Stick Online Forums

i have a kindle, and i love it. i can see why publishers could be mad cause i could have bought a whole trilogy for 9.99. it is very easy on the eyes, as i read it for hours straight. They also give free books here and there, as i have like 10-15 free books. No it can't play video, but with the way the screen is, i don't forsee them being able to play video with the screen the way it is. It squirts ink on the back of like a clearish paper material from what i hear, thus why it also doesn't glare if you are reading in the sun or something. It can still go online via satellite and i have even gone on this website with it just to check some things. Sure it can't sign on to AOL cause of java or something, but i still would rather have my kindle. I can see them raising the prices of newly released books, but 9.99 is the max at which a book is sold right now, seeing as all you are paying for is the copyright. but a lot of the older books are like 5-6 dollars.

But it doesn't really matter what the consumer wants. That's the point. The publishers will withhold the books from Amazon meaning you wouldn't be able to buy the book on the Kindle until much later than you would at a retail store or on the iPad. And if that means Amazon will lose sales through their Kindle, they will raise their prices so they can make the publishers happy. It might not matter to you if you can't get the book right away on Kindle. It might not make you decide to get an iPad instead. But it might be for someone else, or for a lot of other people. And hell, if they're already getting the iPad because of all of its other features, why would they get a Kindle as well if they can't even get the books they want on time?

just asking but when you image your self holding this ware are you? home school work etc.

Quote from: Meiun on February 03, 2010, 12:59:00 AM
Ok, so while I am primarily a Windows user, I have no problem admitting that Apple definitely does and can make some great stuff, especially in regards to the whole iPod, iPhone, lines. But after reading a couple articles about their development plans on things, I have to say that Steve Jobs strikes me as a HUGE arrogant and cocky douche. Apparently he refuses to give the iPad support for Flash, despite Adobe (the company that makes it) wanting to be able to put it on there. So in other words, a HUGE portion of the internet and potential video sources will be completely unavailable to iPad users simply because Steve Jobs "doesn't like it." After bashing Adobe some he stated that "the internet is all moving to HTML5" which wont need Flash anymore (which is being developed largely by some apple people, surprise surprise). Which in my book, even if this were true is no excuse for shunning a tremendous portion of the internet in the mean time. He did the exact same thing when it came to adding support for Java, to which he stated that "nobody uses it anymore," which even the sites that posted the article of him saying that agreed was a blatant lie.

I would REALLY like to know where he is even coming up with that shit. It's almost as if he has down-syndrome. Does he really think flash is anywhere near obsolete? What a !@#$ing retard. He is lucky enough that flash came to him like that, and the fact he just turns down a great offer and bashes them is not only foolish, but a douche-move indeed. !@#$ you Steve Jobs.

Quote from: Mr Pwnage on February 03, 2010, 08:17:53 PM

Quote from: Meiun on February 03, 2010, 12:59:00 AM
Ok, so while I am primarily a Windows user, I have no problem admitting that Apple definitely does and can make some great stuff, especially in regards to the whole iPod, iPhone, lines. But after reading a couple articles about their development plans on things, I have to say that Steve Jobs strikes me as a HUGE arrogant and cocky douche. Apparently he refuses to give the iPad support for Flash, despite Adobe (the company that makes it) wanting to be able to put it on there. So in other words, a HUGE portion of the internet and potential video sources will be completely unavailable to iPad users simply because Steve Jobs "doesn't like it." After bashing Adobe some he stated that "the internet is all moving to HTML5" which wont need Flash anymore (which is being developed largely by some apple people, surprise surprise). Which in my book, even if this were true is no excuse for shunning a tremendous portion of the internet in the mean time. He did the exact same thing when it came to adding support for Java, to which he stated that "nobody uses it anymore," which even the sites that posted the article of him saying that agreed was a blatant lie.

I would REALLY like to know where he is even coming up with that shit. It's almost as if he has down-syndrome. Does he really think flash is anywhere near obsolete? What a !@#$ing retard. He is lucky enough that flash came to him like that, and the fact he just turns down a great offer and bashes them is not only foolish, but a douche-move indeed. !@#$ you Steve Jobs.

Ever since I saw "Journey to Silicon Valley", Steve Jobs always struck me as a bigger douchebagger than I.

Steve Jobs says that he doesn't want flash support because it causes so many problems. I personally think the benefits outweigh the issues with flash, but I guess he knows best.

Quote from: Jake on February 03, 2010, 09:02:38 PM
Steve Jobs says that he doesn't want flash support because it causes so many problems. I personally think the benefits outweigh the issues with flash, but I guess he knows best.

That is a correct statement.

Also how is jobs being mean news to you people. People who work with him fear and respect him. When he enters into a room he assumes himself as the most smart one there. In apple its his way or the highway. He will make a product only with the features he wants people to have.

He's almost crazy but he brought apple back from the dump, made the ipod and the iphone, and started the pc world up with his help on the apple 2. He is a marketing genuine but like any person has flaws.  

The biggest argument against flash is how it is a single point of failure.  It's a single software provider.  Web applications are SWIFTLY moving towards RIA's, and if Adobe abandons the project, goes under, starts charging (keep in mind, flex is open source), then Flash goes down the crapper.  It's never wise to limit it down to one provider.  Rid of the need for this for RIA's by implementing it in the next version of HTML 5 is a brilliant idea.  Will Flash ever go under?  Not likely, or not before something bigger and better comes along that renders Flash crap by comparison.  It's only natural, and I welcome HTML 5.

As for Apple ditching flash for the next potential major revision of HTML, I can understand what he's getting at.  Why support something that is going to die off when the next big thing comes along.  What I don't agree with is him expressing his distaste for Flash when HTML5 is expected to go into "full" implementation in a decade (or two if you are MS IE).  That right there will hold Flash at the top, considering RIA's are not browser specific.  Script an RIA for one browser, and it works on all the others.  Flash will be around for a long time still...

About this flash thing. I knew it was going to happen. I like flash but i really would like for it to die because of the resource it takes. But apple hard headed and the web is not going to change over night so i guess people who buy it is going to have to live with it. Something to keep in mind if your getting one. I do hope html 5 does take over one day.

Quote from: Scotty on February 03, 2010, 10:25:11 PM
The biggest argument against flash is how it is a single point of failure.  It's a single software provider.  Web applications are SWIFTLY moving towards RIA's, and if Adobe abandons the project, goes under, starts charging (keep in mind, flex is open source), then Flash goes down the crapper.  It's never wise to limit it down to one provider.  Rid of the need for this for RIA's by implementing it in the next version of HTML 5 is a brilliant idea.  Will Flash ever go under?  Not likely, or not before something bigger and better comes along that renders Flash crap by comparison.  It's only natural, and I welcome HTML 5.

As for Apple ditching flash for the next potential major revision of HTML, I can understand what he's getting at.  Why support something that is going to die off when the next big thing comes along.  What I don't agree with is him expressing his distaste for Flash when HTML5 is expected to go into "full" implementation in a decade (or two if you are MS IE).  That right there will hold Flash at the top, considering RIA's are not browser specific.  Script an RIA for one browser, and it works on all the others.  Flash will be around for a long time still...

Yeah, I'm with you on that. HTML5 sounds great, but whether Steve Jobs likes it or not, TONS of sites out there rely heavily on Flash. I am more annoyed with his ignorance about that (and the fact that this isn't the first time he has pulled something like this) than the actual decision itself.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 03, 2010, 09:17:29 PM

Quote from: Jake on February 03, 2010, 09:02:38 PM
Steve Jobs says that he doesn't want flash support because it causes so many problems. I personally think the benefits outweigh the issues with flash, but I guess he knows best.

That is a correct statement.

Also how is jobs being mean news to you people. People who work with him fear and respect him. When he enters into a room he assumes himself as the most smart one there. In apple its his way or the highway. He will make a product only with the features he wants people to have.

He's almost crazy but he brought apple back from the dump, made the ipod and the iphone, and started the pc world up with his help on the apple 2. He is a marketing genuine but like any person has flaws. 

Sounds like he is way too full of himself. Unlike Microsoft, Apple only accounts for a small fraction of the computers in the world, and therefore he can't just make big decision like that and expect the rest of the computing world and internet to comply.

There is one thing i would like about this that would make me want it. Text books. If i can search, etc in a text book i would like one. I just hope textbook makers latch onto it.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 04, 2010, 07:14:30 PM
There is one thing i would like about this that would make me want it. Text books. If i can search, etc in a text book i would like one. I just hope textbook makers latch onto it.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier.  I would get this, if solely to use as an e-textbook and e-drawing pad.  And not just this, anything like this.  Imagine schools where we don't have to hand out assignments anymore, the teacher just automatically uploads them to our tablet.  Textbooks?  Just open it up on your tablet.

Do I think Apple or the Ipad will actually do something smart and fulfill such a role?  Not bloody likely.  The inability to multi-task, along with Apple's ass-backwards stubbornness makes me think this is not what I'm looking for.  Yet.  We'll see what the future holds.

i think amazon was looking into electronic textbooks for the kindle. They did a study to see how people reacted to using them and said that they didn't really like them over regular text books, though for reasons that are stupid cause they don't know how to use their kindle... like they say that they can't put little tracer tags in the book to show something, when you can bookmark it on a kindle, you can't highlight on a kindle when i believe you can, it just underlines it instead... stuff like that... i think it would be great, but i don't think it would be 9.99, i think it would have to cost more than that, but not more or equal to the cost of a regular text book, maybe just the cost of a used one minus the price of paper, bindings, etc, etc.

Quote from: DivineLegend on February 05, 2010, 02:29:27 AM
but i don't think it would be 9.99, i think it would have to cost more than that, but not more or equal to the cost of a regular text book, maybe just the cost of a used one minus the price of paper, bindings, etc, etc.

That's the whole thing I was talking about earlier. I don't know about text books specifically, and I don't know Apple's take on it, but based on what happened between Macmillan and Amazon and how Apple responded, it's likely that Apple will charge full price for digital text books. In other words, they don't care that a certain portion of the retail price of a physical book is attributed to printing costs. They're going to charge the same price because otherwise it would "devalue" the product and piss off the publisher. And when it comes to text books, I highly doubt the price has anything to do with the printing costs. I don't see how it could cost anywhere near $80+ to make a text book. Which just shows those publishers are not concerned with printing costs anyways.

I thought this was some kind of joke as a Tampon... lol...