It's not a solution. It's for shit outside of an Apple prepped home is what you're saying? But that's OK, because it's Apple's shit? Got it.
They don't care. That's kind of how it works. You connect with a Dock Connector to VGA adapter plugged into a VGA to HDMI cable if you don't want to get an Apple TV. Apple doesn't expect Dish, DirectTV, or anyone else who makes a set-top-box to support AirPlay video, and as they already make an alternative, they'll milk that.
Yeah, I wouldn't make this ^ comment, and call someone else astoundingly clueless.
I am not saying no one makes them, I said I have never seen one in person in the field. None of the monitors I own have a DP, none of the monitors my close family owns have DP, none of the monitors where I work, including the newest ones, have DP. I have not seen any OTHER THAN APPLE's at other businesses. It is JUST starting to get traction outside Apple, and it will be a LONG time before they are prevalent in the field.
Businesses dont have displays compatible with the display port, just like more than 90% of consumers. If they are going to put a video out port, it should be HDMI, and it should have 7.1 audio support as well.
The iPad slick form factor quickly loses its appeal when you need to carry around a bag of adapters and non-standard cables. Real people use USB, HDMI, and SD cards. Very few people use display port or air print.
Since when did 90% of business presentations require surround sound audio?
I'll bet you that in 2031 90% of business presentations still won't use 7.1 sound.
I agree that the pile of adapters is a pain, but at least you get compatibility with all the connectors you're likely to find in the real world including HDMI, DVI and, perhaps most importantly still, VGA.
The thing that actually bothers me most about all the iPad 2 rumours is the fact that there will be separate GSM and CDMA models. Kiss carrier choice and international mobility goodbye.
In fact it probably costs Apple more to go with separate models so once again we pay more to get less. Of course it's possible that AT&T and Verizon made it worth Apple's while to ensure customers couldn't easily switch carriers.
Whatever the form of video out, iOS needs to support video mirroring to make it truly useful. I hope they'll add that in iOS5, right now you need to jailbreak and use DisplayOut to get that functionality.
Sweet so I can carry a bag full of cables and adapters to go with my super slick iPad, or I could just carry the iPad knowing that any company I go to already has HDMI and VGA cables for their projectors. Hmmmmmm. That goes along with carrying a dock to USB adapter, and dock to SD card adapter, etc. WTF? What is the point of an ultra portable device if you need to hire a caddy to carry your bag of adapters and cables? Does this really make sense to people after they drink the koolaide?
I think he said it was one cable - 6 feet long. No matter the type port (HDMI or DP or VGA) you still have to have a cable to connect to the external device. At least in my world (the real world that is). Me thinks you protest too much!
The iPad is being rapidly adopted by enterprise customers. Many of them would like the ability to use the iPad for presentations to a large audience.
And yes, these customers know that there are notebook PCs that can do this.
I guess it is possible to use iPad that way but honestly it doesn't play to iPads strengths at all. Nor do I see it as a big draw. In any event my problem is that such usage of a Display Port would be extremely low compared to the potential us of other ports like USB. Oh yes I'm talking enterprise customers here.
If you where to say that enterprise customers wanted to usevthe machine in conjunction with Apple TV, to do presentation and the like I'd say your are right. In that sort of setup the speaker can leverage iPads advantages in ways one can never do with a laptop. So don't mis understand me here, I realize that corporate is very interested in iPad, I just think they are looking for better ways to do things and reverting back to tethered laptops isn't one of them.
There where many interesting responses to my question and all seem to mis the idea that iPad already has a solution in the dock connector. A new higher resolution iPad might require a higher performance port but then the question becomes what sort of projector or monitor will you plug into the device.
Quote:
Furthermore, who is doing them in an environment that requires HDMI output?
Good question but even I have to admit technical advantages to HDMI. The problem here is that iPads aspect ratio isn't really optimized for most HDMI screens. I still see iPads use of 4:3 as a major screw up but that is another discussion.
Quote:
For tethered presentations, might I introduce you to the iPad VGA cable. Looks great, works great, universal among projectors, and keeps you nice and tethered, rendering your iPad almost useless as a presentation device.
Which is why many organizations looking to adopt the iPad are also looking at Apple TV and AirPlay. IPad makes it easy to pick the device up in the middle of a presentation and easily adlib, answer questions and directly interact with the screen. It facilitates an interaction with the audience that you can't get with a laptop. If one is to go iPad for presentations I would think that the whole point would be to do it better or in new ways. Otherwise you gain little advantage over the laptop.
Quote:
I don't see Display Port even being a consideration for the iPad. Apple is going with AirPlay, because it leaps a few years ahead of Display Port.
This would be my thinking too. Frankly carrying around an Apple TV wouldn't be much worst than carrying around a bunch of cables and adapters. In a school or even a corporate environment the likely hood would be a move to pre installed Apple TVs. I really don't think people are looking forward here but are rather using a mind set from the past.
This would be my thinking too. Frankly carrying around an Apple TV wouldn't be much worst than carrying around a bunch of cables and adapters. In a school or even a corporate environment the likely hood would be a move to pre installed Apple TVs. I really don't think people are looking forward here but are rather using a mind set from the past.
Here is another thought, since people are getting bent out of shape about which port should be on the top of the iPad. Personally, I don't see Apple doing it, it goes against the way they have been doing things. I see more of an AirPlay solution here. Yes, AppleTV does do the job nicely, but we are talking about a dumb interface here. I am thinking more along the lines of an AirPort Express device. A simple $29 device that can connect via HDMI, and would allow for AirPlay to be played on it, and that is it. It is something that can be left in the HDMI port, and possibly get its power from there (the HDMI experts here will have to say if HDMI can carry voltage or not).
Here is another thought, since people are getting bent out of shape about which port should be on the top of the iPad. Personally, I don't see Apple doing it, it goes against the way they have been doing things. I see more of an AirPlay solution here. Yes, AppleTV does do the job nicely, but we are talking about a dumb interface here. I am thinking more along the lines of an AirPort Express device. A simple $29 device that can connect via HDMI, and would allow for AirPlay to be played on it, and that is it. It is something that can be left in the HDMI port, and possibly get its power from there (the HDMI experts here will have to say if HDMI can carry voltage or not).
What do you think about something like that?
That would be tremendous, assuming it could be passively powered (or run on a long lived battery.
I mean, honestly, at $99 and the size of a cigarette pack, the current Apple TV is practically a wireless HDMI dongle as it is. I wonder if it's even possible to take much cost or size out of that thing and still have it do AirPlay-- I mean, the Netflix and iTunes interfaces are just software, and not very demanding software at that.
I think the bigger problem is waiting for Apple to implement real screen mirroring as a feature of AirPlay. Even a $29 device isn't that useful if I can only send some of my files in certain circumstances, depending on what Apple or the developer happened to enable. When AirPlay acts like a mac with a second monitor attached, giving me the option of mirroring or extended desktop (or a presenters screen for apps like Keynote and Power Point), then it isn't really a replacement for a cable.
In fact it probably costs Apple more to go with separate models so once again we pay more to get less. Of course it's possible that AT&T and Verizon made it worth Apple's while to ensure customers couldn't easily switch carriers.
I had been arguing for a single phone with both GSM & CDMA. AT this point, I am convinced that the economics are not there. As has been pointed out several times, Qualcomm charges substantial license fees in addition to the CDMA chips. Having a single model would mean that the majority of the world that has no need for CDMA would be forced to pay those fees.
They don't care. That's kind of how it works. You connect with a Dock Connector to VGA adapter plugged into a VGA to HDMI cable if you don't want to get an Apple TV. Apple doesn't expect Dish, DirectTV, or anyone else who makes a set-top-box to support AirPlay video, and as they already make an alternative, they'll milk that.
A report examining iOS 4.3 beta firmware concurs that the next iPad will be offered in three models (WiFi, 3G GSM/UMTS and 3G CDMA), but adds mention of a 3MP camera capable of 720p video recording, DisplayPort video output, and what appears to be a hardware battery gas gauge.
The report, by web developer Chris Galzerano, describes mention of three new iPad models designated as iPad2,1 iPad2,2 and iPad2,3, as well as a placeholder "iFPGA" model (a designation Apple uses to reference prototypes using a field-programmable gate array, which is a chip with functions that can be reprogrammed).
The report also noted plist files referencing 720p, a magnetometer (digital compass), DisplayPort (the video output system Apple has standardized on across its Macs, which is also used to output HDMI signals), and mention of "gas-gauge battery and multitasking-gestures."
One case design suggested the presence of a top facing port that could be the size of Apple's mini DisplayPort, potentially enabling iPad 2 to support HDMI video output in addition to the existing support for composite VGA.
Related to AVFoundation settings, the report noted that iPad 2 should be capable of recording VGA, 720p and iFrame, a reduced resolution 960x540 format created by Apple to deliver near HD quality H.264 video at much smaller video sizes.
The report also references 3MP camera connected to a device model referenced as N88. However, that model first appeared in a Chinese rumor from 2009 detailing the iPhone 3GS, which used a 3.2MP camera.
An independent report on iPad 2 maintains it will appear with 1MP rear camera and 0.3MP VGA front facing camera, the same configuration as the current iPod touch. In contrast, iPhone 4 uses a 5MP rear camera. The iPod touch 1MP camera (technically 0.7MP) is still capable of recording 720p video however, given its 960x720 resolution.
I just start to learn it, I'm afraid I do not understand what you said.
Instead of reviving old threads and appearing to be a spambot, I would suggest you take a course in computer hardware/software basics or just search any terms you don't understand on Wikipedia.
And if language is the problem, as it quite possibly could be given your slight deficiencies with grammar, I'd suggest an English primer.
Comments
It's not a solution. It's for shit outside of an Apple prepped home is what you're saying? But that's OK, because it's Apple's shit? Got it.
They don't care. That's kind of how it works. You connect with a Dock Connector to VGA adapter plugged into a VGA to HDMI cable if you don't want to get an Apple TV. Apple doesn't expect Dish, DirectTV, or anyone else who makes a set-top-box to support AirPlay video, and as they already make an alternative, they'll milk that.
Yeah, I wouldn't make this ^ comment, and call someone else astoundingly clueless.
I am not saying no one makes them, I said I have never seen one in person in the field. None of the monitors I own have a DP, none of the monitors my close family owns have DP, none of the monitors where I work, including the newest ones, have DP. I have not seen any OTHER THAN APPLE's at other businesses. It is JUST starting to get traction outside Apple, and it will be a LONG time before they are prevalent in the field.
Businesses dont have displays compatible with the display port, just like more than 90% of consumers. If they are going to put a video out port, it should be HDMI, and it should have 7.1 audio support as well.
The iPad slick form factor quickly loses its appeal when you need to carry around a bag of adapters and non-standard cables. Real people use USB, HDMI, and SD cards. Very few people use display port or air print.
Since when did 90% of business presentations require surround sound audio?
I'll bet you that in 2031 90% of business presentations still won't use 7.1 sound.
I agree that the pile of adapters is a pain, but at least you get compatibility with all the connectors you're likely to find in the real world including HDMI, DVI and, perhaps most importantly still, VGA.
The thing that actually bothers me most about all the iPad 2 rumours is the fact that there will be separate GSM and CDMA models. Kiss carrier choice and international mobility goodbye.
In fact it probably costs Apple more to go with separate models so once again we pay more to get less. Of course it's possible that AT&T and Verizon made it worth Apple's while to ensure customers couldn't easily switch carriers.
Sweet so I can carry a bag full of cables and adapters to go with my super slick iPad, or I could just carry the iPad knowing that any company I go to already has HDMI and VGA cables for their projectors. Hmmmmmm. That goes along with carrying a dock to USB adapter, and dock to SD card adapter, etc. WTF? What is the point of an ultra portable device if you need to hire a caddy to carry your bag of adapters and cables? Does this really make sense to people after they drink the koolaide?
I think he said it was one cable - 6 feet long. No matter the type port (HDMI or DP or VGA) you still have to have a cable to connect to the external device. At least in my world (the real world that is). Me thinks you protest too much!
The iPad is being rapidly adopted by enterprise customers. Many of them would like the ability to use the iPad for presentations to a large audience.
And yes, these customers know that there are notebook PCs that can do this.
I guess it is possible to use iPad that way but honestly it doesn't play to iPads strengths at all. Nor do I see it as a big draw. In any event my problem is that such usage of a Display Port would be extremely low compared to the potential us of other ports like USB. Oh yes I'm talking enterprise customers here.
If you where to say that enterprise customers wanted to usevthe machine in conjunction with Apple TV, to do presentation and the like I'd say your are right. In that sort of setup the speaker can leverage iPads advantages in ways one can never do with a laptop. So don't mis understand me here, I realize that corporate is very interested in iPad, I just think they are looking for better ways to do things and reverting back to tethered laptops isn't one of them.
Who is doing all of these presentations?
There where many interesting responses to my question and all seem to mis the idea that iPad already has a solution in the dock connector. A new higher resolution iPad might require a higher performance port but then the question becomes what sort of projector or monitor will you plug into the device.
Furthermore, who is doing them in an environment that requires HDMI output?
Good question but even I have to admit technical advantages to HDMI. The problem here is that iPads aspect ratio isn't really optimized for most HDMI screens. I still see iPads use of 4:3 as a major screw up but that is another discussion.
For tethered presentations, might I introduce you to the iPad VGA cable. Looks great, works great, universal among projectors, and keeps you nice and tethered, rendering your iPad almost useless as a presentation device.
Which is why many organizations looking to adopt the iPad are also looking at Apple TV and AirPlay. IPad makes it easy to pick the device up in the middle of a presentation and easily adlib, answer questions and directly interact with the screen. It facilitates an interaction with the audience that you can't get with a laptop. If one is to go iPad for presentations I would think that the whole point would be to do it better or in new ways. Otherwise you gain little advantage over the laptop.
I don't see Display Port even being a consideration for the iPad. Apple is going with AirPlay, because it leaps a few years ahead of Display Port.
This would be my thinking too. Frankly carrying around an Apple TV wouldn't be much worst than carrying around a bunch of cables and adapters. In a school or even a corporate environment the likely hood would be a move to pre installed Apple TVs. I really don't think people are looking forward here but are rather using a mind set from the past.
This would be my thinking too. Frankly carrying around an Apple TV wouldn't be much worst than carrying around a bunch of cables and adapters. In a school or even a corporate environment the likely hood would be a move to pre installed Apple TVs. I really don't think people are looking forward here but are rather using a mind set from the past.
Here is another thought, since people are getting bent out of shape about which port should be on the top of the iPad. Personally, I don't see Apple doing it, it goes against the way they have been doing things. I see more of an AirPlay solution here. Yes, AppleTV does do the job nicely, but we are talking about a dumb interface here. I am thinking more along the lines of an AirPort Express device. A simple $29 device that can connect via HDMI, and would allow for AirPlay to be played on it, and that is it. It is something that can be left in the HDMI port, and possibly get its power from there (the HDMI experts here will have to say if HDMI can carry voltage or not).
What do you think about something like that?
Here is another thought, since people are getting bent out of shape about which port should be on the top of the iPad. Personally, I don't see Apple doing it, it goes against the way they have been doing things. I see more of an AirPlay solution here. Yes, AppleTV does do the job nicely, but we are talking about a dumb interface here. I am thinking more along the lines of an AirPort Express device. A simple $29 device that can connect via HDMI, and would allow for AirPlay to be played on it, and that is it. It is something that can be left in the HDMI port, and possibly get its power from there (the HDMI experts here will have to say if HDMI can carry voltage or not).
What do you think about something like that?
That would be tremendous, assuming it could be passively powered (or run on a long lived battery.
I mean, honestly, at $99 and the size of a cigarette pack, the current Apple TV is practically a wireless HDMI dongle as it is. I wonder if it's even possible to take much cost or size out of that thing and still have it do AirPlay-- I mean, the Netflix and iTunes interfaces are just software, and not very demanding software at that.
I think the bigger problem is waiting for Apple to implement real screen mirroring as a feature of AirPlay. Even a $29 device isn't that useful if I can only send some of my files in certain circumstances, depending on what Apple or the developer happened to enable. When AirPlay acts like a mac with a second monitor attached, giving me the option of mirroring or extended desktop (or a presenters screen for apps like Keynote and Power Point), then it isn't really a replacement for a cable.
In fact it probably costs Apple more to go with separate models so once again we pay more to get less. Of course it's possible that AT&T and Verizon made it worth Apple's while to ensure customers couldn't easily switch carriers.
I had been arguing for a single phone with both GSM & CDMA. AT this point, I am convinced that the economics are not there. As has been pointed out several times, Qualcomm charges substantial license fees in addition to the CDMA chips. Having a single model would mean that the majority of the world that has no need for CDMA would be forced to pay those fees.
They don't care. That's kind of how it works. You connect with a Dock Connector to VGA adapter plugged into a VGA to HDMI cable if you don't want to get an Apple TV. Apple doesn't expect Dish, DirectTV, or anyone else who makes a set-top-box to support AirPlay video, and as they already make an alternative, they'll milk that.
"They'll milk that."
Yes, they will, and you with it.
"They'll milk that."
Yes, they will, and you with it.
Nope. I won't buy an AppleTV until it does what I want it to do. No milking involved.
A report examining iOS 4.3 beta firmware concurs that the next iPad will be offered in three models (WiFi, 3G GSM/UMTS and 3G CDMA), but adds mention of a 3MP camera capable of 720p video recording, DisplayPort video output, and what appears to be a hardware battery gas gauge.
The report, by web developer Chris Galzerano, describes mention of three new iPad models designated as iPad2,1 iPad2,2 and iPad2,3, as well as a placeholder "iFPGA" model (a designation Apple uses to reference prototypes using a field-programmable gate array, which is a chip with functions that can be reprogrammed).
The report also noted plist files referencing 720p, a magnetometer (digital compass), DisplayPort (the video output system Apple has standardized on across its Macs, which is also used to output HDMI signals), and mention of "gas-gauge battery and multitasking-gestures."
One case design suggested the presence of a top facing port that could be the size of Apple's mini DisplayPort, potentially enabling iPad 2 to support HDMI video output in addition to the existing support for composite VGA.
Related to AVFoundation settings, the report noted that iPad 2 should be capable of recording VGA, 720p and iFrame, a reduced resolution 960x540 format created by Apple to deliver near HD quality H.264 video at much smaller video sizes.
The report also references 3MP camera connected to a device model referenced as N88. However, that model first appeared in a Chinese rumor from 2009 detailing the iPhone 3GS, which used a 3.2MP camera.
An independent report on iPad 2 maintains it will appear with 1MP rear camera and 0.3MP VGA front facing camera, the same configuration as the current iPod touch. In contrast, iPhone 4 uses a 5MP rear camera. The iPod touch 1MP camera (technically 0.7MP) is still capable of recording 720p video however, given its 960x720 resolution.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I just start to learn it, I'm afraid I do not understand what you said.
I just start to learn it, I'm afraid I do not understand what you said.
Instead of reviving old threads and appearing to be a spambot, I would suggest you take a course in computer hardware/software basics or just search any terms you don't understand on Wikipedia.
And if language is the problem, as it quite possibly could be given your slight deficiencies with grammar, I'd suggest an English primer.