|
firewuff
18 February 2011
|
minor error, you've listed the OS as 2.3 in the table but reference 3.0 elsewhere.
Looks nice, it's now on my want list!
Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Which tablet? Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 vs Apple iPad?
Samsung is set to release another would-be 'iPad killer', the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. In the following article, we compare the Galaxy Tab 10.1 specs against the iPad
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
rubaiyat
18 February 2011
|
Depends which product comparisons we are featuring.
Unreleased or just released non-Apple product comparison against old Apple product or non-released Apple product vs currently selling non-Apple product.
But then there is the non-released Apple product vs non-released non-Apple product.
OR the currently selling non Apple product vs the currently selling Apple product.
What about the presumed features of possible non Apple product vs presumed failed Apple product that we couldn't possibly try because it might distort our impartiality, despite the fact that Apple lets you try it for as long as you like in any Apple Store or Apple resellers.
Best still the vaguely mentioned possibility of an Apple killing non-Apple product to be released possibly at some undefined time in the future at a presumed bargain basement price that never got mentioned by anyone except the speculator.
|
|
Chris A Jager
18 February 2011
|
firewuff, thanks for spotting the error. This has now been amended. |
|
rob
19 February 2011
|
What about the errors in the table around price and weight? They contradict the article!! |
|
rubaiyat
19 February 2011
|
"Neiva mind the qvality, feel the vidth!" |
|
photohounds
21 February 2011
|
Hmm, here’s a new game-changing contender.
. SMALLER (but with a bigger, higher resolution screen)
. Lots of features the Ipad2 is rumoured to have
. 96GB possible storage
. It is from an ACTUAL hardware component manufacturer.
. Oh, AND an OS designed for tablets rather than phones?
Nice - looking for a repeat of what Samsung's done in the TV space. From an also-ran a few years back, to a must-have brand today. That’s the undeniable advantage of MAKING electronic gear, rather than repackaging and reselling electronics made by others.
That "best quality so far screen" might guarantee an initial high price, but count on a price/quality war, as Samsung decides volume is what it wants. As we all witnessed, this happened with TVs... slow start
BTW I see cheapie tablets from $99.00 now - just the thing to stick on the kitchen wall and read recipes - wipe clean later. After 3 years – discard (Translation for Apple users: “ ‘upgrade’ when the non-replaceable battery fails”).
Onward, upward ...
|
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2011
|
You seem to have this bee in your bonnet about component manufacturers. Like they are the fount of innovation!
It might surprise you that Samsung also sources components, it doesn't make them all.
What is it with this incredible time lag anyway? How come Apple isn't copying them instead of the other way around?
I think you see innovation as when the Chinese manufacturer, having exhausted cheap labor, cheap materials, incoherent manual, no support, design and packaging by the nephew who went to night college, then resorts to bundling more crap items in the blister pack. Just before they go out of business and start another factory down the street.
Any idiot can tell quantity, it's quality that mystifies you.
|
|
photohounds
21 February 2011
|
By ‘quality’, you must mean antennas that don't work properly - in a PHONE for *** sake?
Something they KNEW about it WELL before launch! It is somehow “quality” and “good engineering” to foist poorly-engineered marketing fluff, and then WHEN EXPOSED, bluff the customers about who they supposedly ‘care’? Then, offer no remedy for of a phone that has issues for users. Do you consider it a satisfactory fix to get a cheap silicone case to fix the expensive phone?
Oh goody and the cheap fix for the phone that’s so fantastically engineered comes from a Chinese maker no less. Of course when a cheap silicone case comes in an apple packet at 10x the price the lemmings will pay the price for “genuine innovation”, eh?
Are the other “not so easily brainwashed users” still leading a class action against apple about this issue?
Not everyone NEEDS what you define as 'quality'. It’s up to the CUSTOMER not you or jobscook to determine their needs. The quality required depends *entirely* on the user’s interests and APPLICATION. It DOES NOT depend on being told you “need” this, that or the other ‘quality’ and that no other product will do what you SHOULD be wanting
Telstra had ruggedised tablet PCs 20 years ago – so much for ‘innovation’ when a tablet device (made thinner by COMPONENT makers work comes out). And the stupid jokes jobscook make about others products. You don’t think a 7” smart phone will ever come out of apple (yes I’ve heard about their tiny-tater’ phones). Their spin is amazing and only fools believe it - `from anyone.
Here’s an example: Android is junk because it used a phone OS (jobscook PUBLISHED SENTIMENTS). Well guess what the ipad uses??? So let me get this straight as I haven’t been brainwashed yet:
. Its “bad” if ANDROID phones use a phone OS in a tablet?
. It’s GOOD if apple do EXACTLY THAT?
That’s marketing bulldust, with a smattering of Orwell’s “four legs good, two legs bad” thrown in for good measure.
In the case of the PRODUCT described above, the Samsung seems to be HIGHER quality and more versatile, smaller with a bigger, better screen (no doubt made by SAMSUNG). Quality is what they have mostly produced recently. BTW I don't think Samsung is Chinese, and they do MAKE a lot of parts.
I’d guess that ALL makers (of pretty well anything), source some parts from others, but 'marketing only' companies (that includes high-priced AND cheapo 'makers') source ALL, or almost ALL their parts.
I understand quality for THOSE APPLICATIONS where I demand it, thanks all the same.
|
|
gone4good
21 February 2011
|
I was discussing the rising tablet market with some friends the other day and one of them made a very good point. The iPad, at its heart, really isn't anything innovative. It's really just a large iPod Touch with 3G thrown in. Tablets of various forms, for better or worse, have been around for years. It's just a different take on that same idea.
So the question he had was why did this result in a "whole new market" being created?
The consensus in the discussion was the appeal of Apple. See if Samsung or any other manufacturer released a tablet, such as the Galaxy Tab prior to the iPad, would it have sold as well? I don't think so. From what I can tell, Apple have the midas touch with all their products. They could probably release the iJuicer and sell millions of them because so many believe in their products. There's the unmistakable "cool" factor attached to every Apple product. I'm not saying that all Apple users are like that, there's just a LOT that are. Case in point one of the guys in the discussion has an iPad, iPhone, iMac... gets them all as soon as they come out regardless of what anyone says about them.
Now I'm not saying that other manufacturers had anything like the iPad lined up, because it would be crazy to think so. The point is that they all seem content to let Apple make a market through the sheer size of the fanbase and try to steal some of that market or new potential customers.
The current batch of Tabs seem to be aimed at those people who have been considering an iPad but held off for one reason or another, or those that don't like Apple. It's much easier to make a decision to buy when there's more than one option. The focus is on which is best for you rather than if you should buy or not.
The last non-Apple tech company to do this was ASUS with the netbook market. ASUS made that market, but did it much tougher than what Apple would have done. Nothing to do with the quality of the product (I can't imagine anyone questioning the quality of ASUS stuff) but more to do with the lack of die-hard fans. Netbooks took off, but it took far longer than it would have if Apple was behind it.
Just a few thoughts to share. |
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2011
|
Never said Samsung was Chinese.
However it is quite clear that you have an undying hatred of anything Apple. You are just the flip side of the fanbois who see Apple as can do no wrong. You don't even know enough about Apple to really know where the skeletons are buried.
You won't get me arguing with you about Apple hypocrisy, in fact I may have invented the Animal Farm analogy. I've been using it for decades. Along with the irony of the other Orwellian theme in their original Mac ads.
Apple has been hit by class actions, a couple of them originating in Australia. Sometimes their mistakes are from being too bleedin' edge, sometimes from being like others, too bleedin' greedy. They still make excellent products and a very, very high proportion of their users think so and buy again. The same can't be said for the Android products which by contrast have a high return rate.
You have a child like faith in specifications that you have read somewhere or other. 4 wheels, tick, engine, tick, glass windows, tick, BMW equivalent tick, Trabant, tick.
You'll be a much better read when you can actually give us a hands on review of these 'superior' products. Just make sure you are as critical of their shortcomings, which they no doubt will have, as you are with your pet nemesis'.
btw Show me your links to the 20 year old Telstra tablet. The day Telstra ever made anything worth having must have indeed been worth celebrating, and I say that as Telstra shareholder. |
|
photohounds
21 February 2011
|
Au contraire, but I do I have an underlying dislike of lemming-like behaviour, Apple, M$, Linux and even OS/2
I've never said that some of Apple's products are not excellent. I don't like being locked in, either.
Would you buy (insert your favorite car here) if you were told it only ran on their brand of fuel?
The Telstra tech USED the tablets when I was having my phone connected. I didn't say they made them.
Apple have a clever built-in marketing tool with iTunes - THAT'S whay their stuff sells quickly. I know I receive the Apple marketing every week or so.
Every iunes upgrade, thety get a refresh on my real email address. Clever, and designed to serve ONE purpose, and one purpose only - SALES VOLUME, particurlalry for NEW PRODUCTS. |
|
photohounds
21 February 2011
|
Yep itunes - a MARKETING DEVICE
Sorry about typos mislaid glasses |
|
rubaiyat
21 February 2011
|
photohounds wrote:Apple have a clever built-in marketing tool with iTunes - THAT'S whay their stuff sells quickly. I know I receive the Apple marketing every week or so.
You only got that because you checked the newsletter box which you didn't have to. You also can ask them not send you any more, its at the bottom of every email like with everything else. Apple is extremely polite, which can not be said for most of its green with envy critics.
You are not referring to Apple's Newton (1987) by any chance? The very first PDA. Also much derided by PC users who thought that was a dumb idea because yet again they hadn't thought of it.
If it wasn't a Newton it was probably one of the knockoffs that came later. Like they always do.
Edited by rubaiyat: 21/2/2011 04:02:12 PM |
|
rubaiyat
22 February 2011
|
gone4good
You make some valid points. Apple does have a lot of clout now and expectations to go with them. But it wasn't always so. The clout that is.
Apple either totally innovates or brings a pre-existing product to a polish that few others achieve. It does it so successfully that many customers now associate both innovation and polish with Apple, and in our consumerist age want a taste of that ASAP. Being first and bragging is as close as they get to being part of the excitement.
Apple encourages that with its tight security: 1. To build up the product launch; 2. To ensure new products don't stall old sales prematurely; 3. To delay the inevitable copying.
People buy more than one Apple product because they have tried one and found it very good and their products fit together well. Try one and the others really make sense. It was the extraordinarily well thought out design of the Mac that made me jump at it and made using it such a pleasure. If you used a Mac and had worked out the basics, just about everything else fell into place. If I didn't know how to do something I could have a very good guess and 99% of the time get it spot on.
By contrast something as simple as printing on a PC would result in users plastering Stick-It notes all over their monitors with complicated instructions. Due to the massive inconsistencies on PCs those Stick-It notes would contradict each other, contributing to the chaos.
Using Macs vs PCs is such a productivity boost, that like all good tools, they draw a lot of affection. They still do, despite Mac OSX becoming greatly more complicated and Windows copying enough of the Mac to have narrowed the gap considerably.
The other great feature of Apple design is the clarity. Apple really obsesses over getting both the hardware and software just right. Windows and most PCs by comparison are muddled and vaguely undefined. The resultant PC slightly-lost-feeling results in most of the PC user errors I consistently see in work that crosses my desk. I have also noticed that PC converts bring that with them, but quickly lose it as they use a combined OS/hardware that for the first time in their lives, makes sense.
ASUS's netbooks were actually a commercialisation of the 1 Laptop per Child program. It had 2 objectives which it largely met, of low price and low weight. What it failed to do was work out what exactly a computer that had to fit those parameters should look like. It took an existing laptop and simply shrank it.
Apple was under extreme pressure from its users to make a netbook as well, but typically thought beyond the me-too thinking of everyone else and came up with the iPad. Like all great design it just makes sense the instant you see and use it. The ignorant think that is because it was obvious. So obvious that no-one else thought of or did it.
I regularly commute to and from Sydney and I particularly note a very sharp looking girl, who travels with her 'office'. A Macbook Air, an iPhone and iPod. I haven't seen her lately but wouldn't be surprised if she now had an iPad. She dresses very well and obviously likes the style of all the Apple products, but she is also using all the tools that she carries with her to knock off a lot of work on those relatively short commutes. My guess is her tools are paying her back handsomely.
That engenders a lot of affection and customer loyalty in Apple users.
Something generic, half designed products don't. |
|
photohounds
22 February 2011
|
The Newton? - Don't remind me :( Poorly implemented and overpriced. The power supply in mine (and a friends) whined loudly at about 15khz - extremely irritating. A power supply of that nature is a VERY simple thing to engineer, but apple failed this simple test.
Face it, Palm did handwriting RIGHT, apple did NOT, and I can say this as a former user of BOTH.
Appple stole the GUI - that must be the cheapest and most profitable knock-off EVER. THEN they were stoooopid enough to try and sue MS for stealing 'their' GUI - and you cry foul about knock-offs when apple is not the beneficiary. Truly hilarious!
Nearly all 'new' advances are built on the hard work of others - get used to it and take something for your hype-induced blindness . . . |
|
gone4good
23 February 2011
|
I finally had a play with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab (7 inch) today.
In terms of navigation, accessing applications, etc, there is very little between them. They operate in almost the same way. Changing settings was just as intuitive on both. Very simple to use.
When typing I did find the Samsung to be more responsive and I didn't have to "touch" as hard as I did with the iPad. I don't know if that's the unit or just a user issue?
There's a lot more apps available on the iPad, no doubt about that! So many! However of the ones I downloaded and played with, I generally found an equivalent on the Galaxy Tab. In fact there were a few of them that were free on the Galaxy but had a price tag attached on the iPad.
I found holding the 7 inch tab was much more comfortable. Hold the iPad for half an hour and it starts to weigh a bit.I wouldn't go a 10 inch tablet if I was planning on holding it a lot.
The killer difference I found was Flash support. So many websites run Flash. So many sites wouldn't work properly on the iPad. That's a pure deal-breaker for me. On that basis alone I would pick the Samsung over the Apple.
Edited by gone4good: 23/2/2011 06:33:57 PM |
|
photohounds
24 February 2011
|
That Galaxy Tab sounds like a very practical compromise, a tablet that you can use as a phone and take WITH you.
I'm sure the 'innovators' will copy this style of thing . . . and then claim to have 'invented' the genre because they add one feature ...
Imagine a little smart phone - a little screen would make it a dumb phone - perhaps it could be called a nano brainer :) |
|
rubaiyat
25 February 2011
|
gone4good wrote:The killer difference I found was Flash support. So many websites run Flash. So many sites wouldn't work properly on the iPad. That's a pure deal-breaker for me. On that basis alone I would pick the Samsung over the Apple.
Fine, those are all rational decisions based on actual usage.
Something you will have to revisit soon once the iPad2 comes out.
At last we are seeing some real competition, and that is good for us Users. |
|
rubaiyat
25 February 2011
|
photohounds wrote:The Newton? - Don't remind me :( Poorly implemented and overpriced. The power supply in mine (and a friends) whined loudly at about 15khz - extremely irritating. A power supply of that nature is a VERY simple thing to engineer, but apple failed this simple test.
Well it was a huge leap into the dark. Others learnt from Apple's mistakes, a pity that Apple gave up too quickly.
A friend of mine had a Newton and swore by it, and used it for over 10 years.
What happened to your assertion that Apple stole all these ideas, if in fact you knew perfectly well they did not?
Quote:Face it, Palm did handwriting RIGHT, apple did NOT, and I can say this as a former user of BOTH.
Apple's mistake was that users confused the handwriting recognition software by handing it around to their friends to try. Palm forced you to use a stylised script, so that you the user had to write the computer's way, not your own.
Quote:Appple stole the GUI - that must be the cheapest and most profitable knock-off EVER. THEN they were stoooopid enough to try and sue MS for stealing 'their' GUI - and you cry foul about knock-offs when apple is not the beneficiary. Truly hilarious!
When are you going to actually research anything instead of just shooting your mouth off?
Xerox was paid by Apple with a discounted share offer. Apple did not steal, as Microsoft did who paid Xerox nothing. Which didn't stop Ms lying to its gullible and supplicant fanbois with bitter FUD and repeatedly delayed promises. Microsoft was given inside knowledge by Apple so that it could create software for the Mac and yet still took over a decade to come up with anything remotely useable in competition, W95.
The Mac GUI was not a knock off of the Xerox Star's which is easy to verify with a brief bit of research on the web. Apple had worked on the Lisa and Mac software from 1979 and was so far in advance of Xerox's fairly rough, ready and incomplete version that there was no question this was substantially Apple's work. There were some truly farsighted geniuses who worked at Apple on the project. My favorite was Andy Herzfeld, who was so far ahead and so clear thinking you could only stand in awe.
Unless of course you are so clueless that everything is a mystery and seems to appear fully formed like Athena from Zeus's forehead, fully armed.
Quote:Nearly all 'new' advances are built on the hard work of others - get used to it and take something for your hype-induced blindness . . .
The problem as always here is that you really don't know what you are talking about, or are happy to lie on the assumption that everyone knows as little as you. Something proved over and over again.
Edited by rubaiyat: 25/2/2011 12:35:19 PM |
|
photohounds
26 February 2011
|
Yet more fan boy drivel its cool if Apple copies, bad if anyone else does ... as for your claim about "the first PDA...) what an utter joke such a claim is.
On THAT I shall elucidate in a little more detail at a time convenient to me. |
|
rubaiyat
26 February 2011
|
As ignorant as ever.
The term PDA was in fact coined by Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_digital_assistant
For heavens sake get off your anti-Apple hobby horse unless you can actually find some facts for your irrational prejudice. |
|
rubaiyat
26 February 2011
|
photohounds
Do you need some coaching how to conduct searches and finding supporting material, or are you happy with just making it up as you go along? |
|
photohounds
28 February 2011
|
First I thought I'd take the time to show you some facts as all your web skills have failed to locate same.
Is that perhaps becasue you ignore or discard that which doesn't suit?
PDA's (formerly known as PIMS:)
Before Jobs (was it?) coined the marketing term “PDA”, handheld personal organizers such as the Sharp Wizard
(yep had a SHARP, too it was nifty), various Casio devices, the SONY Clie and the Psion Organiser, referred to as "PIMs".
There were others, too I think - all AHEAD of Apple. Most of these useful devices synched with your PC!
Handwriting recognition over a DECADE before the Newton:
Early handwriting recognition devices were introduced in the early 1980s.
EG:
. Pencept Penpad
. Inforite point-of-sale terminal
. CIC
. By 1989 GRiDPad from GRiD Systems - sorry DOS based.
. In the early 1990s, products from NCR, IBM and EO using the PenPoint operating system developed by GO Corp.
. PenPoint used handwriting recognition and gestures throughout and provided the facilities to third-party software.
. IBM's tablet computer was the first to use the ThinkPad name and used IBM's handwriting recognition.
. This recognition system was later ported to Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing, and IBM's Pen for OS/2.
Don't worry, I won't claim Linux 'invented' gesture-based computing, either :)
This history makes your claim that the Newton was the first PDA, other than the coining of a new marketing term, laughable rather than laudible.
Apple in its Newton phase merely used a COPIED version of the technology outlined above, yes, others' ideas, slightly repackaged - nothing more.
And yes, it seemed cool at the time as do all new gimmicks, whether they work well or not.
Newton handwriting recognition was slow and VASTLY inferior to Palm - few who have owned both devices for any length of time would dispute.
Now, your beloved ipad:
You insinuated the ipad is 'ahead' and being 'copied' as if it were seminal in some way?
The ipad is no such thing. It is a well-marketed niche toy with a particular feature set that's all, and a limited set at that.
Others are assembling different mixes of existing tech to the mix apple chose, that’s all. All the hype you slavishly quote just glosses over your ipad pal's obvious shortcomings - here are some.
. A tablet with no handwriting recognition? Oh yes, THAT's 'ahead'.
. A browser with no Flash or Java? (can't see 70% of websites or 75% of videos). Well I guess THAT's worth copying?
. A communications device with no camera? THAT's somehow seminal?
. A modern computing toy with no multitasking? (Can it read and take notes and browse and listen to music at the same time?) What a CURIOUS step that is, these days – must be ‘innovation’.
. Can it make a telephone call? No? Well I guess THAT's not the ipad's niche really, is it.
. A portable device with no industry-standard USB ports? Well I guess THAT's 'useful' or will we get some overpriced connector?
. No Memory expansion port which effectivelty FORCES you to buy flash RAM at 20x its true value :( Looks like a "leading" ripoff, to me.
In ipad's favour, I will say its 4:3 format makes a LOT of sense, and it looks pretty cute, but it just a toy with A MIX of features like all other toys.
- Never fear, cookie boy will fix these shortcomings in version 3 or 4 or whatever ...
Facts notwithstanding, you will no doubt defend apple to the bitter end, and that end is coming in the form of well-armed competition.
Oops, I've uttered the Apple "hate word" - 'Competition' – Ooh! there i said it again ... sorry.
And the other makers are clamouring to fill the other dozen niches:
I do want one of these toys, and it has to perform the functions I need, if I can get that sub $100 (and I will), I can spend the rest on something more important (to me).
Maybe one of those nice 30" Apple screens or a Dell Ultrasharp (or an EIZO 30 INCH WIDE GAMUT CALIBRATION LCD) monitor ...
You see, I'm in control as I am buying what I need, not what some bozo tells me I should want, not the marketing teams of Samsung, BMW and certainly not the curious ones at Apple.
If I wanted 'one with the lot' at this stage, I would probably go for a Samsung unit, but probably will want a phone in it as well as Samsung have "invented"..
Apparently, the Galaxy TAB offers what quite a few phone buyers think it fills a need too - THEIRS.
|
|
rubaiyat
28 February 2011
|
How far do I have to burrow through this pile of rubbish?
The Pencept PenPad was just an input to a terminal as was the Inforite etc and far from being PIMs or PDAs were the equivalent of a biro chained to a besser block.
Stop being such a lazy ignoramus and get your chronology right. Yet again you find things that came after the Apple device and claim they predated it. The Newton dates from 1987, find something that actually looks like a PIM/PDA that comes before it.
The Palm came long after the Newton and used Grafitti, which was not handwriting recognition as such, it was its own particular method of input which the user had to learn. Nothing wrong with that, it was a workable method, but it hardly attempted what the Newton had long before.
Your codswallop wastes my time defending Apple, when I could be more productively be tearing strips off it at its own website or on a Mac magazine website.
If only one of the eternal queue of iPhone/iPad killers actually lived up to its name, we could see some real competition. How hard is it to do good knock-offs?
They remind me of The Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Come back here, I haven't finished with you!" |
|
photohounds
3 March 2011
|
As far as your reference to the “animal farm” analogy goes, I seriously doubt you were the first to use it thus, my apparently learned Peter. Presumably Orwell was alluding to more than one unfolding political situation with his “four legs good, two legs bad phrase”, and many people probably read the book before either of us.
Anyway, all the technologies I mentioned above were being developed long before the marketing term PDA was dreamed up. Your brand loyalty must make Cupertino brim with pride, and I have no issue with Apple being an assembler of generally high quality (but fallible) apparatus.
Whilst we have 2 ipods in the home, I have less of your apparent brand loyalty, because I seek and explore alternatives. When these alternatives exist I have a better chance of finding what suits ME even if you don’t think they are “the best”. My apologies for my selfishness of not worshiping all of Apple’s doings.
On a tangent …
How do you react to Apple’s more recent move to supply ‘24 bit’ music – and then compress it (presumably with some dynamic range-squeezing, proprietary algorithm) whilst demanding a premium price for this ‘quality’?
I say, the plan is especially cynical when modern music rarely uses more than 12 bits of dynamic range (dance music probably 8). I’ve not done any research besides a quick look at the waveform envelope of a few (especially the volume popular) music styles. One can easily see the horrendous compression that negates ANY need for ‘more bits’.
I’d say that a far better music accessory than disingenuous and greedy marketing of ‘extra’ bits that most music cannot utilise would be a quiet, reasonably isolated room. Good for a read, too.
Of course listeners who possess excellent hearing and enjoy acoustic, especially classical music may be well served by an uncompressed version. I doubt they are the intended market, due to the tiny fraction of online music purchasers they might represent.
|
|
rubaiyat
3 March 2011
|
I'll surprise you by agreeing with nearly all your points above.
Bar the non-innovative Apple, which if you follow your logic would deny every great artist of their title. Frank Lloyd Wright, genius? Huh, they were building huts long before he came along! The real genius was the bricklayer!
Back on topic. I was totally unaware of the recent move of Apple to 24 bit, so I did a bit of research.
Speaking from long exposure to Apple I can see what they are doing. They are matching the studio recording rate, so in theory offering no degradation in recording quality at all. The fact that you can not get the benefit yet does not matter, as Apple is laying down the groundwork for future technology. Something they always do.
All companies, even the assemblers, need to work over a longer time frame than is apparent to consumers. Most products have a gestation period of several years. Many products are stillborn and never even see the light of day.
Given that I agree that the real world limitations are environmental and perceptual.
We live in an extremely noisy world that precludes being able to enjoy such hi-fidelity. Also the vast majority of listeners are unable to differentiate low from high quality and in fact have damaged hearing. Some of it caused by overloud devices to compensate for the already noisy environment and the use of headphones which focus the excessive volume on vulnerable eardrums.
I find it hilarious that one of the many claims PC users endlessly repeat to each other, is that iPods have lower HiFi than other gadgets. One I've tried the alternatives and find them equally as bad, if not worse. Two, it is entirely irrelevant when you can't make use of the higher fidelity, which is why Apple sensibly doesn't play lossless audio on its iPods, converting them to AAC or MP3 files. Further the music that these 'experts' listen to is mostly crude and except for some heavy metal doesn't require high bit rates.
In fact music has always adapted itself to fit the environment or media in which it is played. From symphonic halls, mono radio, to 78s, to cassettes, to MP3s to now basically whatever you want. I can still remember proudly showing off my Philips cassette recorder to my school mates. What was impressive was that it was so small and convenient. Not the tiny 3" speaker or the brassy "Big Girls Don't Cry" samplers that covered up its deficiencies.
I have damaged hearing from prolonged exposure to building site noise. However I always convert my CDs to Apple Lossless format because I can hear the difference. Also it is pointless to convert my vast collection of over 600 CDs to an inferior format that I will later regret. I want to retain as much fidelity as possible.
In the case of spoken word audio such as Radio interviews, documentaries, comedy or audiobooks, however I opt for 32bit mono because that absolutely serves the purpose. 24 bit audio with 3D effects is for suckers, if the problem is with the content.
But in the end, it comes down to this. Are you going to complain, yet again, that Apple is, yet again, pushing the envelope ahead of everyone else, whilst simultaneously claiming they are copying and behind?
Or are you just going to ignore the contradiction and blithely continue resenting everything Apple does? |
|
rubaiyat
3 March 2011
|
Just followed the topic of 24 bit audio through to several more articles. Such as this:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/tech/24.bit.music_1_higher-quality-music-online-music-stores-music-catalog?_s=PM:TECH
Apple has already built the capability into iTunes and their computers so the remaining weak links are the music publishers and the portable MP3 players.
Whilst in themselves iPods, iPhones and iPads are not ideal players for the high fidelity, now that they are increasingly storing and serving the content to other devices, it does make sense to upgrade them. |
|
rubaiyat
4 March 2011
|
Let's summarise your choices:
Apple iPad 2 Available March 25 from US$499
Motorola Xoom US$800 no launch date in Australia.
Research In Motion's Playbook ~US$500 when launched "later this year".
HPTouchPad tablet No local pricing or launch date.
Lenovo IdeaPad U1 Hybrid No local pricing or launch date.
LG's G-Slate No local pricing or launch date.
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Exlusive to Vodafone. No pricing or launch date have been announced
Do I detect a theme for the iPad killers? |
