djames4242

I actually bought this exact display last week. I find it to be sharp and reasonably vibrant. My one real complaint is that it resets to 50% brightness every.time.I.use.it which I find frustrating, but for a portable second display it otherwise does its job well. I tend to use it outside (which is why I bought it for when I want to work from my deck) and when the sun is shining on it directly it’s not particularly bright (which is probably expected since it gets its power from my laptop’s USB port), not when there isn’t direct sun, it’s plenty bright.

i find the Smart Cover style cover holds very well. In fact, its magnets are so strong that I find it difficult to open on the front without having to actually pull off the magnetic attachment on the back.

jeromec said:

$40 a year is outrageous.

It absolutely is outrageous. EpocCam isn’t as feature rich, but it lets me use my iPhone as a high definition webcam and it cost me $8 flat. I’d love some of the adjustments Camo offers, but $40/year is way too much.

myopiarocks said:

"Should you wait?" Yes, of course. Never buy the version 1.0 of anything Apple. Version 2.0 will be so much better. See, e.g., OSX 10 vs 10.1, the first ipod touch vs the 2nd generation ipod touch, the first iphone vs iphone 3g, first apple watch ("what is this?") vs 2nd gen, 1st ipad vs 2nd gen (people still use these for certain purposes)... the list goes on. It's going to be 2-3 more WWDCs before the Apple-Silicon version of MacOS starts doing things that x86 doesn't; the transition will be that long and support for x86 will be 3-4 years after that. So anything new that you buy now will be ~6-7 years old before Apple stops supporting it. 

FWIW, your list excludes the most relevant example: Apple's first Intel Mac. I bought MacBookPro1,1 and it ran for about twelve years before the Radeon X1600 gave up.  Yes, I had to replace a fan (covered by Apple) and yes it burned the crap out of my legs if I let it touch my bare skin, but it was a great machine that served me for a lot of years.

seanismorris said:

Rayz2016 said:

And yet people are quite happy to let Google read their emails. 🤷🏾‍♂️

That’s an oversimplification.  But, users agree to the terms and conditions with regaerds to targeted ads.

This is completely different.  Included in the lawsuit should be Apple.  They new about this and ignored it for a long time...  I’d like to hear their reasoning in front of a judge.

I think the point here is the user hypocrisy, not that of the companies. People who use free webmail have little room to complain about privacy. A friend of mine refuses to use Facebook because he doesn’t want them having any of his personal data, yet he uses gmail. I feel more comfortable controlling what Facebook sees than using an email provider that combs all of my emails for targeted advertising.

SpamSandwich said:

Sounds like embedding to a linked video could be a real disaster for the user experience. Imagine the pre-roll ads polluting the interaction.

Definitely a legitimate concern. However, I believe YouTube must have paid accounts that allow videos to be played without advertising. We use other Google services such as Drive, Docs, and Sites, and I'm sure we must pay for our YouTube content hosting. As I am the only one in the organization not using PowerPoint and embedded YouTube videos, somebody would have run into the issue of preroll by now.

Would be an issue for some situations, but it hasn't been for us.

If I'm honest, despite the increase in file size, I don't mind embedding the actual content in my decks. This way I can present without worry of Internet flutter and presentation quality. But there are advantages to presenting hosted content as it can be updated remotely as needed.