Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think we're forgetting how utterly perfect the technology of writing already is. The alphabet has been around for nigh on four thousand years (edit: make that five). It requires some form of inscription, and a pen or a typewriter are pretty hard to beat. We may improve on the latter somehow (although I'm similarly not holding my breath) but it will be by means of another technology simply because writing itself is a technology - and a digital one at that, as Ben would no doubt point out.
-
Yes. But you can only type faster than you can handwrite (or indeed, possibly at all), because we're still using it as an interface to computers. It's a skill created because of an interface problem - converting thoughts to individual characters - in relation to typewriters/computers. It's the ongoing inability to create or use a more efficient interface that uses existing skills that ensures it continues.
And what would that more efficient interface be? What's quicker than typing for writing?
-
Whereas if the Kindle made an app for my netbook or tablet PC, Microsoft wouldn't clip any ticket, right?
-
It's somewhat bizarre that we learn a special skill simply to convert our thoughts to letters on a computer when we can all talk fine.
I'm not sure what you're saying there. Are you saying we should ditch keyboards and just speak into things? If I had a magic dictaphone that wrote down unfailingly what I say into it, I'd still rather have pen and paper (or pen and tablet, assuming equal ability to convert into perfect script) or, better, a keyboard. I can type faster than I can handwrite, and I can manipulate text on a page much better via a mouse and keys than I could giving my magic dictaphone verbal instructions. Besides, I'm still going to want to be able to do my writing silently.
-
Can I humbly suggest we take a step back on this thing? Because if this device really is the future, it's the future of what? Is it going to enable people to do without having to buy an iPhone? A desktop computer? A laptop? Because if people are still going to need all of those things, then I think the future just got more expensive to the tune of around $500 a year, plus data charges.
-
Presumably it won't stay that way forever. Otherwise seriously, if the future of books is being sold exclusively via iTunes, we're screwed.
-
Yeah, cos Windows 7 will show me websites with Flash in them.
If the iPad contributes somehow to reducing the amount of Flash used in websites, I'll be a happy man without ever wanting to own one myself. I've just installed a flash blocker for firefox and now I can see how many inane buttons and gizmos on the Web are made with Flash. Gack!
ETA
This is really, properly, no foolin', The Future.
The future doesn't have a keyboard. I am very disappointed in you, future!
-
Ops, yes, I forgot about those. I guess tablets are the closest thing.
-
Having owned a couple of netbooks myself, in the loosest sense they're comparable bnce you use an iPad though you realize they're very different things.
I think when you hold a website in your hand like a book you realize how if anything the iPad is probably really what a 'net book' should be.That's why I said closest thing. If the iPad was just another netbook then presumably we'd be spared the hype. And they do a number of things differently, obviously. Plus if 3G is important to you in order to make the price comparison more accurate you'd have to add a USB 3G modem to the netbook and compare the plans available on either.
-
Would it be too rude to ask how much it cost?
NZ Prices. By contrast a good netbook - Atomn450, 160GB hard drive, 10 inch screen, 1.2 kg, Windows 7 starter - sets you back a little over $600. I guess it's the closest comparison amongst existing devices, isn't it?