. Faster processing also lets you switch to more bandwidth-efficient but processor intensive codecs. But there are fundamental limits to how far you can go with that sort of thing. I think they're going to have a *lot* of trouble developing a codec that's as big an improvement on H.264 as H.264 is on, say, MPEG-2, regardless of how much processor power is available to throw at the problem. There's occasional excitement about wavelet compression, but for distribution purposes the benefits of wavelet codecs like Dirac over H.264 do not seem to be huge. > >One still reaches the point where there's no real benefit to more > >CPU power. > > Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes > more horsepower to decode properly. But processor performance advances much faster than new video standards are created. As a practical matter, nothing beyond 10-bit/channel 1080p60 is going to be in common use in the next 10 or 15 years, so once you have the processor power for that (which desktops and laptops probably almost all will within two or three years), you've got it made. By the time, say, 12-bit 2160p120 is on the horizon, processors will be hundreds of times as fast, and a format with "only" ~10x as much image data won't be a big deal. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes >> more horsepower to decode properly. > >But processor performance advances much faster than new video standards >are created. ... Video standards have actually tracked available CPU horsepower from the beginning with no end in sight. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes > >> more horsepower to decode properly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Video standards have actually tracked available CPU horsepower from the > beginning with no end in sight. If you're talking about video standards *on computers* this was historically true, for obvious reasons. We moved from postage-stamp sized videos to VHS-quality, to DVD quality and then into HD. But that's because computers were *chasing* broadcast standards for that entire time period. Once 1080p24, 1080pi60 and 720p60 are solved problems (and they basically are on today's laptops and desktops), computers will have fully caught up with current broadcast/distribution standards. Content producers are not going to start producing and distributing content in some format better than 1080p just because computers might be able to handle something better in five years. There's a huge amount of gear that would need to change for that to happen. There's also virtually no practical reason to do it; 1080p provides more than enough resolution. In fact, it provides more resolution than what typical theatrical film prints provide, i.e. more than what people have been watching on 60' screens in movie theaters for the last couple of decades (and *much* more than what even earlier film stocks could handle). Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes >> >> more horsepower to decode properly. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >distributing content in some format better than 1080p just because >computers might be able to handle something better in five years. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is, and it flies in the face of history. As such, it doesn't make for a persuasive argument. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> >> Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes > >> >> more horsepower to decode properly. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the face of history. As such, it doesn't make for a persuasive > argument. It's cool. I mean, I'm just a professional in the video production industry, but I'm sure you have a much better idea of what the relevant concerns are, just like you are (you claim) at least as qualified as the engineers who worked on the iPhone to make judgements about how constrained its memory environment is. It must be very hard work for you, keeping up with all of these different areas of expertise. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >> Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes >> >> >> more horsepower to decode properly. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >It must be very hard work for you, keeping up with all of these >different areas of expertise. My staff are at least as well qualified. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> >> >> Actually a neverending escalation -- improved video invariably takes > >> >> >> more horsepower to decode properly. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > My staff are at least as well qualified. Right, the staff that you consult about your Usenet posts. That makes sense. Maybe you could have one of your cabinet members draw up a substantive response to what I said above, because you haven't provided one yet. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > It doesn't, assuming the machine isn't poorly configured, since typical > use is still more compute bound than IO bound. that all depends what's 'typical.' for someone using microsoft office, disk bandwidth is not an issue and ssd would be a waste. for someone using photoshop, disk bandwidth *is* a bottleneck and ssd *will* make a difference. > It's possible to cook the books to make SSD look better than hard disk > by limiting RAM, using a slow hard disk, running synthetic IO bound > applications, etc, but that proves nothing. that sounds like what you're doing, picking one example (launch of one app) to 'prove' what you want. >> It doesn't, assuming the machine isn't poorly configured, since typical >> use is still more compute bound than IO bound. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >using photoshop, disk bandwidth *is* a bottleneck and ssd *will* make a >difference. Not if the machine has sufficient RAM (for both working memory and cache). >> It's possible to cook the books to make SSD look better than hard disk >> by limiting RAM, using a slow hard disk, running synthetic IO bound >> applications, etc, but that proves nothing. > >that sounds like what you're doing, picking one example (launch of one >app) to 'prove' what you want. Word is a typical app. Other typical apps have even faster load times on my system. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> It doesn't, assuming the machine isn't poorly configured, since typical > >> use is still more compute bound than IO bound. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not if the machine has sufficient RAM (for both working memory and > cache). which could easily be more expensive than an ssd. > >> It's possible to cook the books to make SSD look better than hard disk > >> by limiting RAM, using a slow hard disk, running synthetic IO bound [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Word is a typical app. Other typical apps have even faster load times > on my system. maybe it's typical for you but it's not typical for everyone. similarly, ssd is not ideal for everyone, but it *is* faster and it does help when an app is bandwidth bound, and there are numerous such cases. >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >tasks. Your denials of trivially observable reality are patheic. There >is nothing else to say here. Only on that one system. Proves nothing, as my data makes clear, no matter how much you may try to deny it. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:090220100801190665% >nospam@nospam.invalid: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yes, it has nearly 0 seek time....The modern hd is a few ms. But, storage >memory is slow writing which more than making that up. Much depends on the memory card -- there are huge differences in write speed differences between different cards, which is why I only use SanDisk Extreme. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). I'm guessing you haven't actually used them. They're only somewhat faster, and seek time is not zero -- Flash has finite access time issues much like hard disks, particularly with random access. The latest 5th generation 7200 RPM drives do a pretty good job of competing with all but the fastest SSD drives, particularly for streaming access. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much > >faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). > > I'm guessing you haven't actually used them. i have. > They're only somewhat faster, it depends on the activity. in general they're noticeably faster and in some cases, dramatically faster. > and seek time is not zero -- Flash has finite access time issues > much like hard disks, particularly with random access. it's negligible. nitpicking that it's not *exactly* zero is just that, nitpicking. > The latest 5th > generation 7200 RPM drives do a pretty good job of competing with all > but the fastest SSD drives, particularly for streaming access. in other words, ssd is faster. thanks for the confirmation. >> >ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >> >faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >in other words, ssd is faster. thanks for the confirmation. I did no such thing, as you know -- you just won't admit it. Since you're so firmly in denial, I'm done. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> The latest 5th > >> generation 7200 RPM drives do a pretty good job of competing with all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I did no such thing, as you know -- you just won't admit it. > Since you're so firmly in denial, I'm done. "competing with all but the fastest SSD drives" thus, they're faster. comparing a fast hard drive with a slow ssd (which do exist), is at best disingenuous, and at worst, intentionally misleading. >> >> The latest 5th >> >> generation 7200 RPM drives do a pretty good job of competing with all [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >comparing a fast hard drive with a slow ssd (which do exist), is at >best disingenuous, and at worst, intentionally misleading. Is having the last word so important to you that you have to also indulge in mischaracterizations? Grow up. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >> ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >> faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > generation 7200 RPM drives do a pretty good job of competing with all > but the fastest SSD drives, particularly for streaming access. The "latest 5th generation 7200 RPM drives"? When did those come out, 5 years ago? SSD drives are more than "somewhat faster". Steve Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote in news:ib-dnfotIu2kI- 7WnZ2dnUVZ_tZi4p2d@giganews.com: >>> ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >>> faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve Longer than that. This box has 15,000 RPM SCSI drives in a 6-drive RAID array. Wanna drag? Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote in news:ib-dnfotIu2kI- > 7WnZ2dnUVZ_tZi4p2d@giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Wanna drag? Depends on the benchmark. A single 2.5" SSD probably still wins on IOPS. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >>> ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >>> faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The "latest 5th generation 7200 RPM drives"? When did those come out, >5 years ago? Within the past 12 months. I have the new Hitachi Travelstar 7K500, and it smokes! >SSD drives are more than "somewhat faster". Not in most real world tasks. See example I posted previously. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > I have the new Hitachi Travelstar 7K500, and it smokes! smoke is generally a bad thing :) > >SSD drives are more than "somewhat faster". > > Not in most real world tasks. See example I posted previously. your own example proved ssd is nearly twice as fast, and in most real world tasks it's *very* much faster. >>>> ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >>>> faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Within the past 12 months. 7500rpm drives been around forever. > I have the new Hitachi Travelstar 7K500, and it smokes! > >> SSD drives are more than "somewhat faster". > > Not in most real world tasks. See example I posted previously. I saw one you posted that showed close to 100% improvement. Steve >>>>> ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >>>>> faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >7500rpm drives been around forever. Did you miss "latest 5th generation" by accident or design? >> I have the new Hitachi Travelstar 7K500, and it smokes! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I saw one you posted that showed close to 100% improvement. Nope, and the difference was 2 seconds. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >>>>>> ssd drives are becoming common in laptops now too. they're much, much >>>>>> faster than a hard drive for a lot of things (0 seek time). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Did you miss "latest 5th generation" by accident or design? What does "5th generation" really mean? Nothing. RPM, cache, interface (SATE 3GBS) are the variables. Nothing new there in ages. Steve >> Did you miss "latest 5th generation" by accident or design? > >What does "5th generation" really mean? Nothing. RPM, cache, >interface (SATE 3GBS) are the variables. Nothing new there in ages. 5th gen chiefly refers to increased recording density, based on advances in technology, which directly leads to substantially increased performance, especially in terms of transfer rate. 5th gen drives like the Hitachi Travelstar 7K500 are considerably faster than 4th gen drives like the Hitachi Travelstar 7K320, and so on. Check it out and learn: <http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/products/travelstar/7K500/> <http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/products/travelstar/7K320/> SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >>> Did you miss "latest 5th generation" by accident or design? >> What does "5th generation" really mean? Nothing. RPM, cache, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > <http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/products/travelstar/7K500/> > <http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/products/travelstar/7K320/> Hmm....thats a two platter drive. My Seagate ST9500420AS in my MBP, about a year old, is a single platter. Wouldn't my older gen drive have a higher recording density? Steve >>>> Did you miss "latest 5th generation" by accident or design? >>> What does "5th generation" really mean? Nothing. RPM, cache, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Wouldn't my older gen drive have a higher recording density? Seagate had the 1st 5th gen drive, but it's been problematic for many users, and not as fast as it should have been, probably because it was taken to market too soon for the technology. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >> <http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/products/travelstar/7K500/> > >Hmm....thats a two platter drive. > >My Seagate ST9500420AS in my MBP, about a year old, is a single platter. Both families are 250 GB/platter; i.e., same number of platters for a given capacity. >Wouldn't my older gen drive have a higher recording density? No. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:807cn.75451$JE2.21601 >@newsfe09.iad: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >as the old overwrites the new. And THAT will burn a hole in the memory >chips, eventually, and it will all crash in on itself. ... Simply not true. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- >8e4f3a0caa92@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: >> Microsoft already has limits built into the OS that prevents you from >> using unapproved video and audio hardware to view/listen to protected [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >What restrictions? What won't it play? I've run into files it plays poorly or not at all. >VLC is the best player with its own codecs, unhobbled by anyone. It's reasonably good, but not as good as QuickTime Player or Nero ShowTime. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? John Navas stated in post jen6n5lb0sr3j0uno0kfbrdguqv2rm0s88@4ax.com on 2/10/10 6:33 PM: >> KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- >> 8e4f3a0caa92@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I've run into files it plays poorly or not at all. As have I. I have also found many that play very well on it - often better than from within QuickTime... though I mostly use VLC when I find QuickTime is not doing as good of a job as I want. While VLC is excellent, its UI is not done particularly well. >> VLC is the best player with its own codecs, unhobbled by anyone. > > It's reasonably good, but not as good as QuickTime Player or Nero > ShowTime. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > >KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in news:29b214cc-448c-430b-83ef- > >8e4f3a0caa92@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's reasonably good, but not as good as QuickTime Player or Nero > ShowTime. On the Mac there's also Movist, which can switch easily between QuickTime and FFmpeg-based playback, and also handles some wrapper formats VLC has issues with: http://www.macstories.net/reviews/movist/ Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > Is the Apple App Store a testbed to see if the consumers will put up > with being attached to the company Box Office for all of computing? I haven't paid much attention, but do video games still have to get approved by the owners of the system they're for? (Xbox, PS3, etc) If so, shouldn't we view the App store as no different then downloadable Xbox games? SignatureChris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!" 'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts' > Most of the Apple users I know would never think to ask such a question, > would use the product for years and never wonder if it could have been > designed differently, with other sources of software and music. Indeed, > that's one of the features . . . there isn't any place else to look, so > there's no need to look anyplace else. This brings up a very interesting point iPhone/iTouch/iPad owners need to investigate further...... The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Protection Act (15USC50 section 2300) states: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sup_01_15_10_50.html more specifically: 15USC50 section 2302(c): "(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission...." Let's suppose Ford were to tell you you could ONLY use Ford's Autolite Spark Plugs in Ford cars and trucks. The law says Ford MUST provide them for free for the life of the product! It's why Ford, or any other manufacturer NEVER tells you which BRAND of oil or any other parts to use and NEVER threatens to void your warranty if you dare use someone else's product from other places than the Ford Dealer ONLY, like Champions from Pep Boys. Here we have this array of devices the COMPANY is FORCING you to use ONLY the COMPANY branded software on these devices. You cannot load any other software on it....or it voids your warranty (jailbreaking). Can any of the lawyers explain to me why this is different than the Ford example and why Apple Computer is not breaking the law forcing them all to buy apps from Apple Computer ONLY, to keep the warranty in force? Can this be class actioned to FORCE Apple Computer to open up the device UNDER WARRANTY to accept apps from anyone at anyplace the "consumer", a keyword this act is all about, chooses? If not, why not? Why can Apple Computer force its customers to use only ITS company-sold-to-consumers software without violating this important Federal Law, when Ford Motor Company cannot force their customers to buy only Ford Sold car parts, FROM THEIR AUTHORIZED DEALERS, to keep the warranty on the car valid? I'd love to see that tested in Federal Court....to put a stop to this "trend" of forcing computer customers to buy software from the computer company ONLY, before it spreads to screw the rest of us..... Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry [snip] > Can any of the lawyers explain to me why this is different than the Ford > example and why Apple Computer is not breaking the law forcing them all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > UNDER WARRANTY to accept apps from anyone at anyplace the "consumer", a > keyword this act is all about, chooses? Other people have noted this. I am not a lawyer, and I don't know how this case would be decided, but it seems to me it's not quite the same thing as the Ford spark plug example. AFAIK Apple doesn't void your warranty explicitly for installing unapproved apps, but for the jailbreaking itself. This might be considered the same as, say, making unauthorized modifications to your engine in order to be able to use unapproved spark plugs, which I'm quite sure *would* let the manufacturer void your warranty. Even if a court saw it the other way, this wouldn't be a route to forcing Apple to make it more convenient to install unapproved apps. It could only be used to force Apple to not invalidate warranties on jailbroken phones. As a practical matter this would make little difference, since it's very hard to brick an iPhone via jailbreaking to such an extent that it can't be restored via iTunes. And once it's restored, if you take it in for warranty service, it seems that Apple either can't or doesn't bother to figure out if it was ever jailbroken. [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > This might be considered the same as, say, making > unauthorized modifications to your engine in order to be able to use > unapproved spark plugs, which I'm quite sure *would* let the > manufacturer void your warranty. swap the rom in the engine controller and it voids the warranty. > And once it's restored, if you take it in for > warranty service, it seems that Apple either can't or doesn't bother to > figure out if it was ever jailbroken. they do check, but if you restore it, there's nothing for them to see. > > This might be considered the same as, say, making > > unauthorized modifications to your engine in order to be able to use [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > they do check, but if you restore it, there's nothing for them to see. Right, that's what I mean. They could have presumably designed the phone so it could tell if it had ever been jailbroken, but it probably would have been annoying to implement and they don't seem to have bothered. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > > Most of the Apple users I know would never think to ask such a > question, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > else's product from other places than the Ford Dealer ONLY, like > Champions from Pep Boys. You didn't actually show that Ford has to provide them free. Just that Ford can't make its warranty conditional on their use. > Here we have this array of devices the COMPANY is FORCING you to use > ONLY the COMPANY branded software on these devices. You cannot load any > other software on it....or it voids your warranty (jailbreaking). Incorrect. They have created a product that works with software that they approve for its use, but its not Apple-branded. > Can any of the lawyers explain to me why this is different than the Ford > example and why Apple Computer is not breaking the law forcing them all > to buy apps from Apple Computer ONLY, to keep the warranty in force? Your analogy is flawed. Apps aren't parts of the product that Apple sells. They are things with which Apple's product can work. They're not forcing to buy the apps at all. They're offering a device which works as is and you can us > Can this be class actioned to FORCE Apple Computer to open up the device > UNDER WARRANTY to accept apps from anyone at anyplace the "consumer", a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "trend" of forcing computer customers to buy software from the computer > company ONLY, before it spreads to screw the rest of us..... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > I'd love to see that tested in Federal Court....to put a stop to this > "trend" of forcing computer customers to buy software from the computer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Larry Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft only allow approved games on their devices. Have you seen the hoops that you have to go through to be a Nintendo deveoper? > only 2% are rejected, according to them, and when the bugs > are fixed, many of those 2% are approved, so figure less than 1% are > rejected for inappropriate content. > > do you really think there should be apps like baby shaker? Why not? If it's in bad taste, let the market decide- they seem to embraced the heck out of fart apps. Do YOU really think there shouldn't be apps like NetShare? > Do YOU really think there shouldn't be apps like NetShare? if at&t wasn't incompetent, there wouldn't be a need for netshare. >> Do YOU really think there shouldn't be apps like NetShare? > > if at&t wasn't incompetent, there wouldn't be a need for netshare. Irrelevant, but nice deflection! NetShare was only the first example that came to mind. What if NetShare simply worked better for some people- e.g. those people trying to tether a portable device with WiFi but no BT- an iPod Touch, a Zune, or a camera with an EyeFi card, for example? Or wanted to use tethering on a non-partner network, where, I might add, Apple has no moral or contractual obligation to prevent/dissuade tethering. > > only 2% are rejected, according to them, and when the bugs > > are fixed, many of those 2% are approved, so figure less than 1% are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do YOU really think there shouldn't be apps like NetShare? Here's the thing. There are really obvious benefits to both users and developers to having centralized app distribution and at least some minimal quality control. And there are substantial security benefits to now allowing end user devices to not run random untrusted executables. So there are some pretty compelling reasons, as far as regular users are concerned, for Apple to control the exclusive distribution mechanism for the platform and to review the apps. Now, I'm sure people here would prefer it if Apple reviewed apps solely to determine whether they were malware, etc. and totally ignored issues like whether they were likely to be used for copyright infringement (BitTorrent clients, apps to let users wirelessly send songs to other devices, etc.) or whether their functions caused problems for network operators (NetShare, BitTorrent again). But once Apple is in a position to approve or reject apps, they really can't ignore these things. They have contractual and legal obligations. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> > only 2% are rejected, according to them, and when the bugs >> > are fixed, many of those 2% are approved, so figure less than 1% are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > minimal quality control. And there are substantial security benefits to > now allowing end user devices to not run random untrusted executables. While true, it seems to fail the goose/gander test. Those same benefits are applicable to computers as well, but no seems to worry that "random untrusted executables" are downloaded to Macs or PCs everyday, and I doubt the many happy iPhone users would be nearly as happy if, say, the Mac had the same policies: a centralized app store distributing only "approved" apps written with approved APIs, and rejections issued for violating arbitrary rules- no Parallels/Boot Camp, for example, since installing another OS "duplicates core OS X functionality." Why are the phone users treated like special-needs children with the caretakers making sure all the sharp objects are securely out of reach? Would anyone here who is so accepting of the app store ecosystem be as accepting of a similar Mac or PC ecosystem? > So there are some pretty compelling reasons, as far as regular users are > concerned, for Apple to control the exclusive distribution mechanism for > the platform and to review the apps. I'm not sure I agree. Besides, who protects these "regular users" when they're at home surfing the Wild, Wild, Web on their desktops and laptops? Most, if not all, of the people I know with iPhones are professionals, and certainly not idiots in need of handholding. And frankly, compared to a computer, a phone is far "safer" place to run questionable apps- by their nature, phones carry less data than a computer, and most of that data is usually already mirrored somewhere else (iTunes backup, MobileMe, Exchange/Google sync, etc.) so even if some as yet non-existant virus managed to infect the phone, what harm would a total "hard" reset to eliminate it cause, especially compared to a complete reformat of a home computer? It would seem to me that the solution that affords the best balance is one like wireless operators have used since J2ME apps could be run on phones- be the gatekeeper of their centralized distribution, yet allow the devices to obtain apps outside the official source for those with the need, savvy, or risk tolerance. Convenience alone would make the app store the main source of apps; probably the only source for these "regular users" you speak of, yet the power users, like, frankly, most of the people posting here, would have access to alternatives without the risks of jailbreaking, and, most importantly, mobile operators certainly couldn't fault Apple for third-party products outside their control any more than they can fault RIM, Google, Nokia, or Microsoft for whatever third-party apps users of those OSes can find and install on their devices. Microsoft (I'll wait until you're done booing and hissing!) actually came up with a pretty good idea for balance with their copycat app store- apps can still be sourced outside of it, just like always, but apps offered in the store have to comply with various rules and restrictions just like with iTunes. In addition, individual mobile operators can "skin" the store, and block apps in their co-branded storefront, so a tethering app, or a VoIP over 3G app, that, say, AT&T might have a problem with, could be "banned" in AT&T's store only, yet available in the stores of operators without such restrictions. > Now, I'm sure people here would prefer it if Apple reviewed apps solely > to determine whether they were malware, etc. and totally ignored issues [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to approve or reject apps, they really can't ignore these things. They > have contractual and legal obligations. Right, which is all the more reason not to put themselves in that position, and allow outside sourcing. The vast majority of those "regular users" would find little or no reason to venture outside of the app store, and a "legal" way to source apps that violate the app store rules (bad taste/porn, duplicate functionality, outside interface guidelines, etc.) would greatly reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the need for jailbreaking. The phone could be programmed to issue a stern on-screen warning about the potential evils/dangers of unsigned/unofficial apps, and leave it to the end-user to decide, based on reviews, friend's experiences, developers' reputations, etc. whether the unofficial app is worth the risk. The sandbox is still there, so errant apps would still have limited access to the rest of the phone, so what's the harm, other than Apple's potential loss of revenue from popular developers/apps who discover that they could manage without the app store, and with an extra 30% in their pockets? In that world, no one could fault Apple for controlling what they allow on their store shelves- it's only because of their app store monopoly that it's even an issue. > >> > only 2% are rejected, according to them, and when the bugs > >> > are fixed, many of those 2% are approved, so figure less than 1% are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > applicable to computers as well, but no seems to worry that "random > untrusted executables" are downloaded to Macs or PCs everyday, People actually spend quite a lot of time worrying about the malware threat to desktop computers, I think you'll find. > and I doubt the many happy iPhone users would be nearly as happy if, > say, the Mac had the same policies: a centralized app store [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > securely out of reach? Would anyone here who is so accepting of the > app store ecosystem be as accepting of a similar Mac or PC ecosystem? The analogy to the desktop isn't really that accurate. Desktop platforms are used in many use cases a phone is not suitable for, and hardware is much more powerful, so there are fewer concerns about third-party apps doing things that might cause performance problems. If Apple did have an app store for the Mac, they'd probably be much less restrictive. And they will likely ease up with the iPhone (and iPad) over time, as its capabilities increase. > > So there are some pretty compelling reasons, as far as regular users are > > concerned, for Apple to control the exclusive distribution mechanism for > > the platform and to review the apps. > > I'm not sure I agree. Besides, who protects these "regular users" when > they're at home surfing the Wild, Wild, Web on their desktops and laptops? Nobody. And have you really never encountered the consequences? Windows machines that take literally 20 minutes to boot because of all the malware? > Most, if not all, of the people I know with iPhones are professionals, and > certainly not idiots in need of handholding. And frankly, compared to a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > eliminate it cause, especially compared to a complete reformat of a home > computer? Besides the massive theft of personal information, up to and including live GPS tracking data, you mean? > It would seem to me that the solution that affords the best balance is one > like wireless operators have used since J2ME apps could be run on phones- be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nokia, or Microsoft for whatever third-party apps users of those OSes can > find and install on their devices. There essentially aren't any risks to jailbreaking; I suspect Apple views it as the unofficial solution to this problem. > Microsoft (I'll wait until you're done booing and hissing!) actually came up > with a pretty good idea for balance with their copycat app store- apps can [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > decide, based on reviews, friend's experiences, developers' reputations, > etc. whether the unofficial app is worth the risk. I think you are seriously underestimating the possibilities for social engineering. I mean, there are still people who launch executables attached to e-mail messages. Stern warnings don't work. Malware *would* get lose on the platform with that approach. Perhaps as the iPhone and particularly the iPad evolve, Apple will eventually decide to go that way anyway, to avoid holding the platforms back. But make no mistake: average users *will* be losing something if that day ever comes. > The sandbox is still there, so errant apps would still have limited > access to the rest of the phone, so what's the harm, other than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allow on their store shelves- it's only because of their app store > monopoly that it's even an issue. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > > > Here's the thing. There are really obvious benefits to both users > > > and developers to having centralized app distribution and at least [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > People actually spend quite a lot of time worrying about the malware > threat to desktop computers, I think you'll find. True, but in this day and age, much of the worry is needless. Even on Windows machines, any decent anti-malware program, even freeware apps, effectively eliminate any threat. > > and I doubt the many happy iPhone users would be nearly as happy if, > > say, the Mac had the same policies: a centralized app store [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hardware is much more powerful, so there are fewer concerns about > third-party apps doing things that might cause performance problems. Again, with the iPhone sandbox, a third-party app can't really cause much in the way of performance problems, other than crashing- particularly compared to, say,a Windows phone, where I've seen badly coded apps drag the system to such a screeching halt that by the time the OS had enough computing cycles to throw the incoming call dialog up on screen, the call had already rolled to voicemail! > If Apple did have an > app store for the Mac, they'd probably be much less restrictive. And > they will likely ease up with the iPhone (and iPad) over time, as its > capabilities increase. Ease up in what way- many rejections are for silly policy reasons, not performance. "Duplicate functionality" or "human interface guidelines" have nothing to do with performance. > > > So there are some pretty compelling reasons, as far as regular > > > users are concerned, for Apple to control the exclusive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > machines that take literally 20 minutes to boot because of all the > malware? I've never seen anything that bad. Unless someone has cobbled up a Windows PC out of spare parts and installed Windows on their own, it's much harder to get infected today. Any name-brand PC sold today has anti- malware software pre-installed and configured. Not impossible, but harder than it used to be if you're even the tiniest bit vigilant. AV software is pretty much "set and forget." The last time I personally encounted a virus (which was immediately blocked by AV software) was when I bought my daughter a cheap MP3 player at WalMart. It was an "open box" item (previously purchased and returned) and the prior user's PC was obviously infected since the AV software's klaxxons went off as soon as I plugged the player in! In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and I'm unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the wild, other than the typical "proof of concept" stuff dreamed up by AV software vendors. Security through obscurity has worked perfectly thus far. > > Most, if not all, of the people I know with iPhones are > > professionals, and certainly not idiots in need of handholding. And [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Besides the massive theft of personal information, up to and including > live GPS tracking data, you mean? No different than your desktop, other than the GPS data- anyone who syncs a smartphone has the same personal info on a machine far more likely to be infected with malware. My last five income tax returns are on my PC. My shopping list is on my phone. Which is the treasure trove of data malware writers are looking for? > > It would seem to me that the solution that affords the best balance > > is one like wireless operators have used since J2ME apps could be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There essentially aren't any risks to jailbreaking; I suspect Apple > views it as the unofficial solution to this problem. While I haven't seen any problems with my wife's jailbroken phone, stability issues were reported with early jailbreaks, and obviously there's a slight chance one can brick a phone jailbreaking it. I'd argue running "unofficial apps" in a sandbox are, on the whole, far less risky than modifying the OS! > > Microsoft (I'll wait until you're done booing and hissing!) actually > > came up with a pretty good idea for balance with their copycat app [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > storefront, so a tethering app, or a VoIP over 3G app, that, say, > > AT&T might have a problem with, could be "banned" in AT&T's store only, > > yet available in the stores of operators without such restrictions. > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > engineering. I mean, there are still people who launch executables > attached to e-mail messages. So the users of an entire platform get to suffer because a few idiots _might_ infect their phone? And you personally support that decision? Gee, I'm surprised Apple makes the iPhone display out of glass- given the intelligence level you're attributing to the "regular users" it's a miracle they haven't hurt themselves operating it yet! ;) (By the way, have you used a Windows PC since 1998? What Windows email client today even lets you _download_ an executable email attachment, much less run it? Another example of users suffering for the stupidest among us- there are times I actually need to email someone an executable, but I have to zip it or "spoof" it by changing the file extension to something innocuous first.) > Stern warnings don't work. Malware *would* > get lose on the platform with that approach. ' And yet it hasn't on all the other smartphone platforms, despite the lack of any tightly, or even loosely, controlled app distribution. Again, the iPhone, next to J2ME-based dumbphones, is the safest platform to run unsigned apps. The sandbox should prevent most "damage." > Perhaps as the iPhone and particularly the iPad evolve, Apple will > eventually decide to go that way anyway, to avoid holding the platforms > back. But make no mistake: average users *will* be losing something if > that day ever comes. Nothing but their chains. On this debate, I'll side with Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Isn't a little condescending to assume the unwashed masses/"regular users" are completely helpless without Apple's paternal protections? Not "us," of course, "we're" all far too smart to fall for malware, or phishing, or whatever, but "they" are completely helpless without protection from "dangers" like Baby Shaker, NetShare, Google Voice, or I Am Rich. > > > > Here's the thing. There are really obvious benefits to both users > > > > and developers to having centralized app distribution and at least [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Windows machines, any decent anti-malware program, even freeware apps, > effectively eliminate any threat. Even if this is true (which it doesn't seem to be for some users), is this really something people want to deal with on mobile platforms? Consider, if nothing else, the overhead of having to constantly scan everything. > > > and I doubt the many happy iPhone users would be nearly as happy if, > > > say, the Mac had the same policies: a centralized app store [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > computing cycles to throw the incoming call dialog up on screen, the call > had already rolled to voicemail! Thing is, it's defense-in-depth. Odds are the iPhone sandbox isn't perfect -- there are probably holes, even if nobody has found them yet, that an app could exploit once it got onto the system. So there's substantially value in having both pre-screened apps and the sandbox. > > If Apple did have an > > app store for the Mac, they'd probably be much less restrictive. And [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > performance. "Duplicate functionality" or "human interface guidelines" > have nothing to do with performance. Well, saying that "many" rejections are for these things might be a bit of an exaggeration. How many apps have *actually* been rejected for HIG violations? And as far as the duplicating internal functionality, this is something Apple could very well ease up on as the platform grows. > > > > So there are some pretty compelling reasons, as far as regular > > > > users are concerned, for Apple to control the exclusive [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I've never seen anything that bad. I still encounter this regularly. On machines that have anti-malware software installed. Some users still don't really install updates on a timely schedule and still apparently aren't able to figure out what software they shouldn't be downloading. [snip] > In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and I'm > unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the wild, > other than the typical "proof of concept" stuff dreamed up by AV software > vendors. Security through obscurity has worked perfectly thus far. Smartphones were an almost irrelevant platform until about two years ago. > > > Most, if not all, of the people I know with iPhones are > > > professionals, and certainly not idiots in need of handholding. And [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > My shopping list is on my phone. Which is the treasure trove of data > malware writers are looking for? OK, but "no different from your desktop" is *horrible*. [snip] > > There essentially aren't any risks to jailbreaking; I suspect Apple > > views it as the unofficial solution to this problem. > > While I haven't seen any problems with my wife's jailbroken phone, > stability issues were reported with early jailbreaks, You're assuming this is due to the jailbreaking, which, given what jailbreaking does, is unlikely to be true. It's more likely due to the things people start doing once they've jailbroken that they couldn't do previously -- running background apps, running apps that Apple hasn't tested, etc. IOW, this could very well be a compelling demonstration of why exactly Apple insists on doing things the way they're currently done. > and obviously there's a slight chance one can brick a phone > jailbreaking it. I'd argue running "unofficial apps" in a sandbox > are, on the whole, far less risky than modifying the OS! It's virtually impossible to brick a phone such that it can't be restored via iTunes if all you're doing is jailbreaking. (Carrier unlocks are somewhat more risky.) [snip] > > I think you are seriously underestimating the possibilities for social > > engineering. I mean, there are still people who launch executables > > attached to e-mail messages. > > So the users of an entire platform get to suffer because a few idiots > _might_ infect their phone? No. A few geeks have to inconvenience themselves by jailbreaking because a locked-down platform probably provides a better user experience for 98% of users. [snip] > > Stern warnings don't work. Malware *would* > > get lose on the platform with that approach. > ' > > And yet it hasn't on all the other smartphone platforms, despite the lack > of any tightly, or even loosely, controlled app distribution. 99.4% of mobile app downloads last year were for iPhone OS platforms. Malware authors don't write for other smartphones for the same reasons legitimate software authors mostly don't: not many people are installing apps on other phones (can't trick people into installing malware on their phones if they don't even know how to install apps in the first place), J2ME isn't really a single unified platform, etc. [snip] > On this debate, I'll side with Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up > Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve > neither Liberty nor Safety." We're not talking about political freedoms here. I know there are some geeks who have strong moral opinions about software platforms, but for virtually everyone else this is a straightforward calculation of utility. Do the benefits of allowing unapproved apps outweigh the costs? And for most users, the answer is clearly "no". [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > > > People actually spend quite a lot of time worrying about the > > > malware threat to desktop computers, I think you'll find. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Consider, if nothing else, the overhead of having to constantly scan > everything. Except that there's no demonstratable need to do that. > > Again, with the iPhone sandbox, a third-party app can't really cause > > much in the way of performance problems, other than crashing- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that an app could exploit once it got onto the system. So there's > substantially value in having both pre-screened apps and the sandbox. Only a theoretical one. The closed ecosystem is defending against a threat that isn't there. > > > If Apple did have an > > > app store for the Mac, they'd probably be much less restrictive. And [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > this is something Apple could very well ease up on as the platform > grows. They could, but since there's no security or performance reasons for such a policy, what would trigger such a change? > > > > Besides, who protects these "regular users" > > > > when they're at home surfing the Wild, Wild, Web on their desktops [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > timely schedule and still apparently aren't able to figure out what > software they shouldn't be downloading. So, again, the platform is designed around it's stupidest potential users? > > In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and > > I'm unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Smartphones were an almost irrelevant platform until about two years ago. Oh, please- a little revisionist history seems to be at work here. there were 80 million smartphones sold in the year 1 B.I. (Before iPhone, or 2006.) It was a hugely growing category even before Apple jumped in, and would still be huge without them. All those unprotected phones out there, without Apple's gatekeeping, and still no malware. > > > > Most, if not all, of the people I know with iPhones are > > > > professionals, and certainly not idiots in need of handholding. And [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > OK, but "no different from your desktop" is *horrible*. Again, goose/gander. Why does this "mobile computing platform" require so much more protection/restriction than desktops or laptops. There are far greater risks to your mobile data from physical device loss or theft than any as-yet-non-existent malware. To anyone the least bit cynical, it's hard to see this "protectionism" as anything but a rationization for forcing all app sales through Apple's 30% "filters." > > > There essentially aren't any risks to jailbreaking; I suspect Apple > > > views it as the unofficial solution to this problem. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > IOW, this could very well be a compelling demonstration of why exactly > Apple insists on doing things the way they're currently done. No one argues that a closed ecosystem is potentially more stable- it's just the price of stability is too high, since "regular users" could still chose stability by sticking to the app store for downloads. > > and obviously there's a slight chance one can brick a phone > > jailbreaking it. I'd argue running "unofficial apps" in a sandbox > > are, on the whole, far less risky than modifying the OS! > > It's virtually impossible to brick a phone such that it can't be > restored via iTunes if all you're doing is jailbreaking. But wait- we're talking about those drooling, doddering, "regular users" who use blunt scissors and download malware- it's better to send them off to attempt jailbreaking than to let them download an app from an unapproved source? > > > I think you are seriously underestimating the possibilities for > > > social engineering. I mean, there are still people who launch [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because a locked-down platform probably provides a better user > experience for 98% of users. So you'd approve of a similar ecosystem for desktops. And it's not "just a few geeks" who suffer. How long were iPhone users of Skype and Slingbox _worldwide_ inconvenienced with WiFi-only versions because AT&T in the US didn't want them working over their 3G? Other platform users source those apps directly from Skype and Sling, who don't have to answer to any particular mobile operators. > > > Stern warnings don't work. Malware *would* > > > get lose on the platform with that approach. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 99.4% of mobile app downloads last year were for iPhone OS platforms. No, that much cited, and as equally misunderstood, report fom Gartner sadi 99.4% of apps downloaded from _platform_app_stores_ were iPhone OS. Android, Blackberry, Symbian and Windows phone users aren't limited to official platform app stores as iPhone, and WebOS are, so apps are often, or even typically, sourced outside the ecosystems counted by Gartner. But let's suppose the other platform app downloads outside stores are inconsequntial, making the 99.4% number essentially unchanged- in that case it means the vast majority of users don't download unapproved apps anyway, making the restriction largely unnecessary! > Malware authors don't write for other smartphones for the same reasons > legitimate software authors mostly don't: not many people are installing > apps on other phones (can't trick people into installing malware on > their phones if they don't even know how to install apps in the first > place), J2ME isn't really a single unified platform, etc. More revisionist history- the developers of the tens of thousands of Symbian, Palm, WinMo and Blackberry apps might disagree. > > On this debate, I'll side with Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up > > Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > utility. Do the benefits of allowing unapproved apps outweigh the costs? > And for most users, the answer is clearly "no". So they don't have to use them. Again, it's the advanced users who suffer so the clueless don't hurt themselves? Apps like Skype, Fring, Sling, Netshare, and Google Voice aren't apps only for "geeks." I wonder how many "regular users" have jailbroken solely to get the app that tricks WiFi-only apps into working over 3G? You spoke of "social engineering" earlier- how many "regular users" are being forcing into becoming hackers just to get their apps like Skype to work? > > > In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and > > > I'm unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would still be huge without them. All those unprotected phones out > there, without Apple's gatekeeping, and still no malware. Where were "all those unprotected phones" getting their apps? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> > > In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and >> > > I'm unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Where were "all those unprotected phones" getting their apps? The same places desktop/laptop users got theirs. Developer's websites, freeware download sites, shrink-wrapped packages in computer/office supply stores, etc. Commercial websites like Handango.com and PocketGear.com have been around supporting multiple smartphone and PDA platforms for years. FWIW, Handango offered "Handango InHand" to Windows phones users back in 2006- AFAIK, the first instance of an on-device app store, allowing you to browse, search for, purchase, download, and install thousands of apps right on the device from a single seller, rather than visit the sites of a myriad of individual developers or sellers. > >> > > In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and > >> > > I'm unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > stores, etc. Commercial websites like Handango.com and PocketGear.com have > been around supporting multiple smartphone and PDA platforms for years. Which explains why most smartphone users didn't have a single third-party app on their systems... LOL > FWIW, Handango offered "Handango InHand" to Windows phones users back in > 2006- AFAIK, the first instance of an on-device app store, allowing you to > browse, search for, purchase, download, and install thousands of apps right > on the device from a single seller, rather than visit the sites of a myriad > of individual developers or sellers. Wow. All the way back in 2006, huh? Show that any significant fraction of smartphone users were actually doing it... Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) >> >> Oh, please- a little revisionist history seems to be at work here. >> >> there [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > LOL So one or two of us bought all $4 billion worth of mobile apps each year? While certainly no other smartphone platform had iPhone-style download numbers, the average number of installed apps on Palm and Windows Mobile-based phones was about a half-dozen, IIRC. >> FWIW, Handango offered "Handango InHand" to Windows phones users back in >> 2006- AFAIK, the first instance of an on-device app store, allowing you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wow. All the way back in 2006, huh? That's "forever ago" in technology years! Although the launch of InHand was actually earlier- my memory is off. Handango itself has been around (originally as "PalmCentral") since 1999, selling apps from their website. IN late 2004 (I looked it up- I was off by a couple of years) they launched InHand, their on-device app store first for Palm, then for WinMo, Symbian, and Blackberry in early '05. > Show that any significant fraction of smartphone users were actually > doing it... Ok... from Handango's 2009 "Tenth Anniversary" press release: "Handango has become the leading global smartphone applications provider boasting the following: Conducted over 100 million downloads with an average PAID order value of more than $20 per application..." PocketGear started, IIRC, in 2000 or 2001, and claims 750 million downloads and $2.5 billion in sales to date. These certainly aren't iPhone numbers, but respectable. So, in any case, while it wasn't nearly as brain-dead simple as installing apps on an iPhone, we neanderthals with other devices still apparently managed to figure out how to install a billion or so apps on our devices... ;) > >> > > In any case, smartphones have been around for nearly a decade, and > >> > > I'm unaware of a single piece of bona fide smartphone malware in the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > on the device from a single seller, rather than visit the sites of a myriad > of individual developers or sellers. And this is the usual "feature checklist" method of product analysis that lead to the infamous "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame" dismissal of the original iPod, and widespread dismissal of the original iPhone. There were other platforms out there on which applications could technically be installed, and there were technically places for developers to sell and for users to buy those applications. But the user experience sucked and most people never did it -- and in fact many fewer people bothered to buy smartphones in the first place. It's the same reason the iPhone to this day accounts for a share of mobile browsing about twice as large as it market share would predict -- many other phones that the market research firms lump into the same category as the iPhone technically have browsers, but they suck, so they're used much less. The actual reality is much more complicated than checking off that Phone A and Phone B both have the 'web browser' feature. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes [snip] > > Thing is, it's defense-in-depth. Odds are the iPhone sandbox isn't > > perfect -- there are probably holes, even if nobody has found them yet, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Only a theoretical one. The closed ecosystem is defending against a > threat that isn't there. I *really* don't understand why you keep saying this. The threat absolutely *is* there on open desktop platforms. Annual damage from malware is estimated at over $10 billion. There is no reason to believe a similar threat environment would not eventually emerge on smart phone platforms if they were similarly open. [snip] > > Smartphones were an almost irrelevant platform until about two years ago. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would still be huge without them. All those unprotected phones out > there, without Apple's gatekeeping, and still no malware. I'm not sure you read my statement closely enough. Phones like the Blackberry are generally considered smartphones, but they're barely a "platform". Most Blackberry users still to this day (let along three years ago) seem to install few or no third-party apps. The vast majority of people with J2ME-enabled phones today *still* don't seem to even be aware that their phones can run apps. > > > No different than your desktop, other than the GPS data- anyone who > > > syncs a smartphone has the same personal info on a machine far more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Again, goose/gander. Why does this "mobile computing platform" require > so much more protection/restriction than desktops or laptops. It doesn't. That's my point. Desktops don't have the protection, and things are *not OK*. They're *bad*. > There are far greater risks to your mobile data from physical device loss > or theft than any as-yet-non-existent malware. > > To anyone the least bit cynical, it's hard to see this "protectionism" as > anything but a rationization for forcing all app sales through Apple's 30% > "filters." Please. After bandwidth, infrastructure and credit card fees, and given the number of apps that cost $0.99 (or are free), Apple probably barely makes money from app distribution. And the infrastructure and promotional opportunity Apple is providing to developers would cost them far more to obtain elsewhere. In terms of actually allowing developers to make money, the iPhone platform is one of the best ever created. The whole "Apple doesn't allow Flash because they want you to buy app store games" thing I've seen a few dozen times over the last week is especially ludicrous, given that a) most Flash games wouldn't work on a device with no keyboard and mouse and b) most Flash games are equivalent to free or $0.99 iPhone games on which Apple makes little or nothing. [snip] > > It's virtually impossible to brick a phone such that it can't be > > restored via iTunes if all you're doing is jailbreaking. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to attempt jailbreaking than to let them download an app from an > unapproved source? But most of them won't try to jailbreak. That's the point. Requiring people to jailbreak to do this scares most people who really shouldn't be doing it away from doing it, and makes it very clear to the people who go ahead that any problems you encounter are not Apple's fault. > > > > I think you are seriously underestimating the possibilities for > > > > social engineering. I mean, there are still people who launch [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Other platform users source those apps directly from Skype and Sling, who > don't have to answer to any particular mobile operators. That doesn't work for the iPhone because the mass market actually uses its capabilities. Seriously. There were a bunch of studies about this early on. iPhone users, as compared with users of most other phones, use the features of their devices at far higher rates, and there are a *lot* of them. This means iPhone users can bring down networks in a way that a handful of geeks with some specific phone model streaming video over 3G won't. Apple has a responsibility to be careful about this stuff. Yes, perhaps they shouldn't use AT&T's network as a gauge, because other 3G networks are more robust. But short of performing country-by-country reviews or giving carriers veto power over apps (you do *not* want to do that; they will absolutely block things for business reasons rather than legitimate technical ones), it's a reasonable approach. > > > > Stern warnings don't work. Malware *would* get lose on the > > > > platform with that approach. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But let's suppose the other platform app downloads outside stores are > inconsequntial, making the 99.4% number essentially unchanged- Which is almost certainly the case. > in that case it means the vast majority of users don't download > unapproved apps anyway, making the restriction largely unnecessary! You can't assume this would be as true on the iPhone. See above comments about iPhone users actually using the features of their devices. > > Malware authors don't write for other smartphones for the same reasons > > legitimate software authors mostly don't: not many people are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > More revisionist history- the developers of the tens of thousands of > Symbian, Palm, WinMo and Blackberry apps might disagree. Most of those apps are trivial, low-quality, and used by essentially nobody. To a fairly close first approximation, for instance, the only J2ME app of any consequence in the entire marketplace is Opera. Really. I doubt you could name two more that anyone here had heard of. > > > On this debate, I'll side with Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up > > > Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > being forcing into becoming hackers just to get their apps like Skype to > work? Huh? Skype is an approved app store app, and AT&T has now decided to allow VOIP over 3G. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> > Thing is, it's defense-in-depth. Odds are the iPhone sandbox isn't >> > perfect -- there are probably holes, even if nobody has found them yet, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a similar threat environment would not eventually emerge on smart phone > platforms if they were similarly open. The Mac is an "open desktop platform"- show me the threats. A few hundred million Palm, Windows Mobile, and Symbian devices were sold and used pre-iPhone. Where are the threats? None of them felt the need to close the ecosystem as an overreaction to the potential threat of malware, particularly on systems that require user intervention to install programs. There simply is no threat at all, and little chance of one developing anytime soon, particularly to an educated userbase. Given the choices of "closed to protect users from an as-yet-non-existant threat" or "closed to create a Ninendo-style single content source distribution system to ensure a piece of revenue on every app sold" that latter seems the far more likely reason, with the former making a great-sounding excuse to defend the latter. >> > Smartphones were an almost irrelevant platform until about two years >> > ago. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of people with J2ME-enabled phones today *still* don't seem to even be > aware that their phones can run apps. Where do you get the idea Blackberry users don't install apps? Why would developers create the thousands of Blackberry apps availavle today if "most users" don't bother? Corporate Blackberries with locked-down policies certainly don't have user-installed apps, but they often utilize vertical LOB (line-of-business) applications. In my experience, most J2ME phone users buy their apps (mostly games) from their carriers' walled garden stores, either because they're unaware they can source apps outside the carrier, or because their carrier has crippled the phone to prevent unsigned apps from installing. By 2006, before Apple entered the game, mobile software was already a multi-billion dollar industry, well over a half-billion dollars in the US alone. Where do you think those billions of dollars in apps and games went? >> > > No different than your desktop, other than the GPS data- anyone who >> > > syncs a smartphone has the same personal info on a machine far more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It doesn't. That's my point. Desktops don't have the protection, and > things are *not OK*. They're *bad*. They're bad on unprotected Windows systems. How many Mac or Linux users even have an anti-malware program installed? Mobile OSes are far less open than desktop Windows systems. They don't automatically install drivers, codecs or Active X controls, they don't run macros, and all software requires user intervention to install. On many phones, attempting to install unsigned apps generate warnings prior to installation. These are not platforms that require any extraordinary measures to protect; certainly not a closed ecosystem! >> There are far greater risks to your mobile data from physical device loss >> or theft than any as-yet-non-existent malware. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the number of apps that cost $0.99 (or are free), Apple probably barely > makes money from app distribution. "Please?" The month after the store opened, Steve Jo=bs said Apple was selling $1 million dollars worth of apps per DAY. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121842341491928977.html That was waaaay back then, with a fraction of the iPhones and apps in existance than today. 30% of $30 million/month is over $100,000,000 a year- even at those early 2008 numbers. Presumably it's at least a few times higher now. I'll wager Apple has found a way to keep a few bucks even after "bandwidth, infrastructure and credit card fees." > And the infrastructure and > promotional opportunity Apple is providing to developers would cost them > far more to obtain elsewhere. In terms of actually allowing developers > to make money, the iPhone platform is one of the best ever created. I'm not arguing that- in fact it supports my point- the app store would still be the primary "go to" source for apps and games even without the proverbial gun being held to developers' and users' heads. So why use the gun? > The whole "Apple doesn't allow Flash because they want you to buy app > store games" thing I've seen a few dozen times over the last week is > especially ludicrous, given that a) most Flash games wouldn't work on a > device with no keyboard and mouse and b) most Flash games are equivalent > to free or $0.99 iPhone games on which Apple makes little or nothing. No argument from me- I'm quite sure the Flash prohibition is simply an SDK rules thing- you can't install or run emulators or interpreters that would allow "unapproved" code/apps to run within, so no J2ME, and no Flash, since they both run code. >> > It's virtually impossible to brick a phone such that it can't be >> > restored via iTunes if all you're doing is jailbreaking. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be doing it away from doing it, and makes it very clear to the people > who go ahead that any problems you encounter are not Apple's fault. My point was that some of the restrictions will get people who otherwise have on go reason to jailbreak, to attempt it. The first time my $200 Slingplayer that I bought knowing it supported the iPhone DIDN'T work in the line at the DMV because there was no WiFi around would have me looking for a solution, official or otherwise! Sure, some will jailbreak just they can, and some will to get around multitasking prohibitions or whatever, but the vast majority probably do it to get a particular app or apps that aren't allowed in the app store- camcorders for 1st-gen iPhones, VoIP that works over 3G, etc. Those folks would have no need to jailbreak if they could access unapproved apps without drastic measures. Believe me- I don't like jailbreaking or unlocking. It's a PITA to have to search several blogs everytime Apple updates the OS to see if it's "safe" for me to update, or determine what proceedures I have to follow other than plug-in and upgrade. All other phones you unlock once and forget it, and, of course, they don't need jailbreaking. >> > > So the users of an entire platform get to suffer because a few idiots >> > > _might_ infect their phone? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > handful of geeks with some specific phone model streaming video over 3G > won't. Apple has a responsibility to be careful about this stuff. Apple also has a responsibility to its actual customers. Again, not ALL networks have these issues. Why should a T-Mobile Germany customer be punished by an AT&T mandate that Apple converts into app store policy? Wouldn't allowing Sling to distribute the app to anyone who wants it and let AT&T detect and block the connection be a more senisble and fair solution to users worldwide? Unfortunately, as goes AT&T, so goes the world, thanks to Apple's alliances. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if there was an app that AT&T was ok with, but Apple blocked because their partner carrier in Luxemborg or wherever, decided it would impact their network? > Yes, perhaps they shouldn't use AT&T's network as a gauge, because other > 3G networks are more robust. But short of performing country-by-country > reviews or giving carriers veto power over apps (you do *not* want to do > that; they will absolutely block things for business reasons rather than > legitimate technical ones), it's a reasonable approach. Oh, so I don't want the _carrier_ to block things for business reasons, but Apple as the final arbiter is ok? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!" I'll give you a hint- if a carrier blocked an app for business reasons, they certainly wouldn't say that was the reson. They'd make an excuse- probably about protecting the network, or (gasp!) security. So which carrier initiated the 10MB app/file download limit? Answer: none. My carrier, T-Mobile certainly didn't, but my wife's iPhone refuses to download an 11MB file on T-Mobile because _Apple_ said it can't. In my scenario, neither carrier or manufacturer can block apps. I trust ME as my phone's gatekeeper more than I trust either Apple or my carrier! >> > > > Stern warnings don't work. Malware *would* get lose on the >> > > > platform with that approach. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Which is almost certainly the case. Again, $650 million in sales in 2006 in the US alone. Probably not "almost certainly the case!" >> in that case it means the vast majority of users don't download >> unapproved apps anyway, making the restriction largely unnecessary! > > You can't assume this would be as true on the iPhone. See above comments > about iPhone users actually using the features of their devices. So, then, the purpose of Apple as gatekeeper is no longer about security, but about protecting AT&T's network. You're happier with that? Would the iPhone users on the 59 other carriers be happy knowing that? >> > Malware authors don't write for other smartphones for the same reasons >> > legitimate software authors mostly don't: not many people are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Most of those apps are trivial, low-quality, and used by essentially > nobody. As opposed to the bulk of the 150,000 apps store apps that are trival, low quality and used by many iPhone users? I'd submit that the billions of dollars in paid-for apps (on any platform) are far more likely to be used by their buyers than the throwaway freebies, but no platform has a monopoly on useless apps! In any case, that doesn't moot the point- all the platforms have enough downloaders that they'd be sitting ducks for this stream of malware you seem to think is just around the corner. In many ways, the other platforms (other than perhaps J2ME/Java which includes Blackberry) would be fatter targets, since the entire device is open to software- there's no sandbox. Windows phones even have the facility to autolaunch apps on boot up, so malware could ensure it ran silently everytime you powered up. 70 million Windows phone-based malware targets sold in the last five years, and still no malware. Virus writers getting lazy? > To a fairly close first approximation, for instance, the only > J2ME app of any consequence in the entire marketplace is Opera. Really. > I doubt you could name two more that anyone here had heard of. Off the top of my head, GMail and Google Maps spring immediately to mind as two. Countless games many ported from desktops like "The Sims." GetJar.com, a distributor of freeware Java apps for mobiles boasts they have over 10,000,000 downloads a week from a catalog of over 60,000 apps. Those are first-year iPhone app store volumes! >> > > On this debate, I'll side with Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up >> > > Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Huh? Skype is an approved app store app, and AT&T has now decided to > allow VOIP over 3G. Skype for iPhone was the only version of Mobile Skype that couldn't work over 3G until AT&T graciously allowed it. The Skype for iPhone users on the iPhone's other 60 mobile operators worldwide were bound by AT&T's limitations, regardless of those operators' policies about VoIP. The only way to get it (and Sling Mobile) to work over 3G was to jailbreak and install an app that fooled the sandbox into thinking cellular conections were WiFi connections. Without Apple as gatekeeper, and sole source of distribution, Skype would always have worked over 3G, and AT&T would've had to find another way to enforce their policy, instead of using Apple as their lackey impacting users worldwide, and forcing a number of users to jailbreak. >> Yes, perhaps they shouldn't use AT&T's network as a gauge, because other >> 3G networks are more robust. But short of performing country-by-country [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reasons, they certainly wouldn't say that was the reson. They'd make an > excuse- probably about protecting the network, or (gasp!) security. I think that I would in fact prefer the carrier to be the one to block things, at least in the US, and here's why: http://9to5mac.com/sling-3G-35493406 http://9to5mac.com/att-sling-liars-3g-optimization-3456345 At least with AT&T, a common carrier with a licensed monopoly over a public resource, there's always somewhere to go if you'd like AT&T to justify their actions. Sling went to the FCC and AT&T caved. Dennis Ferguson Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:fcabn.72712$U83.30132 @newsfe10.iad: > Again, with the iPhone sandbox, a third-party app can't really cause much > in the way of performance problems, other than crashing- Let's say an app trashed the iPhone OS, malware deleting enough of what's stored in memory to prevent its reboot. What do you do to get it running again? Does iTunes have a bootloader that can restore a trashed iPhone OS, or just the aftermarket software? If it doesn't have a bootloader to restore a trashed OS, THAT could be horrible. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > Let's say an app trashed the iPhone OS, malware deleting enough of what's > stored in memory to prevent its reboot. What do you do to get it running > again? restore it. very simple. > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:fcabn.72712$U83.30132 > @newsfe10.iad: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If it doesn't have a bootloader to restore a trashed OS, THAT could be > horrible. iTunes can do a restore, yes, either to factory configuration (at which point it can, of course, do a sync to copy your music, apps, etc. back) or to one of its previous automatic backups. This is why jailbreaking is not particularly risky. If you're a registered iPhone developer you can also keep several versions of the OS around and use the developer tools to install different versions for testing. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:fcabn.72712$U83.30132 > @newsfe10.iad: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If it doesn't have a bootloader to restore a trashed OS, THAT could be > horrible. Just connect it to iTunes and restore everything. I've had to do that a couple of times. Steve ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-FD46EF.00404706022010 @Port80.Individual.NET: > If Apple did have an > app store for the Mac Man, THAT would sh.t on sales! Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:057bn.88157 $kQ5.49210@newsfe08.iad: > The phone > could be programmed to issue a stern on-screen warning about the potential > evils/dangers of unsigned/unofficial apps, and leave it to the end-user to > decide, based on reviews, friend's experiences, developers' reputations, > etc. whether the unofficial app is worth the risk. Exactly what Nokia does with all non-Nokia apps maemo.org can load into the little Linux tablets and new N900 phone. It simply warns you Nokia isn't responsible for anything the app may do to your device and gives YOU the choice of install or not.... Of course, if it totally erases the device, no harm done. Just plug into a WIN PC and reload Maemo Linux from the bootloader, then reinstall the software from the maemo.org website....a pain in the a.s, but NOT fatal. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > The average user can't jailbreak their phone. > > Nor should they be forced to. they're not forced to. most don't. >> The average user can't jailbreak their phone. >> >> Nor should they be forced to. > > they're not forced to. most don't. That wasn't the point. The claim was made that the iphone can be a mass storage device. That claim is obviously bogus. It's like saying that AppleTV's can run XBMC. Sure, they can do this but only with more hacking then most people are interested in. I often wonder if the Apple fanboys actually use the stuff they shill for. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ > That wasn't the point. The claim was made that the iphone can be > a mass storage device. it can. it's not the best price/gigabyte ratio but it certainly can do that. > That claim is obviously bogus. it's not. > It's like saying > that AppleTV's can run XBMC. Sure, they can do this but only with more > hacking then most people are interested in. no hacking is necessary. > I often wonder if the Apple fanboys actually use the stuff they > shill for. i often wonder if the bashers ever check to see if their complaints are valid. actually no i don't wonder at all. i know the answer. they don't. >>>>>>>>>>> In article <qqGdnUqIIrDjrv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>>>>>>>>>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > The average user can't use Google? Wow, it's amazing how you can go out of your way to defend Apple not providing a basic function in a device. The average user wouldn't have a clue what to type in that empty Google search box. Steve > > The average user can't use Google? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The average user wouldn't have a clue what to type in that empty > Google search box. how hard is it to type 'ipod copy music' and then look at the first few links? > > So easy is not going to google and searching for a program? > > Average user can't do that. Thanks for Apple they have to. the average user can't use google? and again, it's the record companies that made them do it, along with drm which apple said they didn't want but were forced to do it. fortunately, the record companies changed their mind on drm. >>> So easy is not going to google and searching for a program? >> Average user can't do that. Thanks for Apple they have to. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but were forced to do it. fortunately, the record companies changed > their mind on drm. I don't believe it was the record companies who dictated that you couldn't copy music OFF of an iPod. (Which in itself is funny as I have heard Microsoft attacked here many many times for the video copy protection in Vista, et al, which was completely dictated by the movie studios). We're not talking about the old DRM tracks from the ITS. Steve > >>> So easy is not going to google and searching for a program? > >> Average user can't do that. Thanks for Apple they have to. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't believe it was the record companies who dictated that you > couldn't copy music OFF of an iPod. I don't think they explicitly dictated it, as it predates the entire existence of the iTunes Store and Apple's deals with record labels. But if you will recall, at the time the iPod shipped the labels basically regarded it, and iTunes, as a piracy tools. They were so out to lunch one label executive thought "Rip, Mix, Burn", the early iTunes slogan (back when people still burned audio CDs), meant "rip off". Labels were making noises about trying to get laws passed that would require Apple to pay them a fee for every iPod sold to offset piracy. Apple understood, I think, that if one of the supported features of the iPod made it trivially easy to copy large quantities of music between computers, they'd get sued in about five seconds. Note that the iPod *will* copy music in both directions if that music was purchased on the iTunes account that the copy of iTunes it's talking to is logged into. IOW if they know the music is legal and they know the same person owns the iPod and the computer, they allow it. Hard to sue them in that case. And note also that Apple doesn't really take any *serious* technical steps to prevent third-party software from copying songs off of the iPod. They obfuscate things enough to be able to tell a judge that the device wasn't designed for that function, but they don't encrypt the files or anything, which wouldn't be that hard. [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > I don't think they explicitly dictated it, as it predates the entire > existence of the iTunes Store and Apple's deals with record labels. however, they probably were starting to talk to record companies by the time the first ipod shipped. it was only 18 months later when the store debuted. > And note also that Apple doesn't really take any *serious* technical > steps to prevent third-party software from copying songs off of the > iPod. They obfuscate things enough to be able to tell a judge that the > device wasn't designed for that function, but they don't encrypt the > files or anything, which wouldn't be that hard. exactly. apple can say they blocked it (which they did) and the user circumvented it entirely on their own (and that's very easy). >> I don't think they explicitly dictated it, as it predates the entire >> existence of the iTunes Store and Apple's deals with record labels. > > however, they probably were starting to talk to record companies by the > time the first ipod shipped. it was only 18 months later when the store > debuted. Yeah, right. Blew that argument out of the water. Steve >>>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical >>>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve That's funny, I move my own ripped music on and off my Touch all the time. What you assert MIGHT be true of music bought from the iTunes Store, I wouldn't know. I don't buy music from the iTunes Store but I somehow doubt that one cannot remove bought music to make room for a different playlist. That would be an incredibly stupid restriction. > >>>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical > >>>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that one cannot remove bought music to make room for a different playlist. > That would be an incredibly stupid restriction. Purchased music syncs in both directions automatically. Ripped music doesn't sync from iPod to desktop out of the box because the record industry would have a sh.t fit if iPods could be too easily used as devices to copy large amount of music around from computer to computer. No, that doesn't make any sense, given that there are so many other ways to copy music around. But we're talking about the record industry here. Nothing they've ever done with respect to digital technology has made sense (except things they were basically forced to do by others, like dropping DRM). Fortunately, third-parties small enough to be beneath the industry's notice have enabled this functionality. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >>>>>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical >>>>>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Fortunately, third-parties small enough to be beneath the industry's > notice have enabled this functionality. All I have to do is go into the music list on iTunes and uncheck the albums (or "songs") that I want to delete from my iPod Touch and then re-sync. Voila! Gone. > >>>>>> different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical > >>>>>> cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > (or "songs") that I want to delete from my iPod Touch and then re-sync. > Voila! Gone. The subject isn't removing music on the iPod from the iPod, it's moving music from the iPod back to the computer. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100422593085% > nospam@nospam.invalid: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Click VIEW STORAGE DEVICES > Click MEMORY CARD (snip) Just because you have access to the directories where picturess and stuff stored on a device doesn't mean that you have full access to the complete file system. >> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100422593085% >> nospam@nospam.invalid: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > stored on a device doesn't mean that you have full access to the complete > file system. You can say that about the Finder in MacOS. OTOH, the Finder will give you access to most any place you would typically want to access. The key important things being your own personal data that you might want to manipulate or view or take to and fro. SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ >> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we >> have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. > > different type of lock. can you get to the file system of a typical > cellphone? no. and what do you need within the file system anyway? > there really isn't that much of interest to the typical user. The iPad is not a typical cellphone, or any cell phone at all. I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, or vice versa. How's that for a complex scenario not of much interest to the typical user? Steve > >> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we > >> have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The iPad is not a typical cellphone, or any cell phone at all. No, it's a new computing platform with UI redesigned around what has been learned over the last couple of decades about UI. And one of the things we've learned is that people find hierarchical file systems rather confusing, and that they become increasingly unmanageable the more files people have (and everyone has more every year). > I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > or vice versa. > > How's that for a complex scenario not of much interest to the typical > user? When the device is connected to a Mac or PC, a shared directory mounts on the computer. Applications on the device can save documents into this directory. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we >> >> have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rather confusing, and that they become increasingly unmanageable the > more files people have (and everyone has more every year). ...yet if you actually see the evolution of Apple's own tools, you notice that more and more information from that "horrible and hard" file system is being retained and exposed to the user (which is a good thing btw). The "new" approach really isn't new. It's just a primitive form of the old approach with a lot of window dressing to distract the unwitting from what's really going on. [deletia] SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ > >> >> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we > >> >> have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > old approach with a lot of window dressing to distract the unwitting from > what's really going on. I can't connect either of your above assertions with anything specific. Please explain what you're talking about. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so >> >> >> we [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> old approach with a lot of window dressing to distract the unwitting from >> what's really going on. > I can't connect either of your above assertions with anything specific. > Please explain what you're talking about. Oh - don't worry. It's just JED talking in his usual "rhymes and riddles." Half the time nobody else can figure out what it is he's trying to say either. >>> >> >> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so >>> >> >> we [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Half the time nobody else can figure out what it is he's trying to say > either. If you've ever seen the old made for TV Superman series, they had a charactor named "Professor Pepperwinkle" or something like that. He talked a lot like Jeb, in rhymes and riddles. Gangster : What would Krptonite do to Superman? Professor: It would kill him. Kill him it would. etc Signature1/29/2010 12:07:58 PM >> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Professor: It would kill him. Kill him it would. You give Jed FAR too much credit. ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-7B916B.11102429012010 @Port80.Individual.NET: > I can't connect either of your above assertions with anything specific. > Please explain what you're talking about. "Ipad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art." (copyright 2010) > ...yet if you actually see the evolution of Apple's own tools, you notice > that more and more information from that "horrible and hard" file system [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > old approach with a lot of window dressing to distract the unwitting from > what's really going on. It's not that they're "unwitting" it's because they don't need or want to know what's "really going on." Yet it is rather amusing that Windows 7 is even more that way than OS-X now. I see more of the underlying Unix roots of OS-X on my Snow Leopard machine than I see of any earlier Microsoft file based OSes on Windows 7. As you said, this is a good thing. > I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > or vice versa. > > How's that for a complex scenario not of much interest to the typical > user? you can do that. there's no need for file system access. >> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, >> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > you can do that. there's no need for file system access. OK, explain how it's done with the new Pages on the iPad, as it sounds like you have experience. Steve >>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, >>> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > OK, explain how it's done with the new Pages on the iPad, as it sounds > like you have experience. If the screen of the iPad yellows Apple will be sued by Donnelly Publishing. Signature"[The iPad is] ...a product that starts at $500 that can't be matched by laptop PCs costing $5000. " -- Karl Jonas Erik Eklundh, aka Sandman, Jan. 28, 2010 > >> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > >> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > OK, explain how it's done with the new Pages on the iPad, as it sounds > like you have experience. there's a shared folder. this was mentioned when it was announced. and like notes and contacts, itunes could sync it automatically. i can guarantee you that they thought of how to get documents into and out of it. >>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, >>>> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > guarantee you that they thought of how to get documents into and out of > it. I don't want it to sync automatically or to have to have iTunes available. Let's say I'm at a friends house and want to exchange some docs off of his PC. This seemed to be a big concern of Andy Ihnatko, the tech journalist and Mac fan. Steve > I don't want it to sync automatically or to have to have iTunes > available. Let's say I'm at a friends house and want to exchange some > docs off of his PC. disable auto-sync. very easy. or use wifi to move the documents. > >>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > >>>> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Steve Then I'd say that if that is important to you, the iPad isn't the right product for you. You're welcome. >>>>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, >>>>>> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You're welcome. Right, I'm the only one who this is an issue for. Steve > >>>>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > >>>>>> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Steve You aren't the only one, but you are most likely a part of the smaller market for the iPad as it is designed. >> >>>>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another >> >>>>>> system, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > You aren't the only one, but you are most likely a part of the smaller > market for the iPad as it is designed. The iPad appears to have captured 100% of the "I'm not Lloyd Parsons" market. LOL I've always found it hilarious the way Maccies justify an Apple product by inventing a group of people who it fits like a glove. Signature"[The iPad is] ...a product that starts at $500 that can't be matched by laptop PCs costing $5000. " -- Karl Jonas Erik Eklundh, aka Sandman, Jan. 28, 2010 >>>>>>>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another >>>>>>>>> system, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I've always found it hilarious the way Maccies justify an Apple product by > inventing a group of people who it fits like a glove. Bring on Johnnie Cochran... > >> >>>>>> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another > >> >>>>>> system, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The iPad appears to have captured 100% of the "I'm not Lloyd Parsons" > market. LOL I wouldn't say 100%, but it will certainly sell quite well. You'd buy one yourself if we slapped an HP logo on it... Well, that and sell it for a pittance!! :) > I've always found it hilarious the way Maccies justify an Apple product by > inventing a group of people who it fits like a glove. It is neat the way Apple seems to be able to do that, isn't it? > > In article <qqGdnUuIIrC3rv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve They already said that there would be a shared folder on the iPad that would mount on your desktop. >>> In article <qqGdnUuIIrC3rv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@giganews.com>, Steve de >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > They already said that there would be a shared folder on the iPad that > would mount on your desktop. Wonder how it deals with fonts? Steve > >>> In article <qqGdnUuIIrC3rv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@giganews.com>, Steve de > >>> Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Wonder how it deals with fonts? That's what I want to know. SignatureSandman[.net] >> >> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, >> >> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > guarantee you that they thought of how to get documents into and out of > it. The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a photocopier. You're welcome. Signature"[The iPad is] ...a product that starts at $500 that can't be matched by laptop PCs costing $5000. " -- Karl Jonas Erik Eklundh, aka Sandman, Jan. 28, 2010 > >> >> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > >> >> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a > photocopier. Haha! Cool :) SignatureSandman[.net] > >> >> I want to create a document on the iPad and copy it to another system, > >> >> or vice versa. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You're welcome. How do you get documents out of a Kindle? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) [deletia] >> The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a >> photocopier. >> >> You're welcome. > > How do you get documents out of a Kindle? Saying that it's no lamer than a Kindle really isn't doing it any credit. SignatureMetallica is not worth the ruination of someone ||| who has pirated their music / | \ > [deletia] >>> The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a >>> photocopier. >>> >>> You're welcome. >> How do you get documents out of a Kindle? You don't create documents on a Kindle, do you? It's an eBook reader. Since they released an SDK I guess people will write apps that create documents. Since you don't (and can't) connect a Kindle to a computer I'm not sure how that will work. Steve > > The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a > > photocopier. > > > > You're welcome. > > How do you get documents out of a Kindle? The same way you do off of a flash drive: plug it in and drag/drop. > > > The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a > > > photocopier. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The same way you do off of a flash drive: plug it in and drag/drop. And how is the file system arranged? Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > > > How do you get documents out of a Kindle? > > > > The same way you do off of a flash drive: plug it in and drag/drop. > > And how is the file system arranged? All the books are dumped in a single folder, and the books are typically named "Name_of_Book.azw". There's another folder for audiobooks, anotner for documents, etc. They're not hidden or disguised with gibberish folder/file names like iPod music. >>> The way to get documents out of an iPad is to lay it face down on a >>> photocopier. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The same way you do off of a flash drive: plug it in and drag/drop. Ah, I actually didn't know the Kindle could connect to a computer. Did it do that since Day 1, or did that come later? Steve > > In article <qqGdnUuIIrC3rv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@giganews.com>, Steve de > > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > by laptop PCs costing $5000. " -- Karl Jonas Erik Eklundh, > aka Sandman, Jan. 28, 2010 Or you just plug it into a USB port and it mounts as a mass storage device >> > In article <qqGdnUuIIrC3rv7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@giganews.com>, Steve de >> > Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Or you just plug it into a USB port and it mounts as a mass storage > device An iphone doesn't do that. It remains to be seen whether an iPad will. SignatureMetallica is not worth the ruination of someone ||| who has pirated their music / | \ > > Or you just plug it into a USB port and it mounts as a mass storage > > device > > An iphone doesn't do that. yea and? > It remains to be seen whether an iPad will. apple has said it does. > An iphone doesn't do that. > > It remains to be seen whether an iPad will. They already said that it would during the keynote while they were demonstrating iWork for the iPad. >> An iphone doesn't do that. >> >> It remains to be seen whether an iPad will. > > They already said that it would during the keynote while they were > demonstrating iWork for the iPad. The same keynote where they said their books would cost the same as Amazon's? And that netbooks "don't do anything well"? Steve > >> An iphone doesn't do that. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve Well seeing that Amazon is raising the prices of McMillian books... As far as the netbooks "don't do anything well". That seems to mirror what Michael Dell said when he said that people aren't happy with netbooks after "36 hours". > As far as the netbooks "don't do anything well". That seems to mirror > what Michael Dell said when he said that people aren't happy with > netbooks after "36 hours". You gotta be kidding, we went over Mr. Dell's comments recently and you STILL cite them. Steve >> As far as the netbooks "don't do anything well". That seems to mirror >> what Michael Dell said when he said that people aren't happy with >> netbooks after "36 hours". > > You gotta be kidding, we went over Mr. Dell's comments recently and you > STILL cite them. When you only have one thing to say, you say it over and over again. >>> As far as the netbooks "don't do anything well". That seems to mirror >>> what Michael Dell said when he said that people aren't happy with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When you only have one thing to say, you say it over and over again. I do? KDT repeated Dell's comment yet again, not me. What are you referring to? Steve > > As far as the netbooks "don't do anything well". That seems to mirror > > what Michael Dell said when he said that people aren't happy with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve Well, you cited Steve Jobs the CEO of Apple, so I cited the CEO of Dell agreeing with his premise... >>> An iphone doesn't do that. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The same keynote where they said their books would cost the same as > Amazon's? And that netbooks "don't do anything well"? LOL, when they said that their books would cost the same as Amazon's no one thought they meant that publishers would raise the price of Amazon books to what they were having Apple charge! As to netbooks, all the CEOs of top tier computer manufacturers hate them and attack them mercilessly because the fact is that they do a lot of things very well, but the margins on them suck. Some of the things the iPad does very well the netbooks do very poorly and vice-versa. A netbook is a relatively poor eBook reader, but it's a very good document editor, and it runs most Windows, Linux quite well (many OSX users have installed OSX on them too). An iPad is apparently going to be a very good eBook reader, and has all those iPhone apps, but it's not going to be able to run OSX software of course. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b688125$0$1590 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > Some of the things > the iPad does very well the netbooks do very poorly and vice-versa. A [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > good eBook reader, and has all those iPhone apps, but it's not going to > be able to run OSX software of course. As iPad isn't even available yet, how can you tell what it does or doesn't? As to the ebook thing, I do a lot of document reading with Adobe Reader on my Samsung NC10. I rotate the documents so they are in portrait mode with the cooling fan outlet (left side) pointed up...screen on right, keyboard on left, then hold the netbook like a book to read it. I put Reader in the continuous scroll mode, full screen, so I can use my finger to drag the pages sideways to the next page (rotated, remember) in this mode. This works great! The 9-cell super battery has a row of cells that normally act like a little tilter when the netbook is in its normal mode. These cells give me a "book binding" to hold the netbook in "book mode" sideways while I'm reading it. The keyboard/base of the netbook also makes a great way to reduce glare on the screen when holding it. As I don't need to see the keyboard or pad because of the touchscreen I installed, there's no need to read the keyboard or use it while I'm reading. If you sit with the big window that floods your screen with sun to your left, the keyboard/base of the netbook makes a dandy black sunshade to keep that light coming in from the left off the screen while you're reading it. I'm usually reading stuff on the table at a restaurant (Yes, Michelle, Waffle House!), so the netbook's weight sits against a napkin pad along the left edge of the screen, and the main body of the netbook leans against my left hand to steer it and keep it from sliding around. The pad keeps the screen edge off the table and there's no damage to the plastic edge. "How do you get it to work like that? I wish mine would show the whole page sideways like that.", is the usual comment. Showing them how to click VIEW then ROTATE in Adobe Reader is so easy....(c;] If I'm just in a seat, I cross my legs with the left leg on top and my left ankle on my right knee. Just lay the rotated netbook into the cradle that makes and I'm good for an hour, at which point I'm usually nearly asleep by then....(c;] I found a nice wooden book cradle like the kind used to display an open Bible at a good viewing angle. The netbook in "book mode" sidways lays right in there perfectly if you want to carry it around or use it to read in bed. Reading in bed, unfortunately, reduces my before-I-fall- asleep-reading time by 70% in my old age. I can sleep most anywhere when it gets ready to crash. Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b688125$0$1590 > $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As iPad isn't even available yet, how can you tell what it does or > doesn't? Yeah how. A very, very apt name "Larry". As in "what a Larry". I mean, no one has seen one in action. SW developers haven't had prototypes. There are no videos on youtube. Oh wait... SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b688125$0$1590 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > An iPad is apparently going to be a very > good eBook reader I think it might be if you can find a way so you don't have to support it in your hand for long periods AND can read it in the dark so the glitzy mirrored screen doesn't make you end up staring at your face, flooded out by all the light sources behind your head like in the Apple demo videos on the net. I sure hate those shiny screens on my N800 Linux tablets for reading and all of Apple's GirlyGlitz products are the same way. I can't find it at the moment but someone did an iPhone video on a train. They were seated by the window and the guy with the camera was inboard of them trying, in vain, to show the picture on the screen. The video consisted, mostly, of a camera taking pictures in a mirror of the railroad overhead wires, sky and passing trees reflecting off the shiny screen. An ebook reader would do very well with a NON REFLECTIVE screen, thanks. While you're watching TV tonight, sit in your favorite chair holding a closed, 1.6 pound, book in your hand with the front cover upright in portrait mode. How long can you hold it up, comfortably? With a book, you can lay it in a V between your hands in a comfortable position. With a flat ebook reader, ipad or not, you have to balance it on your hand it's trying to slide off of towards your chest. If it had a non- slip surface, it wouldn't try to slide down against your stomach. It's Apple, so it has a slick, glossy back to impress the girls, not something practical. It would be a great addition, appallingly to the fans, to stick a non-slip foam pad to the back of it to increase its traction without making it any heavier than it already is. Nothing will help it make your hand feel better trying to lay it flat and STEADY to keep the reflections from the damned glossy screen from making everything it reflects move around to distract your reading. It sure needs the simplest of EASEL STANDS so you can read it on a tabletop. Putting the easel in the carrying case was just stupid. It needs a foldup bale to hold it in portrait mode for book reading. http://www.theplatelady.com/bards/43-0120.jpg Maybe something like this would make a suitable easel for it. Made of plastic, it wouldn't screw up the capacitive touchscreen if it touched it. http://www.theplatelady.com/bards/925.jpg Signature"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry > >>> An iphone doesn't do that. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > one thought they meant that publishers would raise the price of Amazon > books to what they were having Apple charge! Actually, if you watch the video of Jobs talking to Mossberg about this, Mossberg asks him this explicitly and Jobs doesn't really answer. It's clear the publishers decided to play hardball with both Amazon and Apple, and Amazon is a little pissed off it doesn't have the leverage it did before Apple decided to get into e-book distribution, while Apple is pissed off it doesn't have the leverage it does with music. http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100128/boomtowns-apple-ipad-day-starring-wal t-mossberg-plus-a-steve-jobs-cameo/ (Incidentally, it's really weird to see Jobs just sort of talking to someone like a normal person. I'm not sure I've ever seen him speak outside of the context of a keynote before.) [snip] Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >>> Of course it does. We're talking about having to "jailbreak" it so we >>> have free access to the devic ewe paid for, not SIM unlocking. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve WHOA! Copy and Paste! TYPING?...add $69 keyboard. Sure hope that document doesn't want some pictures between para 1 and 2 and that little Excel graph in the addendum or you're screwed! It's sure NOT a document machine because STEVIE doesn't like Adobe! > Sure hope that document doesn't want some pictures between para 1 and 2 and > that little Excel graph in the addendum or you're screwed! so when did you use one? >>>> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >>> To restrict access to the device to the APP STORE so they can sell you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve But that's what "Locking" in cell-enabled devices means. If you aren't talking about that, use another word. >>> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > that has absolutely nothing to do with locking. They really don't understand what they're talking about, do they? >> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > MaxiPad is a portable BOX OFFICE for Apple and ATTWS. > ....just like Iphone, Itouch. They should have named it iPaid. Signature//ceed >> Why is a non cell phone device "locked" at all?? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > MaxiPad is a portable BOX OFFICE for Apple and ATTWS. > ....just like Iphone, Itouch. No. You are wrong. You see, the Wi-Fi + 3G models of the iPad ARE cell phone devices. The wireless 3G portion of the connectivity uses AT&T's cellular system to provide the service. the iPod just doesn't use the voice portion of the system. Luckily, Apple has decided to include a SIM slot for other carriers (mostly for overseas use). > > And anyway, for the geeks who demand full control, the iPad will no > > doubt be jailbroken. Apple appears to basically turn a blind eye to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > jailbreak exploit, it would not surprise me if they made it a *lot* > harder. nevertheless, the iphone dev team is amazing, so who knows. Well, one should keep in mind that several of the jailbreak techniques have exploited security holes that Apple definitely should have fixed. But Apple could have taken much more direct action against jailbreakers, including legal action (or at least DMCA harassment), and hasn't done so. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes > > > And anyway, for the geeks who demand full control, the iPad will no > > > doubt be jailbroken. Apple appears to basically turn a blind eye to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, one should keep in mind that several of the jailbreak techniques > have exploited security holes that Apple definitely should have fixed. true. > But Apple could have taken much more direct action against jailbreakers, > including legal action (or at least DMCA harassment), and hasn't done so. dmca probably wouldn't have worked and i'm not sure what legal action they could do. however, there's a number of things they could be doing that they haven't done, such as changing the root password, among many others. i'm not sure why they haven't addressed those issues, but i'm expecting jailbreaking to become a lot harder in the future. the writing is on the wall. >> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-F3B0C8.23183728012010 >> @Port80.Individual.NET: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > doubt be jailbroken. Apple appears to basically turn a blind eye to > this. How about "Mine is faster/smaller/has . . . > RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in news:hjq6hf$qr4$2@news.eternal- > september.org: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > NO MOBILE CHARGING? WTF? I'm sure someone who carris it won't care, but if it means that much use a bluetooth keyboard. Personally if the virtual kb works as well as the one on the iPhone or the Droid, I would use that. It HAS to be better than the vkb on a Windows tablet where you have to use a pen. Signature. "A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy > >> LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > available for about 10 years). What will those clever, innovative devils > at Apple think of next! Who claimed it was particularly clever or innovative. It's just a keyboard. Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > > http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-tablet-latest-crea > > tion-event/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > available for about 10 years). What will those clever, innovative devils > at Apple think of next! the newton had a full keyboard over 17 years ago, so the treo kids just copied apple's idea, not the other way around. >> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-tablet-latest-crea >> > tion-event/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the newton had a full keyboard over 17 years ago, so the treo kids just > copied apple's idea, not the other way around. .. that would be the Newton that Jobs killed .... SignatureRick > > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > no, it has 2 keyboards, the excellent virtual one like the iPhone, or a > physical one which can be seen here: > http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-tablet-latest-... > tion-event/ Also, the docking station, which also lets you recharge it - has USB ports. Hopefully a few of those will be USB-A ports. IS there something like a mini-usb-A? or micro-usb-A? One of the big drawbacks of the Zaurus was that it only had the usb-b interface. I would assume that the iPad will also have some sort of USB-A interface as well. This would be a big driver in the choice between an iPad and a NetBook or SmartBook. It looks like there is a "connector block" that is announced as letting you plug in to your camera's USB port - so I suspect this is a USB-A connector. http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ I suspect we'll see an interesting competition between the iPad and the SmartBook, neither of which run Windows (use ARM based chips). > Sorry, you were wrong on two levels... Or three or four... Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote in news:f7abf45e-1977-4479- 8da2-ef3426d0c8aa@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com: >> > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Or three or four... Oh, oh.....read closer again: "iPad Dock The iPad Dock lets you dock and charge iPad. The rear 30-pin connector lets you connect the iPad Dock to an electrical outlet using the USB Power Adapter, sync to your computer, and use accessories like the Camera Connection Kit. And an audio jack lets you connect to a stereo or powered speakers." USB ISN'T an open USB port. It's for SYNCING TO ITUNEY so Daddy can sell you something, like software you're not allowed to load. Look at the dongle card READERS ONLY! "iPad Camera Connection Kit The Camera Connection Kit gives you two ways to import photos and videos from a digital camera. The Camera Connector lets you import your photos and videos to iPad using the camera’s USB cable. Or you can use the SD Card Reader to import photos and videos directly from the camera’s SD card." ONLY for Camera photos and videos.....ONLY. Wanna bet you can't "import" anything useful on the damned card READER? There's no WRITER for the card. It says "import" in THREE places! "FROM a digital camera"....not a desktop PC....shame on you! Netbooks have nothing to fear from this PoS..... MuahMan stated in post 426444ca-ce0f-4fbb-a2a8-f30a7f206740@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 1/27/10 12:53 PM: >> Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will >> give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! Both the iPhone and iPad have a keyboard... just not a hardware one. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > MuahMan stated in post > 426444ca-ce0f-4fbb-a2a8-f30a7f206...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 1/27/10 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > [INSERT .SIG HERE] virtual keyboards... lol This thing is another iTV or Apple TV or whatever that junk they can't sell is called. MuahMan stated in post f26f9d20-a4dc-4fc9-8823-609ba7227580@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com on 1/27/10 1:09 PM: >> MuahMan stated in post >> 426444ca-ce0f-4fbb-a2a8-f30a7f206...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 1/27/10 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > This thing is another iTV or Apple TV or whatever that junk they can't > sell is called. Yeah, just like the iPhone. :) Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > MuahMan stated in post > f26f9d20-a4dc-4fc9-8823-609ba7227...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com on 1/27/10 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > -- > [INSERT .SIG HERE] No the iPhone is a decent product that serves a purpose. The Apple TV and MaxiPad don't. > MuahMan stated in post > 426444ca-ce0f-4fbb-a2a8-f30a7f206...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 1/27/10 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Both the iPhone and iPad have a keyboard... just not a hardware one. As usual, you're wrong. By the way... this device isn't disposable, either;) >> MuahMan stated: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As usual, you're wrong. By the way... this device isn't disposable, > either;) I wonder if his 27 YO deceased sock, Joel Crump will respond;) [quote] Officials say 27-year-old Joel Crump was found inside a 1985 Jeep Cherokee and had sustained a gunshot wound. [/quote] http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/story/Body-found-with-g unshot-wound-in-crashed-vehicle/cZsEuBgYTk6W5o7ILBPmYA.cspx or http://tinyurl.com/yzf3fcy SignatureHPT High Plains Thumper stated in post hk1mii$np3$1@news.eternal-september.org on 1/30/10 9:25 AM: >>> MuahMan stated: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I wonder if his 27 YO deceased sock, Joel Crump will respond;) Huh? Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] In article <426444ca-ce0f-4fbb-a2a8-f30a7f206740@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! it has a built in on screen keyboard and a keyboard dock. do keep up. Way to reward a cross-posting a.shole troll. *plonk* > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! Without a phone >> LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > > Without a phone Of course it has a phone. Sign up for Skype, and get yourself a Bluetooth headset. $30/month for unlimited calling, plus the cost of Skype. Kind a of a big phone though. You can add a physical keyboard if you want one, but I expect that the virtual keyboard will be sufficient for most users since it's a lot bigger than the virtual keyboards on smaller devices. Combine an iPad with 250MB of data for $15 a month with a PagePlus CDMA prepaid phone, and you get 3G data on AT&T along with voice on Verizon, for a very reasonable monthly cost. Plus you get a phone that works in a lot more places in North America than anything you'll get on AT&T. They're going to sell a gazillion of these. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b60ce05$0$1609 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > Of course it has a phone. Sign up for Skype, and get yourself a > Bluetooth headset. $30/month for unlimited calling, plus the cost of > Skype. Kind a of a big phone though. WHOA! That's not gonna "do"! I've been told the N800 Linux tablet is just useless because it uses Skype for phone service! Now, all of a sudden, this PoS comes along and Skype will be "OK"? No, no, NO! That will never "do"! How awful.....an iToy that uses what the Linux tablets have used for years....ha ha ha h (snorkle)(snort)(puke)......(c;] > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b60ce05$0$1609 > $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > How awful.....an iToy that uses what the Linux tablets have used for > years....ha ha ha h Except that Apple knows how to sell consumer electronics, and what customers want. There's no market for Linux tablets. Sorry. I use Linux, and I understand it's attraction, but the non-techie end-user is just not going to put up with it. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4b60ffb0$0$1641 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > Except that Apple knows how to sell consumer electronics, and what > customers want. There's no market for Linux tablets. Sorry. I use Linux, > and I understand it's attraction, but the non-techie end-user is just > not going to put up with it. That used to be true before Ubuntu.... > yclept...@cs.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > They're going to sell a gazillion of these. By the time you get all the stuff added onto the thing to make it work the way you want it to work it'll be as entangling as Bobby Brown's pants in an old In Living Color skit. > By the time you get all the stuff added onto the thing to make it work > the way you want it to work it'll be as entangling as Bobby Brown's > pants in an old In Living Color skit. It is really too bad that they did not at least include a USB port and SD card slot. The fact that they have the accessory kit that adds those functions is good, but it's true that hanging extra stuff on it, especially stuff that will need to be take on and off because it all goes through that one docking port, is rather a pain. The non-integrated keyboard is absolutely a good idea. The problem with too many tablet devices is that they weigh too much to comfortably hold for long periods of time. A detachable keyboard is a big help in preventing the tablet from being bloated in size and weight. Those that are really concerned about a good keyboard because they want to use the iPad like a laptop, well the iPad is probably not the platform for them, and they should get a netbook. Compaq also got this right in their TC1000/TC1100 tablet which had excellent industrial design with it's removable keyboard, and also was fully functioned with I/O ports. But it cost a lot more than the iPad because it was a full-featured computer, and had shorter battery life. > > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! > > Without a phone it has skype, so it certainly has a phone. On Jan 27, 2:51 pm, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote: > Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will > give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LOL! It's like a giant iphone. NO KEYBOARD! No problem, but it lacks multitasking and a webcam, those are the real problems! > Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will > give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > oxford Welcome back Oxford - long time no read!!! > Welcome back Oxford - long time no read!!! thanks John! i've been hanging out on YouTube of all places over the last 2 years, plus my father died during all that, so it hasn't left much time to wrestle with the uneducated windows and linux users. today is a huge event our our planet in terms of ridding ourselves of paper distribution of common information. so congrats to everyone on this special day. oxford > > Welcome back Oxford - long time no read!!! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plus my father died during all that, so it hasn't left much time to > wrestle with the uneducated windows and linux users. My sympathies to you. I lost my father last June... > today is a huge event our our planet in terms of ridding ourselves of > paper distribution of common information. so congrats to everyone on > this special day. > > oxford Signature"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will > give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > oxford Looks like another apple product I have no interest in. The thing doesn't even have a cover on it. How are you supposed to transport it, without scratching it. I'd rather have a netbook, and a phone > > Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will > > give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > even have a cover on it. How are you supposed to transport it, without > scratching it. I'd rather have a netbook, and a phone You just clip it on your belt face out so that everyone can see that you paid $600 for GIGANTIC iPod Touch. Per MuahMan: >> Looks like another apple product I have no interest in. The thing doesn't >> even have a cover on it. How are you supposed to transport it, without >> scratching it. I'd rather have a netbook, and a phone > >You just clip it on your belt face out so that everyone can see that >you paid $600 for GIGANTIC iPod Touch. I was hoping for a model that was just small enough to fit in a cargo pants' pocket. Maybe 2-3 times the iTouch's screen area. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per MuahMan: >>> Looks like another apple product I have no interest in. The thing doesn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was hoping for a model that was just small enough to fit in a > cargo pants' pocket. Maybe 2-3 times the iTouch's screen area. Seems Steve super-sized it... > Per MuahMan: >>> Looks like another apple product I have no interest in. The thing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I was hoping for a model that was just small enough to fit in a > cargo pants' pocket. Maybe 2-3 times the iTouch's screen area. Cargo pants are out of style. You don't want to look geeky, do you? >> Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will >> give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doesn't even have a cover on it. How are you supposed to transport it, > without scratching it. I'd rather have a netbook, and a phone What it looks like is a Kindle eReader with a color screen -- or actually, more like the Barnes & Noble version of the Kindle. Or, as one person mentioned, a bigger version of iPod Touch. Without a keyboard I don't see much use, personally, for it. But at $499 I'm guessing the Apple groupies will gobble them up. To them this is extremely cheap. It's certainly not a netbook replacement, however. SignatureRonB Registered Linux User #498581 CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0 > >> Apple once again gives us a huge leap forward for humanity, this will > >> give you a brief glimpse into what happened today... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > But at $499 I'm guessing the Apple groupies will gobble them up. To them > this is extremely cheap. It's certainly not a netbook replacement, however. I'll bet that a hell of a lot more than 'Apple groupies' will gobble them up. > In article <hjq68f$qr...@news.eternal-september.org>, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I'll bet that a hell of a lot more than 'Apple groupies' will gobble > them up. Really? Who do you imagine will buy this? It's an iPod touch you can't fit in your pocket. In article <02735c65-9220-4b22-b2e6-b21f5004b015@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > In article <hjq68f$qr...@news.eternal-september.org>, > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Really? Who do you imagine will buy this? It's an iPod touch you > can't fit in your pocket. And as with the iPods and iPhones, they won't be able to keep up with demand. But of course, you already knew that. > In article ><02735c65-9220-4b22-b2e6-b21f5004b015@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > And as with the iPods and iPhones, they won't be able to keep up with > demand. But of course, you already knew that. Except this device lacks one crucial feature that both of those devices have. This thing is NOT portable. It's much more comparable to a netbook without a keyboard or a Kindle. Just the size difference between an iPhone and an Archos makes a lot of difference and this thing is even bigger. Of course this thing will sell will with those that just blindly buy anything Apple hypes up. SignatureUnauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That ||| particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be / | \ cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you can be and alienate potential fans. > > In article > ><02735c65-9220-4b22-b2e6-b21f5004b015@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Of course this thing will sell will with those that just blindly buy > anything Apple hypes up. I think it will be like the iPhone and iPod Touch, it will sell to the general public because it is bigger and easy to operate with no futzing about. I think that we in these groups keep thinking that what we want to do is what the majority of the buying public wants to do with their computers and computer toys. But the iPhone and Touch show that not to be the case at all. WE aren't the target market. > I think that we in these groups keep thinking that what we want to do is > what the majority of the buying public wants to do with their computers > and computer toys. But the iPhone and Touch show that not to be the > case at all. > > WE aren't the target market. LOL! nice try. Then please explain why the posts running about 85-90% pro iPad? > > I think that we in these groups keep thinking that what we want to do is > > what the majority of the buying public wants to do with their computers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > LOL! nice try. Then please explain why the posts running about 85-90% > pro iPad? Because the posts are here and lots of us geeks will buy them too, but many more non-geeks will! > > I think that we in these groups keep thinking that what we want to do is > > what the majority of the buying public wants to do with their computers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > LOL! nice try. Then please explain why the posts running about 85-90% > pro iPad? Well, IMO tech-savvy users are certainly part of the target market... Apple just doesn't expect the device to meet so many of their computing needs they can throw away their computers. In fact, it's not clear that Apple expects the device in its current form to outright replace a traditional computer for anyone. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> In article<hjq68f$qr...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Really? Who do you imagine will buy this? It's an iPod touch you > can't fit in your pocket. People who read books for example. Of course as a 350 pound fatboy you wouldn't know about that. > > On Jan 27, 3:11 pm, Lloyd Parsons<lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote: > >> In article<hjq68f$qr...@news.eternal-september.org>, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > People who read books for example. Of course as a 350 pound fatboy you > wouldn't know about that. Oh I read book. I pick it up, read it and when I'm done I close it. The day I start reading books electronically I will put a bullet in my own head. What is it with you Mactards that must be starting into the screen of an Apple product every waking second of the day. Just so god damned weird. I bet 95% of Mactards haven't exercised, played a sport, or left your house for an outdoor activity in several years. In article <e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > On Jan 27, 3:11 pm, Lloyd Parsons<lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> In article<hjq68f$qr...@news.eternal-september.org>, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > damned weird. I bet 95% of Mactards haven't exercised, played a sport, > or left your house for an outdoor activity in several years. Since you are so ill educated, let me explain why electronic books are so nice. It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good book away (hell, we don't throw many bad ones away either). With an electronic reader and my computer, I never have to. Solves the space problem very well. > In article > <e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > electronic reader and my computer, I never have to. Solves the space > problem very well. He read book! Him fella Muahboy plenty smart, you betcha. What a moron! > In article ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Since you are so ill educated, let me explain why electronic books are > so nice. ...OTOH, they have this terrible glare problem. Plus, books aren't quite like mp3's or even movies. You're not going to be done with a movie in 4 minutes or an hour. So the real need to have a bunch of them on your person is really limited. Books also can be cheap and disposable. > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good book > away (hell, we don't throw many bad ones away either). With an > electronic reader and my computer, I never have to. Solves the space > problem very well. There is simply less real need to have a library of books in your back pocket. It is an interesting novelty but it doesn't address a real practical need or problem. SignatureUnauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That ||| particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be / | \ cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you can be and alienate potential fans. > > In article > ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > ...OTOH, they have this terrible glare problem. I've not found that to be an issue, but then I don't go sit in direct sunlight to do my reading. > Plus, books aren't quite like mp3's or even movies. You're not going to > be done with a movie in 4 minutes or an hour. So the real need to have a > bunch > of them on your person is really limited. > > Books also can be cheap and disposable. But avid readers like myself don't throw books away. You are correct that you don't need a bunch in your back pocket, but why not? I could store them on my computer and get the ones I want now and then, or just put them on my iPad and not worry about not having the book I want to read available right now. > > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand > > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good book [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > back pocket. It is an interesting novelty but it doesn't address a real > practical need or problem. In your opinion and for you. But there are lots of us that don't agree with that. We'll be buying the iPad. >> > In article >> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > I've not found that to be an issue, but then I don't go sit in direct > sunlight to do my reading. Neither has Jed. Jed is clueless about modern HW. Jed thinks that multi head very is very rare and us useless. He also thinks virtual desktops doe the same thing. He also thinks that PCI is the leading video card now in 2010. >> Plus, books aren't quite like mp3's or even movies. You're not going to >> be done with a movie in 4 minutes or an hour. So the real need to have a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > put them on my iPad and not worry about not having the book I want to > read available right now. You'll end up pulling your hair out. Nothing will convince him. >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand >> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good book [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In your opinion and for you. But there are lots of us that don't agree > with that. We'll be buying the iPad. Its nice. But too big IMO. I cant think why I would replace a Thinkpad X series with that, > >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand > >> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good book [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Its nice. But too big IMO. I cant think why I would replace a Thinkpad X > series with that, I actually was in the process of looking for a laptop for other things like email, web and usenet for trips recently. But then I thought I'd like something bigger to read ebooks on, but yet small enough to read in bed while laying down. The laptops/netbooks are a bit too big for that. Yes, it is more limited than notebooks/netbooks, but then those limits aren't things I do on trips. >> >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand >> >> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good book [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > like something bigger to read ebooks on, but yet small enough to read in > bed while laying down. The laptops/netbooks are a bit too big for that. Try one of the "tablet" laptops. There is even an "netbook" version of this concept. So you don't necessarily have to spend 2x the price of an iPad (or netbook). > Yes, it is more limited than notebooks/netbooks, but then those limits > aren't things I do on trips. SignatureUnauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That ||| particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be / | \ cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you can be and alienate potential fans. > >> >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your > >> >> > hand [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > this concept. So you don't necessarily have to spend 2x the price of an > iPad (or netbook). Thanks for the suggestion. But the ones I saw were in the same price range as the iPad and offer no benefit to me. > > Yes, it is more limited than notebooks/netbooks, but then those limits > > aren't things I do on trips. >>> > In article >>> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >> > >>> >> > >> Â RonB<ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> Â wrote: [deletia] >>> >> > >>>> it, >>> >> > >>>> without scratching it. I'd rather have a netbook, and a phone [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>> >> damned weird. I bet 95% of Mactards haven't exercised, played a sport, >>> >> or left your house for an outdoor activity in several years. >>> > Since you are so ill educated, let me explain why electronic books are >>> > so nice. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Neither has Jed. Jed is clueless about modern HW. Jed thinks that multi I've seen people struggling in the sun with these things (kindle). Repeating your nonsense potshot lies ad infinitum really isn't relevant. [deletia] SignatureUnauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That ||| particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be / | \ cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you can be and alienate potential fans. >>>> > In article >>>> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Repeating your nonsense potshot lies ad infinitum really isn't relevant. The point Jed is that as usual you are waffling on about something you know NOTHING about. Yes, ANY electronic device will have issues in direct sun. Most people don't use them in glaring heat and direct sun - in the same way they would not read a book even. Your typically negative bullshit about something innovative and classy is not a surprise to anyone who reads your constant griping and clueless soliloquies on subjects you have zero experience of. You'll be telling us its not good if the battery runs flat and there are not power sockets near by .... Yes Jed. We know. hey, what happens if the light bulb goes when reading your book? Oh no. But the iPad will work...... See? Its easy to make up silly and obvious things. > >>> > In article > >>> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Repeating your nonsense potshot lies ad infinitum really isn't relevant. The Kindle doesn't have a backlight. I strongly suspect more people read in dark bedrooms than direct sunlight. Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >>> > In article >> >>> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Â RonB<ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> Â wrote: [deletia] >> >>> ...OTOH, they have this terrible glare problem. >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The Kindle doesn't have a backlight. I strongly suspect more people read > in dark bedrooms than direct sunlight. ...so they are shut ins, they hide away in their homes so they don't get the washed away effect that you get with a monitor in the sunlight. That's a great use for a portable reading device... SignatureLinux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their ||| choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \ > >> >>> > In article > >> >>> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That's a great use for a portable reading device... You heard it here first, folks: people who read indoors are "shut ins". Honestly, is there anything so absurd Apple's detractors won't claim it's true if it would somehow make Apple look bad? Signature"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes >> >> >>> > In article >> >> >>> ><e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > You heard it here first, folks: people who read indoors are "shut ins". That's what the person who says Kindles are read in darkened bedrooms believes. I've seen a number of Kindles in use myself, as opposed to merely "suspecting" how they're used, and it has always been out in bright sunlight, or in well lit areas. > Honestly, is there anything so absurd Apple's detractors won't claim > it's true if it would somehow make Apple look bad? You have nothing "absurd" to back up that claim with. Signature"[The iPad is] ...a product that starts at $500 that can't be matched by laptop PCs costing $5000. " -- Karl Jonas Erik Eklundh, aka Sandman, Jan. 28, 2010 > In article > <e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > electronic reader and my computer, I never have to. Solves the space > problem very well. However if your choice of reader is a "Kindle" and the powers that be decide they no longer want you to have it, *poof* it's gone. Signature. "A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy > > In article > > <e9a0416c-1b46-4098-a06d-1f76cbc49c1b@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > However if your choice of reader is a "Kindle" and the powers that > be decide they no longer want you to have it, *poof* it's gone. That's one of the reasons I didn't opt for a Kindle. >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand >> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's one of the reasons I didn't opt for a Kindle. Yet, ironically, Apple has the same "recall" feature for apps that Kindle has for books, yet it doesn't stop you from buying iPhones. ;) To be fair, unlike Apple, Amazon has actually used the Kindle recall feature, of course. Once, when Amazon mistakenly sold two Orwell books (1984 and Animal Farm) they didn't have the copyright for- the "publisher" of these two eBook editions wasn't authorized to sell those books- they were pirated copies. (Amazon liets independent publishers sell Kindle books, and everyone involved apparently thought Orwell's works were public domain. They aren't!) Amazon deleted the copies from existing users' Kindles and accounts, then (after the backlash) offered a $30 credit to users who had the books erased, or an authorized copy of the deleted books. Bloggers and the tech press, of course, rarely mentioned the piracy/copyright angle, instead enjoying the irony that "Big Brother" Amazon "censored" 1984. If Amazon had erased a couple of pirated Harlequin Romance novels instead, no one would've cared or noticed. > >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand > >> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "censored" 1984. If Amazon had erased a couple of pirated Harlequin Romance > novels instead, no one would've cared or noticed. apps are one thing, books another. I use eReader Pro and just buy what I want and keep it on my local computer. I don't think that is going away anytime soon. Has Apple ever actually 'recalled' an app and erased it from an iPhone/Touch? I"m not aware of any. >> >> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your >> >> > hand [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > apps are one thing, books another. Why? Both are intellectual property purchased by an end user. > I use eReader Pro and just buy what > I want and keep it on my local computer. I don't think that is going > away anytime soon. Agreed. But what if the same thing had happened with an eReader purchase? What if they emailed you and said your copy of a particular book was accidentally sold without the appropriate rights being obtained, issued you a refund, and asked you, on your honor, to delete your copy? Would you? All Amazon did was enforce that request electronically. > Has Apple ever actually 'recalled' an app and erased it from an > iPhone/Touch? I"m not aware of any. Nor am I- as I said above "unlike Apple, Amazon has actually used the Kindle recall feature..." I trust Apple would only use it in an instance they deemed absolutely necessary- an app later discovered to be malware, for example. I also trust (or, at least hope!) Amazon didn't make the decision to yank those illicit ebooks lightly either. >>> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand >>> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Bloggers and the tech press, of course, rarely mentioned the > piracy/copyright angle, instead enjoying the irony that "Big Brother" Amazon Of course. This is as if Amazon discovered that it really didn't have the right to sell me some DVDs or some catfish fry and decided to send the goon squad into my house to retrieve these items after they shipped them to me. Amazon was trampling the rights of it's customers rather than just making sure that they are no longer trampling on the rights of an author. > "censored" 1984. If Amazon had erased a couple of pirated Harlequin Romance > novels instead, no one would've cared or noticed. SignatureUnauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That ||| particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be / | \ cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you can be and alienate potential fans. >>> > It goes beyond the handiness of having a library of books in your hand >>> > or the ease of reading. Many of us readers don't ever throw a good [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yet, ironically, Apple has the same "recall" feature for apps that > Kindle has for books, yet it doesn't stop you from buying iPhones. ;) ?? I don't think Apple can delete an app from your iPhone without your permission. Signature. "A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy > I don't think Apple can delete an app from your iPhone without > your permission. there is a kill switch in the event there's an app that causes serious problems. it's reserved for emergencies, not for any app they decide to reject after the fact. > > > On Jan 27, 3:11 pm, Lloyd Parsons<lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> In article<hjq68f$qr...@news.eternal-september.org>, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > damned weird. I bet 95% of Mactards haven't exercised, played a sport, > or left your house for an outdoor activity in several years. You losers need to go buy a 1st edition book. See which is worth more in say 100 years. The 1st Edition or the 10" double the price color iKindle. > Oh I read book. I pick it up, read it and when I'm done I close it. > The day I start reading books electronically I will put a bullet in my > own head. That day is coming very soon. The writing has been on the wall for years. In a few years you'll have no choice except which tablet you choose to use to get your information. You'd better keep your bullets close by ;-) >> Oh I read book. I pick it up, read it and when I'm done I close it. >> The day I start reading books electronically I will put a bullet in my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > choose to use to get your information. You'd better keep your bullets > close by ;-) From what I see, the day is not quite here yet! I've seen the "Kindle" on Amazon.com and I'm not sure that it will replace paper books in my life. My problem is that the Kindle has to download the text and graphics in the book. If the server is down you are S.O.L! There's no provision for storing copies locally except for whatever book is currently stored in the Kindle. My hard copy library occupies a good deal of space but it's there when I want it, all ~2000 volumes. What's more, I can lend a book to a friend if I wish and not have to worry about him making a bootleg copy. My library contains books published more than fifty years ago. I reread them every few years. Will my favorite "electronic" books still be available thirty years from now? My hard copy books will still be there. > I've seen the "Kindle" on Amazon.com and I'm not sure that it will > replace paper books in my life. My problem is that the Kindle has to > download the text and graphics in the book. If the server is down you > are S.O.L! There's no provision for storing copies locally except for > whatever book is currently stored in the Kindle. Not quite. I bought my daughter a Kindle for Christmas. It has 1.5GB of built-in flash storage. eBooks generally run around 500KB, but those with lots of photos or graphics can be 5 or 6MB. In either case, that's hundreds to thousands of books that can be stored locally on the Kindle. The "server" (Amazon.com) will allow you to redownload any books you've purchased in the past so you're free to delete them from the device. You can also move the books to/from a computer if you don't trust Amazon as an archive. > My hard copy library occupies a good deal of space but it's there when > I want it, all ~2000 volumes. What's more, I can lend a book to a > friend if I wish and not have to worry about him making a bootleg copy. Your friend doesn't have a scanner? Can't find a Kinko's? ;) Kidding aside, the new Barnes and Noble eBook reader, the "Nook," has a neat lending feature- you can transfer one of your Nook eBooks to a friend's Nook, so he can "borrow" it for a set time period at which point it "expires" and he can no longer open it. During the time it's lent, you can't read your copy, just like a paper book! When his copy stops working, you get the ability to use it again to reread, or relend. > My library contains books published more than fifty years ago. I > reread them every few years. Will my favorite "electronic" books still > be available thirty years from now? My hard copy books will still be > there. If they aren't lost, worn, burned, water damaged, etc. Books certainly have advantages, but so do eBooks. As to longevity, it's too early to tell. On the other hand, the more eBooks catch on, the more incentive publishers have to re-release long out-of-print, or limited-appeal titles. Unlike printed books, the cost to release an eBook is virtually zero, there's no per-unit printing/materials costs, no warehousing, no shipping, etc., so selling maybe a hundred copies could turn a profit compared to the thousands of printed books that have to be sold to make a printing worthwhile. Todd Allcock stated in post _O98n.14508$3W2.12121@newsfe14.iad on 1/27/10 11:05 PM: >> My library contains books published more than fifty years ago. I >> reread them every few years. Will my favorite "electronic" books still [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > compared to the thousands of printed books that have to be sold to make a > printing worthwhile. Check out Lulu... you now can get single books printed fairly cheaply. I am sure the printing houses can do so even more cheaply... sell anyone any book in their collection for a reasonable price. But, sure, the e-version would be even less expensive to handle. Signature[INSERT .SIG HERE] > > On the other hand, the more eBooks catch on, the more incentive > > publishers have to re-release long out-of-print, or limited-appeal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > have to be sold to make a > > printing worthwhile. > Check out Lulu... you now can get single books printed fairly cheaply. > I am sure the printing houses can do so even more cheaply... sell > anyone any book > in their collection for a reasonable price. But, sure, the e-version would > be even less expensive to handle. Agreed- in my example of currently out-of-print books, the initial costs involved for either eBooks or Print-On-Demand would be the same- the cost of getting the book's contents from hardcopy to electronic form. Once scanned and edited, both eBooks and POD become equally valid, and potentially profitable, options. Todd Allcock pulled this Usenet boner: > On the other hand, the more eBooks catch on, the more incentive > publishers have to re-release long out-of-print, or limited-appeal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compared to the thousands of printed books that have to be sold to make a > printing worthwhile. Here's one I would like to see: http://www.amazon.com/Congo-kitabu-Jean-Pierre-Hallet/dp/B00005XDO5 SignatureYou have the power to influence all with whom you come in contact. >Oh I read book. I pick it up, read it and when I'm done I close it. >The day I start reading books electronically I will put a bullet in my >own head. I'm FULLY with you on that. I occasionally DL a book, then print it out to read it. >> Oh I read book. I pick it up, read it and when I'm done I close it. >> The day I start reading books electronically I will put a bullet in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I occasionally DL a book, then print it out to read it. That is certainly possible. OTOH, you have to deal with 100 to 500 loose sheets of paper! Sure, you can buy 3-ring drilled paper, use a LASER printer with a duplex unit to print both sides and put it in a 3-ring binder. If a professionally printed and bound edition is available it's simply not worth the trouble! >That is certainly possible. OTOH, you have to deal with 100 to 500 >loose sheets of paper! No, I keep WAY more than that around, AND in folders so it's NOT 'loose'. AND I can take the |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message