or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google refreshes Nexus 7 with twice iPad mini's pixel count, for $100 less
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google refreshes Nexus 7 with twice iPad mini's pixel count, for $100 less - Page 4

post #121 of 164

Not sure what happened to my last post, I pressed SUBMIT and... nothing...  Let us see if this one gets through.

 

I've been wanting to go back to the dumb phone + PDA combo for quite some time, for a number of reasons:

1 - I like Google services, but Apple has dictated that my Internet service provider choice should not be blessed with first-class citizenship rights, unlike Facebook, Twitter, Maps, Facetime, and iMessages, plus Ficetime and iMessages aren't even cross-platform, so I can't invite people who are not in the Apple ecosystem to use them;

2 - These tablets are now small enough to carry around when I need them and cheap enough to replace if broken, lost, or stolen without sacrificing too much on the screen real estate department;

3 - Currently, my iPad is my Internet connection, thanks to competitive cellular data plans where I live (30€/month for 15GB at 44mbps, unlimited at 128kbps), but it's way too big to carry around, and iOS is too unstable to be used as an Internet router (a natural habitat for Linux).

 

All the above make this tablet extremely appealing, especially if its hardware is also considered.

post #122 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico View Post

[...] iOS is too unstable to be used as an Internet router

 

I don't understand what that means. Would you please elaborate?

post #123 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I don't understand what that means. Would you please elaborate?

Sure!

 

For starters, there are the small issues: you need a Wi-Fi connection to download updates over 50MB, because iOS will simply refuse to do that off the cellular network (not even an option), either that or you have to update through iTunes and then sync.  This isn't a stability issue, just an annoyance.

 

Secondly, iOS has had a few bugs that truly annoy me since Personal Hotspot first appeared on the iPhone:

 

The first is that if the data call hangs up unexpectedly, the data counter rests to the values that it had before the last call was terminated, meaning you can never know for sure whether the values you're reading are accurate because iOS re-establishes the connection as soon as possible;

 

The second is that under some conditions (which I am yet to determine), the LAN created by iOS when Personal hotspot is enable simply stops responding through either Wi-Fi or USB; the only way I know to address this is to simply reboot iOS;

 

The third is that the Wi-Fi access point created by Personal Hotspot is only visible for a short amount of time after enabling the setting, even when plugged to power, making it useless for most purposes (my Mac connects to it through USB, but my iPhone has to use its own data connection, because I can't be bothered to restart Personal Hotspot every time my iPhone is within my iPad's range).

 

EDIT: Forgot to mention an annoyance: you can't read (and much less send) SMSes on an iPad (unless it's jailbroken), which is an issue because many carriers us SMSes to send service notifications.


Edited by Epsico - 7/24/13 at 7:46pm
post #124 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post


Maybe it's 'Too Fast'? or the screen is a little too 'Amazing'

"It's Too Magical" "Too Amazing"
post #125 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico View Post

Sure!

For starters, there are the small issues: you need a Wi-Fi connection to download updates over 50MB, because iOS will simply refuse to do that off the cellular network (not even an option), either that or you have to update through iTunes and then sync.  This isn't a stability issue, just an annoyance.

Secondly, iOS has had a few bugs that truly annoy me since Personal Hotspot first appeared on the iPhone:

The first is that if the data call hangs up unexpectedly, the data counter rests to the values that it had before the last call was terminated, meaning you can never know for sure whether the values you're reading are accurate because iOS re-establishes the connection as soon as possible;

The second is that under some conditions (which I am yet to determine), the LAN created by iOS when Personal hotspot is enable simply stops responding through either Wi-Fi or USB; the only way I know to address this is to simply reboot iOS;

The third is that the Wi-Fi access point created by Personal Hotspot is only visible for a short amount of time after enabling the setting, even when plugged to power, making it useless for most purposes (my Mac connects to it through USB, but my iPhone has to use its own data connection, because I can't be bothered to restart Personal Hotspot every time my iPhone is within my iPad's range).

EDIT: Forgot to mention an annoyance: you can't read (and much less send) SMSes on an iPad (unless it's jailbroken), which is an issue because many carriers us SMSes to send service notifications.

Not sure how your usage is relevant to many people. What's the point of posting?
post #126 of 164

Google is clearly looking to pre-empt the low end of the tablet market with a small screen and low price, and little if any profit margin. this will devastate the other Android OEM's, but plainly Google doesn't care about them anymore (and the MS Surface RT - hah, hah, hah, hah ...can't stop laughing!). talk about a race to the bottom! Google is going for establishing a mass market installed base at any cost - a classic loss leader strategy. same as Amazon with the Fire that, no doubt, will match the Nexus 7 ASAP in specs and price. all the rest, eat dirt.

 

to say this is a "very aggressive move" by Google is an understatement. there's going to be an Android bloodbath. Google may have decided to take over the weak Android tablet OEM market for itself permanently - otherwise its costly Motorola purchase will be a total dud. but this V.2. mode is still made by Asus ... for now.

 

Apple was certainly going to drop the iPad Mini price at least $100 anyway when its new retina model is released at presumably the same prices as today's models (Apple charges "what the market will bear"). obviously now the sooner the better, and the price drop might be more now. Apple will undoubtedly highlight that the Mini gives you 40% more screen area to view/work with than the Nexus 7 - which really matters for many. right now the weight of both is the same at 11 oz., another key factor for consumers, and we will see if the new Mini is any less (probably not). the last key factor is battery life, and here Apple's custom chips + iOS 7 may result in a dramatic improvement for the new Mini (the new MacBook Air is blowing away the competition thanks to its near doubling of practical battery life) - while i can't find any real-use reports about the Nexus battery life yet.

 

a retina display + much longer battery life + iOS 7 will maintain a new Mini's market leadership at premium prices, but the current model will need real discounting. actually, the most pressure from the Nexus 7 may fall on the iPod touch which is comparable to it in many ways but offers a much smaller screen. the 16G models of both are now priced at the same $229. i already thought Apple should not have raised its price last year anyway, and now it will need to drop it back to at least $199.


Edited by Alfiejr - 7/24/13 at 8:28pm
post #127 of 164

> Not sure how your usage is relevant to many people. What's the point of posting?

To answer another poster's comment, which I also quoted in my reply.

post #128 of 164

Samsung will love this! :D

post #129 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

Google is clearly looking to pre-empt the low end of the tablet market with a small screen and low price, and little if any profit margin. this will devastate the other Android OEM's, but plainly Google doesn't care about them anymore (and the MS Surface RT - hah, hah, hah, hah ...can't stop laughing!). talk about a race to the bottom! Google is going for establishing a mass market installed base at any cost - a classic loss leader strategy. same as Amazon with the Fire that, no doubt, will match the Nexus 7 ASAP in specs and price. all the rest, eat dirt.

 

to say this is a "very aggressive move" by Google is an understatement. there's going to be an Android bloodbath. Google may have decided to take over the weak Android tablet OEM market for itself permanently - otherwise its costly Motorola purchase will be a total dud.

 

Apple was certainly going to drop the iPad Mini price at least $100 anyway when its new retina model is released at presumably the same prices as today's models (Apple charges "what the market will bear"). obviously now the sooner the better, and the price drop might be more now. Apple will undoubtedly highlight that the Mini gives you 40% more screen area to view/work with than the Nexus 7 - which really matters for many. right now the weight of both is the same at 11 oz., another key factor for consumers, and we will see if the new Mini is any less (probably not). the last key factor is battery life, and here Apple's custom chips + iOS 7 may result in a dramatic improvement for the new Mini (the new MacBook Air is blowing away the competition thanks to its near doubling of practical battery life) - while i can't find any real-use reports about the Nexus battery life yet.

 

a retina display + much longer battery life + iOS 7 will maintain a new Mini's market leadership at premium prices, but the current model will need real discounting. actually, the most pressure from the Nexus 7 may fall on the iPod touch which is comparable to it in many ways but offers a much smaller screen. the 16G models of both are now priced at the same $229. i already thought Apple should not have raised its price last year anyway, and now it will need to drop it back to at least $199.

 

You might have well made this post a year ago. Everything you said is nothing new and was basically said about the first nexus 7.

post #130 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Everyone who mocked those of us who said Tim was making up excuses when he said one can't make a screen with good color saturation and resolution and white point in that size:

Nyah nyah! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of Elderberries!

You may now begin coming up with lame claims of how this is totally different than what Apple uses...

Whether or not Apple CHOOSES to make a larger iPhone or a higher res iPad mini is totally up to them and until I'm in Tim's chair I got nothing to say (besides "I want one"). The only point I'm making is that people argued when it was suggested that Tim was just blowing smoke and his excuses were pure hooey. I think we can now declare that argument settled.

No we can't, and you're not thinking deep enough. Apple has clearly committed to a new screen technology that will obsolesce all other LCD approaches for years to come. Difficulties unknown to us have delayed its going into mass production, but it gets nearer and nearer, when it happens even you will know what he means by "trade offs." They do involve weight, battery life and thickness, the last of which is wasted on you because you are the tactile equivalent of tone deaf.

Apple would never resort to an interim compromise on something as basic to the device as the display, if the trade off kludged it in some way, just to keep up with the likes of Google's plastic 16:9 slab.

Why am I being so hostile? I pisses me off when you call TC a liar without the slightest idea of what you are talking about. And without thinking of their basic strategy, or their attention to the kind of detail that no one else even sees, let alone cares about.
post #131 of 164
I was LG…
You were looking at Samsung or Sharp
The rumors hit the streets
And my vote: I'm gonna get left behind (yeah, yeah)
It was like a dream, ghosting LCDs
Oh, no, IGZO, IGZO…

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #132 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

To me, your points are mood.

 

While discussing a similar subject with someone else, I came to the conclusion that while some of what I mentioned was subject to personal priorities, some are tangible, universal "issues."

 

The one that's the biggest issue is the storage in the rMBP. When you buy it you get 256MB. So now, a year later, you want to upgrade to 750MB. Where do you go? Who sells them? OWC and who else? No one.

 

Assuming you find one, how much does it cost? How does that price compare to a "standard" 2.5" SSD of the same speed and capacity?

 

Once you get over that, what do you do with your old one? Sell it? To whom? The ONLY potential buyer is another rMBP owner, and he already HAS that one and is looking for a bigger one, same as you!

 

I still contend that going to a unique storage format just to make the stupid thing one-freakin'-eighth of an inch thinner was a really bad trade-off for users.

post #133 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

 

Apples and oranges. I bought my iPad and my iPhone but at certain times you might let someone use it for a very brief time, even for a few minutes. Sometimes with your permission and sometimes without.  For anyone with wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, or other snooping people that you would prefer not to have full access to your iPhone or iPad I am sure you will understand where I am coming from.

 

Not to mention the ability to prevent kids from racking up big bills on in-app or other types of purchases by being able to limit that secondary account.  

 

By your logic every family member should have their own Mac and they should disable multiple accounts in OS X. 

 

First of al, it is not my logic, I am just stating obvious Apple logic. And I haven'T talker about macs, t.i., personal computers.

Personally, I couldn't agree more about having this option, but if you go a bit deeper into how iOS is designed, you will see that introducing multiple personal domains is not an trivial task. Apple has simply downplayed importance of it. For now.

post #134 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


Apparently their customers see them differently:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/22/apple-refunds-6131-itunes-bill-for-8-year-olds-unauthorized-in-app-purchases

 

this problem cannot be solved only by creating multiple accounts. there are certain additional options parent wants to have for child on App Store. 

post #135 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I can't believe people are arguing against user accounts on the iPad. All the reasons are nonsense, IMO.

 

Much greater nonsense is people saying Apple should just make multiple accounts. It clearly shows those people have no clue of whatsoever, how complex that actually is and how many questions and problems it opens. Sure, Google can do it on Android, because they don't care about sandboxing inside domains, they don't care about what will happen to other user when switch to another, they don't care about resources for that matter...Android is Windows for mobile and as such opened for any kind of feature masturbation that "public" wants.

 

But is useless explaining that to you, because you already decided you want this. I'm sure you will get it  eventually, but you will have to wait Apple solves much more important consequential problems before.

post #136 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

So Google figured out these problems on 4.3 and so did Apple on OS X but you think they can't on iOS...1oyvey.gif. I have no idea how it should be implemented, that was just off the top of my head. But I am sure it could be done. And like other features in iOS that you may not use you would be free to ignore this one as well. It astounds me that people could possibly be against a guest user account. It is like the inmates arguing against changing the jail lunch menu and offer something besides meatloaf on Tuesday since it would cause too much pandemonium. 

 

 

Google hasn't figured out anything. They just added an option and don't care. In case you forgot: there is no sandboxing on Android. Again, I'm personally not against it, I just know it won't happen on simple user "wish, because it is a very complex thing on iOS and of, course, very trivial on Android for reasons stated above.

post #137 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

 

Guest account is totally different than multiple users.

 

Multiple users requires a much more complicated internal file management system, with multiple databases for each profile. Each app has to have its own data profile. What about documents? Can you share them between users? Music, videos? 

 

A guest account could just be similar to parental controls, where you set which apps can and can't be accessed, including Contacts, etc. By default, it probably would disable everything but Safari (no history a la Private Browsing), Camera (a la the current lock-screen camera), Phone (no contacts) and a few other default apps like Weather and Calculator. Any app could be Enabled/Disabled, similar to Location Services.

 

All this would do would be to hide personal data, not create whole new profiles. Much easier. Would solve the problem of someone needing to use my phone to make a call, or my iPad to browse the web or play Angry Birds.

 

That't smart talking.

post #138 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I pisses me off when you call TC a liar without the slightest idea of what you are talking about. 

 

First, I'm pretty sure Tim can defend himself and doesn't need some anonymous ego-on-the-internet to speak on his behalf. Stick to arguments relevant to the issue and drop the deification-as-de-facto-point. Unless you're a TC confidant you don't know any more than I do so drop the airs.

 

 

Second, I have more than the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Tim said it is not possible to build a screen with acceptable battery life, good reliability, decent color saturation and a halfway accurate white point without ambiguous unspecified trade-offs. It is painfully obvious to anyone who simply looks at existing products that those arguments are complete and utter nonsense. Maybe he DOES have something better in mind that ain't ready yet. If he'd said THAT I'd have no quarrel. But that's NOT what he said. He made up a pile of nonsense excuses, and now we have yet another example of how silly that was. Accept it and move on.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

And without thinking of their basic strategy

 

What the hell do *I* care about their "basic strategy?" That's their problem, not mine. Mine is wanting a retina ipad mini and a 5" iphone. If Apple doesn't want to deliver those products, fine, but it's silly to ask me sympathize because it's really hard you know or just wait because Jony thinks he's found a way to to save almost a mwH but the part that makes it possible won't be available until Q3 2014.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

or their attention to the kind of detail that no one else even sees, let alone cares about.

 

It strikes me as rather ridiculous to obsess (and delay) over details no one CARES about because... well, because NO ONE CARES about that detail. 

 

To be fair, I'm sure that's not what you meant. That's just what you wrote. I'm really trying to get through the meaningless generalizations to what you actually mean, but honestly I'm not having much luck since you haven't supplied any specifics at all and base your position (and hostility) only on your assertion that Apple is all like good and everything.

 

In support of my position I present the new Nexus 7 and the iPad 4 as evidence that it is quite obviously possible to make a screen that meets the stated criteria. Either come up with some proof that Tim was right or get off my back.

post #139 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post


Or do it exactly like android does now and has done for a year (Multiple users is not new to 4.3 Google just improved them with 4.3) You don't install an app twice. Its one app per device. The user data is kept separate per user. Apps only show up on users home screens if they 'install' them from the app store. They are kept hidden until then. You never double up on an all. Just the app data. Its brilliant.

 

OMG....Yeah, it's "brilliant" all right :)  It's just like on desktop OS. However, multiple access points to app break the sandbox rule. People, just get is somehow: iOS is not Android, it is not even OS X....

 

Not to mention some crazy ideas or special API's for 3rd party developers to setting up access and licensing policy...OMG...

post #140 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Samsung will love this! :D

 

I appreciate the sarcasm, because there's a larger point to be made. Where do hardware OEM's fit in with all of this, when Google, Amazon subsidize their tablet costs for ecosystem revenue? Samsung, Asus get squeezed out, and that's why you don't see these vendors making any headway into the growing tablet market. Samsung gets away with it in the phone market because of the fragmentation and complexity of the wireless providers. If phones were as dead simple to sell as tablets, Amazon and Google would have squeezed out Samsung as well.

 

I believe Samsung has and will strongly consider a fork in the future. I doubt they appreciate the maker of their underlying software undercutting their hardware margins. 

post #141 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Maybe he DOES have something better in mind that ain't ready yet. If he'd said THAT I'd have no quarrel. But that's NOT what he said. He made up a pile of nonsense excuses, and now we have yet another example of how silly that was. Accept it and move on

That's the one thing he absolutely can't say, and you know it, if you know how they work at all.

So until they get their screen solution, they're not going to make a thicker, heavier mini. Your proof will arrive in about eight months. Until then I'm going to be on your back whenever you be talking shit like this, 'cause some people are misled by you. I give up on you as accessible to reason.
post #142 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I was LG…
You were looking at Samsung or Sharp
The rumors hit the streets
And my vote: I'm gonna get left behind (yeah, yeah)
It was like a dream, ghosting LCDs
Oh, no, IGZO, IGZO…

Uncanny. But canny nevertheless.
post #143 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I'm going to be on your back whenever you be talking shit like this, 'cause some people are misled by you.

 

Fair enough, but how did I mislead anyone? I said Cook's excuses were bullshit and the Nexus is more proof of that. Is that not true?

 

I don't know the REAL reason any more than anyone else. That doesn't change the fact that we DO know that his STATED reasons were baloney.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I give up on you as accessible to reason.

 

Aw c'mon, at least try it first! How do you know until you actually present a reasoned argument?


Edited by v5v - 7/24/13 at 11:10pm
post #144 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post


Google hasn't figured out anything. They just added an option and don't care. In case you forgot: there is no sandboxing on Android. Again, I'm personally not against it, I just know it won't happen on simple user "wish, because it is a very complex thing on iOS and of, course, very trivial on Android for reasons stated above.

I think the point needs to be made that this isn't a difficult problem to solve, but it is a difficult problem to solve retrospectively. I think a pretty simple API solution could easily do the trick, but this would have to be forced on devs, as in "in order to make your app iOS 7.x compatible, you must support multiple users." But the problem with that is in the role out. What do you do until apps support the API? Have two copies? What do you do after the app supporting multiple users roles out? Delete the user data? Or does every app have to implement a solution that grabs the data from the older version during the update? That might very well be tricky for some apps. Also, how do you parse the old data between the new users? How does the app know what user data goes where? That is, if there are two copies, how does the app figure out what user gets what data without having access to BOTH copies of the application, and the Apple-specific user info? All of these things are messy, none of the solutions seem to be viable with sandboxing, and it would seem more likely that you'd start with a clean slate instead of trying to work out a half-worthwhile solution to losing old data.

Once you get past that intermediate step it wouldn't be complicated at all to have user verifications pass through an Apple filter at launch, then have the app apply changes to user data in their appropriate bins in accordance with that verification.

All of the mess comes from getting from now, to then, without a clusterfuck.

So, there are two main things.

1) Multiple users could easily be solved with respect to third party apps with APIs, and this would not compromise the "sandboxing" because the user verification would take place on Apple's terms.

2) Getting those APIs into every app in a clean way without losing user data is not at all easy, and undoubtedly some apps would have to be overhauled to get them to work with APIs that were not part of the original spec.
post #145 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

 

 

Google hasn't figured out anything. They just added an option and don't care. In case you forgot: there is no sandboxing on Android. 

It seems that android apps are very much sandboxed (http://developer.android.com/training/articles/security-tips.html). Or are you using a different definition of sandboxing? Also, Google hasn't had much to figure out on its own, since it can look to OS X for the basic design. Sandboxed apps in the Mac App store handle multiple users without difficulty because user-specific data is stored in each user's own Library directory. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/24/13 at 11:42pm
post #146 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Fair enough, but how did I mislead anyone? I said Cook's excuses were bullshit and the Nexus is more proof of that. Is that not true?

If the mini were to be retinized, it would add weight, to maintain the same battery life. That's a trade-off they don't want for the mini, maybe okay for the iPad 3, where the screen has more impact.

How much would the new Nexus weigh if the glass and case were the same area as the mini? And what is the real battery life?

That's all the reasoning I got for tonight.
post #147 of 164

Regarding multiple users, they aren't technically hard to implement, especially since Darwin already supports them, and it would affect the sandbox model either (case in point: there's a sandbox model in OS X).

 

The only issue with multiple user accounts is that they don't make much sense on mobile devices and would require running multiple instances of applications on systems that don't have a lot of RAM or secondary storage to spare, but multiple user profiles do.  Profiles could be implemented using a second location to store private data, so that the public profile would have no access to anything sensitive and all other profiles would access their own independent storage for profile-specific data.  Additionally, Info.plist settings could be added to offer developers the ability to hide their apps in the guest (public-only) profile (useful for Mail, Contacts, Calendar, etc.), and applications should also be able to tell whether they're running in guest or personal modes, so that they could enable certain settings in guest mode (such as Safari's Private Browsing, because a guest's privacy is important, too).

 

This wouldn't be disruptive or hard to implement either.  By default, all applications would save to the public storage so as to not break their current behavior and would require an update to support private storage.

post #148 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

It seems that android apps are very much sandboxed (http://developer.android.com/training/articles/security-tips.html). Or are you using a different definition of sandboxing? Also, Google hasn't had much to figure out on its own, since it can look to OS X for the basic design. Sandboxed apps in the Mac App store handle multiple users without difficulty because user-specific data is stored in each user's own Library directory. 

 

Only mandatory, system closing app data into app domain is sandboxing. only that can assure the user his data cannot be compromised by another app. Sandboxing on mac does handle multiple users and ads a layer of complicity that Apple most probably finds not appropriate for the iOS. And all over again: how will you manage multiple accounts and their opened applications? While this can be obvious on desktop OS's, it makes hell of a differences on mobiles.

post #149 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki View Post


I think the point needs to be made that this isn't a difficult problem to solve, but it is a difficult problem to solve retrospectively. I think a pretty simple API solution could easily do the trick, but this would have to be forced on devs, as in "in order to make your app iOS 7.x compatible, you must support multiple users." But the problem with that is in the role out. What do you do until apps support the API? Have two copies? What do you do after the app supporting multiple users roles out? Delete the user data? Or does every app have to implement a solution that grabs the data from the older version during the update? That might very well be tricky for some apps. Also, how do you parse the old data between the new users? How does the app know what user data goes where? That is, if there are two copies, how does the app figure out what user gets what data without having access to BOTH copies of the application, and the Apple-specific user info? All of these things are messy, none of the solutions seem to be viable with sandboxing, and it would seem more likely that you'd start with a clean slate instead of trying to work out a half-worthwhile solution to losing old data.

Once you get past that intermediate step it wouldn't be complicated at all to have user verifications pass through an Apple filter at launch, then have the app apply changes to user data in their appropriate bins in accordance with that verification.

All of the mess comes from getting from now, to then, without a clusterfuck.

So, there are two main things.

1) Multiple users could easily be solved with respect to third party apps with APIs, and this would not compromise the "sandboxing" because the user verification would take place on Apple's terms.

2) Getting those APIs into every app in a clean way without losing user data is not at all easy, and undoubtedly some apps would have to be overhauled to get them to work with APIs that were not part of the original spec.

 

This is all true and speaks for itself about complexity that is much wider than sheer technical implementation and from my opinion it's not worth it. However, the guest account in simple form, similar to parental controls as @pendergast (I , believe) mentioned to day would be good enough to sovle most of the problems that arise on single user system.

post #150 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Uncanny. But canny nevertheless.

I didn't think anyone would know what the song was! lol.gif

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #151 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I didn't think anyone would know what the song was! lol.gif

Beatles-She Loves You?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #152 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Beatles-She Loves You?

Cat Stevens – I Never Wanted To Be A Star

But does that work? It would be astounding if both had the same syllables in their verses.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #153 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

 

Only mandatory, system closing app data into app domain is sandboxing. only that can assure the user his data cannot be compromised by another app. Sandboxing on mac does handle multiple users and ads a layer of complicity that Apple most probably finds not appropriate for the iOS. And all over again: how will you manage multiple accounts and their opened applications? While this can be obvious on desktop OS's, it makes hell of a differences on mobiles.

 

Android assigns to each app its own UID, and uses unix-style file permissions to prevent apps from accessing each other's data. Does that isolation mechanism not qualify as sandboxing?

 

Also, I don't understand your question about managing opened applications with multiple accounts. Android devices run one app in the foreground at a time. The system tracks the stack of previously opened apps (which are usually suspended) and removes them from memory under memory pressure, sort of like how auto-terminate works on OS X 10.7+. With multiple users, the system just needs to track each user's recent apps separately. Handling multiple users shouldn't impose much overhead, since only one user will be active at a time. Am I overlooking some major detail?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/25/13 at 8:10am
post #154 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Cat Stevens – I Never Wanted To Be A Star

But does that work? It would be astounding if both had the same syllables in their verses.

To be honest I strictly went by the 'yeah yeah' lol
Edited by dasanman69 - 7/25/13 at 7:26am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #155 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

To be honest I strictly went by the 'yeah yeah' lol

I figured.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #156 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I figured.

Oh and your past practice of using Beatles songs.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #157 of 164
Pointless new resolution on such a small tablet. Sinse the IPad mini is a inch bigger, it should hold the same ppi but cover more screen, right only a troubling high resolution causes battery life, proccesing to fail? Apple might release a retina but this want effect, and it will still have the reverse effects.
post #158 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post




The hardware can easily handle it, the Adreno 320 is faster then Power SGX 543 found in the iPhone 5. The lag is probably in Android itself, Qualcomm chip users found that by modifying the GPU conf to reflect this,"ondemand, down_differential 30, up_threshhold 70" greatly increases the speed of the games and overall smoothness of the GUI. That being said, which videos have you seen, the ones I've seen so far showed no such lag.

Early benchmarks are quite impressive.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/the-2013-nexus-7-performance-preview-a-huge-speed-upgrade-in-every-way/

post #159 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Pointless new resolution on such a small tablet. Sinse the IPad mini is a inch bigger, it should hold the same ppi but cover more screen, right only a troubling high resolution causes battery life, proccesing to fail? Apple might release a retina but this want effect, and it will still have the reverse effects.

So an iPhone5 1136×640 screen of 4 inches at 326PPI is not pointless but a Nexus 7 1900x1200 7 inch screen at 323PPI is pointless?

post #160 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by mubaili View Post

i am surprised that Google didn't do a 8 inch one. The 8 inch is much better than 7 inch.

 

I think it depends on what you're looking for.  The 7 inch is much better on portability then 8 inch.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Google refreshes Nexus 7 with twice iPad mini's pixel count, for $100 less
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google refreshes Nexus 7 with twice iPad mini's pixel count, for $100 less