Fox News' giant new Microsoft touch screens have fewer pixels than an iPad

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 138
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    Say what you like, for CAD, Music and a few specialized uses like that a large iPad would be awesome. Maybe not that big though!
  • Reply 42 of 138
    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.
  • Reply 43 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    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.

  • Reply 44 of 138
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    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.
  • Reply 45 of 138
    Form over function

    Same as Fox New basically

    Hot chicks and made up news
  • Reply 46 of 138
    "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
  • Reply 47 of 138
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,608member
    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...
  • Reply 48 of 138
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    e1cap1tan wrote: »
    "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.
  • Reply 49 of 138
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    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.
  • Reply 50 of 138
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    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.
  • Reply 51 of 138
    notownnotown Posts: 39member

    Fox "News" is now able to manipulate the "news" with 10 new screens!

  • Reply 52 of 138
    My mother told me to never to sit that close to the television.
  • Reply 53 of 138
    The only reason these monitors are so big and so low res is so you can see what's on them on TV. They are basically props.
  • Reply 54 of 138
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 659member
    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.
  • Reply 55 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    akqies wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 56 of 138
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    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.

  • Reply 57 of 138
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,362member

    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. 

  • Reply 58 of 138
    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.
  • Reply 59 of 138

    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! :)

  • Reply 60 of 138

    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? :p

Sign In or Register to comment.