I think that Gates represents a big segment of the tech nerd set but a small segment of the overall population. The tech nerds look at the iPad's tech specs, not at the whole device. They go down the spec sheet and see a bunch of components and features that are already available in other products (though not necessarily all in the same product, which is kind of the point), and so they are not impressed. They can't see the whole thing and they can't see how other non-tech geeks will see it.
Agreed. Like Burroughs before it (well Alan Kay was a student of Bob Barton), Apple looks at the interplay of software with hardware to make something that is useful. The geeks simply never get it - but their arguments have thus far been very persuasive in a naive market. The market is not so computer naive anymore so is wising up to these idiots.
Gates didn't develop DOS - that was Seattle Computer Systems - all Gates did was buy their QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) for $50,000 to fool IBM he had something. The last 30 years of inanity in this industry result from that deal (the previous 50 years of inanity were due to IBM).
Not really. This story has been explained here in more detail and more accurately several times already.
This machine really isnt for corprate otherwise you would get a stylus. If they do get exchange then that could make a difference. If the Courier is real and not vapor and is msft only and not oem, then this would have a Aegean impact.
forget stylus. styli are history. obsolete 20th century stuff. i can't believe how many people here really still think otherwise. i realize it worked for you and you like them. but it's over. like Classic Rock is over. that still works for me too. but it's over. really over.
smart pens. check out smart pens. with blutooth link to iPad? that is the 21st century version of the idea. more powerful, more versatile. finer control.
forget stylus. styli are history. obsolete 20th century stuff. i can't believe how many people here really still think otherwise. i realize it worked for you and you like them. but it's over. like Classic Rock is over. that still works for me too. but it's over. really over.
smart pens. check out smart pens. with blutooth link to iPad? that is the 21st century version of the idea. more powerful, more versatile. finer control.
The stylus a tool you hold in your hand for finer writing and drawing is far from obsolete. I can she how smartpens will have a market, but one could save paper and the extra step of uploading by writing or drawing directly on a tablet computer.
For the main user input your fingers are ideal, but for finder controls on a tablet a stylus would be very helpful. I can think of a half dozen professional uses that a smartpen or chubby fingers can't match.
The stylus a tool you hold in your hand for finer writing and drawing is far from obsolete. I can she how smartpens will have a market, but one could save paper and the extra step of uploading by writing or drawing directly on a tablet computer.
For the main user input your fingers are ideal, but for finder controls on a tablet a stylus would be very helpful. I can think of a half dozen professional uses that a smartpen or chubby fingers can't match.
Likewise, a stylus for capacitance touchscreens, like the Pogo Sketch, doesn't have anywhere near the resolution required for handwriting input or detailed drawing a la Wacom. It's basically a fat finger made a little less fat (and the thinner it get the less accurate it behaves).
Until we have a capacitance touchscreen with equal-to or higher-than pixel resolution, Apple touchscreen devices will NOT use a stylus.
Likewise, a stylus for capacitance touchscreens, like the Pogo Sketch, doesn't have anywhere near the resolution required for handwriting input or detailed drawing a la Wacom. It's basically a fat finger made a little less fat (and the thinner it get the less accurate it behaves).
Until we have a capacitance touchscreen with equal-to or higher-than pixel resolution, Apple touchscreen devices will NOT use a stylus.
One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad. Since they didn't demo these "killer features" it's safe to say the technology does not exist. Eventually it will and I will be ready... assuming I'm still alive.
One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad. Since they didn't demo these "killer features" it's safe to say the technology does not exist. Eventually it will and I will be ready... assuming I'm still alive.
As it is I think there's one touch sensor for every five pixels on the iPhone/iPod Touch. I would be totally surprised if the iPad is any different. I wonder what's the difficulty in increasing the sensor density.
As it is I think there's one touch sensor for every five pixels on the iPhone/iPod Touch. I would be totally surprised if the iPad is any different. I wonder what's the difficulty in increasing the sensor density.
I hope it's not like display resolutions getting lower pixel density as they get larger.
Any idea if the iPhone's superiority in this area over other smartphones is from the HW, driver, and/or OS?
To explain this a little better, I've whipped up a few images...
First is an iPhone:
Following is the touchgrid overlay (you can see this on a real iPhone if you look carefully under the right lighting conditions):
The touchscreen senses the varying electrical field at each of the intersections in the grid.
Here is your fingerprint as you touch the screen:
And here is how the iPhone sees your touch:
Finally, the iPhone interpolates that data to predict the exact pixel in the center of contact:
This interpolation is where the iPhone is superior to other devices, which likely have the exact same sensor grid density as the iPhone. The interpolation can include centering as well as prediction for better accuracy. It looks as though all the other devices shown completely lack prediction in their algorithm, and the Moto Droid either has a lower density sensor grid, or a poor centering algorithm.
You can understand that as you touch harder, more sensors are activated, so the center of contact is easier to predict, which is why under heavy pressure, other devices work nearly as well as the iPhone.
You can also see why with a stylus, very few sensors are activated, which results in a stairstep effect, even with the superior targeting algorithm of the iPhone.
With a lot more work, the touch of the stylus can be illustrated as well, the effect of different finger pressure can be shown, multitouch can be demonstrated, and the whole example could be animated. But I'm not going to take the time to do all that. As it is, I've wasted far too much time of my holiday doing these images.
The point is, that as the density of the touchgrid increases, the contact area required in order to provide a large enough sample for accurate targeting decreases, making stilii more viable.
You can understand that as you touch harder, more sensors are activated, so the center of contact is easier to predict, which is why under heavy pressure, other devices work nearly as well as the iPhone.
You can also see why with a stylus, very few sensors are activated, which results in a stairstep effect, even with the superior targeting algorithm of the iPhone.
With a lot more work, the touch of the stylus can be illustrated as well, the effect of different finger pressure can be shown, and the whole example could be animated. But I'm not going to take the time to do all that. As it is, I've wasted far too much time of my holiday doing these images.
I appreciate the images. I hope the technology for finer accuracy comes sooner rather than later.
Other than being a niche accessory, and owning the Patents to batterieless pens, there must be a reason why Wacom Cintiq tablets cost a fortune. Just sayin'.
forget stylus. styli are history. obsolete 20th century stuff. i can't believe how many people here really still think otherwise. i realize it worked for you and you like them. but it's over. like Classic Rock is over. that still works for me too. but it's over. really over.
smart pens. check out smart pens. with blutooth link to iPad? that is the 21st century version of the idea. more powerful, more versatile. finer control.
Is the resolution as good as a stylus on a resistive touchpad? Do you get pixel by pixel control? Are the bluetooth pens good for fine drawing?
One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad. Since they didn't demo these "killer features" it's safe to say thehttp://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=4078 technology does not exist. Eventually it will and I will be ready... assuming I'm still alive.
Two points:
The technology already exists to do what you want, and has existed since the early to mid 1990's. Apple has chosen to use different technology, which has some advantages and some disadvantages in comparison.
New technology has been discovered just in the last few weeks, which uses quantum tunneling to allow pressure sensitive touchpads. See for example
The technology already exists to do what you want, and has existed since the early to mid 1990's. Apple has chosen to use different technology, which has some advantages and some disadvantages in comparison.
New technology has been discovered just in the last few weeks, which uses quantum tunneling to allow pressure sensitive touchpads. See for example
The point is, that as the density of the touchgrid increases, the contact area required in order to provide a large enough sample for accurate targeting decreases, making stilii more viable.
Excellent post!
So what is currently bounding the upper limit of density for these touchscreens? Cost? Fabrication challenges? Something else?
First you say it's existed for 2 decades followed by a comment how it was just discovered.
My comment is not about Wacom but specifically a multitouch LCD display.
No - the first point is that resistive touchscreens, which allow what you want, have been around for awhile. For better or worse, Apple chose differerent technology.
The second point was about the new technology. I considered numbering the two points, but I thought my meaning was clear enough.
So what is currently bounding the upper limit of density for these touchscreens? Cost? Fabrication challenges? Something else?
As tonton noted, you can see the touchpanel grid under certain light. A higher density panel would effect the quality of image of the LCD unless we get a more invisible capacitance touch film. There are other potential options, like placing it behind the LCD or melding it with the glass on top, which could add more buttons off screens, but those seem less feasible to me.
I don't think we'll see the true potential of the tablet until it can truly mirror writing and drawing with fine stylus in hand.
As tonton noted, you can see the touchpanel grid under certain light. A higher density panel would effect the quality of image of the LCD unless we get a more invisible capacitance touch film. There are other options, like placing it behind the LCD or melding it with the glass on top, which could add more buttons off screens, but those seem like feasible to me.
Comments
I think that Gates represents a big segment of the tech nerd set but a small segment of the overall population. The tech nerds look at the iPad's tech specs, not at the whole device. They go down the spec sheet and see a bunch of components and features that are already available in other products (though not necessarily all in the same product, which is kind of the point), and so they are not impressed. They can't see the whole thing and they can't see how other non-tech geeks will see it.
Agreed. Like Burroughs before it (well Alan Kay was a student of Bob Barton), Apple looks at the interplay of software with hardware to make something that is useful. The geeks simply never get it - but their arguments have thus far been very persuasive in a naive market. The market is not so computer naive anymore so is wising up to these idiots.
Gates didn't develop DOS - that was Seattle Computer Systems - all Gates did was buy their QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) for $50,000 to fool IBM he had something. The last 30 years of inanity in this industry result from that deal (the previous 50 years of inanity were due to IBM).
Not really. This story has been explained here in more detail and more accurately several times already.
This machine really isnt for corprate otherwise you would get a stylus. If they do get exchange then that could make a difference. If the Courier is real and not vapor and is msft only and not oem, then this would have a Aegean impact.
forget stylus. styli are history. obsolete 20th century stuff. i can't believe how many people here really still think otherwise. i realize it worked for you and you like them. but it's over. like Classic Rock is over. that still works for me too. but it's over. really over.
smart pens. check out smart pens. with blutooth link to iPad? that is the 21st century version of the idea. more powerful, more versatile. finer control.
forget stylus. styli are history. obsolete 20th century stuff. i can't believe how many people here really still think otherwise. i realize it worked for you and you like them. but it's over. like Classic Rock is over. that still works for me too. but it's over. really over.
smart pens. check out smart pens. with blutooth link to iPad? that is the 21st century version of the idea. more powerful, more versatile. finer control.
The stylus a tool you hold in your hand for finer writing and drawing is far from obsolete. I can she how smartpens will have a market, but one could save paper and the extra step of uploading by writing or drawing directly on a tablet computer.
For the main user input your fingers are ideal, but for finder controls on a tablet a stylus would be very helpful. I can think of a half dozen professional uses that a smartpen or chubby fingers can't match.
The stylus a tool you hold in your hand for finer writing and drawing is far from obsolete. I can she how smartpens will have a market, but one could save paper and the extra step of uploading by writing or drawing directly on a tablet computer.
For the main user input your fingers are ideal, but for finder controls on a tablet a stylus would be very helpful. I can think of a half dozen professional uses that a smartpen or chubby fingers can't match.
Likewise, a stylus for capacitance touchscreens, like the Pogo Sketch, doesn't have anywhere near the resolution required for handwriting input or detailed drawing a la Wacom. It's basically a fat finger made a little less fat (and the thinner it get the less accurate it behaves).
Until we have a capacitance touchscreen with equal-to or higher-than pixel resolution, Apple touchscreen devices will NOT use a stylus.
Likewise, a stylus for capacitance touchscreens, like the Pogo Sketch, doesn't have anywhere near the resolution required for handwriting input or detailed drawing a la Wacom. It's basically a fat finger made a little less fat (and the thinner it get the less accurate it behaves).
Until we have a capacitance touchscreen with equal-to or higher-than pixel resolution, Apple touchscreen devices will NOT use a stylus.
One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad. Since they didn't demo these "killer features" it's safe to say the technology does not exist. Eventually it will and I will be ready... assuming I'm still alive.
One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad. Since they didn't demo these "killer features" it's safe to say the technology does not exist. Eventually it will and I will be ready... assuming I'm still alive.
As it is I think there's one touch sensor for every five pixels on the iPhone/iPod Touch. I would be totally surprised if the iPad is any different. I wonder what's the difficulty in increasing the sensor density.
As it is I think there's one touch sensor for every five pixels on the iPhone/iPod Touch. I would be totally surprised if the iPad is any different. I wonder what's the difficulty in increasing the sensor density.
I hope it's not like display resolutions getting lower pixel density as they get larger.
Any idea if the iPhone's superiority in this area over other smartphones is from the HW, driver, and/or OS?
I hope it's not like display resolutions getting lower pixel density as they get larger.
Any idea if the iPhone's superiority in this area over other smartphones is from the HW, driver, and/or OS?
The iPhone has a better targeting algorithm.
First is an iPhone:
Following is the touchgrid overlay (you can see this on a real iPhone if you look carefully under the right lighting conditions):
The touchscreen senses the varying electrical field at each of the intersections in the grid.
Here is your fingerprint as you touch the screen:
And here is how the iPhone sees your touch:
Finally, the iPhone interpolates that data to predict the exact pixel in the center of contact:
This interpolation is where the iPhone is superior to other devices, which likely have the exact same sensor grid density as the iPhone. The interpolation can include centering as well as prediction for better accuracy. It looks as though all the other devices shown completely lack prediction in their algorithm, and the Moto Droid either has a lower density sensor grid, or a poor centering algorithm.
You can understand that as you touch harder, more sensors are activated, so the center of contact is easier to predict, which is why under heavy pressure, other devices work nearly as well as the iPhone.
You can also see why with a stylus, very few sensors are activated, which results in a stairstep effect, even with the superior targeting algorithm of the iPhone.
With a lot more work, the touch of the stylus can be illustrated as well, the effect of different finger pressure can be shown, multitouch can be demonstrated, and the whole example could be animated. But I'm not going to take the time to do all that. As it is, I've wasted far too much time of my holiday doing these images.
The point is, that as the density of the touchgrid increases, the contact area required in order to provide a large enough sample for accurate targeting decreases, making stilii more viable.
To explain this a little better, I've whipped up a few images...
First is an iPhone:
image: ]http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/touch1.jpg
Following is the touchgrid overlay (you can see this on a real iPhone if you look carefully under the right lighting conditions):
image: http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/touch2.jpg
Here is your fingerprint as you touch the screen:
image: http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/touch3.jpg
And here is how the iPhone sees your touch:
image: http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/touch4.jpg
Finally, the iPhone interpolates that data to predict the exact pixel in the center of contact:
image: http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/touch5.jpg
You can understand that as you touch harder, more sensors are activated, so the center of contact is easier to predict, which is why under heavy pressure, other devices work nearly as well as the iPhone.
You can also see why with a stylus, very few sensors are activated, which results in a stairstep effect, even with the superior targeting algorithm of the iPhone.
With a lot more work, the touch of the stylus can be illustrated as well, the effect of different finger pressure can be shown, and the whole example could be animated. But I'm not going to take the time to do all that. As it is, I've wasted far too much time of my holiday doing these images.
I appreciate the images. I hope the technology for finer accuracy comes sooner rather than later.
Zillions of them. Try Office for starters.
I like Office 2010 Beta. A lot.
forget stylus. styli are history. obsolete 20th century stuff. i can't believe how many people here really still think otherwise. i realize it worked for you and you like them. but it's over. like Classic Rock is over. that still works for me too. but it's over. really over.
smart pens. check out smart pens. with blutooth link to iPad? that is the 21st century version of the idea. more powerful, more versatile. finer control.
Is the resolution as good as a stylus on a resistive touchpad? Do you get pixel by pixel control? Are the bluetooth pens good for fine drawing?
One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad. Since they didn't demo these "killer features" it's safe to say thehttp://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=4078 technology does not exist. Eventually it will and I will be ready... assuming I'm still alive.
Two points:
The technology already exists to do what you want, and has existed since the early to mid 1990's. Apple has chosen to use different technology, which has some advantages and some disadvantages in comparison.
New technology has been discovered just in the last few weeks, which uses quantum tunneling to allow pressure sensitive touchpads. See for example
Quantum exploit revolutionises pressure-touch phones http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=4078
The new tech seems very cool. Whether it becomes commercially viable remains to be seen.
Two points:
The technology already exists to do what you want, and has existed since the early to mid 1990's. Apple has chosen to use different technology, which has some advantages and some disadvantages in comparison.
New technology has been discovered just in the last few weeks, which uses quantum tunneling to allow pressure sensitive touchpads. See for example
Quantum exploit revolutionises pressure-touch phones http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=4078
The new tech seems very cool. Whether it becomes commercially viable remains to be seen.
Two points:
First you say it's existed for 2 decades followed by a comment how it was just discovered.
My comment is not about Wacom but specifically a multitouch LCD display.
The point is, that as the density of the touchgrid increases, the contact area required in order to provide a large enough sample for accurate targeting decreases, making stilii more viable.
Excellent post!
So what is currently bounding the upper limit of density for these touchscreens? Cost? Fabrication challenges? Something else?
Two points:
First you say it's existed for 2 decades followed by a comment how it was just discovered.
My comment is not about Wacom but specifically a multitouch LCD display.
No - the first point is that resistive touchscreens, which allow what you want, have been around for awhile. For better or worse, Apple chose differerent technology.
The second point was about the new technology. I considered numbering the two points, but I thought my meaning was clear enough.
Neither of my two points concern Wacom.
Excellent post!
So what is currently bounding the upper limit of density for these touchscreens? Cost? Fabrication challenges? Something else?
As tonton noted, you can see the touchpanel grid under certain light. A higher density panel would effect the quality of image of the LCD unless we get a more invisible capacitance touch film. There are other potential options, like placing it behind the LCD or melding it with the glass on top, which could add more buttons off screens, but those seem less feasible to me.
I don't think we'll see the true potential of the tablet until it can truly mirror writing and drawing with fine stylus in hand.
As tonton noted, you can see the touchpanel grid under certain light. A higher density panel would effect the quality of image of the LCD unless we get a more invisible capacitance touch film. There are other options, like placing it behind the LCD or melding it with the glass on top, which could add more buttons off screens, but those seem like feasible to me.
Interesting. Thx.