Why Amazon won't launch its own tablet, but will use Apple's

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

BTW, sound quality asymptotes to "good enough," for example in most vehicles I defy you to tell the difference between an original CD and a well-ripped (192 KBPS VBR MP3 or equivalent) track played through the iPod or iPhone into an MP3 optimized head unit. I agree the iPod or iPhone is not the pinnacle of mobile audio quality. Cowan's devices probably are. But it is good enough for me, even listening through my Etymotics ER-4P's (a mid-to-high end canal-phone) or the custom stereo I installed myself in my last car (Alpine CDA-9887 HU properly tuned, JL Audio 10W3v3 sub, Focal KPS separates in the doors, JL Audio 150/2 and 300/1 amps).

Well of course it all comes down to what the individual cares about. I don't want to get into an audiophile discussion (because most of it is voodoo), but I will briefly address this.

Apple uses the AAC format, which is slightly higher fidelity than the older MP3s. However, you really need to go higher than 192 kbps in order to get transparent quality on compression. I've lost a decent amount of high range hearing, and even I can tell the difference between a mid level MP3 and a CD on a decent sound system, with music I am familiar with. You can hear the clipping, especially at higher levels.

Where most of those blind tests go wrong, is that they limit the listener to two or three listens which could be A:B, B:A, A:A, or B:B, and ask the listener to discern the differences without being familiar with the piece. There are so many variables in recording quality, not to mention playback quality, that unless the listener is intimately familiar with the original piece, of course they can't tell a difference down the road. I'd like to see a comparison of professional/semi-professional musicians playing their own music, kind of like some transistor/tube comparisons.

However, my comment regarding the iPod/iPhone had more to do with their lackluster DAC and incredibly weak amplification through extraordinarily crappy headphones. Flash the firmware, use decent headphones, and all of a sudden it sounds a ton better. Even better, use another device completely and do a pass-through to your receiver if you really insist on hooking a small, portable device up to a stationary system.

As far as cars, there is so much external noise and vibration going on, not to mention lackluster interior acoustics, that there's no need to comment further.

But, the vast majority of the public has no inclination to spend time or energy on this little facet of life. More power to them. There are definitely more important things in life that who has the better sound setup.

EDIT: However, there is no excuse for the "WHAT DID YOU SAY? I STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU" of most cell phones, even with full bars.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Imagine a device with a camera as good as a Canon, Audio as good as an iriver, phone as good as [insert personal fave phone], games as good as a DS etc etc

And at a price less than the devices if purchased seperately.

I still wouldn't buy one. A super-duper all-in-one device is only a good deal if a) you want all those functions (and lots of people don't), or b) it does a better job (or an equivalent job at a lower price) than one (or more, depending on your individual needs) dedicated device that performs a function you do want.

The more functions you add, the more design compromises you're forced to make, the higher the price goes, the greater the chance a dedicated device will outperform at a lower cost, and the smaller the potential market as a result.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I've lost a decent amount of high range hearing, and even I can tell the difference between a mid level MP3 and a CD on a decent sound system, with music I am familiar with. You can hear the clipping, especially at higher levels.

Play them on a PC, with deacent headphones. It's noticeable. Now, apply an appropriate sound filter ("pop", "rock" or whatever). Now, suddenly? 99% of the difference is imperceptible. An iPod doesn't have the horsepower to do that. (Heck, 95% of PC sound cards borrow CPU time for it..)

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Imagine a device with a camera as good as a Canon,

For camera, at least, no do-all portable device will ever be as good as a "real" camera. Real cameras have large lenses for collecting large amounts of light, large CCDs (or CMOSes) and either interchangeable lenses or at least a good zoom/macro range on a non-changeable lens. No camera with a lens smaller than a dime and a sliver of a sensor will ever, ever, ever be as good as a big piece of glass in front of a big piece of silicon.

My camera is an ancient f707 (but I'd never want to part with it) and no little toy camera built into a phone (or future convergence device) will ever be as good as even that antique.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

For camera, at least, no do-all portable device will ever be as good as a "real" camera. Real cameras have large lenses for collecting large amounts of light, large CCDs (or CMOSes) and either interchangeable lenses or at least a good zoom/macro range on a non-changeable lens. No camera with a lens smaller than a dime and a sliver of a sensor will ever, ever, ever be as good as a big piece of glass in front of a big piece of silicon.

My camera is an ancient f707 (but I'd never want to part with it) and no little toy camera built into a phone (or future convergence device) will ever be as good as even that antique.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/

You struggle with the word imagination right?

of course it cant now... but who is to say what the future holds? I own a number of Canon bodies and lenses and studied Photography 10 years ago So I understand what your saying but it is irrelevant to what COULD be the case using your IMAGINATION.

IF a device existed that did have the ability to shoot as well as your f707 and was a phone etc and had a built in projector etc and all these other functions in no way impacted on your camera requirements and the cost was less than 2 seperate devices then you would consider it.

That is what manafacturers keep trying to do and of course they cant now just like a few years ago you couldnt get a good games playing phone and MP3 in one device and now their are multiple instances of this.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by stustaff

You struggle with the word imagination right?

Did you know the word 'gullible' can't be found in any dictionary?

of course it cant now... but who is to say what the future holds?

Personally, I'm holding out for my flying car, which was supposed to have arrived back in the 1980s, per the technopunditry.

IF a device existed that did have the ability to shoot as well as your f707 and was a phone etc and had a built in projector etc and all these other functions in no way impacted on your camera requirements and the cost was less than 2 seperate devices then you would consider it.

Only if 1) the additional functions really didn't impact the other requirements (Magic 8-Ball says: "Don't count on it") and 2) I wanted the other device(s). "Cheaper than buying the device you want plus five more you don't" just isn't a great selling point.

That is what manafacturers keep trying to do

No, manufacturers are trying to convince people the word 'gullible' can't be found in any dictionary, and proving P.T. Barnum right in the process.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Did you know the word 'gullible' can't be found in any dictionary?



Personally, I'm holding out for my flying car, which was supposed to have arrived back in the 1980s, per the technopunditry.



Only if 1) the additional functions really didn't impact the other requirements (Magic 8-Ball says: "Don't count on it") and 2) I wanted the other device(s). "Cheaper than buying the device you want plus five more you don't" just isn't a great selling point.



No, manufacturers are trying to convince people the word 'gullible' can't be found in any dictionary, and proving P.T. Barnum right in the process.

I think you struggle with the word Gullible.

where do i say anywhere that I believe they will do it or have done it already?

I stated that they are TRYING to do it. which is true, they are.

and actually "Cheaper than buying the device you want plus five more you don't" just isn't a great selling point."

Would pretty much be the BEST selling point EVER.

a multifunction device that is cheaper than the sole use device i wanted AND does 5 other things as well as the original requirement I needed...

Why would anyone not spend less! lose no functionality! get the ability to do other things for effectively nothing?

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by stustaff

a multifunction device that is cheaper than the sole use device i wanted AND does 5 other things as well as the original requirement I needed...

Why would anyone not spend less! lose no functionality! get the ability to do other things for effectively nothing?

Now you've just moved the goalposts again. Of course I'd buy a multifunction device that was cheaper than and performed as well as a single-purpose one. Not because it had extra useless or inconsequential functions, but because it was cheaper than an equivalent dedicated device. The multi-function aspect is a red herring there - it has no impact on my buying decision.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by stustaff

You struggle with the word imagination right?

of course it cant now... but who is to say what the future holds?

Sure, once we get to the point where we can trivially bend light on the scale of a handheld device to improve it's camera... see above note about "technology-so-good-its-magic".

Cameras are a good example of needing certain sizes and shapes of device for the best result...


"a multifunction device that is cheaper than the sole use device i wanted AND does 5 other things as well as the original requirement I needed..."

Depends heavily how badly it's had to compromise in terms of interface and usability to fit those functions in. Depends how well it's built and how it looks, etc. etc.

[stustaff]

You are both missing the point! probably due to my poor explanation skills.

we were talking first of all about a device that doesnt exist right NOW lets remember that.

We were talking about the benefits of an ALL IN ONE device and it being the holy grail of personal technology design.

and i said I could IMAGINE that such a device IF it had all the functionality of the original sole purpose device and cost a reasonable amt would indeed be the Holy Grail item.

I never said that it existed or that I expected it to exist next year, However such a device is closer now than 5 years ago and we will continue to edge towards it.

In replying to statements such as

"Only if 1) the additional functions really didn't impact the other requirements (Magic 8-Ball says: "Don't count on it") and 2)A super-duper all-in-one device is only a good deal if a) you want all those functions (and lots of people don't), or b) it does a better job (or an equivalent job at a lower price) than one (or more, depending on your individual needs) dedicated device that performs a function you do want. "

I was saying that by definition the 'holy grail' item WOULD be capable of doing equivalemt or better perfomance than the the single use items.

i used words like IMAGINE if that were ever invented.

Saying things like, "For camera, at least, no do-all portable device will ever be as good as a "real" camera." or "Depends heavily how badly it's had to compromise in terms of interface and usability to fit those functions in. Depends how well it's built and how it looks, etc. etc."

is COMPLETELY irrelevant when talking about the 'holy grail' device as the and try and remember this the IMAGINARY(IT DOESNT EXIST YET) item woould by definition be as good a s a real camera... if it wasnt it wouldnt be the 'holy grail' device and its interface and usability wouldnt be compromised because if it were then again it wouldnt be the 'holy grail' device

im not moving the Goalposts Pardoz Im pointing out that actually an all in one device IS something you would buy if it met your needs!

[Daithi]

I'm in Stustaff's camp that wants a multifunctional device. I'd really like to have a tablet with the form factor of my Kindle DX that was full color, had refresh rates capable of supporting color, fast 3G Internet access, and a wicked long battery life. I want the perfect eReader/Tablet PC combo -- I just don't think Apple's new tablet is going to be it.

To do eReaders well, you need a reflective technology like eInk. Backlit LCDs simply don't cut it when it comes to doing eReaders. I'm sure plenty of people will buy the new Apple tablet and tell themselves they have an "eReader". There will be plenty of articles about Apple's new "Kindle Killer", but eventually people will come to realize that Apple doesn't do eReader very well.

I think we will need to see new technology on the market before an eReader/Tablet PC combo will really be viable. I think Qualcomm's Mirasol technology has a shot (color eInk that can do video). Wait until the Kindle Mirasol is released and everyone is talking about the new "Apple Killer".

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Sure, once we get to the point where we can trivially bend light on the scale of a handheld device to improve it's camera... see above note about "technology-so-good-its-magic".

This suggests a corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any insufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from marketing.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by stustaff

im not moving the Goalposts Pardoz Im pointing out that actually an all in one device IS something you would buy if it met your needs!

Of course. I'd also buy a cheap flying car that ran on tapwater, a faster-than-light starship, and a personal teleportation device. These would all be great to have, and they are all about as likely to come along as your does-everything-better-and-cheaper-than-a-dedicated-anything device.

In the real world, when considering a multifunction device, trade-offs of function and design are inevitable, and all other things being equal a single-purpose device will always be cheaper than a multipurpose one: an ebook reader/cellphone/camera is always going to cost more to manufacture than a single-function ereader unless Multi Claus comes down the chimney of your factory with a big bag full of free microphones, lenses, and image sensors.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by stustaff

of course it cant now... but who is to say what the future holds? I own a number of Canon bodies and lenses and studied Photography 10 years ago So I understand what your saying but it is irrelevant to what COULD be the case using your IMAGINATION.

The problem is when what you imagine crosses the lines of physical impossibility, anything goes. It reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons envisioning the future where Marge takes a photo of the family, the photo comes out the front of the camera and expands into one of those photo-icing cakes. Marge declares (paraphrasing) that "life is so much better now that science has invented magic."

A speck of a lens will never be able to collect as much light as a full-sized lens, and therefore will never take pictures as good as a full sized lens. If we are going to make up magical properties for ebook readers, I want my future convergence device to have the option, at the press of a button, to turn into a pair of fully uniformed Japanese schoolgirls who read aloud to me while pleasuring me in ways illegal in 35 states and the District of Columbia.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Of course. I'd also buy a cheap flying car that ran on tapwater, a faster-than-light starship, and a personal teleportation device. These would all be great to have, and they are all about as likely to come along as your does-everything-better-and-cheaper-than-a-dedicated-anything device.

In the real world, when considering a multifunction device, trade-offs of function and design are inevitable, and all other things being equal a single-purpose device will always be cheaper than a multipurpose one: an ebook reader/cellphone/camera is always going to cost more to manufacture than a single-function ereader unless Multi Claus comes down the chimney of your factory with a big bag full of free microphones, lenses, and image sensors.

Exactly i keep trying to remind you we were never talking about the real world we were talking about a hypothetical imaginary device.

look back at what you replied to!

I said
Originally Posted by stustaff
"Imagine a device with a camera as good as a Canon, Audio as good as an iriver, phone as good as [insert personal fave phone], games as good as a DS etc etc"
And at a price less than the devices if purchased seperately."

And you said
"I still wouldn't buy one.A super-duper all-in-one device is only a good deal if a) you want all those functions (and lots of people don't), or b) it does a better job (or an equivalent job at a lower price) than one (or more, depending on your individual needs) dedicated device that performs a function you do want."

Which completely missed the point of what I said that such a device would be the 'holy Grail'

Oh and if you really believe teleportation is as likely as an all in one electronic device that could replace Phone,PDA,Camera,Video Camera, Music Player and games machine then your being VERY Silly

Whilst such a device couldnt replace an RED camcorder or a Pro DSLR camera, or a high end Music system or my XBox 350, it could and will replace PERSONAL versions of those devices... the Flip video machine, My small samsung digicam, my MP3 player, my Nintendo DS and my phone.