18
   

Good god the iPad is a steaming pile of disappointment

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.

I just don't get my undies in a bunch about things I can't really change.

If so many people like Prego's Super Chunky Mushroom that they make more room for it on the shelves, and it makes me have to look harder for marinara sauce, that's just the way things go. Prego is free to develop the products they want. I'm free to buy the products I can afford.

If you want fair, go to the Fair Grounds. Life ain't fair.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:58 pm
@Thomas,
nah, i get it....but there's also a large group of people, majority most likely, that just don't care, and never will. and if iPad or whoever can market to them, well... that's how it will be. right or wrong is another issue...but, honestly, deciding one way or another won't change a thing... but i understand that some care. i just happen to be one of those that don't, even though i spend most of my time on the computer, one way or another. i care about other things that majority doesn't care about though, so i understand the passion even if i don't share it.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 05:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.


I completely agree, but what I was saying is that for most people unless they let someone else host their data something is more likely to go wrong.

Most people don't have remote locations they control where they can back things up, so the only way for them not to let someone else control their data on some level is to not back it up remotely.

And if they don't back it up remotely they can lose it all to hard drive failure, fire, malware etc. The datacenters usually mitigate against this kind of risk. Now yes, they are a new point of failure, and yes this can bite you in the butt (the blogger who Yahoo gave up to China certainly must not like that they had his data) it is much more rare of a scenario than the typical user's own data misfortunes are.

So I don't disagree with this at all, and there are some bodies of data I will not entrust with any server I don't have physical control over, but for most people most of their data is much better off with the cloud. It's cheaper and easier than taking care of it themselves.

Quote:
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.


That is for sure. I didn't begin using webmail until it was portable. When Gmail added use of your own domain, and pop it became completely portable. I control the domain so I can route the email elsewhere if it becomes necessary, and I can backup all the email through POP.

I still don't like that there aren't easy ways to export all Google Docs, and I still don't use their App Engine because I can't get data out of it that easily (and because the platform is proprietary and the code would need rewriting to host anywhere else) so I completely get wanting to control my data etc.

Unless we have physical control of the data at some level I am not happy, but I don't mind if I am the backup and the cloud hosts most of the time. If I has intellectual property that I thought was worth billions I'd not be hosting with anyone else and I'd run my own datacenter of course (but would I also stand guard myself? At some point this becomes paranoia).

So yes, I still strongly encourage keeping control of your data integrity, I just happen to think that for most users the cloud is an easy integral part of doing so.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 05:45 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
True cloud computing envisions hardware being a commodity, and an application runs wherever it can find the cheapest hardware.


This is what I was trying to express less elegantly in that the old vision used mainframes while the new one is using commodity hardware. The purposes were very different, as were the implementations.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 03:04 pm
Just a quick update:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/05/ipad-sales-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Apparently it's a steaming pile of profit.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 01:00 pm
I went to the Apple store and played with an iPad the other day. It felt really nice to hold (nice weight and shape), and it was very responsive. The iBook reading function was particularly nice with a snappy "feel" to the page turns and easily readable text and graphics.

Obviously it works just like an iPod, but the readability and functionality, from a tactile point of view, are vastly superior to the iPod.

I'll wait for the second generation to get one because I can use my iPod for now, and because I prefer to get an iPad with most of the kinks worked out of it (also it really needs a built-in camera which I assume will be available in the next generation).

As for my laptop needs, I'm not sure what I'll do yet. I may get one of the MacBooks. But I already have Obuntu Linux loaded onto a thumb-drive, so I may just get a NetBook of some type and boot off my thumb-drive when I need it. But I probably won't ever rely exclusively on an iPad for full Laptop functionality.

0 Replies
 
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 08:23 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


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


I know this one is old, but I just saw this... I'm wondering - for exactly which cars is the manual transmission more expensive than the automatic? The last few I've bought have had the automatic as an option costing $1200+.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:02 am
@sstainba,
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/05/25-things-vanishing-in-america-part-2-the-stick-shift/

Quote:
25 things vanishing in America, part 2: The stick shift
Jennie L. Phipps
Apr 5th 2009 at 7:00AM
Text SizeAAA

Filed under: Transportation

I've always thought automatic transmissions were for wimps, but that's me driving the Dodge Dakota with an automatic tranny. Not because I can't tell the difference between a gas pedal and a clutch, but because makers of trucks -- both foreign and domestic -- have given up on the notion of sticks.

It's hard to find a manual transmission these days. In 1980, J.D. Powers and Associates estimates that more than 35% of all cars sold had a stick shift. By 2005, that number had dropped to 6%. Four years later, finding a car with a manual transmission is a big challenge -- you have to go either high end or very low end. 2008 was the last year that any manufacturer of full-size trucks offered a manual transmission. The 2008 Dodge Ram was the last to make manual an option. In 2009, the macho truck propelled by a driver with skill has gone the way of the buggy whip
.

I reared three boys and I made them learn how to drive on a car with a manual transmission. I thought men ought to know how to do that. It put them behind the curve in driver's ed, but in the long run " after they finally mastered lifting the clutch and goosing the gas simultaneously -- they thanked me. When my oldest drove his manual-transmission Camaro to college, it looked like a perfect car to borrow " until the mooches figured out that it was a stick shift and knew they couldn't drive it. That got my son off the hook gracefully lots of times.

It used to be that manual transmissions were lighter, more reliable, easier on gas. Today, that's not necessarily true, according to this report from Progressive insurance, which favors automatics and says they get slightly better gas mileage than their manual cousins.

The latest thing in transmissions is the automated manual transmission with paddle shifters. In cars with paddle shifters, there are two "paddles" mounted on the back side of the steering wheel. One is for upshifting, the other, downshifting. The paddles shift the transmission electronically rather than relying on a mechanical connection like a stick shift. No clutch necessary. But drivers do get a sense of control.

Manufacturers of the finest sports cars in the world, including Porsche, offer paddle shifts and some drivers love them, including Formula One racers for whom they were first developed.

It seems funny to me that cars equipped with manual shifts should cost more, and I'm reluctant to shell out for something that doesn't seem like it should be a luxury. Still, I miss driving a manual shift. Using both your feet and your hands focuses your attention on driving. You have to concentrate and that makes the trip more interesting.


In another decade or so, you won't be able to get standard-style stick shifts.

Cycloptichorn
sstainba
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:01 am
@Cycloptichorn,
meh. certain brands will *always* provide a manual. i happen to like them better anyway, so i think i'm safe for the coming stick-less future.
0 Replies
 
Victor Eremita
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 11:02 pm
@Centroles,
For a steaming pile of disappointment, the iPad seems to have been sold out since Day 1 of its release in Canada last month.... hmmm
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 09:24 am
With the recent introduction by Apple of IOS4 for the iPod, I finally learned what it is that I really liked about Apple... Unfortunately it was by being shown the dark side that I realized how good things were.

I recently updated my iPod (2nd generation) to IOS4 from Apple and its now a piece of crap. The apps are just as interesting, the device is the same size, it feels good and looks elegant just like before, but it isn't RELIABLE, and it turns out that's what I really liked about Apple products, I could always trust them to be snappy and quick and stable and RELIABLE. I don't own an iPhone, but I've read that they have their own set of problems. My iPod had become part of my life. I took it everywhere I went and I could read my Email in a snap or bring up a web browser or a Weather App or a Baby Growth app or my Mileage Tracking tool or my Gasoline consumption Analyzer, or listen to Internet Radio and set my alarms for the morning, and everything worked flawlessly and was snappy and quick and I could TRUST it.

For the first, time I now find myself wanting to try other devices to see how they perform.

It turns out after all was said and done that all the elegance and glitz and multiple apps and everything else... RELIABILITY was what was most deeply satisfying about Apple's products to me.

I think Apple has done itself a lot of harm with its latest rush-to-market. I hope they learn from this.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 12:52 pm
@rosborne979,
There have been a number of complaints that updating older devices to the newer OS version causes performance degradation.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 01:07 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
There have been a number of complaints that updating older devices to the newer OS version causes performance degradation.

Yes, I've seen those. Most news stories are focused on the iPhone4, but I'm more upset about the IOS4 software itself (because it affects ME, and let's face I'M all that matters) Wink
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 03:09 pm
@rosborne979,
I've seen quite a few complaints that the new iOS4 is too bulky to run effectively on older hardware. This includes iPhones, iPods, iWhathaveyou.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 03:33 pm
@DrewDad,
It pisses me off that they want me to pay $10 every time a new version of the OS comes out - and they then require all new apps to conform to the new version of the OS, even new versions of apps you've already bought! I'll be damned if I'll pay another $10 to upgrade the OS....

Cycloptichorn
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 08:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It pisses me off that they want me to pay $10 every time a new version of the OS comes out - and they then require all new apps to conform to the new version of the OS, even new versions of apps you've already bought! I'll be damned if I'll pay another $10 to upgrade the OS....

Which upgrade costs $10? I only remember one upgrade that cost anything, all the others have been free. And all the Apps I've downloaded have had free upgrades.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 01:30 pm
Adobe just announced that it would discontinue development of Flash for mobile devices.

Back in April of 2010 Steve Jobs detailed his opinion of why this was inevitable: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash

The CNN article is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/tech/mobile/adobe-mobile-flash-wired/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 08:01:13