Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 22:19 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Of course. Just as I'm about to finish university, and leave school behind me for good, some company comes up with a dual screen tablet which I would've killed for to replace that boatload of textbooks I've read over the years. It's called the Kno (more here), and it's a massive thing for sure - but considering their target demographic, it actually makes sense.
Thread beginning with comment 427878
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Dud
by gfacer on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Dud"
gfacer
Member since:
2005-11-10

Ah, yes... the magical Ipad, which miraculously overnight became the de facto standard of tablets. It's so "revolutionary."


I do think Apple has done a very good job at putty nice hardware is small light packages. Not saying it can't be done by others, but it's a challenge.



"Two screens is fine, but is it necessary even?

It probably helps when one wants to fold a large work area in half, to fit inside a small bag/case.
"

That is exactly type of dumb idea that starts these projects (the other is obviously "a book has two pages, we have two pages!"). Two screens do not make one large work area. IMO, that doesn't work on multiple desktop monitors and it doesn't work on tablet/booklet hardware. I would argue that anything done on the second screen could probably be done with a semi-transparent UI layer on the tablet. The payoff is a more simple, more sturdy design. Big screens won't fit in your bag until flexible display roll along. Pun intended.


"Hell, if you don't have the clout to make the market, even 5 years head start in the tech isn't enough sometimes.

"Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, we are sorry, but we're not interested in investing in your 'Google' project. We don't see how you can compete in this market, not being one of the big boys, such as Yahoo or Alta Vista."

I am certainly glad that there are those who ignore the naysayers and who persevere to advance technology and humanity.

We are lost the moment that we all blindly accept the drivel handed to us by the likes of Apple and Microsoft.
" [/q]

Software is much easier to innovate in, there is no comparison. Ever watch the movie "Flash of Genius"? The guy had a good idea (software), he just should have never tried to get into manufacturing of it(hardware)! Besides, as your example references, Google was not making the market.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Dud
by Neolander on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 08:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Dud"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

That is exactly type of dumb idea that starts these projects (the other is obviously "a book has two pages, we have two pages!"). Two screens do not make one large work area. IMO, that doesn't work on multiple desktop monitors and it doesn't work on tablet/booklet hardware. I would argue that anything done on the second screen could probably be done with a semi-transparent UI layer on the tablet. The payoff is a more simple, more sturdy design. Big screens won't fit in your bag until flexible display roll along. Pun intended.

No, two screens allow drag-and-drop action that semitransparent UI does not allow easily.
Moreover, semitransparent UI generally requires permanently turned on and running 3D acceleration, and hence low battery life (remember the 30% battery life hit that Vista Aero brought on many laptops ?), to run smoothly, whereas dual screen does not means reducing battery life as long as you use the increased storage space to store twice the battery ;) .

Edited 2010-06-03 08:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Dud
by tupp on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 18:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Dud"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

... Apple has done a very good job at putty nice hardware is small light packages.

Not really.

Apple enclosure design is largely derivative, retro rehash, that primarily impresses naive, design newbies.

Apple hardware has an extensive history of usability and functionality problems: the round mouse; overheating; non-removable batteries; difficult-to-find controls; lack of connectivity; monitors that cannot tilt downwards; lack of standard features (no floppy on the first Imacs); very limited internal hard drive space (G5); etc.

These problems primarily occur because Apple doesn't do much field testing and rushes most of their products to market.

Furthermore, the internal components in Apple products are usually run-of-the-mill (or worse).


Not saying it can't be done by others, but it's a challenge.

The challenge would be for Apple to gear-up their design to offer variety/originality on the level of Sony, LG, Samsung, Nokia, etc.

In that regard, Apple could never come close to most of these companies.


That is exactly type of dumb idea that starts these projects

Of course. Making a device more portable is certainly a dumb idea.


...(the other is obviously "a book has two pages, we have two pages!").

Not sure if that is an obvious advantage nor if it was the idea behind the two touch screens.


Two screens do not make one large work area. IMO, that doesn't work on multiple desktop monitors...

Okay. Someone needs to inform all the Apple fanboys using Final Cut Pro with two screens.


I would argue that anything done on the second screen could probably be done with a semi-transparent UI layer on the tablet. The payoff is a more simple, more sturdy design.

Interesting idea on the semi-transparent layer. It would be worthwhile to check prior art, especially in the *nix world, as there has been a lot of open source UI experimentation with window managers and transparency.


Software is much easier to innovate in, there is no comparison. Ever watch the movie "Flash of Genius"? The guy had a good idea (software), he just should have never tried to get into manufacturing of it(hardware)!

Google is not exactly a software company. They are more of a service provider. However, they certainly use a lot of hardware and software.

Never seen the movie.


Besides, as your example references, Google was not making the market.

If anything, the Google scenario is more of a challenge -- having to surpass the established powers is more difficult than introducing something completely new.

Thankfully, just because an entity has "clout" doesn't mean it will be successful, whether "making the market" or competing with others.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Dud
by gfacer on Sat 5th Jun 2010 00:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Dud"
gfacer Member since:
2005-11-10

Well, we obviously disagree. The buying public seems to agree that Apple's designs are good (by buying them), but you don't. I get it.

This is where, if I were talking to you in person, I politely excuse myself and walk away.

Reply Parent Score: 1