or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Schools lament shortcomings of Apple's iPad as some opt instead for Chromebooks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Schools lament shortcomings of Apple's iPad as some opt instead for Chromebooks - Page 10

post #361 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

In fact... even if you don't have a bloody computer or phone... you could very well be profiled already on the Internet containing a huge amount of info/facts on who you are... including pictures.

That's true, there are lots of companies with access to sensitive data. Internet service providers for people not using encrypted connections have even more access to info because every single piece of data has to pass through their servers before it even gets to Google - this might be the motivation in moving everything to SSL encryption. Banks have huge amounts of data too, all your purchase records. That always gets me when bank employees (especially ones that look like they just finished school) say things like 'ok I'm looking at your bank statements just now' and I'm like I don't even know you but you're trawling through my recent purchases.

There are varying levels of info that people want different companies to have. Private healthcare can know about your intimate surgery but not the bank. The bank can know about the level of debt you have but not an advertising company. Search engines are unique because they're almost mapping your thoughts and activity in a timeline. If you made a parallel in real life of what Google and others are like, it would freak people out.

Imagine that you go out and someone is sat outside your house, they know where you live (equivalent to companies knowing IPs or addresses entered). They see you walking out with your family so they know what everyone looks like (equivalent to matching online activity from multiple people from the same IP and social networks). They follow where you go next and see what shops you go into (equivalent to tracking searches). You go into a store, they can't follow you but they've put promotional stalls in store and they watch what you're doing (equivalent to on-site ads and tracking cookies). You ask advice in store for the best products (equivalent to search or comparison features on sites so they know what products you're interested in). The person can follow where the kids go to school or parents go to work (equivalent to tracking logins or ads again in multiple locations).

If someone did that in real life and compiled that data over a month and then presented it to a family showing all the info that a complete stranger has on them, that would completely freak them out. They might even call the police because it's tantamount to stalking. The only way people aren't freaked out by it online is that people don't know the extent of it. It's the same with the government monitoring. If we hadn't found out, nobody would be talking about it.

But in the end, the objection comes down to perceived harm. Even if you feel uneasy with people knowing things, what's the harm they will do to you, even in the real life example? Google's stance is along the lines of 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear'. It's commendable that Google has operated so long with data on so many people and yet their databases haven't been hacked unlike countless other companies. Nor have they caused widespread harm to all those billions of people. People fear the potential for harm, which is fair enough and people should be more responsible with their data online and hopefully companies won't abuse the data they do get. It's another of those unavoidable conflicts between freedom and security.
post #362 of 386
@Marvin - ... and yet another great post ^^^^^ !

@Relic, @mstone and anyone else interested in new graphic vector software for Mac OSX and ChromeOS, check out Gravit.

Here's from the dev's under construction website:
To Download Gravit for your system and/or view the changelog, please follow this link.
Note that you can also try and run Gravit right in your browser (Use a modern one please) or you can install it for Chrome and Chrome OS.

Please be respectful to the kid and send feedback, this is in Beta.

Story: I was in contact with the dev back during the FreeFreehand days after Adobe had killed FH, and he was just starting a project to replace Freehand with a clone of sorts. I had a number of verbal tussles with other backers and people, specifically because most were hoping and pining for the "clone" of Freehand. I advised against doing anything in the way of a clone, and that any "new" vector software should stake out new ground, re-imagine the tools and GUI, "and look into" being web-based... and/or at the very least built with modern frameworks and coding for the future of design, not yesterday's.

Not claiming that he took even one word of my advise at all... but I'm happy regardless that he's decided to go this route rather than work his butt off on a dead-end software distribution model and code base. The effort and the idea has a ton of merit and potential IMHO.

Note: My allegiance to Macromedia's Freehand is because I also made my living with it since v1 and trained countless others to be able to do the same. It's death was a hard pill to swallow, and I admire the efforts of those that tried to raise it from the dead any way they could. However I'm also a realist and guessed (correctly) that Adobe would make overtures, smiling acquiescence and proclaiming understanding of our pain... but on the ground nothing would happen with it. Also as a realist, I have to make a living and since Photoshop and later Lightroom were in my toolbox with years of usage, I grudgingly picked over Illustrator and became quite proficient at it.

Once I got over my hate that is... and "that's" the lesson I had to learn, that many on these forums should give a try sometime... 1wink.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #363 of 386
I really like Gravit, I've been playing with it for a little while now. This just shows that in a not so distance future, web apps will be just as powerful as their desktop counterparts. A lot of us are confused as to why anyone would want to buy a ChromeBook, it's just a browser. Well sites like this tells us that the internet has a lot more to offer then just porn and cat videos. A ChromeBook can successfully replace most consumer level laptops as these web apps provide most users with everything they need. An iPad is a good alternative as well.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #364 of 386

Regarding privacy. How many of you logged into this web site did so using TAILS (the amnesiac incognito live system)? Just by logging in even using TAILS you have identified yourself in some way. 

 

Chromebooks are great tools. Using one doesn't necessarily mean all of your life will be exposed to Google. You don't need to use their e-mail service. You don't need to use their online word processors or other services. You can use others. The thing is, you will be identifying yourself to whomever you choose for those services. You identify yourself using Mac computers too. 

 

Unless you hack your MAC address, use an anonymizer, encrypt everything before you send it, and never log into sites with any type of identifier, you will be tracked in some way. I'm sure there are ways to remain anonymous on the internet. Using them limits your ability to access and utilize all of the cool stuff on the internet. I honestly don't feel like creating a new false identity every time I want to watch a video or post on a forum somewhere. For now I've got five plug-ins or extensions in my Chromium browser that work to prevent cookies and identifying information to be shared about me. 

 

By the time any of us learned about tracking and how it would allow any agency with the data about our lives to totally create a profile of us, it was too late. All any of us can do now is become invisible. Our habits and preferences are already logged somewhere. All it will take now is for some agency to create a great filtering program to analyse us and poof, we're caught. 

post #365 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I really like Gravit, I've been playing with it for a little while now. This just shows that in a not so distance future, web apps will be just as powerful as their desktop counterparts. A lot of us are confused as to why anyone would want to buy a ChromeBook, it's just a browser. Well sites like this tells us that the internet has a lot more to offer then just porn and cat videos. A ChromeBook can successfully replace most consumer level laptops as these web apps provide most users with everything they need. An iPad is a good alternative as well.

Be sure to give feedback to the dev on how it's working out for you on ChromeOS/Chromebook. No doubt he'll be thankful with your kind of experience to back up your critique.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #366 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

By the time any of us learned about tracking and how it would allow any agency with the data about our lives to totally create a profile of us, it was too late. All any of us can do now is become invisible. Our habits and preferences are already logged somewhere. All it will take now is for some agency to create a great filtering program to analyse us and poof, we're caught.

The main concern people have is not about the lack of privacy but who to trust with what information. Like I said earlier, people have sensitive medical information they wouldn't tell their bank. They'll have financial information they wouldn't tell their doctor and so on. There are companies whose business model is to monetize data and those include Google and Facebook. Apple has a different business model - they charge more for hardware.

About 90% of Apple's revenue is from hardware sales, 10% is accessories, software and iTunes. iAds might be in that 10% somewhere.
At least 91% of Google's revenue is from monetizing data / advertising.
At least 88% of Facebook's revenue is from monetizing data / advertising.

You don't have to use Google services when you get a Chrome or Android device but that's what their business model is counting on you doing and it's working. Some people prefer to go with companies that don't have a motive to monetize your data. If you choose to use Google services anyway, you could well be in the same situation but you aren't coerced into using Google services the same way nor to the same extent. You don't have to use unified logins that are used for tracking to download apps for example.

Some people think that monetizing data is always a bad thing but it can be done ethically. If you are looking for something to buy and Google or Facebook tracks your search and simply gives you a deal, then that's what you were looking for anyway so no harm done. If they are building up a profile and comparing it to similar profiles with buying trends and recommending products you aren't looking for, that's getting a bit more invasive. If, like Facebook, they are profiling your real life connections and suggesting things based on that like gift ideas then for some that might be a step too far. It's often forgotten about but Google has a social network too with half a billion users:

https://plus.google.com/+GooglePlusDaily/posts/YZFan2kQh7h

They don't seem very active though, which makes you wonder why they signed up the accounts. I imagine it'll have something to do with Android adoption. Google wants that social media data and that puts them in competition with companies with the same business model.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8510738/Facebook-confesses-to-Google-smear-bid.html

Google tried to buy them in the past:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-companies-that-tried-to-buy-facebook-2014-3

"It wasn't long before "a couple of Google executives came over to see if there might be a way to work with or even buy TheFacebook," Kirkpatrick reports in "The Facebook Effect."

The meeting didn't go anywhere, but the issue rose again in the fall of 2007. Google's top ad salesman, Tim Armstrong, convinced the company's board to let him pursue a deal in which Google would serve Facebook's international ads.

"The board even approved talks about buying [Facebook], if it made sense," writes Kirkpatrick. Google never got the deal, but its offer to invest in Facebook at a $15 billion valuation reshaped Mark Zuckerberg's company forever."

Microsoft tried to buy them too. Some people wouldn't trust Facebook at all but would trust the companies that tried to buy them who would have operated it the same way because they have the same motive - to monetize data.
post #367 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The main concern people have is not about the lack of privacy but who to trust with what information..

Excellent all-around posts Marvin and to be honest I do share some of your privacy concerns. Thus my use of Ghostery, specific Facebook blockers and "guest browsing" on my Chromebook for sensitive searches. Curious to get your input on a couple of specifics.

Facebook seems much more aggressive than Google in facial recognition and friendships to associate "you" with places and events where you would not have expected to be followed. What leads you to believe Google would have taken the same route had they purchased Facebook some years ago? Google pointedly blocks facial recognition in Glass and even their "Find my Face" feature on Google+ is significantly more privacy friendly and requires much more in the way of permissions than Facebook does. I'll concede too that Google's previous FTC interactions might help Google be more cognizant of privacy issues than Facebook has shown.

Secondly what about Google's stored profiles and how they're used concerns you or should concern others? Is something being done with that data other than enabling "better"advertising? Is it perhaps more the possibility that someday Google might change hands or some other very significant thing happen to open your information to other uses, but there's little if anything to factually be fearful of now?

Unlike true data-monetizers like Acxiom or Experian or even some State and Federal agencies I can't see how anything Google has in your personal portfolio could have any effect on any part of your life other than the types of ads you see. They can't hurt your credit score, impact your employment possibilities, cause your insurance rates to rise/fall, affect your access to medical care or negatively impact your finances (unlike Acxiom or Experian) unless they're doing something you know of that I've not happened to read about.

Third, what do you see as a viable alternative to advertising revenue to make sites like AI possible or pay for good dependable search engines and thus perhaps avoid personal data collection and tracking.

FWIW my own personal privacy efforts are simply to take back a bit of my on-line life. I've had an instance of something I'd said elsewhere(college sports related) leading to a bit of stalker-ish behavior from an unfriendly who got a little too close and aggressive for my comfort. In any event I'm now a little more careful of what I share on-line, but my fear isn't due to Google specifically. The details could have been found almost as easily with Bing or DuckDuckGo. Add to that keeping research on a potential issue from possibly affecting a pending insurance policy change, and where I can say with complete confidence I don't worry about Google being the one to reveal it by sharing my personal search details with the insurer.
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/10/14 at 4:47pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #368 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Facebook seems much more aggressive than Google in facial recognition and friendships to associate "you" with places and events where you would not have expected to be followed. What leads you to believe Google would have taken the same route had they purchased Facebook some years ago?

Referring to the companies as singular entities as though they each have a singular persona is the only way to be concise in discussions but this isn't how they operate. These are companies with many thousands of employees. The role of the employees is to maximize the chosen business model. Facebook and Google have the same business model. I wouldn't expect every decision made by each company's employees to be the same but if Google had bought Facebook, I'd assume they'd hire the Facebook employees who would make largely the same decisions they have made while at Facebook because they are making those decisions to get the best return on the same business model.

Google's social media presence is weak, their strength is in search. Facebook doesn't deal with search, they are all about social media. If Google had bought Facebook, I'd expect them to be as strong in social media as Facebook is now and that would have a different set of decisions than they make when it comes to search. You can only really determine what would happen for sure after it happens. This is not exclusive to Google either, if Microsoft or Apple had bought Facebook, I'd expect some of the same things but in those instances, they don't have the same motive as their primary revenue streams are from hardware/software. They could easily remove all 3rd party advertising from the social networks and simply advertise their own brand. Apple could actually turn iMessage into a social network (if they made it platform-independent).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Secondly what about Google's stored profiles and how they're used concerns you or should concern others? Is something being done with that data other than enabling "better"advertising? Is it perhaps more the possibility that someday Google might change hands or some other very significant thing happen to open your information to other uses, but there's little if anything to factually be fearful of now?

Unlike true data-monetizers like Acxiom or Experian or even some State and Federal agencies I can't see how anything Google has in your personal portfolio could have any effect on any part of your life other than the types of ads you see. They can't hurt your credit score, impact your employment possibilities, cause your insurance rates to rise/fall, affect your access to medical care or negatively impact your finances (unlike Acxiom or Experian) unless they're doing something you know of that I've not happened to read about.

Google's present and past use of the data doesn't particularly concern me but I think the real world parallel I posted earlier is a reason why people would feel uncomfortable with it. If Google did in real life what they do online, they would surely be labelled as stalkers. In the real world, Google and others would get a restraining order. When it comes to online activity, users are volunteering the information but partly because what goes on behind the scenes is unknown. In the real world, it's harder to do that invisible tracking. It's comforting to think that Google only uses our data vaguely for ads but are they obliged to stick to that and are they transparent about exactly the processes the data is going through?

Google's storage of data is concerning for the future if it ever did get hacked somehow. This has happened to huge companies. Imagine that every search term anyone ever typed into a search engine was leaked along with a vague profile that could be used to identify individuals. The people in Pakistan would absolutely feel right to be worried:



It's also what can be implied from the data. There was a case here where police used search engine queries to reach the wrong conclusion about a criminal case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283673/Did-acid-attack-girl-Police-probe-Victorias-Secret-worker-seize-laptop.html

They assumed that the girl had been searching for acid attack stories and poured acid on herself for attention when in fact she was attacked by someone she'd considered a close friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Third, what do you see as a viable alternative to advertising revenue to make sites like AI possible or pay for good dependable search engines and thus perhaps avoid personal data collection and tracking.

I think the app/IAP model has proven itself to be a viable alternative to advertising. AI has a subscription app:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/appleinsider/id578462575?mt=8

When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.

Advertising could do with being regulated the way that TV advertising is. These ads about getting ripped in 4 weeks or Google paying someone x amount per hour would never be allowed on TV. Online tracking should also be treated the same way offline tracking would be.
post #369 of 386

Hahahaha. Yessssss! It is you!

 

Well that made my day.  Like I said I am not around a whole lot but I will try to make an effort to come around more often now.

 

Keep on keepin' on Relic!

post #370 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

[video[

1. Lol at that video. Funny song to boot.
Quote:
AI has a subscription app:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/appleinsider/id578462575?mt=8

When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.

I got the app. I paid for the subscription. The app only shows the first 10 comments. Comments are what I come for when visiting this site. And I do that almost daily. But I can't reply to the comments in the app, I can't even properly read them as there is no indented quoting, no font size adjustment, no hyperlinks, no option to quote, post, or whatever. Just to read the first 10 posts. The app is not for me.



The app is done somewhat nicely but sorely lacks of making it usable. It does do what it's advertised to do: reading the site without seeing any ads.. Truth be told, I never see the ads, due to ad blocking and always going straight to the forum, not the homepage.

But I do get the point of advertising. Seen a lot over my lifetime, but never actually bought something because I remembered the ad while shopping. Do people actually remember ads to begin with? Or is it all marketing, all needed to get the name of the brand out?

Even if I see a 'Google page' and it has an ad of a product I might want to learn about I simply copy/paste the URL or type in the domain name myself, just so the advertiser doesn't have to pay for the ad. I'm pathetic, aren't I?
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #371 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

[video[

1. Lol at that video. Funny song to boot.
Quote:
AI has a subscription app:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/appleinsider/id578462575?mt=8

When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.

I got the app. I paid for the subscription. The app only shows the first 10 comments. Comments are what I come for when visiting this site. And I do that almost daily. But I can't reply to the comments in the app, I can't even properly read them as there is no indented quoting, no font size adjustment, no hyperlinks, no option to quote, post, or whatever. Just to read the first 10 posts. The app is not for me.



The app is done somewhat nicely but sorely lacks of making it usable. It does do what it's advertised to do: reading the site without seeing any ads.. Truth be told, I never see the ads, due to ad blocking and always going straight to the forum, not the homepage.

But I do get the point of advertising. Seen a lot over my lifetime, but never actually bought something because I remembered the ad while shopping. Do people actually remember ads to begin with? Or is it all marketing, all needed to get the name of the brand out?

Even if I see a 'Google page' and it has an ad of a product I might want to learn about I simply copy/paste the URL or type in the domain name myself, just so the advertiser doesn't have to pay for the ad. I'm pathetic, aren't I?

 

I do exactly what you do with relation to ads, albeit with Yahoo!

 

Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #372 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.

I think we're ut of luck here: the app is at version 1.1, last update was from Jan 20, 2014 but the issues from buyers hadn't been addressed. Might explain the 6 up and 42 down votes

I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #373 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.

I think we're ut of luck here: the app is at version 1.1, last update was from Jan 20, 2014 but the issues from buyers hadn't been addressed. Might explain the 6 up and 42 down votes

 

 

I like your signature.

 

Perhaps they just don't have the money. 

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #374 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

When was the last time you were offline though, really?

When it really matters. Usually when I'm offline it's due to some sort of event when I really need my data the most. Sure it doesn't happen that often, but as they say all it take is one time when it really matters.

Assuming you are always going to have Internet is simply being delusional. I suppose if you are completely casual user and not being able to rely on getting to your apps or data at all times doesn't really matter then go for it. But as they say, crap happens. For critical data and applications, I will always have it local - thank you very much.

Just because some college kids slapped a cute label of cloud on something has caused people to completely loose their minds and embrace the modern equivalent of dumb terminals wedded to central computers - otherwise known as mainframes. Oh how the wheel has turned 1tongue.gif

And I love all the solutions for your Chromebook and offline - installing another OS? Doesn't that negate the whole premise of the Chromebook? That you even suggest it speaks volume about the entire premise.

I'll take an iPad over a Chromebook any day - thanks.
post #375 of 386
Photoshop for Chromebooks?

I found this pretty surprising: Adobe is bringing Photoshop Creative Cloud to Chromebooks.
http://chrome.blogspot.ca/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #376 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Photoshop for Chromebooks?

I found this pretty surprising: Adobe is bringing Photoshop Creative Cloud to Chromebooks.
http://chrome.blogspot.ca/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html

I'm not surprised and Adobe needs to be in this space.

There's a number of rather able web apps on the market already, Pixlr from Autodesk and Pics.io RAW editing com to mind.

There's also Magisto and WeVideo for web app video editing.

A lot of people don't like it... and say they'll never go subscription or cloud-based. But the old method isn't coming back, and I don't expect it to advance as fast as web-based and web-aware apps are currently. Actually because these web apps must be built almost from the ground up, they're far more efficient and probably more future-friendly than the old code bases are. Just my opinion and guess.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #377 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Photoshop for Chromebooks?

I found this pretty surprising: Adobe is bringing Photoshop Creative Cloud to Chromebooks.
http://chrome.blogspot.ca/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html

Why, I actually said this was going to happen a couple of times here. They were using Photoshop Express as a test bed. The ChromeBook is very quickly becoming a viable solution for those who don't want to mess around with OS's. This is truly plug'n play. I know they're a hard sell around here but those who have one really dig them and the amount of new models that have been released or are about to be is pretty substantial. There is no need for me to update my Pixel right now but I will defiantly be picking up a new ChromeBook once they start using Nvidia's new K1 64bit Denver chip. There are already a few with the 32bit variant but now that ChromeOS has gone 64bit we should be seeing a Denver model fairly soon. That sounds like an interesting platform to play around with, if not to just use it as an Arch Linux machine, mmmm ARM Linux. That and the K1 32bit is getting 14 hours of battery life when used in conjunction with ChromeOS. There are also a whole lot of new features that are about to dropped on the platform like being able to run Android apps, it can already run a few but that's just for testing purposes, the new update will allow pretty much the entire Android library to be used on a Chrome OS device, that's cool.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #378 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Photoshop for Chromebooks?

I found this pretty surprising: Adobe is bringing Photoshop Creative Cloud to Chromebooks.
http://chrome.blogspot.ca/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html

It's just streaming for now. You can do anything with streaming:



There's sometimes lag though and saving things to the cloud directly is slow. If your network goes out, it interrupts what you're doing. It's better than not having access to the apps at all of course but I'd take native Photoshop over server-based. I don't want my naked photoshopped selfies on a server somewhere (not the originals anyway).
post #379 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's just streaming for now. You can do anything with streaming:

There's sometimes lag though and saving things to the cloud directly is slow. If your network goes out, it interrupts what you're doing. It's better than not having access to the apps at all of course but I'd take native Photoshop over server-based. I don't want my naked photoshopped selfies on a server somewhere (not the originals anyway).

I'm not yet sold on Creative Cloud (sticking with 6 for awhile longer) myself but don't your files get stored "in the cloud" by default even on the desktop with the same interruptions if you lose your data connection? Not entirely sure as I've not been interested enough to spend much time looking at it.

Anyway like you (I assume) I don't think keeping essential/original docs only in a cloud account to be wise.

EDIT: and for reasons like this
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182570/latest-ios-8-bug-reportedly-causes-unwanted-deletion-of-icloud-drive-documents#post_2609730

Good timing.
Edited by Gatorguy - 9/29/14 at 4:23pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #380 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not yet sold on Creative Cloud (sticking with 6 for awhile longer) myself but don't your files get stored "in the cloud" by default even on the desktop with the same interruptions if you lose your data connection? Not entirely sure as I've not been interested enough to spend much time looking at it.

Nope, that would be crazy as it would mean uploading hundreds of MBs on every save for large files. Working with video would be impossible. It works the same as before. Cloud storage is for file syncing and online viewing:

post #381 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Nope, that would be crazy ]

Well crazy doesn't mean Adobe wouldn't do it. 1wink.gif Thanks Marvin.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #382 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Nope, that would be crazy as it would mean uploading hundreds of MBs on every save for large files. Working with video would be impossible. It works the same as before. Cloud storage is for file syncing and online viewing:


Your talking as if you have a slow connection, I upload 2GB plus files all the time to Adobe Cloud, takes like 6 minutes, Adobe Cloud also comes with storage and I'm sure they'll increase that size and offer more space at a reasonable price. What you're also missing here is server side processing, encoding or processing effects might take seconds where it would take say your MacBook 10 minutes to do for the same file. I for one see a huge cut in compiling times when I use my cloud IDEs, even when I get the dialog box that says our servers are currently being utilized by a large amount of users, compiling times might be affected, it's still at least 4 times faster then if I was doing it locally on my MacBook Air. So even if I had a local copy of Premiere I would still want to use their servers to encode. I'm sure there will be some people who would want to use this service, check out Pixrl's web app online, it's very similar to PhotoShop, and it will give you an idea of what it would be like with Adobe's offering, after you check it out, it's not bad is it?

This solution will probably not fly with graphic houses but for the pro-sumer and if Adobe offers this all cloud solution for half of what they charge for the installed version I could see it become fairly popular.
Edited by Relic - 9/30/14 at 2:52am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #383 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I upload 2GB plus files all the time to Adobe Cloud, takes like 6 minutes

I save 2GB files to my SSD, takes like 5 seconds. What's the point in moving to SSDs if you push things through a few MB/s upload? 1Gbit/s uploads are needed to replace local usage for heavy data apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

What you're also missing here is server side processing, encoding or processing effects might take seconds where it would take say your MacBook 10 minutes to do for the same file. I for one see a huge cut in compiling times when I use my cloud IDEs, even when I get the dialog box that says our servers are currently being utilized by a large amount of users, compiling times might be affected, it's still at least 4 times faster then if I was doing it locally on my MacBook Air. So even if I had a local copy of Premiere I would still want to use their servers to encode.

With Premiere, you could have 100GB of source footage. It doesn't matter if it's faster to encode an hour of footage if it takes 5 hours to upload it first. Images are small but so are the processing requirements.

For code compilation, that's a decent usage for cloud services as the files are very small but that's not Photoshop we're talking about. Creative software works better offline.
post #384 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I save 2GB files to my SSD, takes like 5 sehiuses What's the point in moving to SSDs if you push things through a few MB/s upload?dodon't it/s uploads are needed to replace local usage for heavy data apps.
With Premiere, you could have 100GB of source footage. It doesn't matter if it's faster to encode an hour of footage if it takes 5 hours to upload it Images are small but so are the processing requirements.

For code compilation, that's a decent usage for cloud services as the files are very small but that's not Photoshop we're talking about. Creative software works better offline.

That's why I put in the cover me claus in my last post, probably not a good idea for graphic houses that are pushing large amounts of data through their software but for those who don't use Creative Cloud as their source of income might be more inclined to go with this solution if it means paying less for it, I know I would. I just use PhotoShop to touch up my photos and Premiere to cut home movies, I dont see a problem with at least trying it out. I'm intrigued.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #385 of 386
I don't know how accurate this article is, it claims that ChromeBooks now secure 50% of the educational market. Even if it was only 30%, that's still pretty impressive. Apple may want to think about releasing a special education version of the iPad, maybe use the same plastic material as the iPhone 5c and even though the new IPad will have an A8, keep using the A7 for this special version to keep the price as low as possible and definitely also include a keyboard dock.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #386 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

I don't know how accurate this article is, it claims that ChromeBooks now secure 50% of the educational market. Even if it was only 30%, that's still pretty impressive. Apple may want to think about releasing a special education version of the iPad, maybe use the same plastic material as the iPhone 5c and even though the new IPad will have an A8, keep using the A7 for this special version to keep the price as low as possible and definitely also include a keyboard dock.

It was Sundar Pichai, a Google SVP that said that here at 2:13:50, 'probably nearing 50% of the education market over the last 18 months':



Direct education purchases are quite small overall. According to the same site above, Chromebooks only account for 4.5% of PCs in the back-to-school period (not all necessarily purchases for students of course):

http://www.omgchrome.com/chromebook-sales-37-percent-back-school-2014/

According to Gartner, as much as 85% of total Chromebook sales are education purchases:

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819917

So if they made a 45% share and that's 85% of 5.2m units, that means the entire US education market would be just under 10m units. Apple sells over 70m iPads in a year and sold 10m to schools worldwide (at least 4.5m to the US) and they'll have sold some Macs to them too:

https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/06/19Apple-Awarded-30-Million-iPad-Deal-From-LA-Unified-School-District.html

I don't think they need to compromise the iPad design for such a small market. Older students work faster with a keyboard and mouse so they need to use laptops. Younger students (under 10 years old) would be engaged better with iPads than laptops.

I'd never write a long document on an iPad because of the need to jump between apps like a browser so much for reference. All that zooming in and out would get annoying and copy/paste would be frustrating and slow. The iPad is great if you primarily stick to one app. A split screen might help a bit (very useful for referencing) but there really just needs to be a way to instantly jump from one app to another the way the Dock works in OS X.

Maybe an Exposé view or something but it can just be a shortlist of recently used apps and not every app that's listed as being open. I can switch an app in under 1 second in OS X, that needs to be the same in iOS. Something like 3 finger swipe left or swipe in from the right moves the apps into a stack like a fanned out deck of cards (it can mainly just be vertical splits showing a portion of each UI but with a shadow). It would show a maximum of say 5 on a small screen and you'd be able to scroll left for more. Tapping one just moves the others out the way. The portion of the UI shown of each app would be wherever the crop was based on its position in the stack (this helps muscle memory) so when you select it, there's no translation needed, the other cards can just fade out and enabling it would be a fade-in. Like this:



Copy/paste could be faster too:



Tap-hold to bring up the selector, drag the handles and then click to copy all while the popup obscures the text. The menu would probably be better out of the way. You can see how at 1:56 he tries to drag over an area and the selector automatically tries to snap to the whole paragraph and then changes its mind and so he tries to select the top again and the menu is in the way so he misses out the top line. Android used to be terrible but has at least improved the menu by moving it out the way but it uses the same kind of selectors.

The way to work like a mouse would be to have your finger act as a marker and not have a selector box keeping changing as you move it. The iOS one changes between text selection and a box. You'd have a quick access toolbox that you'd enable a copy action and you'd just drag your finger over anything like a magic marker:



This allows you to put breaks in between selections. Because single fingers are used for scrolling, it might be best to have either double finger scroll while single finger selects or there can be a corner icon that has to be enabled that switches to selection mode. You'd hardly ever select partial words so by default, it would select entire words. Pictures would be selected just by tapping them.

When it comes to text input, I don't think a keyboard is needed but there should be a new way to input text without a virtual keyboard taking up a significant part of the screen. It shouldn't need more than a single line of gesture input on say a smart cover to get a full keyboard. Even just one section of the smart cover would be enough. There are things like laser keyboards:



but I prefer things like the following:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Schools lament shortcomings of Apple's iPad as some opt instead for Chromebooks
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Schools lament shortcomings of Apple's iPad as some opt instead for Chromebooks