Are you in the Android clan?0 posts
Ultra hardcore pony lover.
about 16 hours ago
On the desktop I use two monitors at 16:10. 16:9 on desktop is almost universally despised versus the much more functional 16:10.
For reading magazines on a tablet, I much prefer 4:3.
I notice input lag on some devices but my Nexus 4 is just as smooth as my iPhone/iPad. Actually more smooth than my iPad since its last update.
Both Android and iOS are excellent modern operating systems but if you are to take the average experience on both platforms iOS devices would obviously be a lot better as there is not choice of hardware at the low end. Android caters for everyone. It is universal, and being universal is a force for good in the world. Without Android, barely anyone in the third world would be able to afford to get on the internet, and such a connection may be the difference between life and death in some villages, where there are no doctors.
Yes, Android lags at the low end, and in earlier OS version, but at the high end, there is basically no difference in performance to iOS, and my opinion is that Google applications offer a far more coherant design experience than the pseudomorphism that has started to weigh down the design language of Apple’s own iOS applications.
iOS still offers an excellent experience for users, just as Android at the high end does. Android at the low end is a much worse experience than iOS at the high end, but what do you expect?
I’m on a Nexus 4, and I’m amazed with how smooth everything runs.
The Nexus 7 does lag a little, but its still a very fast tablet, and you have to consider the price differential.
Implying that Android is inefficient because some phones/tablets with quad core processors can lag is downplaying the effect of slow GPUs (in the case of Tegra 3)/crappy skins.(in the case of GSx).
Quad core CPUs for the most part are completely untapped, not because Android can’t use them but because applications have to be optimized for them, and only certain tasks can be optimized in parallel (such as image processing, video processing, webpage rendering, etc). Scrolling through a list, when the screen rendering is hardware accelerated is not CPU-bound. It is almost entirely GPU bound. Quad core processors not eliminating lag is not a symptom of Android being terrible but usually a symptom of an underpowered GPU (versus screen resolution) or just a crap skin.
So, whatever you think you are amazed by, be prepare to be amazed by Android phones with decent GPUs and less crappy skins together with screen resolutions 4x higher than ‘retina’ running at the same smoothness as the (already excellent) iPhone. You can already see such a phone at 2x higher than retina resolution in the Nexus 4.
I’d never heart of XBox music until this article. I do think that if you are a provider of content then it absolutely needs to be cross-platform.
Even iTunes music can be played on any hardware and almost all Google services have web-front-ends so that they can be used from any platform.
It sounds to me that branding Microsoft’s music service as ‘xbox’ is the first problem. I don’t own an XBox, so does that mean I can’t use it?
I think you decided on your answer based on a single feature, which just so happens to require the most uncommon orientation on a tablet.
For tablet owners that value reading websites and magazines; these use-cases are best suited to portrait orientation, and as such, 16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio.
16:10 minimum or 4:3 is ideal for reading books/magazines/websites.
Snapview is OK if you using the tablet in landscape but try holding a table in landscape on a commute or try reading a magazine in landscape. Awful.
I think that smartphones never faced the kind of privacy hurdles that this category of devices is now facing, and they certainly never faced any kind of resistance from the tech community itself (as we are seeing in these threads).
That, in itself, should be enough to hint that the adoption rate of this category of device is likely to be slower than the smartphone adoption rate. When added to the higher than initial smartphone cost, legal hurdles, and talk of potential bans in certain public areas, I think that even if these devices do slowly gain popularity and acceptance, its an uphill struggle versus comparatively benign smartphone technology.
As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I do find the technology itself to be compelling and I might personally be interested in such a device, except, for all the reasons that I’d love to own one, I’d trade all those benefits in for other people not to own one.
You claim that self-censorship will result from Glass, and this is true. People will censor themselves around cameras. People don’t like to censor themselves, and so they will resent anything that causes them to censor themselves.
I don’t know what the future will be but I know what I don’t want the future to be, and I don’t want to live in your vision of the future.
I’ve been pretty much pro-technology on nearly all popular technology throughout my entire lifetime. From the first iPhone presentation to the announcement of Android, I was excited and I could see how smartphones could revolutionise the world.
Glass is different. It is invasive in the same way as pointing a camera at a person that doesn’t like a camera pointed at them, and yet, it is taking that choice away from individuals.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the idea of Glass, I really love the idea of it. It’s just that there is such a massive loss to personal liberty and the reasonable expectation of privacy that I feel that there will be massive resistance to it hitting the mainstream.
Personally speaking, I would refuse to sit at a table with a person wearing Glass.
I’m a tech lover, I own multiple Android/iOS/Sony/Microsoft devices and personally speaking, I love the idea of Glass, but individuals cannot be trusted to regulate the invasive power of wearable computing. Saying that Glass will make it obvious when its recording is not good enough. There will be units that disable such controls, and they will be able to hide in plain-sight if Glass becomes mainstream.
I have no problem with friends having any other tech, and I have no problem with them owning Glass either, but I would not accept sitting down at a table with someone wearing glass. Its the same feeling as when someone points a camera at you and asks you to say something.
An individuals convenience should never trump another persons liberty.
I might accept Glass as long as some social norms establish themselves starting with:
1) No wearing glass whilst engaging in a private conversation or sitting down at a table.
2) No wearing glass around other people’s children.
3) No wearing glass in public restrooms/locker rooms/beaches.
So, there are 1,000 creeper-enabled glass headsets out there already.
Once there are millions of glass units out there, all with “safeguards” it will be that much easier for the creeper units to hide in plain sight.
The prism doesn’t have to blink when its recording. I should imaging that many Glass headsets will have this feature disabled and based on success of rooting smartphones, it will be hard to know for certain if someone is recording or not, even if the default software attempts to make it obvious if someone is recording.
In fact, the more that Google tries to pacify lawmakers by making it so that Glass makes it obvious when it is recording, the easier it will be for those with hacked units to be able to get away with covert recording.
I think you are taking two completely different things, and drawing a false parallel.
CCTV cameras tend to be located from on high, from ceilings, or corners of streets, or from high above the world.
Glass is a camera filming you from 1st person perspective, and not just that, recording everything you are saying.
Everything you say in private, in a public space has the potential to become public. Your private behaviour in a public space is now public, and therefore, out private behaviour will change.
CCTV generally doesn’t record audio at a high fidelity and generally its impossible for CCTV to record conversations at a table at a restaurant or bar. Any bar that had obvious cameras pointing at tables would soon make their clientèle feel uncomfortable.
Asserting that just because we can generally get used to the trade-offs surrounding CCTV, that it follows that we will also get used to being recorded from first person and short range, is a false equivalency and a non sequitur.
2 days ago on Will Google Glass create information heroes or new-wave Bluetooth dorks? 1 reply 1 recommend
Time for a new privacy amendment.
I think smartphones and glass are roughly analogous to alcohol and cigarettes.
Smartphones are like alcohol. You can use them socially, and some people perhaps use them a little too much, but its OK to be in the room as a person that likes to drink for quite a long time. Ultimately they may overstep the line after a little too much and start to infringe on your comfort zone perhaps by getting out the camera or just being a smartphone bore, but you can tolerate it because it doesn’t infringe your liberties. You are not being forced to drink.
Glass is like cigarettes. If you are in the room with someone smoking, whether you are a smoker or not, you are now a participant. You do not have the choice to not inhale carcinogens or not, someone smoking around you has taken away your own liberty. Glass is like that. It is literally, in your face. Someone wearing glass is automatically infringing your privacy, and that makes it an order of magnitude more anti-social than smartphones/drinking. With drinkers, it takes a while for them to become drunk. With smokers, they immediately start smelling up the environment.
I think that social interactions will change around glass, and if the world has any sense, there will be clear zones where it is socially unacceptable to wear such items.
3 days ago on Will Google Glass create information heroes or new-wave Bluetooth dorks? 5 replies 33 recommends
I think I would find it greatly uncomfortable talking to someone not knowing if they were recording me or not. I think it will become polite to remove glass when actually in social gatherings except in very clearly defined contexts.
3 days ago on Will Google Glass create information heroes or new-wave Bluetooth dorks? 2 replies 3 recommends
It only takes a glance in video mode to get that photo that you wanted to take. It’s near impossible to detect a passing glance. You can play back your commute and get mug-shots of hundreds of people without ever staring at any of them. You only need a frame or two.
With a phone, you need to hold the phone up in their direction, with glass, you just need to look around.
3 days ago on Google on Glass privacy: 'If I'm recording you, I have to stare at you' 3 replies 12 recommends
It will only take one “killer app” to shut the whole thing down.
And there are so many many nefarious ways in which it can be used.
3 days ago on Google on Glass privacy: 'If I'm recording you, I have to stare at you' 1 reply 2 recommends
Personally, I can see legislation potentially shutting glass down long before it hits the mainstream, or at least there will be non-glass zones where humans can socialize without fear of being recorded from every angle.
3 days ago on Google on Glass privacy: 'If I'm recording you, I have to stare at you' 1 reply 3 recommends
All phones sold in Japan legally have to make a loud shutter noise when taking a photo in response to the number of up-skirt shots that occurred on-trains.
Trouble is, if somebody really wants to take such photos, they can just remove the speaker.
The “hacking glass” session should be proof enough that whatever safeguards will be in place will be easily cast-aside to those that can think of nefarious uses for such a device.
3 days ago on Google on Glass privacy: 'If I'm recording you, I have to stare at you' 2 replies 4 recommends
The above prototype is a phone. And with pretty poor analogue sticks.
If you were to scale up that particular design for a tablet, it would be a pretty massive controller, and it would be very heavy indeed given the thickness.
I don’t think that a gaming tablet is such a good idea with this design. One with the controls around the bezel makes much more sense, but you seemed to be concerned with “appearing cool”. The Wii-U controller is fundamentally a good layout, its just that the controller should have been the console itself, and the design should have been far more adult and industrial. I’m afraid if you want to appear cool though, you’ll have to put up with crappy analog sticks and a very thick device (to conceal the physical controls – like the Xperia play).
I want to play the games, and I will play the games, and I will buy the console, but given the arrogance of Nintendo, I’d rather buy a console and games from bargain bins than give them a first-sale and implicitly support their current controller fetish. I simply don’t want to have a 3 hour battery life tablet with resistive screen and crappy resolution and keep having to look up and down for menu items, etc.
I support Nintendo in learning from its failure.
3 days ago on Electronic Arts is no longer developing games for Nintendo's Wii U 1 reply 1 recommend
But its a chubby, fisher-price-esque controller and I expect better than having to play with my controller plugged in to the power supply when the screen is completely redundant for 99% of non-gimmick games anyway.
I hate Nintendo for putting their fans in a position where they must purchase shitty hardware (both in design and capability terms) in order to play their sublime software.
3 days ago on Electronic Arts is no longer developing games for Nintendo's Wii U 1 reply 2 recommends
Ironically, most of their Wii-generation games are not incapable of even being sold on other platforms via a Virtual Console setup as the games require crazy custom controls that can only be satisfied with a Wiimote + TV setup.
All their previous generation games could be played with a regular gamepad, and now there is a whole era of Nintendo gaming that requires the Wii hardware in particular. Games like Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess barely used any of the Wiimote functionality (except in gimmicky sub-games and using waggle to substitute for the lack of a fourth button).
I believe the full quote is this:
We have no games in development for the Wii U currently because the console is a flop and its not worth developing a separate game and game engine for last gen hardware alongside our true next-gen games. In addition, even porting existing PS3/360 games is proving problematic when Nintendo is insisting that we integrate completely pointless functionality into the controller, whose battery life lasts for 3-4 hours.
3 days ago on Electronic Arts is no longer developing games for Nintendo's Wii U 1 reply 3 recommends
I’m the same.
Just when I convince myself that I’d buy a Wii-U just for the Nintendo exclusives, then I think about the sheer awfulness of the controller, and having to charge it up every three hours, then think again.
Each messaging app has a memory cost to a smartphone.
I don’t have Facebook installed on my phone because it consumes 80MB of RAM constantly, and Whatapp is about 30MB and Viber is about 20MB, and Google talk, Hangouts and Skype (especially Skype) all have a background memory cost.
They are all doing essentially the same activity. Of course, there should just be a standard where these applications can share a common background messaging service, and therefore only be using one set of RAM.
I think you mistake defence for attack.
It’s on account of the Wii-U having 8X less RAM and 6X less computer power than PS4 (and rumoured XBox Infinity).
EA is taking a wise business decision not to have one foot in the next gen and one foot out simultaneously as they mistakenly attempted with the Wii.