I'm not a big fan of Fox News but I actually think what they're trying to do is cool. They're trying to do something to push things forward and hopefully it works and others try it.
Considering the awful pixel density with the displays, here's my question, what other options did they have? If they wanted these giant screens then they had to go with TVs and Apple would never open up their software to be used this way.
There will be some ridiculous things like only 4 tweets per page but that's expected with new things, they don't start out perfect. Over time things will get better.
I'm hoping this makes things better for all news because we can all benefit from that.
Fox News, giant tablets, display resolution, it's quite spectacular how little there is to care about in this story, and how little relation it has to anything Apple.
The video was interesting, I like the technology I must say, however, it was interesting to hear how many times words like 'truth', 'verify' and so on, were used. It seems they are trying to allay fears that perhaps those are words not normally associated with them. I've never watch this station's news so I have no idea.
"Most bizarrely, Fox's video portrayed its "journalists" on stage in front of massive displays devoted to showing just four different tweets. At a maximum of 140 characters each, that's no more than 560 bytes of actual information per $7,000 screen. The standard Twitter client for iPhone packs more than that on a compact 4" display."
Are you kidding me? Watch out. Your anti-fox bias is showing. This has to be the stupidest articles I've ever read on this site - one of my favorite and most visited websites. Do you REALLY think the reason there are only 4 tweets on the screen is because Fox's people are too dumb to use the space more efficiently? Every screen in that room that will be showing information to viewers will have the text large enough for the audience to read it.
It is just a prop. But, I have seen a pretty slick command center setup with about 20 iPads in a 120-degree arc two high (basically like the monitor mounts). Each ipad was running a full screen browser to access a backend WonderWare clone setup. The benefit was that multiple people could interact with it when needed, not limited to one keyboard or cluttered KVM setups. The downside was the techs had grease on their hands...
"Most bizarrely, Fox's video portrayed its "journalists" on stage in front of massive displays devoted to showing just four different tweets. At a maximum of 140 characters each, that's no more than 560 bytes of actual information per $7,000 screen. The standard Twitter client for iPhone packs more than that on a compact 4" display."
Are you kidding me? Watch out. Your anti-fox bias is showing. This has to be the stupidest articles I've ever read on this site - one of my favorite and most visited websites. Do you REALLY think the reason there are only 4 tweets on the screen is because Fox's people are too dumb to use the space more efficiently? Every screen in that room that will be showing information to viewers will have the text large enough for the audience to read it.
I'm disappointed, Daniel
I see your point but is it really good use of technology and way for viewers to obtain info that you place in the background various angled displays partially obscured by people sitting in front of them that viewers need to read? Wouldn't an onscreen ticker be much more effective for this? The whole concept is weak. Even if this were a SyFy movie of the week it would be a lame use of the tech budget.
This is an interesting idea but it doesn't seem well carried out. Perhaps version 2.0 will go better
That said I do rather like the idea behind these table to screen tricks that you see in movies and TV shows. Some of them even so tablet to screen or back. It's a slick looking trick that is very future looking when clients have us do them but I can see some practical uses as well. There are apps that can do it in terms of visuals via things like AirPlay but I rather like the added bit it being a full transfer rather than just a mirror. Like airdrop only more instant and as easy as a gesture.
It obvious that the most "red blooded" American news/propaganda outlet would follow the old American mantra: "mo biggah is beddah" That matches just about with the average IQ of the Fox viewership, they can't handle more complex thought than fit into a single tweet, and certainly not more than four at any given time.
It's just show, that's all there is to it, a few minutes of ads pays for this stuff, so who cares.
Almost feel sorry for the sad sacks that have to sit in front of those giant screens getting a bad case of gorilla arm and eye strain. In any case, Fox News and CNN are the last places I'm looking to get factual news without the partisan spin.
I see your point but is it really good use of technology and way for viewers to obtain info that you place in the background various angled displays partially obscured by people sitting in front of them that viewers need to read? Wouldn't an onscreen ticker be much more effective for this? The whole concept is weak. Even if this were a SyFy movie of the week it would be a lame use of the tech budget.
It's a horrible use of technology. It requires the reporter to turn away from the camera and wave his arms all over the screen. It's distracting. A good use of technology would have been to give the reporter an iPad which displayed onto a large screen via AirPlay.
On on-screen ticker is no better than what they're doing. It distracts the viewer from the reporter and there's no interaction between the reporter and the display.
It's a horrible use of technology. It requires the reporter to turn away from the camera and wave his arms all over the screen. It's distracting. A good use of technology would have been to give the reporter an iPad which displayed onto a large screen via AirPlay.
On on-screen ticker is no better than what they're doing. It distracts the viewer from the reporter and there's no interaction between the reporter and the display.
Don't weather men use screens behind them by just stepping to the side? I would imagine they would try to use them the same way.
This looks fucking hilarious. Fox news is the shittiest news organization on the planet, and will remain so, no matter how many house-sized tablets they use. Their quality and objectivity is garbage, there's empirical evidence that those that watch Fox News are massively more misinformed about basic facts than those that don't, and no amount of technology will change that.
I guess I have to ask why the vitriol for Microsoft for landing this gig? I hate to say it, but I have a surface and a MBP. I love using the surface because it's a full computer and it has a touch screen. I wish Apple would get off their high horse and make a MBP with touch and stop saying "that's what an iPad is for". An iPad is not a computer, it's a computer accessory as far as i'm concerned. Fox is doing cable news and they all have to show off the newest technology they are using. I don't knock them one bit. I certainly don't knock microsoft for being able to sell their product.
My GF is a teacher and they have windows based flat-screens in all the classrooms. The teachers hate them. They're always freezing and the you have to drill down thru the clunky interface to do most common tasks. Typical windows crap. She says most teachers don't even use them.
She said they should have bought iPads instead.
P.S. I think we all would be better off not watching Fox News or MSNBC. They are both crap!
So this is article-worthy why? Every television has fewer pixels than an iPad. What’s the point of mentioning that?
I’ll go on record saying that these screens are too big, though. Give me no larger than 42” 16:10 for my desktop computer with OS XI. I could reach bigger, of course, but why should I have to stretch that far?
Comments
Considering the awful pixel density with the displays, here's my question, what other options did they have? If they wanted these giant screens then they had to go with TVs and Apple would never open up their software to be used this way.
There will be some ridiculous things like only 4 tweets per page but that's expected with new things, they don't start out perfect. Over time things will get better.
I'm hoping this makes things better for all news because we can all benefit from that.
Fox News, giant tablets, display resolution, it's quite spectacular how little there is to care about in this story, and how little relation it has to anything Apple.
Same as Fox New basically
Hot chicks and made up news
Are you kidding me? Watch out. Your anti-fox bias is showing. This has to be the stupidest articles I've ever read on this site - one of my favorite and most visited websites. Do you REALLY think the reason there are only 4 tweets on the screen is because Fox's people are too dumb to use the space more efficiently? Every screen in that room that will be showing information to viewers will have the text large enough for the audience to read it.
I'm disappointed, Daniel
I see your point but is it really good use of technology and way for viewers to obtain info that you place in the background various angled displays partially obscured by people sitting in front of them that viewers need to read? Wouldn't an onscreen ticker be much more effective for this? The whole concept is weak. Even if this were a SyFy movie of the week it would be a lame use of the tech budget.
That said I do rather like the idea behind these table to screen tricks that you see in movies and TV shows. Some of them even so tablet to screen or back. It's a slick looking trick that is very future looking when clients have us do them but I can see some practical uses as well. There are apps that can do it in terms of visuals via things like AirPlay but I rather like the added bit it being a full transfer rather than just a mirror. Like airdrop only more instant and as easy as a gesture.
That matches just about with the average IQ of the Fox viewership, they can't handle more complex thought than fit into a single tweet, and certainly not more than four at any given time.
It's just show, that's all there is to it, a few minutes of ads pays for this stuff, so who cares.
Fox "News" is now able to manipulate the "news" with 10 new screens!
It's a horrible use of technology. It requires the reporter to turn away from the camera and wave his arms all over the screen. It's distracting. A good use of technology would have been to give the reporter an iPad which displayed onto a large screen via AirPlay.
On on-screen ticker is no better than what they're doing. It distracts the viewer from the reporter and there's no interaction between the reporter and the display.
It's a horrible use of technology. It requires the reporter to turn away from the camera and wave his arms all over the screen. It's distracting. A good use of technology would have been to give the reporter an iPad which displayed onto a large screen via AirPlay.
On on-screen ticker is no better than what they're doing. It distracts the viewer from the reporter and there's no interaction between the reporter and the display.
Don't weather men use screens behind them by just stepping to the side? I would imagine they would try to use them the same way.
This looks fucking hilarious. Fox news is the shittiest news organization on the planet, and will remain so, no matter how many house-sized tablets they use. Their quality and objectivity is garbage, there's empirical evidence that those that watch Fox News are massively more misinformed about basic facts than those that don't, and no amount of technology will change that.
I know these flat screens are not the same...
My GF is a teacher and they have windows based flat-screens in all the classrooms. The teachers hate them. They're always freezing and the you have to drill down thru the clunky interface to do most common tasks. Typical windows crap. She says most teachers don't even use them.
She said they should have bought iPads instead.
P.S. I think we all would be better off not watching Fox News or MSNBC. They are both crap!
So this is article-worthy why? Every television has fewer pixels than an iPad. What’s the point of mentioning that?
I’ll go on record saying that these screens are too big, though. Give me no larger than 42” 16:10 for my desktop computer with OS XI. I could reach bigger, of course, but why should I have to stretch that far?