No. I've had it with apple. I bought a few of their products. They're beautiful and clever, but eventually I always end up feeling humiliated by how evil they are - treating me as a user like I was a worthless money machine. Also I find it hard to imagine how I would use such a device - too big to put in my pocket, no e-ink, so it can't serve as a book reader and no keyboard, so I can't use it to create things.
Agreed on the lack of e-ink. When I read that Amazon and Sony would have to struggle to provide a touch-screen, full-color interface, I thought that meant Apple had come out with an e-ink tablet. It looks really cool, yes, but frankly I'm disappointed it's not e-ink. That specific feature attracted me to the Kindle in the first place, and I absolutely love that I'm not staring at light.
What is the appeal of e-ink? I breathed a sigh of relief that it was not based on e-ink - a technology that isn't up to the task of doing what this device can do.
eye fatigue... imagine when you stare at a computer screen too long, reading now... your eyes get tired from strain, you could get burning sensation, glare, dry eyes.. all this could lead to bigger health concerns. Thats why e-ink is superior. People have reported issues with led and sight. If you want an ebook reader, the kindle,nook , and ereader are all superior for a hard core ebook reader.
links :
http://www.computervisionreadingeyeglasses.com/eye_fatigue_s...
problems with led:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1677617...
e-ink is the only real replacement for reading of paper (as of today). All other screens simply don't cut it - the resolution is way too low, they flicker, and you'll find that you can't read from them for too long without getting tired.
Why don't people understand what an incredible compromise e-ink is? It does nothing well except emulate words on a printed page. It can't be used for Web surfing, it can't be used for gaming, it can't show photos or videos, and you can't use it to implement any kind of meaningful user interface. It's too slow by two orders of magnitude for any of these tasks.
If you want to try to compete with Apple by building an expensive gadget that only does one thing well... good luck with that.
It does nothing well except emulate words on a printed page.
Thats the whole point! People want something they can stare at and read for hours without hurting their eyes. Its target specifically at people who want to get the book reading experience without carrying around a book.
As for the limitations you mentioned, I believe they are well acknowledged. At the moment, people are just happy to keep their eyes in good condition.
Yes. Apple makes it impossible for me to do things that I'd like to do and should be able to do with their hardware using DRM and other treacherous computing technologies. I had an iPhone for a while and I just got rid of it because:
1. I had to use iTunes to put music on it. Very inconvenient for me, being an Ubuntu user.
2. As a developer and super user, I was limited in what I can install on my phone. That's a phone I bought, for a lot of money, and belongs to me, and yet I couldn't decide what I put on it - everything had to go through Apple's shop.
Do you know many other companies that poo-poo like that on their customers? The very same people who pay them huge amounts of money?
I don't think Apple is the one pushing DRM, they aren't idiots. Apple's hand was forced in the fact that they had to compromise with the record labels. I'm sure Apple would prefer to sell DRM-free tracks, considering it would simplify the user experience. The record industry is responsible for DRM.
Agree. Apple's iTunes game will sooner or later be over. Having to keep mp3s the iTunes way is just funny and one of the greatest indicators of Apple seeing the user as a money machine. Solely the looks and good design of iPhone will no longer be able to hide this truth.
