What I can't figure out is why the iMac or iPod would need multi-touch to begin with. I see no great benefit to either of them by adding it. All I see is an added expense to the iMac that will essentially go unused.
This discussion of Multi-touch on these products has been beaten to death in these forums already, and there has yet to be a significant argument that argues it as a necessary enhancement. So far it's turned out quite the opposite. The only real products that could use use it successfully would be a tablet, or used in conjunction with the finger-works gesture pad patent that Apple bought.
What I can't figure out is why the iMac or iPod would need multi-touch to begin with. I see no great benefit to either of them by adding it. All I see is an added expense to the iMac that will essentially go unused.
This discussion of Multi-touch on these products has been beaten to death in these forums already, and there has yet to be a significant argument that argues it as a necessary enhancement. So far it's turned out quite the opposite. The only real products that could use use it successfully would be a tablet, or used in conjunction with the finger-works gesture pad patent that Apple bought.
Bingo.
An iMac with an actual multi-touch screen would be an ergonomic nightmare. All the iPod needs is a widescreen, possibly with simple touch controls, but not necessarily.
Those images of the "next iPod interface" that got circulated looked pretty authentic (some inconsistencies notwithstanding) and clearly are not multi-touch. They are, however, conceivably "uni-touch", which would be an interesting balance between making the next iPod more than a meh update and keeping the iPhone king-of-the-hill for the time being.
That whole multi-touch keyboard idea that Ireland is yearning for doesn't seem that likely to me. I would expect a tablet before anything like that.
... I see no great benefit to either of them by adding it. All I see is an added expense to the iMac that will essentially go unused.
...
I agree with you about the iMac. However, I cannot disagree more about the iPod. This question gets asked because Apple the iPod user interface is now bifurcated. The newer inferface is part and parcel of the iPhone. Apple holds the patents on this interface. We also know that Apple lost a patent infringement lawsuit and must now pay license fees for the old iPod interface. Given these facts, I don't see the old interface long for this World.
We also know that Apple lost a patent infringement lawsuit and must now pay license fees for the old iPod interface. Given these facts, I don't see the old interface long for this World.
No true, they'd paid Creative $100,000 for that settlement. As far as I know they don't pay anyone a license fee to anyone for that hierarchical UI.
You underestimated the size of the settlement between Apple and Creative just a wee bit.
No I didn't, I meant to say $100,000,000 but I forgot to, sorry - my bad. I even said "no true" instead of "not true" as to show the consistency of my typos.
No, how about if the next iPod is Multi-touch your sig for a moths reads; "Ireland is a legend, go to Click a Shamrock (dot) com, buy a shamrock and support this guy." And if you are right, and the new iPods is clickwheel, my sig will read; what ever you like for a month?
Nah, I don't think so, I don't want to advertise for a website I know nothing about. We'll just have to leave it as a pride bet I guess.
Apple's implementation of multi-touch seems to lend itself to small devices that can benefit from some pretty detailed detection capabilities. MS, on the other hand, seems to be thinking big, literally. Surface seems to cater to large motions and detection of objects that are placed on top of it. The focus is entirely different. Whereas MS seesm to want to cater to business application like kiosks (that we already have) and interactive tables for casinos and the like, Apple wants to use multi-touch to connect users more to the tech they use. In this way, MS sees multi-touch as more of a gimmick, it seems. It's "neat" and people will have fun using it in entertainment scenarios. Apple seems to want to make tech that much more reachable, literally.
There are other differences worth discussing-- high tech sensors vs. hidden projectors. MS's wireless detection of electronic gadgets that has nothing to do with multi-touch, but makes pretty graphics to make wireless connection seem more like a big deal than it really is.
In my eyes, MS's stuff was slapped together. Recently read somewhere about gates showing it off to journalists and it wouldn't work as advertised. Shocking, just shocking.
No, how about if the next iPod is Multi-touch your sig for a moths reads; "Ireland is a legend, go to Click a Shamrock (dot) com, buy a shamrock and support this guy." And if you are right, and the new iPods is clickwheel, my sig will read; what ever you like for a month?
Ireland, I tried your shamrock site and got an error message:
Unable to connect. Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.clickashamrock.com.
BTW, I found a little typo.... "The shamrocks are competitively prices, ..."
It should read, "The shamrocks are competitively priced, ..."
Don't pick on Ireland. I see typos in a lot of posts (including mine) probably because we don't go back and proof them. Stick to issues and don't nitpick. Some errors are NOT typos and everyone uses them. For example: using collective (singular ) nouns like Apple, Microsoft, etc. with plural verbs - "Apple are" should be "Apple is". Again, stick to issues and don't point out an individual's errors. We all make them.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this. GO ahead.
Don't pick on Ireland. I see typos in a lot of posts (including mine) probably because we don't go back and proof them. Stick to issues and don't nitpick. Some errors are NOT typos and everyone uses them. For example: using collective (singular ) nouns like Apple, Microsoft, etc. with plural verbs - "Apple are" should be "Apple is". Again, stick to issues and don't point out an individual's errors. We all make them.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this. GO ahead.
I think you misunderstood the nature of my post. I was helping Ireland. I like Ireland. I'm part Irish!
I gave him a little editor's feedback on his site. That's all. I'm not picking on him... this week.
I think you misunderstood the nature of my post. I was helping Ireland. I like Ireland. I'm part Irish!
I gave him a little editor's feedback on his site. That's all. I'm not picking on him... this week.
Mea culpa. I see a lot of barbs in these threads, so I guess I'm a little sensitive.
I can see it from your viewpoint, now. My profound apologies.
My family came from Manchester, England; however, my grandfather was born in Scotland. My father had very fair skin, blue eyes, and raven black hair. NOT Scots or English - probably Irish. At the time of the Spanish Armada breaking up near Ireland, a lot of Spanish (black hair) ended up in Ireland. There are still a lot of Spanish names in Ireland, e.g., Leal, Costello, etc. So, as far as my father was concerned, there must have been an Irishman in the woodpile somewhere.
Mea culpa. I see a lot of barbs in these threads, so I guess I'm a little sensitive.
I can see it from your viewpoint, now. My profound apologies.
My family came from Manchester, England; however, my grandfather was born in Scotland. My father had very fair skin, blue eyes, and raven black hair. NOT Scots or English - probably Irish. At the time of the Spanish Armada breaking up near Ireland, a lot of Spanish (black hair) ended up in Ireland. There are still a lot of Spanish names in Ireland, e.g., Leal, Costello, etc. So, as far as my father was concerned, there must have been an Irishman in the woodpile somewhere.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Think nothing of it. I'm afraid I haven't got the complete story on our family history, but I've been told that we have an American Indian woman in our distant past, and much farther back, we may have come from a northern part of Ireland and probably came over to America during the Great Irish Famine, settling in Kentucky (supposedly). Our family tree has very tangled roots.
Comments
This discussion of Multi-touch on these products has been beaten to death in these forums already, and there has yet to be a significant argument that argues it as a necessary enhancement. So far it's turned out quite the opposite. The only real products that could use use it successfully would be a tablet, or used in conjunction with the finger-works gesture pad patent that Apple bought.
What I can't figure out is why the iMac or iPod would need multi-touch to begin with. I see no great benefit to either of them by adding it. All I see is an added expense to the iMac that will essentially go unused.
This discussion of Multi-touch on these products has been beaten to death in these forums already, and there has yet to be a significant argument that argues it as a necessary enhancement. So far it's turned out quite the opposite. The only real products that could use use it successfully would be a tablet, or used in conjunction with the finger-works gesture pad patent that Apple bought.
Bingo.
An iMac with an actual multi-touch screen would be an ergonomic nightmare. All the iPod needs is a widescreen, possibly with simple touch controls, but not necessarily.
Those images of the "next iPod interface" that got circulated looked pretty authentic (some inconsistencies notwithstanding) and clearly are not multi-touch. They are, however, conceivably "uni-touch", which would be an interesting balance between making the next iPod more than a meh update and keeping the iPhone king-of-the-hill for the time being.
That whole multi-touch keyboard idea that Ireland is yearning for doesn't seem that likely to me. I would expect a tablet before anything like that.
... I see no great benefit to either of them by adding it. All I see is an added expense to the iMac that will essentially go unused.
...
I agree with you about the iMac. However, I cannot disagree more about the iPod. This question gets asked because Apple the iPod user interface is now bifurcated. The newer inferface is part and parcel of the iPhone. Apple holds the patents on this interface. We also know that Apple lost a patent infringement lawsuit and must now pay license fees for the old iPod interface. Given these facts, I don't see the old interface long for this World.
BTW, I found a little typo.... "The shamrocks are competitively prices, ..."
It should read, "The shamrocks are competitively priced, ..."
Thanks Spam, fixed.
That whole multi-touch keyboard idea that Ireland is yearning for doesn't seem that likely to me. I would expect a tablet before anything like that.
So would I. My timing was probably a year or two early, but I still believe in the concept.
We also know that Apple lost a patent infringement lawsuit and must now pay license fees for the old iPod interface. Given these facts, I don't see the old interface long for this World.
No true, they'd paid Creative $100,000 for that settlement. As far as I know they don't pay anyone a license fee to anyone for that hierarchical UI.
No true, they'd paid Creative $100,000 for that settlement. As far as I know they don't pay anyone a license fee to anyone for that hierarchical UI.
That is correct, but the ammount I'm not sure about.
No true, they'd paid Creative $100,000 for that settlement. As far as I know they don't pay anyone a license fee to anyone for that hierarchical UI.
You underestimated the size of the settlement between Apple and Creative just a wee bit.
You underestimated the size of the settlement between Apple and Creative just a wee bit.
Nevertheless creative has no financial hold on Apple.
You underestimated the size of the settlement between Apple and Creative just a wee bit.
No I didn't, I meant to say $100,000,000 but I forgot to, sorry - my bad. I even said "no true" instead of "not true" as to show the consistency of my typos.
No, how about if the next iPod is Multi-touch your sig for a moths reads; "Ireland is a legend, go to Click a Shamrock (dot) com, buy a shamrock and support this guy." And if you are right, and the new iPods is clickwheel, my sig will read; what ever you like for a month?
Nah, I don't think so, I don't want to advertise for a website I know nothing about. We'll just have to leave it as a pride bet I guess.
Nah, I don't think so, I don't want to advertise for a website I know nothing about. We'll just have to leave it as a pride bet I guess.
Ouch! You do have a browser mate.
Ouch! You do have a browser mate.
I had looked at it, but sorry I just don't want to advertise.
I had looked at it, but sorry I just don't want to advertise.
You weren't going to win that bet anyway
There are other differences worth discussing-- high tech sensors vs. hidden projectors. MS's wireless detection of electronic gadgets that has nothing to do with multi-touch, but makes pretty graphics to make wireless connection seem more like a big deal than it really is.
In my eyes, MS's stuff was slapped together. Recently read somewhere about gates showing it off to journalists and it wouldn't work as advertised. Shocking, just shocking.
No, how about if the next iPod is Multi-touch your sig for a moths reads; "Ireland is a legend, go to Click a Shamrock (dot) com, buy a shamrock and support this guy." And if you are right, and the new iPods is clickwheel, my sig will read; what ever you like for a month?
Ireland, I tried your shamrock site and got an error message:
Unable to connect. Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.clickashamrock.com.
What browser do you use to access the site?
BTW, I found a little typo.... "The shamrocks are competitively prices, ..."
It should read, "The shamrocks are competitively priced, ..."
Don't pick on Ireland. I see typos in a lot of posts (including mine) probably because we don't go back and proof them. Stick to issues and don't nitpick. Some errors are NOT typos and everyone uses them. For example: using collective (singular ) nouns like Apple, Microsoft, etc. with plural verbs - "Apple are" should be "Apple is". Again, stick to issues and don't point out an individual's errors. We all make them.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this. GO ahead.
Don't pick on Ireland. I see typos in a lot of posts (including mine) probably because we don't go back and proof them. Stick to issues and don't nitpick. Some errors are NOT typos and everyone uses them. For example: using collective (singular ) nouns like Apple, Microsoft, etc. with plural verbs - "Apple are" should be "Apple is". Again, stick to issues and don't point out an individual's errors. We all make them.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this. GO ahead.
I gave him a little editor's feedback on his site. That's all. I'm not picking on him... this week.
I gave him a little editor's feedback on his site. That's all. I'm not picking on him... this week.
Mea culpa. I see a lot of barbs in these threads, so I guess I'm a little sensitive.
I can see it from your viewpoint, now. My profound apologies.
My family came from Manchester, England; however, my grandfather was born in Scotland. My father had very fair skin, blue eyes, and raven black hair. NOT Scots or English - probably Irish. At the time of the Spanish Armada breaking up near Ireland, a lot of Spanish (black hair) ended up in Ireland. There are still a lot of Spanish names in Ireland, e.g., Leal, Costello, etc. So, as far as my father was concerned, there must have been an Irishman in the woodpile somewhere.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Mea culpa. I see a lot of barbs in these threads, so I guess I'm a little sensitive.
I can see it from your viewpoint, now. My profound apologies.
My family came from Manchester, England; however, my grandfather was born in Scotland. My father had very fair skin, blue eyes, and raven black hair. NOT Scots or English - probably Irish. At the time of the Spanish Armada breaking up near Ireland, a lot of Spanish (black hair) ended up in Ireland. There are still a lot of Spanish names in Ireland, e.g., Leal, Costello, etc. So, as far as my father was concerned, there must have been an Irishman in the woodpile somewhere.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Think nothing of it. I'm afraid I haven't got the complete story on our family history, but I've been told that we have an American Indian woman in our distant past, and much farther back, we may have come from a northern part of Ireland and probably came over to America during the Great Irish Famine, settling in Kentucky (supposedly). Our family tree has very tangled roots.