18
   

Good god the iPad is a steaming pile of disappointment

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

Stick shifts are more hard to get.

I'm saying it's awfully narcissistic of you to insist we do it your way because that's what you are used to.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:56 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
The only thing keeping it cheaper is that the technology is much much much simpler than an automatic transmission (you ever tear one of those beasts apart; I have, not much fun).

Planetary gears appear to work by magic....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:58 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?


Cyclops; the HAVE already made stick-shifts more hard to get. Most models of cars/trucks do not even give stick-shift options to consumers.

The only thing keeping it cheaper is that the technology is much much much simpler than an automatic transmission (you ever tear one of those beasts apart; I have, not much fun).


I'm glad to see that you have dropped the pretense of ignoring me; I declare a cease-fire in my accusations that you are constantly against Obama.

Yes, I've rebuilt a few transmissions in my time, and no, it's not fun.

I think you can still get a stick on most trucks - for hauling and high-torque applications they are still favored by many.

But this is an example which supports my point: because of the popularity of the automatic transmission (which is easier to use but offers less overall control of the machine) it is now more expensive and harder to get the device which experienced (we call 'em 'power' users) prefer. And I doubt this is a situation which these users are happy about, just as I am unhappy about the way computers are headed.

Cycloptichorn
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:58 pm
@Thomas,
it's all blue potatoes to me. surely there will be cheaper version of this type of device, and surely some will continue to pay higher price for iPad (or iPod, iPhone, iWhatever) because of the brand name. Just another fashion thing, no? Why get upset about it. Designer jeans, despite the fact that they were invented for utility, originally, easily cost 200$ or more. Stupid, but eh. Many things in life are. So what if someone wants to buy them, let 'em. That's freedom.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:59 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

Stick shifts are more hard to get.

I'm saying it's awfully narcissistic of you to insist we do it your way because that's what you are used to.


Not because I'm used to it but because it offers significant advantages in the same way that your stick shift does.

You see the fact that sticks are harder to get as a POSITIVE thing? Once again you STILL haven't told me how you feel about this.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Local caching means local processing and storage. If you have those there's no reason at all not to give the user control of the local box.


The thin client model isn't about allowing the user control or not. Apple's iPad is not meant to be a thin client, but through it's good browser in a very mobile form factor it can help that paradigm.

Apple, with their local apps, is very much not a thin client and because they aren't they have to lock down their hardware so that they control the only store.

You will find nothing but agreement from me that this sucks, but just like you use proprietary games on Windows I happen to use games on this platform and there are not really any open platforms with the same breadth of games.

Anywho, if someone really wants to get at the local innards of a thin client I think they should be able to. Sure, they may just break it and there's not much reason for a thin client to provide such access but yeah I'm not a fan of restrictions either if that is your point.

But if that is your point what the hell would you do with a rooted thin client? The whole point of it is to do nothing much more than being a terminal so why not just not buy a thin client if you want to root around?

Quote:
My complaint about the Ipad isn't that it's a bad product, it's that it's one that you have very little control over and one that apple will try to prevent you from ever improving.


That may be one of them, but you seem to have an instinctive resistance to it that spans many others.

I happen to agree that they don't offer enough control for my taste, but that won't stop it from changing the world a bit and it's a change in a direction of technological progress if it means more digital consumption because it will spur more open variations of their concept.

Quote:
I'd just hate to see that market get crowded out by a group who are so excited about everything server- and net- based that what I want becomes expensive instead of cheap as it is today.


This is a weird fear. The server and net that you don't seem to cog to isn't going to threaten your local computing model the way you seem to think.

This is more about the internet going beyond traditional computers than the death of the computer. The computer and the internet have done a piss poor job in the living room, on the TV and in books.

This is expansion, not replacement. Maybe this will help you understand: many people project that mobile internet use will one day eclipse desktop internet use. Do they think desktop use will go away? No! They just think that there will be more total use as mobile use catches on.

And despite Apple's flaws they are pushing mobile in a big way. Google just bought an ad company (for hundreds of millions) that basically grew out of the App store (putting ads on free apps) and Apple just bought another.

This is another internet gold rush and I'm just happy to see mobile computing advance, even if it has to be an "evil" company to do it. Google will try to defend against it in their own evil way and technology marches on.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I'm glad to see that you have dropped the pretense of ignoring me; I declare a cease-fire in my accusations that you are constantly against Obama.


Just on threads not related to politics. You're still on ignore, but when people quote you in posts, I have a hard time not reading them. I can igore the little "user ignored" line pretty well though.

Given your cease-fire I *may* rethink my position.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:03 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

This is more about the internet going beyond traditional computers than the death of the computer. The computer and the internet have done a piss poor job in the living room, on the TV and in books.


They have internet enabled HDTVs being sold now, as well as InEn Blu Ray players.

I can already tell that this is the death of the computer.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I simply don't like the idea that this the direction that the majority of programming and product creation is moving towards. Others think it's an entirely good thing and that eventually ALL personal computers will run that way, just thin clients. I understand that there are positives and negatives to both positions, but at least with my position, I own my data and my programs - they cannot be arbitrarily taken from me at any time the way that a company decides to, or the network goes down. These are limitations which I am unwilling to accept in my computer usage.


You are conflating different issues though. You don't like proprietary right? Well it doesn't get much more open than a web app. You don't even install the program. Just for this reason, it's a nice open-source platform. It's got desktop deployment beat hands down and is nice and portable. There are many other simple inherent benefits of browser-based apps. Hell it doesn't even have to be remote, you can have a local-browser based app. The point is the platform is wide open and we already spend most of our time in the browser.

So things are going to move away from the desktop regardless whether thin clients are going to catch on. These are separate, but related because as more moves into browser the switching cost to a thin client lowers, issues. You can still not want a thin client (I need a non-thin client myself) to appreciate this.

But if you appreciate that paradigm, you can appreciate the utility of a thin client, because you won't be as tied to your desktop platform. This doesn't mean you have to lose control of your data either, but yes in practice it usually means someone else is hosting it.

Anyway, the issue of whether or not to use a thin client is just not the same as the web app vs desktop issue. Thin clients can be used to connect to desktop apps for example. These are separate issues.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:14 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I simply don't like the idea that this the direction that the majority of programming and product creation is moving towards. Others think it's an entirely good thing and that eventually ALL personal computers will run that way, just thin clients. I understand that there are positives and negatives to both positions, but at least with my position, I own my data and my programs - they cannot be arbitrarily taken from me at any time the way that a company decides to, or the network goes down. These are limitations which I am unwilling to accept in my computer usage.


You are conflating different issues though. You don't like proprietary right? Well it doesn't get much more open than a web app. You don't even install the program. Just for this reason, it's a nice open-source platform. It's got desktop deployment beat hands down and is nice and portable. There are many other simple inherent benefits of browser-based apps. Hell it doesn't even have to be remote, you can have a local-browser based app. The point is the platform is wide open and we already spend most of our time in the browser.

So things are going to move away from the desktop regardless whether thin clients are going to catch on. These are separate, but related because as more moves into browser the switching cost to a thin client lowers, issues. You can still not want a thin client (I need a non-thin client myself) to appreciate this.

But if you appreciate that paradigm, you can appreciate the utility of a thin client, because you won't be as tied to your desktop platform. This doesn't mean you have to lose control of your data either, but yes in practice it usually means someone else is hosting it.

Anyway, the issue of whether or not to use a thin client is just not the same as the web app vs desktop issue. Thin clients can be used to connect to desktop apps for example. These are separate issues.


Sure sure, I'll work harder to keep these issues separate in my arguments.

But I must protest one point! Data hosted by someone else is by definition removed from your control in a variety of ways. You can have access to it cut off unexpectedly over a variety of issues which may or may not be valid ones, or may be technical in nature. Like a lot of things I think this is an idea which sounds great UNTIL something goes wrong.

A combination of the two is likely the way to go - you might even consider it to be local backups of remotely stored data if you like.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
you STILL haven't told me how you feel about this.

I generally don't get uptight about what other people choose to buy. It's a waste of emotional effort, since I can't control what they do.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:18 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
you STILL haven't told me how you feel about this.

I generally don't get uptight about what other people choose to buy. It's a waste of emotional effort, since I can't control what they do.


But it's not about what they choose to buy, it's about you no longer being ABLE to buy what you like thanks to choices others have made - choices to go forward with a product that you consider to be inferior. Was my original explanation of the scenario unclear?

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Data hosted by someone else is by definition removed from your control in a variety of ways.

Like any other data, one should back it up.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:21 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
What's the difference from the perspective of the end users doing the work, playing the games, storing the data, and whatnot? For them, Yahoo's and Google's data centers are black boxes to which they outsource data and computing power. We nerds may find it interesting that these data centers are clusters of PCs rather than monolithic Crays, say. But what difference does it make to end users what hardware architecture companies use inside the data centers?


This alone certainly makes no difference but the difference in purpose makes for differences in implementation. The mainframes weren't an open distributed platform, for one. The platform wasn't open to anyone who could buy a thin client for example.

There are huge differences between the old world of terminals and the "cloud computing" that people are talking about now (that really isn't so much about thin client as browser).

AJAX was just another acronym for something that has been around for a while, but after that acronym was coined things really did begin to change. Google maps were much richer than Mapquest was.

Cloud computing represents sweeping change in technology, even though through reductionism you can describe it in similar terms to terminals of yesterday. Hell you can compare almost anything if you reduce it enough. An airplane and a car are both "transportation devices".

If you sincerely don't see huge differences between them I'll have a go at being more articulate than I am right now, but I have to run to a meeting.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
it's about you no longer being ABLE to buy what you like thanks to choices others have made - choices to go forward with a product that you consider to be inferior. Was my original explanation of the scenario unclear?

I wouldn't know where to buy a vacuum tube for a ham radio. I wouldn't know where to buy a buggy whip. I wouldn't know where to buy a 300-baud external modem. I wouldn't know where to buy a 16K RAM module for my old Atari 800.

Technology changes. This isn't news.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:30 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
it's about you no longer being ABLE to buy what you like thanks to choices others have made - choices to go forward with a product that you consider to be inferior. Was my original explanation of the scenario unclear?

I wouldn't know where to buy a vacuum tube for a ham radio. I wouldn't know where to buy a buggy whip. I wouldn't know where to buy a 300-baud external modem. I wouldn't know where to buy a 16K RAM module for my old Atari 800.

Technology changes. This isn't news.


I think you are trying hard to avoid admitting that you would not be happy when a technology that YOU prefer is supplanted by a different one due to market pressures. None of those things you listed are technologies which you have signaled a personal preference for like you did stick-shifts.

Why not just admit it?

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:32 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
What's the difference from the perspective of the end users doing the work, playing the games, storing the data, and whatnot? For them, Yahoo's and Google's data centers are black boxes to which they outsource data and computing power. We nerds may find it interesting that these data centers are clusters of PCs rather than monolithic Crays, say. But what difference does it make to end users what hardware architecture companies use inside the data centers?

"Cloud computing" means many things to many people. It can just mean a server attached to a network. It can mean software as a service.

True cloud computing envisions hardware being a commodity, and an application runs wherever it can find the cheapest hardware.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think you are trying hard to avoid admitting that you would not be happy when a technology that YOU prefer is supplanted by a different one due to market pressures.

I think you are trying hard to put words in my mouth. I won't cry a single tear if someday I can't buy a stick-shift.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:35 pm
@dagmaraka,
dagmaraka wrote:
it's all blue potatoes to me. surely there will be cheaper version of this type of device, and surely some will continue to pay higher price for iPad (or iPod, iPhone, iWhatever) because of the brand name. Just another fashion thing, no? Why get upset about it.

Sure, if you're asking about the choice between an iPad and another tablet computer. But this part of the disagreement about something else. It's about tablet computers as a class vs. networked PCs as a class. With networked PCs, most of your data, and most computing of those data, physically happens in your device. With tablet computers, and "thin clients" in general, it happens on a server somewhere on the internet.

This introduces complications for your freedom to choose between a PC and a tablet. For example, if you store your mails with Google Mail, and if Google mail has a policy of mining them for statistical data, then your choice has consequences for my e-mails to you. Trends like these will accelerate if more users outsource more data and computing power to other people's servers. And that's what makes your choice between a networked PC and a tablet more political than your choice between an iPad and a Kindle.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:38 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think you are trying hard to avoid admitting that you would not be happy when a technology that YOU prefer is supplanted by a different one due to market pressures.

I think you are trying hard to put words in my mouth. I won't cry a single tear if someday I can't buy a stick-shift.


Sorry, I was confused when you wrote this:

Quote:

I get where you're coming from. I like to drive a standard, because it gives me more control. On the other hand, I don't tell everyone else that driving an automatic is stupid.


Most people don't like it when they are forced to accept a product which gives them less control, thanks to other people's preferences. I guess you are immune to such feelings.

Cyclo0ptichorn
 

Related Topics

Steve Jobs has died - Discussion by jespah
iTablet Announced At Last! - Discussion by Gargamel
Apple's Churlish Side - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Tablet Wars: Google Strikes Back! - Discussion by tsarstepan
iTunes has a mind of its own - Question by jespah
HELP - Question by Mealad565
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2020 at 04:56:57