Take a hint, Apple? T-Mobile wants you to make a 4G iPhone for the T-Mobile network already! And so do I!
There is a much better chance of the iPhone going to Sprint which would be easy for Apple to do now that there is a Verizon iPhone. Not so with T Mobile.
They had no choice. Sprint started it with saying their WiMAX was ?4G? even though their implementation was about as far as you could get from the then ITU definition of ?4G?, then T-Mobile with LTE (which AT&T rallied against, at first), then Verizon with LTE. AT&T really has no choice in a society that is ignorant to technical aspects and is used to the marketing terms typically have a one up over the previous generation tech.
I can?t fault them for that, nor can we fault the public for not realizing how HSPA compares with HSPA+ compares to WiMAX compares LTE compares to LTE-Advanced, or how the ITU defines these terms and every carrier in the US is using the marketing term because they can (and should). All we can do is try not to strain the rectus muscles of our orbits when we uncontrollably roll our eyes when someone claims that their phone with ?4G? in better than a phone with ?3G? without actually knowing what that implies except that the number before the ?G? is one more than the other.
From a platform competition standpoint this makes sense. They are probably just running the Java part of Android on QNX. Nobody else is doing it currently, but it would make sense that it is portable and not terribly difficult to write. Android probably already has a operating system compatibility layer since they are running Java which cannot directly access the operating system. They would just need to rewrite that layer for QNX. This way they could run QNX native, Adobe Air, and Android on the same device. The problem with this is that it may be a battery drain with the background processes of each system all running at the same time and there may be look and feel issues. They may be able to avoid some issues by making their OS highly Android compatible. My first thought is that they will probably lag way behind in Android releases since they would have significantly more work to incorporate each new version of Android then other vendors. I wonder if WebOS might take the same approach to keep from being considered a niche player. There are costs to this approach though. This may increase their software pool and drag development down at the same time. It also give less incentive to create native QNX apps so they will be less differentiated. It sounds like they know they are going to fail to attract developers and they just don't want to throw out QNX and upset their shareholders over a purchase that now seems extraneous.
So the Kindle DX is inexpensive? No. The Kindle DX is 7"? No. Same crap hardware and software design? Yes.
What exactly is your point?
I countered your argument that the screen is too small. I mentioned nothing about price. Considering that your initial post mentions absolutely nothing about price, I have no idea why you're now complaining about the cost of a Kindle DX.
I'm guessing you don't read actual paperback books, by the way, as they're too small per your specs.
As an owner of an iPad and a Kindle I can honestly say: books on an LCD display make zero sense, bar saying you have that feature and you have this great UI etc. It's all marketing as far as I'm concerned. It's the screen where ultimately novels fall down - and I don't mean its resolution. There was an article a while back on here that said (and I'm paraphrasing): Study shows iPad no worse on your eyes than Kindle. Well as an owner of both I can tell you any story that says anything like this should be regarded as complete rubbish. Literally any article that says the iPad (or any tablet with an LCD) hurts your eyes no worse than the Kindle is absolute bullshit. Unquestionable bullshit.
For text books, magazines and newspapers LCD is perfectly fine, even better in fact - but for actual "books" LCD is not simply inadequate, but inherently the wrong technology. This is why I wonder if Apple is going to someday bring back the product name iBook. And build the dedicated touch screen e-Ink book reader that plastic logic failed to.
What exactly is the difference between "text books" and "actual "books""? Do you mean textbooks (like college courses) vs reading novels? Reading is reading. I'm on a computer at least 12 hours a day and went to have my eyes checked recently. Both my eyes are 20/20 and when he tested both eyes together I have better than 20/20. I don't get eyestrain or headaches from reading the big 1600x1200 CRT at work or the 1680x1050 LCD I have at home. When I'm using my wife's iPad, I can lay down in the dark and read, which I can't do w/o a nightlight of some form if I'm trying to read an actual book.
I countered your argument that the screen is too small. I mentioned nothing about price. Considering that your initial post mentions absolutely nothing about price, I have no idea why you're now complaining about the cost of a Kindle DX.
Fair enough, but I did mention 7" specifically.
And I'm telling you now, price matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution
I'm guessing you don't read actual paperback books, by the way, as they're too small per your specs.
What exactly is your point?
6" paperback books, on the diagonal? Where? At least if you are going to try to be snarky about it you should have gone and actually measured a few paperback books first.
They had no choice. Sprint started it with saying their WiMAX was ‘4G’ even though their implementation was about as far as you could get from the then ITU definition of ‘4G’, then T-Mobile with LTE (which AT&T rallied against, at first), then Verizon with LTE.
Actually, T-Mobile is doing it with their HSPA+ network. AT&T has a pretty large HSPA+ network, but avoided calling it 4G because they were already planning LTE (like Verizon) - which, when maxed out, is a much better representation of what the ITU defines as 4G (though really, LTE-A is "true" 4G).
Personally, I think that AT&T has the best road map. HSPA+ as a backup for their LTE makes a lot more sense than VZW's LTE or bust plan.
edit:
What I mean is, AT&T already had a HSPA+ network, but because T-Mobile is claiming HSPA+ = 4G, they really had no choice but to do the same. But with them offering both HSPA+ and LTE, their customers (me) will probably have it worse off. MetroPCS/Verizon are working on LTE and their 4G phones will be LTE (this year). So far, all of AT&T's 4G phones that are already announced are HSPA+. Their 4G phones later this year, and next year, will be LTE, but still marked as 4G. If the iPhone 5 gets "4G", I pray it's LTE.
The iPad can also run almost all iPhone applications in a scaled-up format, while early Android tablets like the Galaxy Tab ran applications not designed for its larger screen and form factor.
So, what's the difference between running "scaled-up format" apps on an iPad and running apps that are "not designed for its larger screen and form factor" on an Android tablet? Either way the user experience is going to be poorer than if the app was natively designed for the tablet's particular screen size and resolution.
-------
And to Ireland: The Kindle is a trojan horse. Amazon doesn't care whether the device lives or dies. It gives them an excuse to mention the Kindle bookstore on their home page. It's the eBook mindshare they're after. Much like iTunes is basically synonymous with online music, Amazon wants the same thing when it comes to eBooks. Thus why they've made a Kindle ebook reader app for every major desktop and smartphone OS.
So, what's the difference between running "scaled-up format" apps on an iPad and running apps that are "not designed for its larger screen and form factor" on an Android tablet? Either way the user experience is going to be poorer than if the app was natively designed for the tablet's particular screen size and resolution.
-------
And to Ireland: The Kindle is a trojan horse. Amazon doesn't care whether the device lives or dies. It gives them an excuse to mention the Kindle bookstore on their home page. It's the eBook mindshare they're after. Much like iTunes is basically synonymous with online music, Amazon wants the same thing when it comes to eBooks. Thus why they've made a Kindle ebook reader app for every major desktop and smartphone OS.
And I still can't figure out why RIM wants to dilute their brand by even having Android apps run on their device in the first place.
This company, man, I've become morbidly fascinated with their public flailings over a product they've not even launched yet.
There is a much better chance of the iPhone going to Sprint which would be easy for Apple to do now that there is a Verizon iPhone. Not so with T Mobile.
A might go for a Sprint iPhone, but I would prefer T-Mobile since Sprint can't do data and voice at the same time.
BIG BIG mistake for RIM to even think of supporting Android apps on Playbook. Why would any developer bother to write native Playbook apps if they could just sell their Android apps on to the platform. So all that will happen is that RIM will have very few native apps for Playbook which totally defeats the object of having their own platform.
Up to now I've felt that RIM had a sneaking chance of surviving through their own "burning platform" problems - they certainly had more of a strategy than Nokia. However I have now changed my mind. If they are SO lacking in confidence that anyone will support their platform that they're giving up before it has even been released then they're obviously doomed. Doomed!
As an owner of an iPad and a Kindle I can honestly say: books on an LCD display make zero sense, bar saying you have that feature and you have this great UI etc. It's all marketing as far as I'm concerned. It's the screen where ultimately novels fall down - and I don't mean its resolution. There was an article a while back on here that said (and I'm paraphrasing): Study shows iPad no worse on your eyes than Kindle. Well as an owner of both I can tell you any story that says anything like this should be regarded as complete rubbish. Literally any article that says the iPad (or any tablet with an LCD) hurts your eyes no worse than the Kindle is absolute bullshit. Unquestionable bullshit.
For text books, magazines and newspapers LCD is perfectly fine, even better in fact - but for actual "books" LCD is not simply inadequate, but inherently the wrong technology. This is why I wonder if Apple is going to someday bring back the product name iBook. And build the dedicated touch screen e-Ink book reader that plastic logic failed to.
Do you have anything to back up your statements or are you just really telling us your OPINION?
Comments
Take a hint, Apple? T-Mobile wants you to make a 4G iPhone for the T-Mobile network already! And so do I!
There is a much better chance of the iPhone going to Sprint which would be easy for Apple to do now that there is a Verizon iPhone. Not so with T Mobile.
I am guessing this would just be pre-Honeycomb crap too. Who wants that on a tablet?
Considering that they've already thought of this and released the Kindle DX, this complaint falls flat.
So the Kindle DX is inexpensive? No. The Kindle DX is 7"? No. Same crap hardware and software design? Yes.
What exactly is your point?
are 3G phones.
True story. Despite the ?4,? all
T-Mobile phones run on 3G
networks per the ITU.
AT&T is doing the same thing as well.
They had no choice. Sprint started it with saying their WiMAX was ?4G? even though their implementation was about as far as you could get from the then ITU definition of ?4G?, then T-Mobile with LTE (which AT&T rallied against, at first), then Verizon with LTE. AT&T really has no choice in a society that is ignorant to technical aspects and is used to the marketing terms typically have a one up over the previous generation tech.
I can?t fault them for that, nor can we fault the public for not realizing how HSPA compares with HSPA+ compares to WiMAX compares LTE compares to LTE-Advanced, or how the ITU defines these terms and every carrier in the US is using the marketing term because they can (and should). All we can do is try not to strain the rectus muscles of our orbits when we uncontrollably roll our eyes when someone claims that their phone with ?4G? in better than a phone with ?3G? without actually knowing what that implies except that the number before the ?G? is one more than the other.
So the Kindle DX is inexpensive? No. The Kindle DX is 7"? No. Same crap hardware and software design? Yes.
What exactly is your point?
I countered your argument that the screen is too small. I mentioned nothing about price. Considering that your initial post mentions absolutely nothing about price, I have no idea why you're now complaining about the cost of a Kindle DX.
I'm guessing you don't read actual paperback books, by the way, as they're too small per your specs.
What exactly is your point?
As an owner of an iPad and a Kindle I can honestly say: books on an LCD display make zero sense, bar saying you have that feature and you have this great UI etc. It's all marketing as far as I'm concerned. It's the screen where ultimately novels fall down - and I don't mean its resolution. There was an article a while back on here that said (and I'm paraphrasing): Study shows iPad no worse on your eyes than Kindle. Well as an owner of both I can tell you any story that says anything like this should be regarded as complete rubbish. Literally any article that says the iPad (or any tablet with an LCD) hurts your eyes no worse than the Kindle is absolute bullshit. Unquestionable bullshit.
For text books, magazines and newspapers LCD is perfectly fine, even better in fact - but for actual "books" LCD is not simply inadequate, but inherently the wrong technology. This is why I wonder if Apple is going to someday bring back the product name iBook. And build the dedicated touch screen e-Ink book reader that plastic logic failed to.
What exactly is the difference between "text books" and "actual "books""? Do you mean textbooks (like college courses) vs reading novels? Reading is reading. I'm on a computer at least 12 hours a day and went to have my eyes checked recently. Both my eyes are 20/20 and when he tested both eyes together I have better than 20/20. I don't get eyestrain or headaches from reading the big 1600x1200 CRT at work or the 1680x1050 LCD I have at home. When I'm using my wife's iPad, I can lay down in the dark and read, which I can't do w/o a nightlight of some form if I'm trying to read an actual book.
I countered your argument that the screen is too small. I mentioned nothing about price. Considering that your initial post mentions absolutely nothing about price, I have no idea why you're now complaining about the cost of a Kindle DX.
Fair enough, but I did mention 7" specifically.
And I'm telling you now, price matters.
I'm guessing you don't read actual paperback books, by the way, as they're too small per your specs.
What exactly is your point?
6" paperback books, on the diagonal? Where? At least if you are going to try to be snarky about it you should have gone and actually measured a few paperback books first.
Bad part is there are plenty of consumers that buy this garbage.
All T-Mobile phones
are 3G phones.
True story. Despite the ‘4,’ all
T-Mobile phones run on 3G
networks per the ITU.
They had no choice. Sprint started it with saying their WiMAX was ‘4G’ even though their implementation was about as far as you could get from the then ITU definition of ‘4G’, then T-Mobile with LTE (which AT&T rallied against, at first), then Verizon with LTE.
Actually, T-Mobile is doing it with their HSPA+ network. AT&T has a pretty large HSPA+ network, but avoided calling it 4G because they were already planning LTE (like Verizon) - which, when maxed out, is a much better representation of what the ITU defines as 4G (though really, LTE-A is "true" 4G).
Personally, I think that AT&T has the best road map. HSPA+ as a backup for their LTE makes a lot more sense than VZW's LTE or bust plan.
edit:
What I mean is, AT&T already had a HSPA+ network, but because T-Mobile is claiming HSPA+ = 4G, they really had no choice but to do the same. But with them offering both HSPA+ and LTE, their customers (me) will probably have it worse off. MetroPCS/Verizon are working on LTE and their 4G phones will be LTE (this year). So far, all of AT&T's 4G phones that are already announced are HSPA+. Their 4G phones later this year, and next year, will be LTE, but still marked as 4G. If the iPhone 5 gets "4G", I pray it's LTE.
great argument lads... out did yourselves there !!
I must go buy a blackberry torch in case the leccy ever goes out...
The iPad can also run almost all iPhone applications in a scaled-up format, while early Android tablets like the Galaxy Tab ran applications not designed for its larger screen and form factor.
So, what's the difference between running "scaled-up format" apps on an iPad and running apps that are "not designed for its larger screen and form factor" on an Android tablet? Either way the user experience is going to be poorer than if the app was natively designed for the tablet's particular screen size and resolution.
-------
And to Ireland: The Kindle is a trojan horse. Amazon doesn't care whether the device lives or dies. It gives them an excuse to mention the Kindle bookstore on their home page. It's the eBook mindshare they're after. Much like iTunes is basically synonymous with online music, Amazon wants the same thing when it comes to eBooks. Thus why they've made a Kindle ebook reader app for every major desktop and smartphone OS.
So, what's the difference between running "scaled-up format" apps on an iPad and running apps that are "not designed for its larger screen and form factor" on an Android tablet? Either way the user experience is going to be poorer than if the app was natively designed for the tablet's particular screen size and resolution.
-------
And to Ireland: The Kindle is a trojan horse. Amazon doesn't care whether the device lives or dies. It gives them an excuse to mention the Kindle bookstore on their home page. It's the eBook mindshare they're after. Much like iTunes is basically synonymous with online music, Amazon wants the same thing when it comes to eBooks. Thus why they've made a Kindle ebook reader app for every major desktop and smartphone OS.
And I still can't figure out why RIM wants to dilute their brand by even having Android apps run on their device in the first place.
This company, man, I've become morbidly fascinated with their public flailings over a product they've not even launched yet.
There is a much better chance of the iPhone going to Sprint which would be easy for Apple to do now that there is a Verizon iPhone. Not so with T Mobile.
A might go for a Sprint iPhone, but I would prefer T-Mobile since Sprint can't do data and voice at the same time.
Up to now I've felt that RIM had a sneaking chance of surviving through their own "burning platform" problems - they certainly had more of a strategy than Nokia. However I have now changed my mind. If they are SO lacking in confidence that anyone will support their platform that they're giving up before it has even been released then they're obviously doomed. Doomed!
If the Playbook is going to run Android apps, that tells you the sad state of RIM's own ecosystem.
I am guessing this would just be pre-Honeycomb crap too. Who wants that on a tablet?
Yah, this is going to work well for a couple apps but the majority are likely some kind of broken.
Not expecting sufficient native apps is a real admission of weakness.
As an owner of an iPad and a Kindle I can honestly say: books on an LCD display make zero sense, bar saying you have that feature and you have this great UI etc. It's all marketing as far as I'm concerned. It's the screen where ultimately novels fall down - and I don't mean its resolution. There was an article a while back on here that said (and I'm paraphrasing): Study shows iPad no worse on your eyes than Kindle. Well as an owner of both I can tell you any story that says anything like this should be regarded as complete rubbish. Literally any article that says the iPad (or any tablet with an LCD) hurts your eyes no worse than the Kindle is absolute bullshit. Unquestionable bullshit.
For text books, magazines and newspapers LCD is perfectly fine, even better in fact - but for actual "books" LCD is not simply inadequate, but inherently the wrong technology. This is why I wonder if Apple is going to someday bring back the product name iBook. And build the dedicated touch screen e-Ink book reader that plastic logic failed to.
Do you have anything to back up your statements or are you just really telling us your OPINION?
Do you have anything to back up your statements or are you just really telling us your OPINION?
I'll take "Opinions" for $400 Alex