For some reason I never pictured you as a teenage girl carrying your phone with the shattered screen in your back jeans pocket.
Of course even tho I also wear 34's I would almost never consider putting my phone in a front jeans pocket alongside keys and change that are usually there....
much less crowding out my wife's pride and joy. With no butt to speak of there's a lot more room for me in a back pocket than a front one.
Or more likely, the data is costly. Of course, phones used in "developing markets" wouldn't show up in the US advertising network stats anyway. If we compare just US web browsing stats for higher end phones, like the iPhone 5 to the GS3, they're much closer, like 56% to 44%.
Glad to see you agree that Android activation numbers from Google are meaningless. Also interesting to see you comparing a phone that's been out significantly longer to the iPhone 5, but is still significantly lower in use. If anything, that just confirms that Android users just aren't using their phones much as smartphones.
The rest of your post is just more of your fantasy expression, so no need to comment.
Times may change, but fitness for purpose doesn't necessarily change with them. Citing instances where people made choices that were sub-optimal for purpose doesn't prove that they didn't make bad choices or that anyone who doesn't is a "fuddy duddy".
In what ways are these alternative choices sub-optimal in terms of fitness for purpose? More importantly, who are YOU (or mdriftmeyer) to define fitness of purpose for ANYONE else? And then to declare that they are somehow wrong for deciding that one devices is more fit for their purposes than another?
It's bullshit and calling him a fuddy duddy is about the most polite thing that came to mind. For many folks the iPad mini is MORE fit for the purposes of tablet computing.
Your inability to see does not indicate anything other than you choose to be blind.
Fine, I don't see how something that is worse at typing, has smaller text by default, and has less screen real estate could be better than the other solution.
Fine, I don't see how something that is worse at typing, has smaller text by default, and has less screen real estate could be better than the other solution.
It's at best slightly more portable but definitely not a "MORE fit" like nht will have us believe.
It's at best slightly more portable but definitely not a "MORE fit" like nht will have us believe.
Based on his/her using the "fuddy-duddy" criticism I'm inclined to believe that her/his very high level of self-assurance is the result of youthful naiveté and inexperience.
Mainly because a tablet is primarily designed to be a portable device. The more portable it is the most useful it is as a tablet.
I agree with your premise but not your definition. There are clear cases in which a larger tablet is more useful than a smaller one.
IOW, if being more portable is the only factor in determining usability then the iPhone is more useful as a tablet than the iPad and the previous gen iPod Nano more useful than the iPhone. At some point you reach a minimumm size limit where something more portable becomes a hindrance in actual use.
OK, that was an extreme example to illustrate a point, but what about a more nuanced example. What if one uses the iPad as their primary computing device, only at home, and don't have the best eyesight? Do you not think the iPad might be more ideal than the iPad mini?
Fine, I don't see how something that is worse at typing,
False. Typing on the iPhone is faster than typing on the iPad. Two thumb typing on the iPad mini is probably on par with that of the iPhone so it is more likely that typing on the iPad Mini using two thumbs will be faster and have a lower error rate than typing on the iPad.
"Fox News reports that the 15-year-old son of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is the proud new owner of a Guinness World Record for typing the entire English alphabet (A-Z) on the iPad's software keyboard. His time? 5.26 seconds, which beats out former record-holder Charlie Joseph McDonnell's 6.31 seconds set in late June of last year....
The aforementioned Brian Sweet tried to see if he could (unofficially) beat the new record and did the alphabet in about 3.2 seconds, beating out the 5.26 second iPad record, and even the 3.52 seconds Raju recorded on a standard keyboard. Sweet said it took him "about 25 minutes" to get it down, and "that it's much easier when standing up."
and has less screen real estate could be better than the other solution.
False using the definition of usable resolution: 1024x768. The same amount of text fits on the screen of the iPad mini and the iPad. It is, as you noted, smaller. In games and other apps that take advantage of retina (by coding directly to the actual screen resolution rather than using the API) then yes, the iPad has greater resolution.
It's at best slightly more portable but definitely not a "MORE fit" like nht will have us believe.
MORE fit for SOME (IMHO many...hence the title of this article) people. Exactly in the way a "slightly" more portable Mirrorless Cameras (MLC) are MORE fit even though they have less image quality, worse high ISO performance and typically poorer lens selection. More FIT because it was more fun and more likely to be brought along than the DSLR.
Based on his/her using the "fuddy-duddy" criticism I'm inclined to believe that her/his very high level of self-assurance is the result of youthful naiveté and inexperience.
Who is more arrogant? The folks that insist that the iPad Mini is never fit for anyone or the folks that insist that the iPad Mini is more fit for some folks?
I have never stated that the iPad Mini is better for everyone or for every purpose but that for many folks it is indeed better despite having lower specs.
I would also argue that "fuddy duddy" is not common in the lexicon of young folks and that folks that attempt to play the youth card on the internet are dumbasses. Melgoss and Dick are older than I am. I doubt more than a handful of other regulars on this forum are.
Dear heavens… No. Okay? Just no. No from a practical standpoint, and no from the standpoint of the article you quoted itself:
Yes, from the standpoint of the article quoted. Two finger typing on a smaller touch surface has been shown to be faster than 10 finger typing on a larger touch surface. You have zero evidence to show that typing on the iPad using 10 fingers is faster than 2 fingers on the iPad Mini.
That you only believe that 10 finger typing to be valid is more your problem than a problem on the mini in the general sense. Obviously, for folks that find thumb typing difficult then the regular iPad would be better.
Quote:
Yeah, go ahead and just throw words in there that I didn't use.
"More screen real estate" is moderately ambiguous. In the context of desktops and laptops it means greater screen resolution so you can have more stuff on the screen at the same time. If you ONLY mean screen size then a 15" MBPr with 2880x1800 has the same "screen real estate" as the 15 MBP with 1440x900.
The iPad Mini has the same amount of screen real estate as the iPad. If you don't LIKE those words, then choose more precise ones. Like "the screen is smaller" which would be true.
It is not ambiguous. Real estate clearly refers to the size of the display, usually refered to in area as noted by diagonal inches with a reference to aspect ratio.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
For some reason I never pictured you as a teenage girl carrying your phone with the shattered screen in your back jeans pocket.
much less crowding out my wife's pride and joy. With no butt to speak of there's a lot more room for me in a back pocket than a front one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) The iPhone 5 is smaller overall than before. That is a big difference compared to the Android phones pre-LTE.
2) If there is a big enough market for a larger iPhone I think they will do it. I have no doubt they have run the numbers.
Area is way more important than depth, especially once the latter is sub 10mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Or more likely, the data is costly. Of course, phones used in "developing markets" wouldn't show up in the US advertising network stats anyway. If we compare just US web browsing stats for higher end phones, like the iPhone 5 to the GS3, they're much closer, like 56% to 44%.
Glad to see you agree that Android activation numbers from Google are meaningless. Also interesting to see you comparing a phone that's been out significantly longer to the iPhone 5, but is still significantly lower in use. If anything, that just confirms that Android users just aren't using their phones much as smartphones.
The rest of your post is just more of your fantasy expression, so no need to comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Times may change, but fitness for purpose doesn't necessarily change with them. Citing instances where people made choices that were sub-optimal for purpose doesn't prove that they didn't make bad choices or that anyone who doesn't is a "fuddy duddy".
In what ways are these alternative choices sub-optimal in terms of fitness for purpose? More importantly, who are YOU (or mdriftmeyer) to define fitness of purpose for ANYONE else? And then to declare that they are somehow wrong for deciding that one devices is more fit for their purposes than another?
It's bullshit and calling him a fuddy duddy is about the most polite thing that came to mind. For many folks the iPad mini is MORE fit for the purposes of tablet computing.
Originally Posted by nht
For many folks the iPad mini is MORE fit for the purposes of tablet computing.
I just don't see how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I just don't see how.
Your inability to see does not indicate anything other than you choose to be blind.
Originally Posted by nht
Your inability to see does not indicate anything other than you choose to be blind.
Fine, I don't see how something that is worse at typing, has smaller text by default, and has less screen real estate could be better than the other solution.
It's at best slightly more portable but definitely not a "MORE fit" like nht will have us believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's at best slightly more portable but definitely not a "MORE fit" like nht will have us believe.
Based on his/her using the "fuddy-duddy" criticism I'm inclined to believe that her/his very high level of self-assurance is the result of youthful naiveté and inexperience.
Mainly because a tablet is primarily designed to be a portable device. The more portable it is the most useful it is as a tablet.
P.S I typed this on the iPad Mini. I had absolutely no problem and the bigger iPad would not have made this any easier....
I agree with your premise but not your definition. There are clear cases in which a larger tablet is more useful than a smaller one.
IOW, if being more portable is the only factor in determining usability then the iPhone is more useful as a tablet than the iPad and the previous gen iPod Nano more useful than the iPhone. At some point you reach a minimumm size limit where something more portable becomes a hindrance in actual use.
OK, that was an extreme example to illustrate a point, but what about a more nuanced example. What if one uses the iPad as their primary computing device, only at home, and don't have the best eyesight? Do you not think the iPad might be more ideal than the iPad mini?
Originally Posted by sranger
The more portable it is the most useful it is as a tablet.
Would a 2.5" tablet be even better?
P.S I typed this on the iPad Mini. I had absolutely no problem and the bigger iPad would not have made this any easier....
Could've typed faster and been less cramped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Fine, I don't see how something that is worse at typing,
False. Typing on the iPhone is faster than typing on the iPad. Two thumb typing on the iPad mini is probably on par with that of the iPhone so it is more likely that typing on the iPad Mini using two thumbs will be faster and have a lower error rate than typing on the iPad.
"Fox News reports that the 15-year-old son of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is the proud new owner of a Guinness World Record for typing the entire English alphabet (A-Z) on the iPad's software keyboard. His time? 5.26 seconds, which beats out former record-holder Charlie Joseph McDonnell's 6.31 seconds set in late June of last year....
The aforementioned Brian Sweet tried to see if he could (unofficially) beat the new record and did the alphabet in about 3.2 seconds, beating out the 5.26 second iPad record, and even the 3.52 seconds Raju recorded on a standard keyboard. Sweet said it took him "about 25 minutes" to get it down, and "that it's much easier when standing up."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20077031-248/guinness-world-record-for-ipad-typing-broken/
Quote:
has smaller text by default,
True.
Quote:
and has less screen real estate could be better than the other solution.
False using the definition of usable resolution: 1024x768. The same amount of text fits on the screen of the iPad mini and the iPad. It is, as you noted, smaller. In games and other apps that take advantage of retina (by coding directly to the actual screen resolution rather than using the API) then yes, the iPad has greater resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's at best slightly more portable but definitely not a "MORE fit" like nht will have us believe.
MORE fit for SOME (IMHO many...hence the title of this article) people. Exactly in the way a "slightly" more portable Mirrorless Cameras (MLC) are MORE fit even though they have less image quality, worse high ISO performance and typically poorer lens selection. More FIT because it was more fun and more likely to be brought along than the DSLR.
Originally Posted by nht
False.
Dear heavens… No. Okay? Just no. No from a practical standpoint, and no from the standpoint of the article you quoted itself:
Surprisingly, there's no way to compare the new record to the same attempt on an iPhone, where the keys are closer to one another.
False using the definition of usable resolution: 1024x768.
Yeah, go ahead and just throw words in there that I didn't use.
"You're wrong because we're talking about the Microsoft Surface, not the iPad."
Please tell me that you understand this doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Based on his/her using the "fuddy-duddy" criticism I'm inclined to believe that her/his very high level of self-assurance is the result of youthful naiveté and inexperience.
Who is more arrogant? The folks that insist that the iPad Mini is never fit for anyone or the folks that insist that the iPad Mini is more fit for some folks?
I have never stated that the iPad Mini is better for everyone or for every purpose but that for many folks it is indeed better despite having lower specs.
I would also argue that "fuddy duddy" is not common in the lexicon of young folks and that folks that attempt to play the youth card on the internet are dumbasses. Melgoss and Dick are older than I am. I doubt more than a handful of other regulars on this forum are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Dear heavens… No. Okay? Just no. No from a practical standpoint, and no from the standpoint of the article you quoted itself:
Yes, from the standpoint of the article quoted. Two finger typing on a smaller touch surface has been shown to be faster than 10 finger typing on a larger touch surface. You have zero evidence to show that typing on the iPad using 10 fingers is faster than 2 fingers on the iPad Mini.
That you only believe that 10 finger typing to be valid is more your problem than a problem on the mini in the general sense. Obviously, for folks that find thumb typing difficult then the regular iPad would be better.
Quote:
Yeah, go ahead and just throw words in there that I didn't use.
"More screen real estate" is moderately ambiguous. In the context of desktops and laptops it means greater screen resolution so you can have more stuff on the screen at the same time. If you ONLY mean screen size then a 15" MBPr with 2880x1800 has the same "screen real estate" as the 15 MBP with 1440x900.
The iPad Mini has the same amount of screen real estate as the iPad. If you don't LIKE those words, then choose more precise ones. Like "the screen is smaller" which would be true.
Originally Posted by nht
"More screen real estate" is moderately ambiguous.
Nope. Means bigger. Means bigger everywhere you go, in every instance of the phrase.
"What're you trying to pull?! I wanted four acres!"
"This is the same. It's one acre with as many blades of grass as four acres."
"You're fired."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. Means bigger. Means bigger everywhere you go, in every instance of the phrase.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=MBP+screen+real+estate
Not even close.
It is not ambiguous. Real estate clearly refers to the size of the display, usually refered to in area as noted by diagonal inches with a reference to aspect ratio.