Until a digital version of a book even has higher resolution images in it than a paper copy, I don't think there's much downhill-going yet.
Inexcusable, really.
Wrong. The iPad is a retina display which means that your eyes can't perceive individual pixels at the normal viewing distance. Greater resolution does not do you any good.
One could argue about contrast and glare and visibility in bright sun, but your argument that the resolution needs to be higher is just plain false.
I can see the attraction of the SD card slot, but my guess is that very few people would actually use it if there was an easier alternative. Not that it is hard to use an SD card but my guess is that the 'main stream' wouldn't know what to do with it and if they did, would loose it very quickly. I'd like more memory in my tablet (and phone), no question, but faffing around with SD cards is a pain. Just like CD's, floppy disks, tapes and cables, etc.
It goes beyond that. SD cards are slower then internal RAM. They can jam. They get lost. They are less reliable. They create one more thing to break in the tablet. They use battery power. They take up space which presumably decreases the available battery size.
There are lots of strong arguments against SD slots in a tablet. There is certainly a positive (essentially unlimited storage capacity). Where do the scales tip? I'm inclined to agree with Apple.
The article doesn't say what operating system it is using. Maybe this version is faster than the last version.
I like the SD card feature. That makes the Nook HD more appealing than some tablets without it. I'll wait for some video reviews. The Nexus 7 appeals to me and even the Kindle Fire does. I don't want one of these for playing games. I want it for reading, browsing the web, and streaming video. The one that does the best job will get my money before Christmas.
Wrong. The iPad is a retina display which means that your eyes can't perceive individual pixels at the normal viewing distance. Greater resolution does not do you any good.
One could argue about contrast and glare and visibility in bright sun, but your argument that the resolution needs to be higher is just plain false.
… What?
If the image is .6 megapixels, it's going to look like TRASH on a 9.8" screen, and I don't care how many pixels it has.
I'm saying physical copies of books often have better quality images than their digital equivalents. Case in point, the Steve Jobs biography. And the digital version, despite having no ink or physical size limitations, has no images or other media of any sort beyond what is included in the physical copy. You want digital books to actually replace physical ones, you have to give people a reason beyond "they fit in a smaller case", particularly if the quality is WORSE.
I like how they only charge $30 for the next 16 Gb of memory and the ability to use SD cards.
I don't really care about SD cards since you have to buy a different type for every device you own plus learn all the little technical details about them to ensure you get one with decent performance.
However, I agree about the $30 for 16 GB of memory. $100 for 16 GB more on the iPhone 5 when you're only paying $180 for the device itself (on contract) is too much imo.
I agree it would be nice if there was an alternative but the iPad doesn't provide it either. I recently wanted to tranfer a large number of work files onto an iPad. After suckinig up to IT for a week I managed to get iTunes installed but that didn't work. A USB port would have been nice but no luck there either. Even the WiFi apps for file transfer don't seem to handle more than one file at a time, and with no WiFi at work it doesn't matter anyway. I understand Apples walled garden approach but I've bumped up against the inside of the wall too many times. I keep hoping that one of "these also rans" will get it right.
Search the app store. I sync around 1500 files between my Mac and iPad/iPhone over Wi-Fi using Syncellence. There's a free version you can try out and make sure it does what you need.
With regard to no Wi-Fi at work, just create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with your Mac and join it with your iPad.
If the image is .6 megapixels, it's going to look like TRASH on a 9.8" screen, and I don't care how many pixels it has.
I'm saying physical copies of books often have better quality images than their digital equivalents. Case in point, the Steve Jobs biography. And the digital version, despite having no ink or physical size limitations, has no images or other media of any sort beyond what is included in the physical copy. You want digital books to actually replace physical ones, you have to give people a reason beyond "they fit in a smaller case", particularly if the quality is WORSE.
You're changing your story.
Your original statement was:
"Until a digital version of a book even has higher resolution images in it than a paper copy, I don't think there's much downhill-going yet."
In the real world, many iBooks (if not most) do have resolution that takes advantage of the retina display, so there is no advantage to higher resolution and your argument fails.
As I said, there are other arguments that could be made (and which you're now trying to make), but the one above is clearly false.
In the real world, many iBooks (if not most) do have resolution that takes advantage of the retina display, so there is no advantage to higher resolution and your argument fails.
I don't get it. So you're saying the images already take into account a retina display? Okay. So why shouldn't I want images with resolutions slightly (or greatly) higher than that so that I can zoom them? That's the point of the medium; to do things that books cannot. Not to be LESS than what books are. But that's not even the point I'm making.
If the resolution of the digital image is less than the resolution of image in the printed book, it's going to look worse at the same size. I don't care how many pixels the screen is. Watching a VHS rip on a Thunderbolt Display doesn't make it look better than watching the same tape on a 21" 3:4 CRT TV. That's the problem; these digital images look worse than the printed ones. There's no reason for that, and it's detrimental to the eBook adoption argument.
Search the app store. I sync around 1500 files between my Mac and iPad/iPhone over Wi-Fi using Syncellence. There's a free version you can try out and make sure it does what you need.
With regard to no Wi-Fi at work, just create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with your Mac and join it with your iPad.
With my what???? We only have PCs at work and no wifi. My problem isn't with syncing files, it is getting them on the iPad to begin with.
Yes, you are. First you said that there was no way to justify an ereader until it had higher resolution than a paper book. After I pointed out the fallacy in your logic, you started using excuses like lack of pictures, etc.
I don't get it. So you're saying the images already take into account a retina display? Okay. So why shouldn't I want images with resolutions slightly (or greatly) higher than that so that I can zoom them? That's the point of the medium; to do things that books cannot. Not to be LESS than what books are. But that's not even the point I'm making.
Yes, you don't get it. The sad thing is that you refuse to educate yourself on the subject.
An iBooks image is a retina image. Its resolution is finer than your eye can see. Zooming might be an issue - except that you're comparing it to paper books and the last time I checked, you can't zoom a paper book.
If the resolution of the digital image is less than the resolution of image in the printed book, it's going to look worse at the same size. I don't care how many pixels the screen is. Watching a VHS rip on a Thunderbolt Display doesn't make it look better than watching the same tape on a 21" 3:4 CRT TV. That's the problem; these digital images look worse than the printed ones. There's no reason for that, and it's detrimental to the eBook adoption argument.
That's true - if you're looking at low resolution bitmapped images. But that's not what we're talking about.
Now, if you had said that you couldn't justify an eBook because the ancient bit-mapped images you're looking at wouldn't look as good as a paper book, that would have been a reasonable argument. But your blanket statement that eBooks are useless because they don't have greater resolution than paper is just plain false.
Electronic books do have the advantage of immortal back catalogs. Nothing ever has to go out of print, ever. Plus my local indy bookstore has something over 120,000 titles and I still run into stock gaps and out of print titles. Plus there are publishers such as BAEN who directly sell ebooks at very competitive prices.
With my what???? We only have PCs at work and no wifi. My problem isn't with syncing files, it is getting them on the iPad to begin with.
I will check out Sycellence though. Thanks
I'm pretty sure you can create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with most PCs as well. Check the network settings. I know I can do it with Windows 7 running on my Mac under Boot Camp, but the only true PC machine I have here is running Linux (router/NAS).
And that's what syncing files is: getting a set of files from one device to another all in one shot (rather than one-by-one). Put all the files you want into a single folder on your PC, then sync that folder over to your iPad.
My 70 y.o brother chose the B&N tablet because it's easy to use & free local help at the local store. And the price was right. This was in spite of my encouraging him to consider the iPad(where I could provide tech help) and even the Kindle (sorry).
Lesson? Niche products are targeted towards specific customers that have specific values. And the Nook tablet wins with these folks. And that's OK.
We're not talking about the images that come in books available on the iBooks Store? Then what're we talking about?
You two are obviously just talking around in circles.
Am I correct in stating that your point is that the images currently in most e-books are lo-res, and that his point is that they do not have to be?
If images are poor in e-books, then that is not the fault of the device, as the retina display is pretty darn good, it must be the fault of whoever is publishing those e-books and making the decision to not use higher-res images.
Am I correct in stating that your point is that the images currently in most e-books are lo-res, and that his point is that they do not have to be?
If images are poor in e-books, then that is not the fault of the device, as the retina display is pretty darn good, it must be the fault of whoever is publishing those e-books and making the decision to not use higher-res images.
Right. And RIGHT! Many publishers would be hard pressed to be much more resistant to taking advantage of the medium. And then they whine when the books don't sell well.
I'm pretty sure you can create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with most PCs as well. Check the network settings. I know I can do it with Windows 7 running on my Mac under Boot Camp, but the only true PC machine I have here is running Linux (router/NAS).
And that's what syncing files is: getting a set of files from one device to another all in one shot (rather than one-by-one). Put all the files you want into a single folder on your PC, then sync that folder over to your iPad.
Just took a look. There is no wifi card and even if there was everything is locked down with administrator privileges. My iPad is wifi only so I can't access iCloud from work. Well I have used my iphone as a hotspot but prefer not to. Wifi is in the testing stage so maybe in 6 month something will work.
Just took a look. There is no wifi card and even if there was everything is locked down with administrator privileges. My iPad is wifi only so I can't access iCloud from work. Well I have used my iphone as a hotspot but prefer not to. Wifi is in the testing stage so maybe in 6 month something will work.
ok, sounds like they have you locked down pretty tight there. If you really need to do this for work purposes, then I'd make a case with your admin about it. The nice thing about the app I recommended is that it all works locally (no cloud server) so there's no need to open things up to the Internet at all (which makes admins much happier).
Anyways, we've gotten way off topic here, but I just wanted to clear up the misconception that Apple's walled garden completely prevents you from being able to do more advanced things (like general purpose file syncing/sharing). Most things are possible via apps, but the quality of the apps varies a lot and so you might need to do a bit of hunting to find exactly what you need (word of mouth and trial versions are good). Then cross your fingers that the app developer is dedicated enough to keep it working over time. For example, early on there was a fairly decent file syncing app called File Magnet. It's still around, but it appears to be abandonware at this point.
Right. And RIGHT! Many publishers would be hard pressed to be much more resistant to taking advantage of the medium. And then they whine when the books don't sell well.
That's a reasonable statement. That is NOT what you said earlier. You said that there was no place for eBooks until their resolution exceeded that of paper - which is clearly a false statement.
Wouldn't it be easier just to reach your final argument first rather than creating a nonsensical argument and flip-flopping all over the place and changing your argument multiple times until you can come up with something reasonable?
Comments
Wrong. The iPad is a retina display which means that your eyes can't perceive individual pixels at the normal viewing distance. Greater resolution does not do you any good.
One could argue about contrast and glare and visibility in bright sun, but your argument that the resolution needs to be higher is just plain false.
It goes beyond that. SD cards are slower then internal RAM. They can jam. They get lost. They are less reliable. They create one more thing to break in the tablet. They use battery power. They take up space which presumably decreases the available battery size.
There are lots of strong arguments against SD slots in a tablet. There is certainly a positive (essentially unlimited storage capacity). Where do the scales tip? I'm inclined to agree with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
The article doesn't say what operating system it is using. Maybe this version is faster than the last version.
I like the SD card feature. That makes the Nook HD more appealing than some tablets without it. I'll wait for some video reviews. The Nexus 7 appeals to me and even the Kindle Fire does. I don't want one of these for playing games. I want it for reading, browsing the web, and streaming video. The one that does the best job will get my money before Christmas.
Possibly Windows 8RT?
Did you try iTunes file sharing? Pretty fast and easy for transferring files.
Originally Posted by jragosta
Wrong. The iPad is a retina display which means that your eyes can't perceive individual pixels at the normal viewing distance. Greater resolution does not do you any good.
One could argue about contrast and glare and visibility in bright sun, but your argument that the resolution needs to be higher is just plain false.
… What?
If the image is .6 megapixels, it's going to look like TRASH on a 9.8" screen, and I don't care how many pixels it has.
I'm saying physical copies of books often have better quality images than their digital equivalents. Case in point, the Steve Jobs biography. And the digital version, despite having no ink or physical size limitations, has no images or other media of any sort beyond what is included in the physical copy. You want digital books to actually replace physical ones, you have to give people a reason beyond "they fit in a smaller case", particularly if the quality is WORSE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
I like how they only charge $30 for the next 16 Gb of memory and the ability to use SD cards.
I don't really care about SD cards since you have to buy a different type for every device you own plus learn all the little technical details about them to ensure you get one with decent performance.
However, I agree about the $30 for 16 GB of memory. $100 for 16 GB more on the iPhone 5 when you're only paying $180 for the device itself (on contract) is too much imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
I agree it would be nice if there was an alternative but the iPad doesn't provide it either. I recently wanted to tranfer a large number of work files onto an iPad. After suckinig up to IT for a week I managed to get iTunes installed but that didn't work. A USB port would have been nice but no luck there either. Even the WiFi apps for file transfer don't seem to handle more than one file at a time, and with no WiFi at work it doesn't matter anyway. I understand Apples walled garden approach but I've bumped up against the inside of the wall too many times. I keep hoping that one of "these also rans" will get it right.
Search the app store. I sync around 1500 files between my Mac and iPad/iPhone over Wi-Fi using Syncellence. There's a free version you can try out and make sure it does what you need.
With regard to no Wi-Fi at work, just create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with your Mac and join it with your iPad.
You're changing your story.
Your original statement was:
"Until a digital version of a book even has higher resolution images in it than a paper copy, I don't think there's much downhill-going yet."
In the real world, many iBooks (if not most) do have resolution that takes advantage of the retina display, so there is no advantage to higher resolution and your argument fails.
As I said, there are other arguments that could be made (and which you're now trying to make), but the one above is clearly false.
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're changing your story.
No.
In the real world, many iBooks (if not most) do have resolution that takes advantage of the retina display, so there is no advantage to higher resolution and your argument fails.
I don't get it. So you're saying the images already take into account a retina display? Okay. So why shouldn't I want images with resolutions slightly (or greatly) higher than that so that I can zoom them? That's the point of the medium; to do things that books cannot. Not to be LESS than what books are. But that's not even the point I'm making.
If the resolution of the digital image is less than the resolution of image in the printed book, it's going to look worse at the same size. I don't care how many pixels the screen is. Watching a VHS rip on a Thunderbolt Display doesn't make it look better than watching the same tape on a 21" 3:4 CRT TV. That's the problem; these digital images look worse than the printed ones. There's no reason for that, and it's detrimental to the eBook adoption argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
Search the app store. I sync around 1500 files between my Mac and iPad/iPhone over Wi-Fi using Syncellence. There's a free version you can try out and make sure it does what you need.
With regard to no Wi-Fi at work, just create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with your Mac and join it with your iPad.
With my what???? We only have PCs at work and no wifi. My problem isn't with syncing files, it is getting them on the iPad to begin with.
I will check out Sycellence though. Thanks
Yes, you are. First you said that there was no way to justify an ereader until it had higher resolution than a paper book. After I pointed out the fallacy in your logic, you started using excuses like lack of pictures, etc.
Yes, you don't get it. The sad thing is that you refuse to educate yourself on the subject.
An iBooks image is a retina image. Its resolution is finer than your eye can see. Zooming might be an issue - except that you're comparing it to paper books and the last time I checked, you can't zoom a paper book.
That's true - if you're looking at low resolution bitmapped images. But that's not what we're talking about.
Now, if you had said that you couldn't justify an eBook because the ancient bit-mapped images you're looking at wouldn't look as good as a paper book, that would have been a reasonable argument. But your blanket statement that eBooks are useless because they don't have greater resolution than paper is just plain false.
Electronic books do have the advantage of immortal back catalogs. Nothing ever has to go out of print, ever. Plus my local indy bookstore has something over 120,000 titles and I still run into stock gaps and out of print titles. Plus there are publishers such as BAEN who directly sell ebooks at very competitive prices.
Originally Posted by jragosta
First you said that there was no way to justify an ereader until it had higher resolution than a paper book.
Nope! Said that the list of benefits is shorter if there's no improvement in that category.
An iBooks image CAN BE a retina image. Its resolution CAN BE finer than your eye can see.
Here's what you mean to say. What you said is far from universally the case.
That's true - if you're looking at low resolution bitmapped images. But that's not what we're talking about.
We're not talking about the images that come in books available on the iBooks Store? Then what're we talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
With my what???? We only have PCs at work and no wifi. My problem isn't with syncing files, it is getting them on the iPad to begin with.
I will check out Sycellence though. Thanks
I'm pretty sure you can create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with most PCs as well. Check the network settings. I know I can do it with Windows 7 running on my Mac under Boot Camp, but the only true PC machine I have here is running Linux (router/NAS).
And that's what syncing files is: getting a set of files from one device to another all in one shot (rather than one-by-one). Put all the files you want into a single folder on your PC, then sync that folder over to your iPad.
Lesson? Niche products are targeted towards specific customers that have specific values. And the Nook tablet wins with these folks. And that's OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We're not talking about the images that come in books available on the iBooks Store? Then what're we talking about?
You two are obviously just talking around in circles.
Am I correct in stating that your point is that the images currently in most e-books are lo-res, and that his point is that they do not have to be?
If images are poor in e-books, then that is not the fault of the device, as the retina display is pretty darn good, it must be the fault of whoever is publishing those e-books and making the decision to not use higher-res images.
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Am I correct in stating that your point is that the images currently in most e-books are lo-res, and that his point is that they do not have to be?
If images are poor in e-books, then that is not the fault of the device, as the retina display is pretty darn good, it must be the fault of whoever is publishing those e-books and making the decision to not use higher-res images.
Right. And RIGHT! Many publishers would be hard pressed to be much more resistant to taking advantage of the medium. And then they whine when the books don't sell well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
I'm pretty sure you can create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network with most PCs as well. Check the network settings. I know I can do it with Windows 7 running on my Mac under Boot Camp, but the only true PC machine I have here is running Linux (router/NAS).
And that's what syncing files is: getting a set of files from one device to another all in one shot (rather than one-by-one). Put all the files you want into a single folder on your PC, then sync that folder over to your iPad.
Just took a look. There is no wifi card and even if there was everything is locked down with administrator privileges. My iPad is wifi only so I can't access iCloud from work. Well I have used my iphone as a hotspot but prefer not to. Wifi is in the testing stage so maybe in 6 month something will work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
Just took a look. There is no wifi card and even if there was everything is locked down with administrator privileges. My iPad is wifi only so I can't access iCloud from work. Well I have used my iphone as a hotspot but prefer not to. Wifi is in the testing stage so maybe in 6 month something will work.
ok, sounds like they have you locked down pretty tight there. If you really need to do this for work purposes, then I'd make a case with your admin about it. The nice thing about the app I recommended is that it all works locally (no cloud server) so there's no need to open things up to the Internet at all (which makes admins much happier).
Anyways, we've gotten way off topic here, but I just wanted to clear up the misconception that Apple's walled garden completely prevents you from being able to do more advanced things (like general purpose file syncing/sharing). Most things are possible via apps, but the quality of the apps varies a lot and so you might need to do a bit of hunting to find exactly what you need (word of mouth and trial versions are good). Then cross your fingers that the app developer is dedicated enough to keep it working over time. For example, early on there was a fairly decent file syncing app called File Magnet. It's still around, but it appears to be abandonware at this point.
That's a reasonable statement. That is NOT what you said earlier. You said that there was no place for eBooks until their resolution exceeded that of paper - which is clearly a false statement.
Wouldn't it be easier just to reach your final argument first rather than creating a nonsensical argument and flip-flopping all over the place and changing your argument multiple times until you can come up with something reasonable?