Isn't that the typical usage pattern for 90% of consumers?
Maybe for home users, yes (though almost everyone I know still plays games and does photo/video work, which requires a little more power).
Which begs the question: who in their right mind is going to blow $1,300 for the Pixel if all they do is basic stuff? This is why the Pixel is a useless product, though a regular cheap Chromebook might be good for some people.
In practice, users don't really like updates. Especially UI changes. It just means that instead of actually getting their work done, they have to relearn aspects of the tool they use to get work done.
But, but, Android users are telling me keeping the same design is "stale" and Android is better because of the customizable UI and updates.
Google faced some criticism for releasing a premium-priced product ? the Pixel starts at $1,299 ? that lacks the power, space, and application ecosystem of similarly-priced traditional notebooks.
In other words, it's the Nexus of laptops.
Never intended to sell in any quantity.
Just a fashion-forward "reference design" for laptop manufacturers.
Nobody chooses a computer based on a single metric, like pixel count. That's like choosing a digital camera based solely on megapixel count, ignoring the optics, storage options, body style, controls, and even other qualities of the sensor. The 13" MacBook Pro Retina is still a fine all-purpose UNIX computer with a great display. I'm debating whether to step up to a 15" MacBook Pro Retina, or just get a 15" non-Retina MBP and save the cash.
Go with the rMBP. The downside is you will then be waiting for a retina iMac at some point in the future.
Especially UI changes. It just means that instead of actually getting their work done, they have to relearn aspects of the tool they use to get work done.
Considering the success of Android this may not be true. Well, according to the "Anything but Apple" crowd; however; I suspect the average Android user "customizes" their experience very little.
In other words, it's the Nexus of laptops.
Never intended to sell in any quantity.
Just a fashion-forward "reference design" for laptop manufacturers.
"Nexus of laptops?"
I continue to see arguments that the Nexus is far superior to the iPad. I wouldn't have thought the Nexus was as horrid as you suggest. I am interested in your further thoughts.
I can see it now. You buy a Chromebook and do your work on the net. Soon Google starts putting ads in your face every time you press the return key. Oh joy. :-(
Being ad-free is the major reason I use McTube to watch youtube on my iPad. I'm not bothered by Google's intrusive advertising.
The ambiguity of "resolution" on monitors. If you search for "monitor resolution" you get almost all discussions talking about 1920X1200, 1024X768, 1400X1200 and very few talking about PPI or DPI. Technically, resolution is a measurement of angular distance. In practice, most refer to pixel counts.
For example, when asked "What is the resolution of your digital camera?" I never said, I had 10 µm pixels when discussing my 1D. I said 4MP. Oddly, however, when people discuss lenses, resolution is almost always lppm (line pairs per mm) and is a more accurate use of the term.
No, resolution applied to screens has a very clear definition.
We're suggesting the article is incorrect because Apple still pitches the retina MacBook Pro as the highest-resolution screen ever.
That's what I don't get. What is higher than the 15" RMBP's 2880x1800 display? Note that they specifically state "highest resolution notebook" not a statement against all displays.
We're suggesting the article is incorrect because Apple still pitches the retina MacBook Pro as the highest-resolution screen ever.
That's what I don't get. What is higher than the 15" RMBP's 2880x1800 display? Note that they specifically state "highest resolution notebook" not a statement against all displays.
There is an 'Update' in this article which states that the highest resolution claim is only for the 15" model.
Marketing language aside, resolution can be defined in terms of dots/pixels per inch or over all pixel count. 220ppi (pixel density) and 2880x1800 (pixel dimensions) are both combined measurements of resolution.
We're suggesting the article is incorrect because Apple still pitches the retina MacBook Pro as the highest-resolution screen ever.
On Google's chromebook page it says the chromebook has 4.3 million pixels ... Apple says the 15" Macbook Pro has over 5 million pixels. The last time I checked 5 million was, indeed, larger than 4.3 million, no?
I'm sure it's just an oversight, but I couldn't find where you credited the original source in your article. I read the same story over 3 hours ago on 9to5Mac. 9to5mac .com/2013/03/24/arrival-of-the-chromebook-pixel-forces-tagline-change-for-apples-retina-macbook-pro/
The ChromeBook is a great concept. All it needs is applications. Apple is moving to cloud storage for iTunes and eventually other things. Google will make cloud applications better over time. The benefit of cloud storage for applications is that they all can be updated without the users even having to bother with it. People will have the latest versions all of the time. Viruses shouldn't be a problem with cloud based software.
ChromeBooks will probably move to the Nexus 7 model whereby the devices are cheaper because the prices of applications and other services will become the profit center. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually incorporates that model into it's marketing system. If ChromeBooks do get to the point of being very popular Apple will have to compete in the hardware department price arena. The software might become Apple's profit center.
"The software might become Apple's profit center."
Chrome and Pixel are fore bearers of next battlefield, CLOUD SERVICES, a crucial area where Apple currently trails. As it stands however the Pixel only serves to sell more rMacBooks by further validating the real hi-res/hi-end solution for laptops -> rMacBooks
No, resolution applied to screens has a very clear definition.
Actually it is not, there is slight ambiguity in the usage. I have seen discussions dealing with PPI but the most common is a strict value of pixel count.
Sharp references IGZO's resolution to be pixel density.
The most common usage is strictly pixel count but since the iPhone 4 (it put angular resolution in the spotlight), there has been a shift to resolution on monitors and screens to deal with pixel density as well. Therefore "ambiguous". I have noticed HTC is dropping the word "resolution" on the new HTC One and just says Display: 4.7" Full 1080p at 468 PPI.
On Google's chromebook page it says the chromebook has 4.3 million pixels ... Apple says the 15" Macbook Pro has over 5 million pixels. The last time I checked 5 million was, indeed, larger than 4.3 million, no?
Did you read our posts at all?
Originally Posted by WhereAreSources
I'm sure it's just an oversight, but I couldn't find where you credited the original source in your article. I read the same story over 3 hours ago on 9to5Mac.
Because they couldn't possibly have noticed it on their own?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Isn't that the typical usage pattern for 90% of consumers?
Maybe for home users, yes (though almost everyone I know still plays games and does photo/video work, which requires a little more power).
Which begs the question: who in their right mind is going to blow $1,300 for the Pixel if all they do is basic stuff? This is why the Pixel is a useless product, though a regular cheap Chromebook might be good for some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
In practice, users don't really like updates. Especially UI changes. It just means that instead of actually getting their work done, they have to relearn aspects of the tool they use to get work done.
But, but, Android users are telling me keeping the same design is "stale" and Android is better because of the customizable UI and updates.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Google faced some criticism for releasing a premium-priced product ? the Pixel starts at $1,299 ? that lacks the power, space, and application ecosystem of similarly-priced traditional notebooks.
In other words, it's the Nexus of laptops.
Never intended to sell in any quantity.
Just a fashion-forward "reference design" for laptop manufacturers.
Expensive
Insecure
Unupgradeable
Walled
While some of the preceding claims may be true of the iPad the claims are even more true of the Chromebook Pixel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Nobody chooses a computer based on a single metric, like pixel count. That's like choosing a digital camera based solely on megapixel count, ignoring the optics, storage options, body style, controls, and even other qualities of the sensor. The 13" MacBook Pro Retina is still a fine all-purpose UNIX computer with a great display. I'm debating whether to step up to a 15" MacBook Pro Retina, or just get a 15" non-Retina MBP and save the cash.
Go with the rMBP. The downside is you will then be waiting for a retina iMac at some point in the future.
Considering the success of Android this is certainly a valid argument.
Considering the success of Android this may not be true. Well, according to the "Anything but Apple" crowd; however; I suspect the average Android user "customizes" their experience very little.
"Nexus of laptops?"
I continue to see arguments that the Nexus is far superior to the iPad. I wouldn't have thought the Nexus was as horrid as you suggest. I am interested in your further thoughts.
I can see it now. You buy a Chromebook and do your work on the net. Soon Google starts putting ads in your face every time you press the return key. Oh joy. :-(
Being ad-free is the major reason I use McTube to watch youtube on my iPad. I'm not bothered by Google's intrusive advertising.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
But, but, Android users are telling me keeping the same design is "stale" and Android is better because of the customizable UI and updates.
LOL. Yup. Only the Android user geek fringe (the most-easily-tech-amused) even know about customization.
Actually, the vast majority, the big fat middle of the bell curve that the mobile industry covets, only know "Galaxy."
Because Samsung has successfully hyped their own "Galaxy" branding over "Google" and "Android."
But, back on topic, if you want to see some Android UI customization, get a load of some archived
Fugly Android screencaps:
http://www.droid-life.com/2011/03/30/fugly-android-a-blog-about-horrible-home-screens/
http://globalmoxie.com/blog/fugly-android.shtml
http://lifehacker.com/5787498/do-you-think-androids-lack-of-user-interface-guidelines-hurts-the-platform
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm unclear at what you two are getting at. Are you suggesting it's incorrect? If so, what is higher?
We're suggesting the article is incorrect because Apple still pitches the retina MacBook Pro as the highest-resolution screen ever.
No, resolution applied to screens has a very clear definition.
That's what I don't get. What is higher than the 15" RMBP's 2880x1800 display? Note that they specifically state "highest resolution notebook" not a statement against all displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We're suggesting the article is incorrect because Apple still pitches the retina MacBook Pro as the highest-resolution screen ever.
That's what I don't get. What is higher than the 15" RMBP's 2880x1800 display? Note that they specifically state "highest resolution notebook" not a statement against all displays.
There is an 'Update' in this article which states that the highest resolution claim is only for the 15" model.
We're suggesting the article is incorrect because Apple still pitches the retina MacBook Pro as the highest-resolution screen ever.
On Google's chromebook page it says the chromebook has 4.3 million pixels ... Apple says the 15" Macbook Pro has over 5 million pixels. The last time I checked 5 million was, indeed, larger than 4.3 million, no?[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/22589/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
The ChromeBook is a great concept. All it needs is applications. Apple is moving to cloud storage for iTunes and eventually other things. Google will make cloud applications better over time. The benefit of cloud storage for applications is that they all can be updated without the users even having to bother with it. People will have the latest versions all of the time. Viruses shouldn't be a problem with cloud based software.
ChromeBooks will probably move to the Nexus 7 model whereby the devices are cheaper because the prices of applications and other services will become the profit center. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually incorporates that model into it's marketing system. If ChromeBooks do get to the point of being very popular Apple will have to compete in the hardware department price arena. The software might become Apple's profit center.
"The software might become Apple's profit center."
They're aleady there;
http://www.asymco.com/2013/03/22/so-long-break-even/
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX
No, resolution applied to screens has a very clear definition.
Actually it is not, there is slight ambiguity in the usage. I have seen discussions dealing with PPI but the most common is a strict value of pixel count.
For example:
Dell: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&sku=320-9607
Resolution is pixel count.
Sharp: http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/igzo.aspx
Sharp references IGZO's resolution to be pixel density.
The most common usage is strictly pixel count but since the iPhone 4 (it put angular resolution in the spotlight), there has been a shift to resolution on monitors and screens to deal with pixel density as well. Therefore "ambiguous". I have noticed HTC is dropping the word "resolution" on the new HTC One and just says Display: 4.7" Full 1080p at 468 PPI.
Originally Posted by newbee
On Google's chromebook page it says the chromebook has 4.3 million pixels ... Apple says the 15" Macbook Pro has over 5 million pixels. The last time I checked 5 million was, indeed, larger than 4.3 million, no?
Did you read our posts at all?
Originally Posted by WhereAreSources
I'm sure it's just an oversight, but I couldn't find where you credited the original source in your article. I read the same story over 3 hours ago on 9to5Mac.
Because they couldn't possibly have noticed it on their own?