Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:(about the iPad)
It cannot even replace a decent ereader since it will ruin your eyes.

That's BS. It's a high quality IPS LCD display, and as such is no worse for the eyes than the computers & tv screens which hundreds of millions of people stare at for many hours each day.

kirkmc wrote:Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive. They're starting to say that getting rid of the optical drive is stupid.

Though getting dated, I can't resist linking to this video from The Onion: The MacBook Wheel.

Key moments:
"The MacBook Wheel lets consumers accomplish everyday tasks like typing with just a few dozen spins and clicks of a wheel."

Jobs: "People who use keyboards 'standing in the way of human progress.'"

imabuddha wrote:

Bantari wrote:(about the iPad)
It cannot even replace a decent ereader since it will ruin your eyes.

That's BS. It's a high quality IPS LCD display, and as such is no worse for the eyes than the computers & tv screens which hundreds of millions of people stare at for many hours each day.

Here is, sort of, how it was explained to me by my eye doctor.

Both computers and TV screens are actually pretty bad for your eyes. What saves most of the users is that the way your eyes track the screen in 99% of computer usage is different than when you're reading a book. Using computer involves usually reading of small portions of text at the time, scrolling, jumping, switching to a different page, lots of graphics, and so on... This reduces eye strain by inducing blinking and making the eye to track in a less predictable patterns.

Many people, me included, develop eye problems from working on computers too much and have to wear a special glasses which reduce the stress on the eye.

TV's are better since you usually watch them from a much greater distance. And commercials help too, since they usually make you to take a break. I don't know many people who watch TV 12 hours a day, anyways.

Electronic book readers use a different technology, as you can clearly see when you look at their screens. They are MUCH easier on the eyes than regular computer monitors and iPod display. This technology was developed precisely because of the way using a regular laptop screen would damage your eyes.

I can read a kindle for hours without any problems, while my eyes start hurting after about 2 hours on a computer (or on the iPad)

This is why I say that I would never use iPad (or my laptop) to do any serious reading other than the regualar internet browsing and an occasional article here and there. So iPad cannot replace an eReader, in my opinion. But hey - if it works for you, good luck.

kirkmc wrote:Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive.

This is a common fallacy.
I was right once, now I am automatically right again.
You know better than that.

kirkmc wrote:They're starting to say that getting rid of the optical drive is stupid. Personally, the _only_ java app I have _ever_ used in 20 years of using Macs is CGoban. The only one. I have never even seen any java apps that have in any way tempted me to use them. (The only one was some OpenOffice thing.)

To be fair, I know there are some java apps that are used for network deployment and management. But that's a very small subset of users.

As for Flash, it's days are numbered. So what if Apple ditches them first? The others will follow; HTML 5 offers fare better solutions. It's only because Adobe has so much invested in Flash that people are raising a stink. Flash is used for basically two things: annoying ads and videos. The latter can be done, better, with HTML 5.

Well, I am not a flash-lover myself, but there is tons of other uses for flash than that. There are interactive sites, educational sites, and so on, some quite good. Also, flash supports a wide range of media, while HTML 5 is closely tied to Apple's own format or codec, isn't it. I seem to have read about it somewhere.

To me, if a technology should die, it should die because something better comes along and people stop using it. Not because it is bullied into oblivion by over-eager hardware manufacturer. There should be room for all kinds out there, and simply forbidding what you don't like is not cool in my book. Apple can do whatever it wants, but this does not automatically makes is holy.

And iPad is just bad, man! Very very bad! I would love to see a batter device from Apple, but until people like you just sing its praises Apple will never have any incentive to improve it.

Bantari wrote: This technology was developed precisely because of the way using a regular laptop screen would damage your eyes.

Actually I believe e-ink tech was developed primarily as a display that required no power to maintain its state, with low cost & high pixel density as secondary concerns.

In any case, we've strayed far from the actual thread topic…

Bantari wrote:

kirkmc wrote:Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive.

This is a common fallacy.
I was right once, now I am automatically right again.
You know better than that.

Whoa, that's not a fallacy. Many people, myself included, thought that not including a floppy drive in the first iMac was stupid. Time has proven Apple was correct.

Bantari wrote:

And iPad is just bad, man! Very very bad! I would love to see a batter device from Apple, but until people like you just sing its praises Apple will never have any incentive to improve it.

That's your opinion, but millions of satisfied iPad users disagree. As you are undoubtably aware, Apple has many strong competitors who provide incentive to improve its products including iPad.

I'm done with the thread now.

Bantari wrote:I can read a kindle for hours without any problems, while my eyes start hurting after about 2 hours on a computer (or on the iPad)

This is why I say that I would never use iPad (or my laptop) to do any serious reading other than the regualar internet browsing and an occasional article here and there. So iPad cannot replace an eReader, in my opinion. But hey - if it works for you, good luck.

I had a Kindle for one day. It gave me such headaches that I sent it back. I can read for hours on the iPad, by adjusting the brightness to what is optimal for my surroundings.

But as imabuddha points out, e-ink was not in any way developed to do anything for your eyes; it was developed because it is thin, light, and flexible, and uses very little energy.

You obviously have sensitive eyes; don't generalize that to others.

Bantari wrote:Well, I am not a flash-lover myself, but there is tons of other uses for flash than that. There are interactive sites, educational sites, and so on, some quite good. Also, flash supports a wide range of media, while HTML 5 is closely tied to Apple's own format or codec, isn't it. I seem to have read about it somewhere.

To me, if a technology should die, it should die because something better comes along and people stop using it. Not because it is bullied into oblivion by over-eager hardware manufacturer. There should be room for all kinds out there, and simply forbidding what you don't like is not cool in my book. Apple can do whatever it wants, but this does not automatically makes is holy.
.

Talk about mistaken. "HTML 5 is closely tied to Apple's own format or codec..." I'd suggest you avail yourself of Google on that one...

As for Flash dying, do you seriously think that it's because Apple is "bullying" anyone? Web designers, for the most part, hate Flash. If it were so popular, they wouldn't be so gung-ho about moving to HTML 5. (Which has many options beyond just displaying videos and other animated content, but they are very happy about the options for that type of content.) It's not as much Apple as the web design community moving in that direction; it's just that Apple has gotten a lot of press about it.

imabuddha wrote:

Bantari wrote:

kirkmc wrote:Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive.

This is a common fallacy.
I was right once, now I am automatically right again.
You know better than that.

Whoa, that's not a fallacy. Many people, myself included, thought that not including a floppy drive in the first iMac was stupid. Time has proven Apple was correct.

The 'I was right once, now I am automatically right again' procedure is a fallacy.

Also, this stuff about 'sensitive eyes' is absurd. If you guys want a proper argument, get a dataset and analyse it, or find some research, nobody is impressed with 'well my eyes are fine, it must just be you'. I think, from my own vague research in the past, that the kindle is objectively easier on the eyes (without stating a difference magnitude ), but this would be easy enough to prove right or wrong if you bothered arguing the point, not the opponent.

amnal wrote:Also, this stuff about 'sensitive eyes' is absurd. If you guys want a proper argument, get a dataset and analyse it, or find some research, nobody is impressed with 'well my eyes are fine, it must just be you'. I think, from my own vague research in the past, that the kindle is objectively easier on the eyes (without stating a difference magnitude ), but this would be easy enough to prove right or wrong if you bothered arguing the point, not the opponent.

Absurd? Shows you don't know much about eyes. There are many people who have trouble reading different types of devices. And as one ages, it gets harder, not only because vision degrades, but also because you need more light.

I found the Kindle to be very readable in the sun; in lower light, however, it gave me a headache. Many people felt the same way. This said, it was a version before the current one, which supposedly has better contrast. But it remains necessary to have sufficient light, unlike a backlit device. (To be fair, it's nearly impossible to read an iPad in sunlight...)

kirkmc wrote:

amnal wrote:Also, this stuff about 'sensitive eyes' is absurd. If you guys want a proper argument, get a dataset and analyse it, or find some research, nobody is impressed with 'well my eyes are fine, it must just be you'. I think, from my own vague research in the past, that the kindle is objectively easier on the eyes (without stating a difference magnitude ), but this would be easy enough to prove right or wrong if you bothered arguing the point, not the opponent.

Absurd? Shows you don't know much about eyes. There are many people who have trouble reading different types of devices. And as one ages, it gets harder, not only because vision degrades, but also because you need more light.

I found the Kindle to be very readable in the sun; in lower light, however, it gave me a headache. Many people felt the same way. This said, it was a version before the current one, which supposedly has better contrast. But it remains necessary to have sufficient light, unlike a backlit device. (To be fair, it's nearly impossible to read an iPad in sunlight...)

It was kind of my point that, whatever anyone says, someone (apparently you) can say 'I know someone for whom that is not the case!'. But I was speaking of a general trend or pattern, whose existence is not implausible and which might be easily measurable. Amongst all the anecdotal evidence either way, this has not been addressed, but it seems more relevant to me to try to do so.

amnal wrote:

imabuddha wrote:

Bantari wrote:
This is a common fallacy.
I was right once, now I am automatically right again.
You know better than that.

Whoa, that's not a fallacy. Many people, myself included, thought that not including a floppy drive in the first iMac was stupid. Time has proven Apple was correct.

The 'I was right once, now I am automatically right again' procedure is a fallacy.

OK, despite "being done with this thread" I must apologize for my quoted post. I thought Bantari's "This is a common fallacy" referred to people claiming Apple was stupid for omitting floppy drives, but as amnal points out it's obvious that's not correct.

kirkmc wrote:As for a camera on the iPad, I'm curious about why, all of a sudden, people want to use video chats. I know very few people who use them on their computers, and I'm not sure it's really needed for phones. I've only had a dozen or so video chats in all the years I've been able to do so.

Just to jump in with personal anecdote(s) here, I think that video chatting is one of the things that people haven't done because it hasn't been convenient or they haven't experienced it, and I think a front facing camera on tablets and phones is great for this purpose. I travel a lot for work, and for the last year or so the only only reason I've been able to "see" my close family more than once is due to video chat (I made the family thanksgiving via my brother's android tablet). Taking time to set up a video chat with a computer is cumbersome which I think contributes significantly its lack of use. The fact that if I am in Houston for business I can video call my relatives in St. Louis from my phone just as easily as a regular call means we are much more likely to do it. Instead of having to find somewhere to set up a computer, connect to wifi, let them know I'll be connecting, etc, I can just call and it's up. I think once more people get used to it, it will be a new everyday occurance, much like the shift to cell phone calls from landlines (Think back 15 years ago -- Is a cell phone really necessary, I could just call someone from home/office?).

My 2 cents, your mileage may vary

you can now return to your original discussion (=

Well, Google has just put a stake through HTML5 ubiquity by stopping support for H.264 video:


http://www.businessinsider.com/google-p ... oft-2011-1

Basically, by not having wide support for video standards in all HTML5-compliant browsers (Chrome is on the rise), it makes the case for Flash stronger. So, Google, in trying to bash Apple, has also aided Adobe. I'd just as soon Flash faded away, but Google just made that less likely, rather than more. So it goes. This is all about platform wars, not consumer choice.

Yes, this thread has gone off-topic, but I think WMS has adequately answered the original question. It's the same answer he's been giving for years, so you have to admire the man for his consistency, even if you disagree with him. Yes, it's a resource/control issue. There are middle roads that solve the problem, but I'm not going to argue with the guy.... he's providing us with a valuable service. Enjoy it for what it is, instead of what it isn't.

The sad part is that all of the new form-factor devices want you to have a "native" app (because it is more efficient, and because it gives them "lock-in" to their platform), and many smaller operations don't have the resources or desire to have a native app for every darn platform. So, on one side you have a rock, and on the other, a hard place. This will all work itself out, eventually. If support for iPhone/iPad someday becomes critical for various sites, those who fail to provide that support will fail to flourish. We aren't at that juncture just yet.

This could also go another way... the devices themselves could become powerful enough that they start to support the cross-platform development methods like Flash. Apple has already had to halfway relent about Flash on the iPhone, because of Android's support for it. A little competition is a wonderful thing.

Gohst wrote:Well, Google has just put a stake through HTML5 ubiquity by stopping support for H.264 video:


http://www.businessinsider.com/google-p ... oft-2011-1

Basically, by not having wide support for video standards in all HTML5-compliant browsers (Chrome is on the rise), it makes the case for Flash stronger. So, Google, in trying to bash Apple, has also aided Adobe. I'd just as soon Flash faded away, but Google just made that less likely, rather than more. So it goes. This is all about platform wars, not consumer choice.

Your desired result is for h.264 to challenge (and defeat) flash. This seems to be just a subset of the more general goal 'something better than flash, and as good as possible in and of itself, should challenge and defeat flash'. It isn't obvious to me that the second goal has been compromised.

Google are supporting Ogg Theora and WebM in place of h.264, I think. It isn't obvious to me that these are better or worse than h.264, especially given the vague patent issues that seem to surround it. This also brings google in line with some other browsers - there is not yet a dominating codec, and it seems false to say that google switching from h.264 is breaking any kind of common agreement.