The_Inquisitor
Member
Norante said:
What?! What did he use it for?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Apple iPad revealed
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
What?! What did he use it for?
maharg said:
YOu mean the typing correction or the little popup letters?
I agree on the letters (although I noticed they are actually absent on the iPad).
Regarding typing correction, it was absolutely there because of the size of the keys, but maybe also because of lack of tactile feedback as you say. Ac combination of both things, I guess. There was just too much possibility to hit the wrong key. For a large key board, this may not be the case. Or maybe it still is. Probably a moot point, considering it's most likely still going to be there.
Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, the more related to lack of tactile feel for the keys (not necessarily feedback for pushing) it is. If the touch typing correction on the iPad is good enough, you might not even need to look down. Let's say it's smart enough to recognise if you've moved an entire set of keys to the left ... nah...it couldn't be that smart, could it?
Sorry, was referring to the autocorrection. Misunderstood you if you meant the magnifying.
Moving all your fingers to the left or right one key is just a general case of moving any one finger to the left or right. I'm pretty sure the iphone already deals with that.
A bigger problem is moving one hand one way and the other hand the other way. But even that is probably still the same generalization of a particular problem. I don't think the algorithm is all that clever, it's just noticing if what you type isn't in the dictionary and then finding words that match the set of letters around each key.
Ie. you type in "upi" -- it looks at the following sets (based on real keyboard, not iphone):
(y67ikjh)(o90-[';l)(u789olkj)
and matching those against the dictionary. It finds "you" and shows you that. It probably does some extra work to pare down possibilities as well, but at its core it's gonna be roughly like that.
Moving all your fingers to the left or right one key is just a general case of moving any one finger to the left or right. I'm pretty sure the iphone already deals with that.
A bigger problem is moving one hand one way and the other hand the other way. But even that is probably still the same generalization of a particular problem. I don't think the algorithm is all that clever, it's just noticing if what you type isn't in the dictionary and then finding words that match the set of letters around each key.
Ie. you type in "upi" -- it looks at the following sets (based on real keyboard, not iphone):
(y67ikjh)(o90-[';l)(u789olkj)
and matching those against the dictionary. It finds "you" and shows you that. It probably does some extra work to pare down possibilities as well, but at its core it's gonna be roughly like that.
maharg said:
Yeah, I wasn't being clear, sorry, I was asking several questions at once.
Autocorrection happens in the iPhone, I know, I was wondering how necessary it was in the iPad. But like I said, it's moot, because it'll probably have it regardless of whether we need it or not, seeing as it's implemented. Yeah, two hands going different ways is something that would be good to consider, but in the end, as you say, it's probably very basic.
edit: yes, I know how it works. Like you type "chance", then reach over and type near the "e" key, about 1/2-2/3 of the keys around it (i.e.. wsdr) actually type an 'e', because chances are you meant an 'e'.
The magnifying is missing, and I'd actually like that in absence of tactile feel.
Flek said:
Apple really needs to add that feature for the iPad. This seems like it'd be a great device to sit on the coffee table in the living room and family members/guests can pick it up and quickly check their emails or just browse the web or whatever. In future hardware revisions they could even go all out and have it recognize the users thumbprint or have the camera recognize their face and log them in.
Perhaps Apple is hoping that every family member buys their own iPad though.
I think Finder is great... You have the standard Movies, Documents, Picture, Music, etc. folders for everthing. It's easy for me to keep track of my stuff.mrkgoo said:
Honestly, this new iPad file organizing system just seems like a solution in search of a problem. It's spin to make it seem like App-ifying everything is an improvement.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I was hoping for this too.Flek said:
Also: their.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Yep, it was funny too.DarkJC said:
Jobs is writing an e-mail with something like "wow, we're really announcing the iPad!" It gets auto-corrected to "wow, we're really announced the iPad" and Jobs just quickly wraps up the e-mail and sends it as if to pretend it didn't happen.
Eat up Martha.
Teddman said:
You mean solution looking for a problem.
I kind of disagree. It depends on how you view this device. As I've said before it's a multitouch interface application-based lifestyle device. Not really a computer in many ways. If you see it that way, files are a little bit arbitrary.
The iPad isn't really that new at it - it's just taking it to the final stage, that is, to the entire system. iTunes and iPhoto on the mac have already made files that they use more or less invisible. I concede that not everyone people use iPhoto, and that many people still cling to wanting to organise their music files. I'm not going to say that's wrong, but you can at least see what the iPad is going for. Is it something that needs to be solved?
Maybe not for a desktop computer, but you know, maybe it is good for a lounge around computing device like the iPad.
mrkgoo said:
You misunderstand. Obviously the iphone does autocorrection and everyone and their dog knows it. What I was saying is if you type an entire word off-by-one it will find the correction.
My point was it's not doing it on a letter by letter basis. It just searches the possibilities of any or all of the letters being misspelt, but only if the word is not in the dictionary.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
Heh, I saw that too. It means he missed a keystroke rather than mistyped. I dunno, I'll have to go back and see.
fake edit: I jsut checked. The iPad did nothing wrong.
Steve types:
"Wow! we really announcingthe iPad"
He says, "oops!" when he realises he forgot the space between "announcing" and "the", but he doesn't actual go back to correct it, he just continues and it corrects it for him.
He just must've had a brain fart with the "we really part", because that's physically what he typed.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
How do you go over 256mb?
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm curious what that means.
Flying_Phoenix said:
He wants a way to figure out how much 256 MB is in data usage, because that's the 'small' $14.95 data plan for the iPad.
If he can check usage on his iPhone, then presumably he can decide which plan is more suitable.
To clarify, 256 MB is an amount of data transferred, in this case referring to 3G usage.
I assume 256MB is both upload and download or just download?
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Raistlin said:
Like what does it measure?
How long I'm on the web?
How much I upload (like photos on TinyPic) and download (iTunes songs) on the 3G Web?
I know I should know this but this has never been explained to me before.
HTML5 is completely ready for primetime, web devs just need to code their pages to show Flash to Firefox/IE users and HTML5 to Chrome/Safari/Mobile Safari/other WebKit browsers. My point isn't that devs need to dump Flash as of yet, but they do need to be coding their pages to work with all standard web browsers. Not really anything new; we used to do this all the time between IE and Netscape, and later IE and Firefox. Now the line is Flash and non-Flash.Raistlin said:
Good post.
mrkgoo said:
More, of course! :lol
For the record my carrier is Rogers up in Canada. My limit is 6GB and I long since stopped bothering to reset my iPhones local counter when I started each billing period because I never go over 3-400 MB of data a month typically. The discrepancy could be due to a number of factors, one of them being perhaps I wasn't resetting the counter quite in line when they were.
Flying_Phoenix said:
It's a limit on the total amount of data transferred in their data network (3G and Edge) in a month. As for whether that applies to uploads as well as downloads, we'll have to see the fine print to confirm.
If it's just downloads, then that would mean stuff like iTunes songs, loading webpages, etc.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
Just be aware that 3G metering of bandwidth is very different to online metering, which is the reason that many metering tools offered seem "out", usually by misreporting on the low side.
The reason for this is that 3G suppliers quote limits that include the transport layer overhead, these are the elements of the datastream that are not directly part of the data you may be uploading/downloading itself alone (The part the metering tools measure), but any extra data that is needed/used by the network to package and send the data over the network in the first place (The part that isn't measured with any tools).
A damned shifty move but something they have done for a long time without anyone making too much of a stink about, so unlikely to change anytime soon.
Depending on the carrier, the transport layer overhead can be as much as 1/8th of the total bandwidth in use. (Newer carriers have much lower overhead rates than this now though.)
The reason for this is that 3G suppliers quote limits that include the transport layer overhead, these are the elements of the datastream that are not directly part of the data you may be uploading/downloading itself alone (The part the metering tools measure), but any extra data that is needed/used by the network to package and send the data over the network in the first place (The part that isn't measured with any tools).
A damned shifty move but something they have done for a long time without anyone making too much of a stink about, so unlikely to change anytime soon.
Depending on the carrier, the transport layer overhead can be as much as 1/8th of the total bandwidth in use. (Newer carriers have much lower overhead rates than this now though.)
Schlep said:
But at what cost? While it generally isn't a big deal for video, it's a pretty big deal for vectors. SVG is an inconsistent mess across the browsers that do support it, so for many web-developers it is still going to simply be more cost-effecient to go with Flash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(SVG)
BTW - Even for video, things aren't perfect since there isn't agreement on the codec to use. That means sites have to house multiple versions.
Vennt said:
I believe a few carriers allow you to track the data on their website. All of them should offer that ... and to be honest, there probably is some legal grounds to force the issue if anyone wanted to press it.
mrkgoo said:
It's usually the latter, and not just for cellphone carriers - broadband companies with caps pull the same thing. People have stood up to them though, and forced them to have tracking on their sites.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Raistlin said:
Ahh I kinda see now.
So how much data would stuff like posting on Gaf and Facebook take up? How many hours do you need to be on the web?
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
It's an issue there's no correct answer to though, not even Flash, years ago you were looking at 90% of the web viewing public being on one of two similar but competing browsers, regardless of platform.
Now we're seeing not only an increase in the number of browsers, but an explosion in the number of platforms, and there's no way Adobe are going to be able to stay on top of it enough to make Flash work on them all, or even a large portion of them.
A new standard will be needed, or the current standards will need to be developed for the new world of Internet access on everything that can have a screen put on it, but the answer won't be a proprietary plug-in from one company, It will be impossible for such to keep up.
A legal CYA is exactly why they do offer such tracking, they are the only ones who can track your usage, because no user or 3rd party tool can track the usage including the transport layer etc.
Now we're seeing not only an increase in the number of browsers, but an explosion in the number of platforms, and there's no way Adobe are going to be able to stay on top of it enough to make Flash work on them all, or even a large portion of them.
A new standard will be needed, or the current standards will need to be developed for the new world of Internet access on everything that can have a screen put on it, but the answer won't be a proprietary plug-in from one company, It will be impossible for such to keep up.
Raistlin said:
A legal CYA is exactly why they do offer such tracking, they are the only ones who can track your usage, because no user or 3rd party tool can track the usage including the transport layer etc.
At this point I'm just referring to video, because I think a lot of the animation features of HTML5 aren't yet solidified. Regarding the codec, that's where identifying webkit browsers comes into play. Both Chrome and Safari support h264. If they identify Firefox 3.6+, I believe that has standard support for Theora.Raistlin said:
I'm a bit behind on what all is involved with html5 since I haven't created a site in about a year, but my impression is that all you have to do is point to the correct video file, and the browser takes care of the rest.
layzie1989
Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
i used about 240 mb of data just last night tethering my iphone to my laptop...I was just browsing gaf and watching youtube vids
LiveFromKyoto
Member
mrkgoo said:
That's ridiculous, there's nothing else for any other OS half as good. I can't imagine what kind of fantasy land somebody would have to be living in to call it "horrible," it's just about perfect.
Buckethead
Banned
I can't believe you guys can use coverflow in the finder.
Grid View FTW. If they had a hybrid of list and grid view that'd be hot though.
Grid View FTW. If they had a hybrid of list and grid view that'd be hot though.
Schlep said:
And that's my point, the web isn't just video. Since there isn't a standard for vectors, the entire discussion is basically moot. Many web-designers still have to use Flash anyway (for now).
I agree, coding this isn't particularly difficult. However, having to have multiple versions of videos isn't always practical for some sites. There are costs involved. For now, you need to have h264 for webkit, Theora for Mozilla, and something for IE. While some people have the plugin to get h264, others don't.
I know everyone loves to bitch that Flash plugin, but in reality it's a de facto standard. The adoption for Flash on PC's/Macs is something like 99%. That's why it's an uphill battle to break away from it. The costs for dropping Flash are actually quite high because everything is such a clusterfuck.
BTW - Read this regarding h264 http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/20...-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-web/
Yep. Unfortunately, that's the least of the issues.
Buckethead
Banned
Tobor said:
I use the dock for everything. Everything is put into a folder then launched from the stack.
Very rarely do I have to use either the finder or spotlight.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
LiveFromKyoto said:
The finder isn't "horrible" it just isn't as good as everything else in OS X.
Yeah, but in the end animation is really a very small percent compared with video. Additionally, there are very few sites, that I've seen, that use Flash correctly. Way too many use it as a method of prettying up the page instead of conveying useable information. On top of that you have sites that do convey information, but use Flash when web standards would be just as effective and more compatible/less system intensive. I'm looking at you Best Buy.Raistlin said:
Really it's just two separate video files. Safari, Chrome, and Flash all support h264. Firefox is the odd man out. I know two files is more hassle than one, but if you really felt the need to only use the one file, you could point both Firefox and IE to Flash.
It was an interesting read. It's still a net positive, because all the end user needs is the correct codec loaded on their system. Might be a hassle short term, but we won't be in a position of having to update a proprietary program each year.
Raistlin said:
I read this last week. It really put a lot of things into perspective.
I never really thought about what it costs companies to license h264. My biggest worry is that that Apple and Google will push h264 as a de facto standard for web video and years from now it will bite everyone in the ass when they come looking for royalties.
I was leaning more towards h264 just because my library is encoded that way, it's what I use and it's what most people use but now I'm not so sure it should be 'the web codec'.
At this point in time the only company that doesn't support Theroa is Apple. The iPhone browser has such percentage of mobile users and the web is moving more and more to mobile devices that it's impact is having a disproportionate affect on content producers.
maharg said:
Pretty much. It also doesn't help that IE is pretty much popping the middle finger to html5 at the moment 
What a lot of people don't seem to realize, even discounting other issue like the disaster that is SVG browser support, the HTML5 specification is technically not even a finished standard yet.
Schlep said:
It may be a small percent in terms of individual items on the web (obviously due to sites like YouTube, there's a crazy amount of vids online), but a decent percent of websites actually have animation content.
That said, vectors are not just for animation, it's for static images as well. And there's a lot of it on the net, particularly for user interfaces. Many web-desingers like using vectors since they still look good regardless of the resolution you are running at, or if you zoom on them, etc. Since there isn't a standard solution for it outside of Flash, web designers can't guarantee how their content will look in a given browser, so they would be forced to individually code for each one, and in some cases simply not use vectors.
I'm not going to disagree with you there, but that has nothing to do with Flash. It's a tool, if someone uses it in a shitty way, that's on them. If you were around for the advent of the web, think back to how most sites used to handle frames :x It was TERRIBLE :lol
That's kind of my point though. It means Flash will still be around.
Actually, the issue is more about what may happen long-term in terms of licensing.
While yes, it's proprietary, don't you have to update your browser fairly regularly? Isn't Safari proprietary? IE? Hell, Windows and Mac OS are proprietary
Don't worry, I don't consider that last statement to be a particularly strong argument, more of a devil's advocate thing. However, proprietary isn't automatically bad. Would I rather have Flash completely open? Sure. I'm not sure how it would work out though. In reality, Adobe loses a lot of money making all the flash player VM's. I'm not sure if it would automatically work better if it was completely open (though in reality, it's actually heading that way).
- Status