1) That had a resistive touchscreen. It wasn't until mid-2010, after the iPad was launched did they have a capacitive touchscreen version... to demo.
2) It cost $2,200 which means it was likely doomed from the start.
3) It was low-end PC hardware running Windows. This was nothing new. Don't think because its name is iTablet that Apple copied a damn thing from this 2 decade old, failed tablet model.
1. According to Engadget it was available as capacitive or digitizer. (in 2007 and not 2010)
3. Low end hardware? Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB ram- erm... what were the specs for the MBPs in 2007. I don't understand the end of your post, "2 decade old"??? I was merely trying to point out that the overall shape/look of the iPad is not as revolutionary as many would suggest. I am not saying that Apple copied anyone, just pointing out that two different developers can come up with similar looking items without prior knowledge of the other.
The point remains that iPads fill the needs of most people, and will continue to fill the needs a wider variety of people as apps and peripherals are available. The IBM PC didn't meet a lot of needs either, an ecosystem developed around it, and it took a decade to be accepted by consumers.
Excellent post, @JeffDM... I want to expand on your last point...
The IBM/PC and Windows pretty-much defined the pc era. One way to look at the pc era is the attributes, or style of the supporting ecosystem:
The pc era started as one of (stay with me now):
a [relatively] expensive computer
using a [relatively] expensive OS
using [relatively] expensive peripherals (printers, scanners, mass storage HDDs, etc)
running [relatively] expensive applications
Each computer had it's own copy of stuff (hardware, OS, peripherals, applications). Due to competition and technology the costs of some of these things became much less expensive. Networking (even sneaker net) reduced the overall cost of the more expensive components because it allowed them to be shared, concurrently, among several users.
Technology breakthroughs happened frequently and this usually involved replacement or upgrading the various components of the user's ecosystem. One of the key incentives [offered by the manufacturers] to upgrading/replacing hardware and software was to support backward compatibility -- your investment in [relatively] expensive OS, Peripherals, and applications was protected.
But, "Sharing" and "Backward Compatibility" were antithetical to the business plans of the manufacturers -- the users could share their components and could continue to run older versions.
"Backward compatibility" was a problem for the software manufacturers (OS and Applications, alike). The manufacturers needed to entice the users to buy the latest version, rather than continuing to run "last year's" version. The main way the manufacturers addressed this was to increase speed, power, usability and features... The easiest way to entice the user to buy/upgrade was to add new features while maintaining backward compatibility... This has resulted in the Feature Bloat and Legacy Baggage! As an example of this, consider that Word and Excel ran quite nicely (thank you) on a 128 KB RAM Mac with 2 400 KB MicroFloppy drives.
"Sharing" is especially significant for software manufacturers (OS and Applications, alike). In its pure form, software, like money, is fungible -- it can run anywhere... On Bill's computer, or on Sarah's computer, or on Sam's computer... The big problem (for the manufacturers) came when one copy software was running On Bill's computer, and on Sarah's computer, and on Sam's computer... The way the software manufacturers addressed this was with dongles, activation codes, authorization disks, call home authorization... Or, in the case of MS, they sold the basic Windows OS directly to the computer manufacturers -- so it was factory installed on each computer. To flesh out its business plan, MS arbitrarily divided its OS into several "versions" (home, office, pro, misogynist... whatever) and charged individuals for the upgrade to get the features they really needed... To protect this lucrative "version upgrade" business MS had to address the copy protection devices mentioned above.
That's pretty much the way the pc era has evolved to where we are today.
So, enter the post-pc era:
relatively inexpensive hardware
very inexpensive software
instant gratification in use (instant on) and software -- just download and go
mobility -- take your stuff along with you
lean and mean -- just grab your device and go (no cables, accessories, DVDs, dongles...)
One problem for hardware manufacturers (and for MS) is that they can no longer afford to pay MS for a lobotomized OS to preinstall on their hardware -- and for MS to charge users to upgrade... That business model is broken, especially when Apple, who defines post-pc, offers its OS free, with free upgrades to all.
Then there's the issues of "backward compatibility" and "legacy baggage" -- these are are in direct opposition to the "instant gratification" and "lean and mean" attributes of post-pc devices...
Even if you could run Full PhotoShop, Full AutoCad, Full Office on a [post-pc] tablet like an iPad... Would you want to? Are you willing to pay the price?
Next, is the issue of price... how do you repackage an app like Office so it works acceptably on a tablet and competes: features, compatibility price... especially price. Apple has defined the threshold here, with a set of features, compatibility and a price of $10 for each component of their office suite. If MS wants to compete, they can offer more features, more compatibility and charge a premium price (say, $10-$20 per component).
Finally, "Sharing" is the real killer (on the consumer side). If you buy all the iWork components (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) you pay $30 for a single copy that, by design, is meant to be shared on all your devices. MS has no real answer for this other than to charge/require the manufacturers to pre-install Office on every device -- or to make the devices themself.
These issues also affect other software manufacturers like Adobe, Avid, Autodesk -- and they are beginning to offer subset, sharable apps for the tablets (at least for the iPad).
Now, here's the dagger direct to the heart of MS (and, to a lesser extent. other major software manufactures)...
The low-price and unlimited sharing attributes are filtering back into the pc era devices. For consumers, OS X Mountain Lion will cost $19 (no home, pro, etc. deviants)... and a single copy is sharable on all the computers you own. The same is true of iWork... and even Apple's top of the line Pro and ProSumer OS X application, FCP X -- Final Cut Pro X.
Earlier versions of Final cut were priced in the thousands of dollars and were non-sharable. A copy of FCP X costs $300 and is sharable on every Mac you own.
To my mind this is one of the major characteristics of the post-pc era... like it or not, Apple has redefined how software will be built, priced, marketed, distributed and used.
Like those two innocents in the Garden of Eden -- having tasted the Apple, we can't go back!
all right. you get 100 dollar PC with 6 monitors (estimated 200 each) so 2200.
you get a projector + cloth.... estimated price 1-1.5k
you have all (up to 6) sign into virtual machines and just switch the monitor input.
you open documents whatever you need. you turn on projector and have it display VM 1, than VM 2, etc.
OR
instead of having that projector,one everyone is ready you have VM1 duplicate what it sees onto all screen, once that is done have VM 2 do it, etc, etc.]
not sure what the software would cost to do it super fast, but if you can wait a minute or two inbetween each persons presintation than it can be done for under $50 a person.
so yes, i believe i can do it cheaper. As long as you have 6 or less people that is, but you can add another computer + moniters for each other set of people.. which does start taking dramatically more space.
however, depending on what kind of biz the people worked at iPad's could be much better for everyday use, or completely worthless for doing work. So i think which solution wins depends on that.
also, depending on what other work they want to do in that meeting each solution can have varying degrees of usefulness.
also sorry for spelling, i usually look up correct spellings if words say they are spelled incorrectly, just Apple insider doesn't let me do it via right click...
Is that what you are talking about? Not to demean, but we did that in the 1980s with Apple ][s on a Corvus LAN sharing networked HDDs, printers, etc.
I am serious... we installed our first LAN in June of 1980 at Saratoga HS, Saratoga, CA. My daughter attended Saratoga HS -- as did Gene Carter's daughter... Gene was the VP of Marketing at Apple. Marion Kenworthy was the no-nonsense SHS Vice Principal who spearheaded and managed the project... and she was quite familiar with Gene's and my daughters.
Seven Apple ][s with monitors (no other peripherals) connected in a star network. The Teacher's Apple ][ had 2 floppies. The network contained a shared HDD (5 MB) and a shared Centronics printer. The teacher could display the content of his computer on every screen (for demonstrations and instruction) -- or allow the sharing of any students computer on any on all the screens (for problem or solution presentation).
Again, not to demean, but for your solution, you have to have:
a room that is already setup with dedicated hardware (that is likely not cost effective because it is infrequently used)
or bring the the hardware, cables, peripherals, etc. and setup the room each time it is used (removing computer capability from the original source)
bring your content to the meeting and install it on the installed hardware/peripherals
do a dry run-through to make sure [see if] anything works
In my solution, the room has a $249 AirPort Extreme, a $100 Apple TV, a $50 HDMI cable and an HDTV (large enough for all to see).
Each person brings his iPad containing his content (no wires, cables, peripherals, cross-loading content, dry runs, etc.).
Each person, in turn, connects (via WiFi/AirPlay) to the HDTV -- it takes about 5 seconds to switch among presenters.
There is no need to display the same content on each iPad -- though there are ways of doing that too.
I have attended and made presentations in the environment you describe -- generally the time was spent:
20% getting initially setup
10% delays, work-arounds reacting to problems
50% actual presentation
20% teardown and afterglow -- discussing what they should have done
(that was on a good day)
If I was attending, I was the guy in the back of the room taking my watch apart!
Edit: If circumstances require that you use "regular computers" instead of iPads, you can do that too (Officially, later this month):
Inside OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion GM: AirPlay Mirroring
Quote:
"also sorry for spelling, i usually look up correct spellings if words say they are spelled incorrectly, just Apple insider doesn't let me do it via right click..."
3. Low end hardware? Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB ram- erm... what were the specs for the MBPs in 2007. I don't understand the end of your post, "2 decade old"??? I was merely trying to point out that the overall shape/look of the iPad is not as revolutionary as many would suggest. I am not saying that Apple copied anyone, just pointing out that two different developers can come up with similar looking items without prior knowledge of the other.
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.
It's not who does it first... it's who does it right... And timing is everything, as it provides a place to stand that enables you to move the world!
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.
At what point did I say Apple stole anything?
Frankly there are times, such a this, that you come across as being extremely insecure.
I provided a link to a product that significantly predated the iPad, that from a distance could be mistaken for an iPad. I mention that the firm had a capacitive screen, I accept that I accidentally posted the resistive screen version, the cap active version is available on the link provided, again from a distance it resembles the white ipad. Happy now? I guess not
The reference to price was intended as a tongue in check nod to the claims in 2007 that the iphone was too expensive. Being used to purchasing off contract phones I was used to that kind of price.
The slab point, in turn, was in response to the the puerile suggestions often rolled out here that all tablet devices prior to the ipad were freakishly different, the suggestion being that apple were soooo visionary that they created the rectangle.
...again from a distance it resembles the white ipad.
At a distance heat rising off the asphalt looks like a puddle. The fact is they did not have a consumer tablet with a multi-touch capacitance display. Even if they did there is still the key factor of creating a device that has all necessary parts ready to go to instead of just making something and pushing it to market to be first. A tablet running Windows Vista (VISTA!!!) was never going to be a a success even if you only count Windows-based tablets in your comparison.
I should note, that I am not going to go into what it can and cannot do, because its just a difference of opinion...
but you can stream from almost any laptop with intel iGPU shit graphics from Sandy Bridge onwards...
i just realized that I just proved that i was right via your arguement 0.o.... wow! lol
Whatever... I never was going to convince you that there is a better way... But Fortune 500 companies are buying millions of iPads... They must know something we don't?
At a distance heat rising off the asphalt looks like a puddle. The fact is they did not have a consumer tablet with a multi-touch capacitance display. Even if they did there is still the key factor of creating a device that has all necessary parts ready to go to instead of just making something and pushing it to market to be first. A tablet running Windows Vista (VISTA!!!) was never going to be a a success even if you only count Windows-based tablets in your comparison.
The distance factor seems to be very important to certain legal teams...
Microsoft is back in the EU's crosshairs again, accused of failing to comply with it's 2009 antitrust settlement terms.
"We take compliance with our decisions very seriously. And I trusted the company's reports were accurate. But it seems that was not the case, so we have immediately taken action," EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said today.
"If infringements are confirmed, Microsoft should expect sanctions," indicating that Microsoft may face heavy financial penalties, or changes to how it conducts business in the 27 European member states.
This will be the first time the Commission had dealt with a company that had failed to meet requirements under a previous antitrust ruling, Reuters noted. The Commission said it will treat the case as a "matter of priority."
Microsoft faces a fine up to 10 percent of its global annual turnover should it be found flouting European antitrust laws; a figure that could total close to 5.7 billion euros ($7 bn).
In a public statement, Microsoft admitted it had "fallen short in [its] responsibility" to update Windows 7 Service Pack 1 "due to a technical error."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) That had a resistive touchscreen. It wasn't until mid-2010, after the iPad was launched did they have a capacitive touchscreen version... to demo.
2) It cost $2,200 which means it was likely doomed from the start.
3) It was low-end PC hardware running Windows. This was nothing new. Don't think because its name is iTablet that Apple copied a damn thing from this 2 decade old, failed tablet model.
1. According to Engadget it was available as capacitive or digitizer. (in 2007 and not 2010)
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/
2. yes it was expensive, so...
3. Low end hardware? Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB ram- erm... what were the specs for the MBPs in 2007. I don't understand the end of your post, "2 decade old"??? I was merely trying to point out that the overall shape/look of the iPad is not as revolutionary as many would suggest. I am not saying that Apple copied anyone, just pointing out that two different developers can come up with similar looking items without prior knowledge of the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
...
The point remains that iPads fill the needs of most people, and will continue to fill the needs a wider variety of people as apps and peripherals are available. The IBM PC didn't meet a lot of needs either, an ecosystem developed around it, and it took a decade to be accepted by consumers.
Excellent post, @JeffDM... I want to expand on your last point...
The IBM/PC and Windows pretty-much defined the pc era. One way to look at the pc era is the attributes, or style of the supporting ecosystem:
The pc era started as one of (stay with me now):
a [relatively] expensive computer
using a [relatively] expensive OS
using [relatively] expensive peripherals (printers, scanners, mass storage HDDs, etc)
running [relatively] expensive applications
Each computer had it's own copy of stuff (hardware, OS, peripherals, applications). Due to competition and technology the costs of some of these things became much less expensive. Networking (even sneaker net) reduced the overall cost of the more expensive components because it allowed them to be shared, concurrently, among several users.
Technology breakthroughs happened frequently and this usually involved replacement or upgrading the various components of the user's ecosystem. One of the key incentives [offered by the manufacturers] to upgrading/replacing hardware and software was to support backward compatibility -- your investment in [relatively] expensive OS, Peripherals, and applications was protected.
But, "Sharing" and "Backward Compatibility" were antithetical to the business plans of the manufacturers -- the users could share their components and could continue to run older versions.
"Backward compatibility" was a problem for the software manufacturers (OS and Applications, alike). The manufacturers needed to entice the users to buy the latest version, rather than continuing to run "last year's" version. The main way the manufacturers addressed this was to increase speed, power, usability and features... The easiest way to entice the user to buy/upgrade was to add new features while maintaining backward compatibility... This has resulted in the Feature Bloat and Legacy Baggage! As an example of this, consider that Word and Excel ran quite nicely (thank you) on a 128 KB RAM Mac with 2 400 KB MicroFloppy drives.
"Sharing" is especially significant for software manufacturers (OS and Applications, alike). In its pure form, software, like money, is fungible -- it can run anywhere... On Bill's computer, or on Sarah's computer, or on Sam's computer... The big problem (for the manufacturers) came when one copy software was running On Bill's computer, and on Sarah's computer, and on Sam's computer... The way the software manufacturers addressed this was with dongles, activation codes, authorization disks, call home authorization... Or, in the case of MS, they sold the basic Windows OS directly to the computer manufacturers -- so it was factory installed on each computer. To flesh out its business plan, MS arbitrarily divided its OS into several "versions" (home, office, pro, misogynist... whatever) and charged individuals for the upgrade to get the features they really needed... To protect this lucrative "version upgrade" business MS had to address the copy protection devices mentioned above.
That's pretty much the way the pc era has evolved to where we are today.
So, enter the post-pc era:
relatively inexpensive hardware
very inexpensive software
instant gratification in use (instant on) and software -- just download and go
mobility -- take your stuff along with you
lean and mean -- just grab your device and go (no cables, accessories, DVDs, dongles...)
One problem for hardware manufacturers (and for MS) is that they can no longer afford to pay MS for a lobotomized OS to preinstall on their hardware -- and for MS to charge users to upgrade... That business model is broken, especially when Apple, who defines post-pc, offers its OS free, with free upgrades to all.
Then there's the issues of "backward compatibility" and "legacy baggage" -- these are are in direct opposition to the "instant gratification" and "lean and mean" attributes of post-pc devices...
Even if you could run Full PhotoShop, Full AutoCad, Full Office on a [post-pc] tablet like an iPad... Would you want to? Are you willing to pay the price?
Next, is the issue of price... how do you repackage an app like Office so it works acceptably on a tablet and competes: features, compatibility price... especially price. Apple has defined the threshold here, with a set of features, compatibility and a price of $10 for each component of their office suite. If MS wants to compete, they can offer more features, more compatibility and charge a premium price (say, $10-$20 per component).
Finally, "Sharing" is the real killer (on the consumer side). If you buy all the iWork components (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) you pay $30 for a single copy that, by design, is meant to be shared on all your devices. MS has no real answer for this other than to charge/require the manufacturers to pre-install Office on every device -- or to make the devices themself.
These issues also affect other software manufacturers like Adobe, Avid, Autodesk -- and they are beginning to offer subset, sharable apps for the tablets (at least for the iPad).
Now, here's the dagger direct to the heart of MS (and, to a lesser extent. other major software manufactures)...
The low-price and unlimited sharing attributes are filtering back into the pc era devices. For consumers, OS X Mountain Lion will cost $19 (no home, pro, etc. deviants)... and a single copy is sharable on all the computers you own. The same is true of iWork... and even Apple's top of the line Pro and ProSumer OS X application, FCP X -- Final Cut Pro X.
Earlier versions of Final cut were priced in the thousands of dollars and were non-sharable. A copy of FCP X costs $300 and is sharable on every Mac you own.
To my mind this is one of the major characteristics of the post-pc era... like it or not, Apple has redefined how software will be built, priced, marketed, distributed and used.
Like those two innocents in the Garden of Eden -- having tasted the Apple, we can't go back!
It is for the likes of MS to adapt or die!
I'm done!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas
all right. you get 100 dollar PC with 6 monitors (estimated 200 each) so 2200.
you get a projector + cloth.... estimated price 1-1.5k
you have all (up to 6) sign into virtual machines and just switch the monitor input.
you open documents whatever you need. you turn on projector and have it display VM 1, than VM 2, etc.
OR
instead of having that projector,one everyone is ready you have VM1 duplicate what it sees onto all screen, once that is done have VM 2 do it, etc, etc.]
not sure what the software would cost to do it super fast, but if you can wait a minute or two inbetween each persons presintation than it can be done for under $50 a person.
so yes, i believe i can do it cheaper. As long as you have 6 or less people that is, but you can add another computer + moniters for each other set of people.. which does start taking dramatically more space.
however, depending on what kind of biz the people worked at iPad's could be much better for everyday use, or completely worthless for doing work. So i think which solution wins depends on that.
also, depending on what other work they want to do in that meeting each solution can have varying degrees of usefulness.
also sorry for spelling, i usually look up correct spellings if words say they are spelled incorrectly, just Apple insider doesn't let me do it via right click...
Is that what you are talking about? Not to demean, but we did that in the 1980s with Apple ][s on a Corvus LAN sharing networked HDDs, printers, etc.
I am serious... we installed our first LAN in June of 1980 at Saratoga HS, Saratoga, CA. My daughter attended Saratoga HS -- as did Gene Carter's daughter... Gene was the VP of Marketing at Apple. Marion Kenworthy was the no-nonsense SHS Vice Principal who spearheaded and managed the project... and she was quite familiar with Gene's and my daughters.
Seven Apple ][s with monitors (no other peripherals) connected in a star network. The Teacher's Apple ][ had 2 floppies. The network contained a shared HDD (5 MB) and a shared Centronics printer. The teacher could display the content of his computer on every screen (for demonstrations and instruction) -- or allow the sharing of any students computer on any on all the screens (for problem or solution presentation).
Again, not to demean, but for your solution, you have to have:
a room that is already setup with dedicated hardware (that is likely not cost effective because it is infrequently used)
or bring the the hardware, cables, peripherals, etc. and setup the room each time it is used (removing computer capability from the original source)
bring your content to the meeting and install it on the installed hardware/peripherals
do a dry run-through to make sure [see if] anything works
In my solution, the room has a $249 AirPort Extreme, a $100 Apple TV, a $50 HDMI cable and an HDTV (large enough for all to see).
Each person brings his iPad containing his content (no wires, cables, peripherals, cross-loading content, dry runs, etc.).
Each person, in turn, connects (via WiFi/AirPlay) to the HDTV -- it takes about 5 seconds to switch among presenters.
There is no need to display the same content on each iPad -- though there are ways of doing that too.
I have attended and made presentations in the environment you describe -- generally the time was spent:
20% getting initially setup
10% delays, work-arounds reacting to problems
50% actual presentation
20% teardown and afterglow -- discussing what they should have done
(that was on a good day)
If I was attending, I was the guy in the back of the room taking my watch apart!
Edit: If circumstances require that you use "regular computers" instead of iPads, you can do that too (Officially, later this month):
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/14/inside_os_x_108_mountain_lion_gm_airplay_mirroring.html
Inside OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion GM: AirPlay Mirroring
Quote:
"also sorry for spelling, i usually look up correct spellings if words say they are spelled incorrectly, just Apple insider doesn't let me do it via right click..."
We are in wholehearted agreement!
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.
It's not who does it first... it's who does it right... And timing is everything, as it provides a place to stand that enables you to move the world!
[VIDEO]
File under: Apropos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) That's not the model you showed to claim Apple is a thief, now is it? You showed the black model which only has the resitive input display. Also, the demo of the capacitance model came a year after the iPhone was first demoed and there is no mention of it being multi-touch.
2) So? Soooo?!!! Why does the price of a product matter to its success in a market? What a fucking assassin comment to make regarding the success of a given product in a given market.
3a) Two decades old! That's how long people have been trying to make a tablet form factor work before Apple came along. Your comment about the form factor is ridiculous, to say the least. Of course all tablets are going to be most a display on one side and essentially a slab. When you call something a tablet you've got a general idea of the design. Let's not forge that Sci-Fi had described tablets for at least a decade before Apple was even founded. Personal computing was also written about so I guess we can claim Apple's founding was based on prior art?¡
3b.1) And lets be clear about what makes the iPad and iPhone a success. They took many things and put them together in a way that had never been done before. They changed their markets because they make a viable, useful and desirable product. There is no fluke to their success. There is no accident that a concept they started working almost a decade earlier finally came to fruition in 2010. They didn't rush to market with a PPC-based tablet running Mac OS 9. It was about a product they would want to use not a product they can claim "First!" on like a immature commenter on Engadget or Gizmodo.
3b.2) Here is another example that you won't be able to disagree with. Google didn't invent search but they made it great. They engineered ways to make it better, to make it more useful, to make it more appealing. Does Google not deserve their search success simply because they weren't the "First!" to create a search engine? Of course not.
At what point did I say Apple stole anything?
Frankly there are times, such a this, that you come across as being extremely insecure.
I provided a link to a product that significantly predated the iPad, that from a distance could be mistaken for an iPad. I mention that the firm had a capacitive screen, I accept that I accidentally posted the resistive screen version, the cap active version is available on the link provided, again from a distance it resembles the white ipad. Happy now? I guess not
The reference to price was intended as a tongue in check nod to the claims in 2007 that the iphone was too expensive. Being used to purchasing off contract phones I was used to that kind of price.
The slab point, in turn, was in response to the the puerile suggestions often rolled out here that all tablet devices prior to the ipad were freakishly different, the suggestion being that apple were soooo visionary that they created the rectangle.
Sorry, i started to glaze over 3b...
At a distance heat rising off the asphalt looks like a puddle. The fact is they did not have a consumer tablet with a multi-touch capacitance display. Even if they did there is still the key factor of creating a device that has all necessary parts ready to go to instead of just making something and pushing it to market to be first. A tablet running Windows Vista (VISTA!!!) was never going to be a a success even if you only count Windows-based tablets in your comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/14/inside_os_x_108_mountain_lion_gm_airplay_mirroring.html
Inside OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion GM: AirPlay Mirroring
We are in wholehearted agreement!
I should note, that I am not going to go into what it can and cannot do, because its just a difference of opinion...
but you can stream from almost any laptop with intel iGPU shit graphics from Sandy Bridge onwards...
i just realized that I just proved that i was right via your arguement 0.o.... wow! lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas
I should note, that I am not going to go into what it can and cannot do, because its just a difference of opinion...
but you can stream from almost any laptop with intel iGPU shit graphics from Sandy Bridge onwards...
i just realized that I just proved that i was right via your arguement 0.o.... wow! lol
Whatever... I never was going to convince you that there is a better way... But Fortune 500 companies are buying millions of iPads... They must know something we don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
At a distance heat rising off the asphalt looks like a puddle. The fact is they did not have a consumer tablet with a multi-touch capacitance display. Even if they did there is still the key factor of creating a device that has all necessary parts ready to go to instead of just making something and pushing it to market to be first. A tablet running Windows Vista (VISTA!!!) was never going to be a a success even if you only count Windows-based tablets in your comparison.
The distance factor seems to be very important to certain legal teams...
Microsoft is back in the EU's crosshairs again, accused of failing to comply with it's 2009 antitrust settlement terms.
"We take compliance with our decisions very seriously. And I trusted the company's reports were accurate. But it seems that was not the case, so we have immediately taken action," EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said today.
"If infringements are confirmed, Microsoft should expect sanctions," indicating that Microsoft may face heavy financial penalties, or changes to how it conducts business in the 27 European member states.
This will be the first time the Commission had dealt with a company that had failed to meet requirements under a previous antitrust ruling, Reuters noted. The Commission said it will treat the case as a "matter of priority."
Microsoft faces a fine up to 10 percent of its global annual turnover should it be found flouting European antitrust laws; a figure that could total close to 5.7 billion euros ($7 bn).
In a public statement, Microsoft admitted it had "fallen short in [its] responsibility" to update Windows 7 Service Pack 1 "due to a technical error."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57473593-75/eu-opens-microsoft-antitrust-probe-over-browser-choice/