nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100350245783% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9D0F1A35BEF0Cnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> No ePub support according to the news reports today.
>
> what news reports are these? apple specifically said it uses epub.
>
The Camera Connection Kit gives you two ways to IMPORT photos and videos
from a digital camera. The Camera Connector lets you IMPORT your photos
and videos to iPad using the camera’s USB cable. Or you can use the SD
Card READER to IMPORT photos and videos directly from the camera’s SD
card."
(IMPORT capitalized for emphasis)(READER capitalized for emphasis)
There's no reason to have an SD WRITER as you are not allowed any
access, whatsoever, to the 64GB file system as it has no File Manager
for you to use to COPY or MOVE files on or off the unit.
As he's calling it a "Camera Connection Kit", my bet is when you plug
one of the two dongles into it, the PICTURE program comes up and ONLY
allows picture files it supports ("Viewable document types: .jpg, .tiff,
..gif (images)" to be "IMPORTed" from the camera or its SD card.
Wanna bet?
The only reason is so you can use it like a picture frame for your
camera pictures to show the family album.....to bore others to tears.
Why can't you plug in an SD card full of unprotected MP3's and IMPORT
them? That would open a can of worms that BYPASSES THE ITUNES/APP STORE
BOX OFFICE!
This piece of **** SUCKS.....anti-consumer, anti-customer, all the way.
Another Apple BOX OFFICE product....iphone, ipod, itouch, ipad.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100350286028% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9D0F1C54B5D12noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > if apple wanted to restrict it to apple-approved carriers, why would
>> > they make it unlocked at all? or did that not cross your mind?
>>
>> They did lock it.
>
> it's unlocked.
>
>> It ONLY covers the ATTWS frequencies.....noone else.
>
> it will work on 2g, but who makes a chipset that covers *both* at&t and
> t-mobile's 3g frequencies? do you know of *any* other phone that works
> on both? needing to use two chipsets would add to the expense, which
> would only give you something else about which to rant.
>
> and t-mobile isn't the only other carrier either. go overseas and pop
> in a sim and it will work there, even at 3g speeds.
>
In article <Xns9D0F2C7751F49noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
<noone@home.com> wrote:
> >> They had so much space problems they couldn't even make
> >> the SD card reader a WRITER!
> >
> > you don't know whether it writes or not.
> "iPad Camera Connection Kit
>
> The Camera Connection Kit gives you two ways to IMPORT photos and videos
> from a digital camera. The Camera Connector lets you IMPORT your photos
> and videos to iPad using the camera’s USB cable. Or you can use the SD
> Card READER to IMPORT photos and videos directly from the camera’s SD
> card."
> (IMPORT capitalized for emphasis)(READER capitalized for emphasis)
who exports images to a camera? they're describing how it normally will
be used.
most cameras can't even read a generic jpeg. there has to be certain
metadata and previews embedded for the camera to even recognize the
file.
> There's no reason to have an SD WRITER as you are not allowed any
> access, whatsoever, to the 64GB file system as it has no File Manager
> for you to use to COPY or MOVE files on or off the unit.
where is it written that an app can't write a file directly to it?
> As he's calling it a "Camera Connection Kit", my bet is when you plug
> one of the two dongles into it, the PICTURE program comes up and ONLY
> allows picture files it supports ("Viewable document types: .jpg, .tiff,
> .gif (images)" to be "IMPORTed" from the camera or its SD card.
it will probably automatically copy, but where is it written that no
other app can access it?
> Wanna bet?
yes. when i win, will you go away?
> The only reason is so you can use it like a picture frame for your
> camera pictures to show the family album.....to bore others to tears.
learn to take better pictures and they won't be so bored.
> Why can't you plug in an SD card full of unprotected MP3's and IMPORT
> them? That would open a can of worms that BYPASSES THE ITUNES/APP STORE
> BOX OFFICE!
because you can sync them from the computer and there's no need for the
itunes store to listen to an mp3, ever.
> This piece of **** SUCKS.....anti-consumer, anti-customer, all the way.
great, so don't buy one. why do you read this group? do you get a kick
out of displaying how utterly stupid you are?
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:Eiw8n.10650$3n2.5715
@newsfe01.iad:
> just clever!
Todd, do you see this modular GSM/GPS radio that they can leave out of the
cheap unit as one of a SERIES of radio units, the next one of which could
be a CDMA/EVDO/GSM unit for Verizon/Sprint?
I think this is the reason it has this module other than to save costs on
the cheap unit to add to its profit margin.
If another unit is in production, they can simply stick in whichever unit,
programed for whichever carrier, that buys it.....which makes a lot of
sense!
There may be a CDMA/EVDO soon released which would kick ATTWS right in the
teeth!
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100414564141% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9D0F2AAFDF617noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> >> No ePub support according to the news reports today.
>> >
>> > what news reports are these? apple specifically said it uses epub.
>>
>> http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/01/....apple.hardwar
>> e.adobe.says/
>
> that says right at the top it supports epub.
>
> try again.
>
But you didn't read what you didn't want to believe, as usual.
It will support APPLE's DRM'd epub.....not Amazon, no anyone else's....
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120100430410809% nospam@nospam.invalid:
>> "iPad Camera Connection Kit
>>
>> The Camera Connection Kit gives you two ways to IMPORT photos and videos
>> from a digital camera. The Camera Connector lets you IMPORT your photos
>> and videos to iPad using the camera's USB cable. Or you can use the SD
>> Card READER to IMPORT photos and videos directly from the camera's SD
>> card."
>> (IMPORT capitalized for emphasis)(READER capitalized for emphasis)
>
> who exports images to a camera? they're describing how it normally will
> be used.
>
> most cameras can't even read a generic jpeg. there has to be certain
> metadata and previews embedded for the camera to even recognize the
> file.
>
>
Dumb ****! Where does it say it EXPORTS to a camera?
"IMPORT photos and videos from a digital camera."
How far out in the boondocks do you live you can't READ??
In article <Xns9D0F30F3746AFnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
<noone@home.com> wrote:
> Where does it say it EXPORTS to a camera?
exactly my point. why would it say it exports to a camera when almost
nobody does that. that doesn't mean that it *can't*. they're simply
describing what almost everyone does with a card reader, and that's
import photos.
can't you at least wait until the thing ships to see if it can write or
not?
At 29 Jan 2010 03:50:30 -0500 nospam wrote:
> In article <Diw8n.10649$3n2.2322@newsfe01.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, unlike AT&T, T-Mo sells neither a metered internet plan, nor a
la
> > carte (per KB/M data, so selling anything other than an unlimited
plan
> > would probably require serious systemic changes in their billing
system.
> > Not worth it for the miniscule number of customers this product would
> > bring to T-Mo.
> >
> > Plus, since SIM cards are easily swapped between devices, any low-ball
> > iPad specific plan's SIM could easily be moved to other devices- even
3G
> > devices. There isn't a separate 3G APN. Any compatible 3G device
will
> > get 3G service on any T-Mo data plan.
>
> why can't they sim lock it to the device if it's ipad specific? why
> can't they come up with a new plan for a new device?
What's possible and what's practical/easy to implement are two separate
things.
Currently, T-Mobile uses an IMEI lookup to insure compliance with with
their devices and data plans policies. However, this database only
includes T-Mo-sold equipment, which is why all non-T-Mo devices are
automatically forced onto the more expensive smartphone data plans- they
can't (easily) tell a "foreign" dumbphone from a foreign smartphone, so
everyone with non T-Mo equipment is presumed guilty.
Anyone using the "wrong" dataplan is redirected to a webpage that will
allow them to purchase the "correct." Without upgrading the database or
the system itself, the iPad will simply be another "foreign" device,and
be forced onto any smartphone dataplan (voice+data, data only, etc.)
If T-Mo created a cheap iPad plan, with the current system in place,
they'd have to make that dataplan compatible with all non-T-Mo devices.
While they could certainly change their system, we're talking about a
carrier that silently gave every single customer free data access for
nine months about two years ago because they couldn't figure out how to
enable MMS for customers without a data plan!
>
> > T-Mo has traditionally sold
> > data inexpensively, to compensate for a lack of a 3G network, but has
> > bent over backwards in the last year, since launching 3G, to rectify
that
> > situation! In addition, T-Mo has steadfastly avoided selling data to
> > PAYG customers, with the exception of the Sidekick, which is probably
a
> > demographics issue (Sidekick customers tend to be young and have
little to
> > no credit history.)
>
> i've heard rumblings that they're thinking about it.
Again, T-Mo works glacier-slow. Any rumblings that actually get
implemented are probably years away!
> > Even you can't believe a million people will be carrying a portfolio-
> > sized tablet everywhere they go 3-6 months from now, can you?
>
> analysts are claiming several million in its first year and i think
> that's very conservative.
It's possible, but the majority, IMO, will be stay-at-home devices.
There's a laptop in my kitchen that's been there or two years and has
never left the house. The "kitchen" iPad doesn't need cellular data.
The iPad is too cumbersome to walk around with.
> > I think
> > this thing will sell extremely well- _for a tablet_, and perhaps even
> > slightly dent the netbook market, but I suspect the majority will be
sold
> > without 3G.
>
> i think a lot of people will buy the 3g version just in case they might
> need it some time. the data plan has no contract so it doesn't really
> cost that much more if it rarely gets used, and i can see where some
> people might want to have it for occasional use.
Perhaps, but now you're asking T-Mo to create a new PAYG data plan as
well as modifying their system to allow a single non-T-Mo model of phone
to access it, (plus send microSIMs to all stores) with no real evidence
that iPad users would want a slower alternative to AT&T!
> > Ever use an iPhone on T-Mo? Surfing that "real web" with Safari over
> > EDGE isn't pretty.
>
> it's not that bad. a lot of apps are frugal with the data they pull.
> hitting graphic intensive web pages sucks though.
Other than mobile-formatted pages, it's prett rough!
In article <fAy8n.1118$5n.185@newsfe23.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> given that this is
> the company that sued Palm for engineering their Pre to connect to
> iTunes, despite the possibility it'd increase iTunes content sales)
palm fraudulently claimed the pre was actually an ipod in order to
mooch off of itunes rather than write their own sync app. when apple
blocked that, palm went even further and used apple's usb vendor id so
that itunes would see an apple device. the usb implementer's forum was
not at all happy with that.
palm is very much in the wrong and it was a very sleazy move on their
part.
In article <gAy8n.1119$5n.41@newsfe23.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Again, T-Mo works glacier-slow. Any rumblings that actually get
> implemented are probably years away!
as opposed to at&t who is going on 8 months to enable tethering after
having announced it and promised it by the end of 2009?
> It's possible, but the majority, IMO, will be stay-at-home devices.
> There's a laptop in my kitchen that's been there or two years and has
> never left the house. The "kitchen" iPad doesn't need cellular data.
> The iPad is too cumbersome to walk around with.
that's why they offer both.
> Perhaps, but now you're asking T-Mo to create a new PAYG data plan as
> well as modifying their system to allow a single non-T-Mo model of phone
> to access it, (plus send microSIMs to all stores) with no real evidence
> that iPad users would want a slower alternative to AT&T!
they might want a cheaper option. for occasional use, 2g is fine.
anyway, you raise some interesting points about t-mobile, but i still
think they're going to welcome it.
> That'll work in one direction- using the iPad SIM in a phone, which AT&T
> likely won't allow anyway. I think Dennis' point was the difficulty of
> placing the "unlocked" iPad on a non-"partner" carrier. T-Mobile, for
> example, right here in the USA doesn't use these SIMs, and likely won't
> be anytime soon, so there will be no way to use this "unlocked" device
> on another carrier in the USA.
If you really wanted to, you can always clone a SIM to a micro-SIM. I
don't know if doing this would allow an iPad to use an iPhone account
since AT&T probably has other ways of preventing that (you could not use
both at once in any case).
> As Dennis said, it seems ironic that one of the largest devices you can
> stick a SIM card into requires the use of an as yet unused micro-sized
> SIM.
It's not ironic. They didn't want iPhone users sticking their SIM into
the iPad.
What I think is ironic is that the iPad and the iPhone are unwitting
competitors because few people are going to be willing to pay two 3G
bills to AT&T each month. Also, while AT&T is committed to fixing their
3G issues in metro areas, when it comes to actual phone service they
still lag far behind Verizon in coverage, in both metro areas and
especially rural areas. Personally, I'd be willing to put up with lack
of rural data coverage on an iPad, but I'm not willing to put up with
lack of rural phone coverage. Based on all the independent surveys of
cellular coverage and quality, I'm not alone in being unwilling to put
up with sub-par phone coverage.
AT&T could start an ad campaign that could target consumers that only
want the cheap unlimited 3G data access offered by the iPad that are
unwilling to switch to AT&T for cellular voice.
Look at AT&T's numbers for the last quarter. They lagged far behind
Verizon in both prepaid and postpaid net additions. But they had 1
million additions for non-phone devices, far more than Verizon. That
number is going to skyrocket in Q3 CY2010.
AT&T might want to look into a program where iPhone subscribers get a
hefty discount on iPad service. They could even set up their system so
you get the discount but only one device can be used at a time on the 3G
network.
nospam wrote:
> In article <Xns9D0F30F3746AFnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Where does it say it EXPORTS to a camera?
>
> exactly my point. why would it say it exports to a camera when almost
> nobody does that. that doesn't mean that it *can't*. they're simply
> describing what almost everyone does with a card reader, and that's
> import photos.
>
> can't you at least wait until the thing ships to see if it can write or
> not?
Actually what would be nice is if the SD card accessory also worked on
the iPhone and you could write photos to it. One thing that many people
do is to take the memory card out of their phone or camera and stick it
into a kiosk at a store to print photos, without the need for a
computer. Since the iPhone lacks a microSD slot you can't do that, but
if the SD card accessory is read/write and it works with the iPhone too,
that would be really nice. Since the iPad and iPod Touch will eventually
have cameras, read/write capability would be good for those devices as well.
In article <michelle-C0316F.11092729012010@nothing.attdns.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> If Apple ever makes an iPad that works
> with CDMA 3G, then both Verizon and Sprint will be able to support it.
> (But CDMA doesn't use SIM cards, so I don't know exactly how that will
> work.)
In article <michelle-4DE755.11561829012010@nothing.attdns.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > If Apple ever makes an iPad that works with CDMA 3G, then both Verizon
> > > and Sprint will be able to support it. (But CDMA doesn't use SIM
> > > cards, so I don't know exactly how that will work.)
> >
> > they will need a different radio for cdma.
>
> I realize that; that's why I wrote, "If Apple ever makes an iPad that works
> with CDMA 3G,"
and the cdma radio has no need for a sim (although cdma does support
the concept, they're called r-uim, but nobody uses them).
In article <michelle-706A60.11565429012010@nothing.attdns.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > you are a liar pure and simple.
> >
> > lying suggests that the person knows the statement to be false and is
> > trying to mislead.
> >
> > in larry's case, he's just ignorant and his hatred for all things apple
> > blinds him to facts. it looks like he really thinks what he spews to be
> > true.
>
> You give him too much credit; no one could be that ignorant.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:290120101327282899% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <michelle-C0316F.11092729012010@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> If Apple ever makes an iPad that works
>> with CDMA 3G, then both Verizon and Sprint will be able to support it.
>> (But CDMA doesn't use SIM cards, so I don't know exactly how that will
>> work.)
>
> they will need a different radio for cdma.
>
I believe this is why the iPad has a separate 3G/GPS module....so Apple can
simply plugin the appropriate radio/software control system to suit the
carrier the iPad is being shipped to.
A CDMA/EVDO iPad on Verizon will kill ATT data sales.
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
> A CDMA/EVDO iPad on Verizon will kill ATT data sales.
Yeah, if Verizon is willing to sell unlimited data for $30 a month. So
far they haven't been.
iPad users are going to be using a tremendous amount of data. Streaming
audio and video, uploading huge video and still photos via the SD card
slot. Web browsing for hours at a time. With a nice screen like that
AT&T is going to pine for the days when heavy iPhone users used only 4GB
a month.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290120101327282899%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <michelle-C0316F.11092729012010@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> If Apple ever makes an iPad that works
>> with CDMA 3G, then both Verizon and Sprint will be able to support it.
>> (But CDMA doesn't use SIM cards, so I don't know exactly how that will
>> work.)
>
> they will need a different radio for cdma.
Of course, but Apple's willingness to sell both 3G and non-3G versions of
each model (16GB, 32GB, and 64G creating 6 different SKUs, might suggest
that the 3G radio is simply a plug-in module, (much like the internal 3G
cards in netbooks) and trivial to replace with a different module. (For the
manufacturer, I mean,- not the end user!)
In article <Xns9D0F95CE52A38noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
<noone@home.com> wrote:
> Stevie is trying to restrict book sales to Apple's bookstore with DRM
> ********.
what about amazon and barnes & noble? they're doing the same thing but
somehow that's ok? you're such a hypocrite.
> Only problem is that for ebooks to flourish, every device needs to render
> every ebook available, not just Stevie's Bookshop ebooks.
>
> I don't think it's gonna fly with ebook lovers.
>
> Besides, Kindle needs a charge every month, not every 10 hours.
yea and those videos look amazing on a black and white screen.
do you like *anything* in this world? or are you nothing but hatred?
In article <_IH8n.42871$U83.33234@newsfe10.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Of course, but Apple's willingness to sell both 3G and non-3G versions of
> each model (16GB, 32GB, and 64G creating 6 different SKUs, might suggest
> that the 3G radio is simply a plug-in module, (much like the internal 3G
> cards in netbooks) and trivial to replace with a different module. (For the
> manufacturer, I mean,- not the end user!)
wait a few hours after the first one ships. it will be disassembled
with photos posted.
then all the complaining can begin again because no matter what they
do, it will be wrong.
In article <michelle-07E21E.10513829012010@nothing.attdns.com>, michelle@michelle.org says...
>
> Because you can load them from your computer.
>
Hang on a minute - I have to jump in here.
I'm not pushing one side or the other, even though I admit to being (a)
a dedicated Mac and iPhone user, and (b) very underwhelmed by the iPad.
BUT - your statement is assuming that all iPad users will also have
another computer. But isn't the whole thrust of the iPad that many
people will want one to use as their computer, period? I got the
distinct impression that Steve Jobs was pushing the iPad as the "all you
will need" device for all those people who just want to be able to
browse the web, check their emails, and create the occasional doc.
Now you're saying that if you want to put stuff on there, there is a
built-in assumption that people will also have a REAL computer as WELL
as the iPad?
Of course, many people WILL have PCs or Macs or whatever, but that's not
the main thrust of the device, is it?
So you're saying that I'll still need my iPhone (the iPad doesn't do
'phone'), and I'll still need my Macbook, AND get the iPad as well?
At 29 Jan 2010 09:06:42 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > That'll work in one direction- using the iPad SIM in a phone, which
> > AT&T likely won't allow anyway. I think Dennis' point was the
> > difficulty of placing the "unlocked" iPad on a non-"partner" carrier.
> > T-Mobile, for example, right here in the USA doesn't use these SIMs,
> > and likely won't be anytime soon, so there will be no way to use this
> > "unlocked" device on another carrier in the USA.
>
> If you really wanted to, you can always clone a SIM to a micro-SIM. I
> don't know if doing this would allow an iPad to use an iPhone account
> since AT&T probably has other ways of preventing that (you could not
> use both at once in any case).
I think "converting" the standard SIM to a micro with an XACTO knife
would be easier!
> > As Dennis said, it seems ironic that one of the largest devices you
> > can stick a SIM card into requires the use of an as yet unused micro-
> > sized SIM.
>
> It's not ironic. They didn't want iPhone users sticking their SIM into
the iPad.
"Ironic" as in incongruous: "biggest GSM device/smallest SIM."
> What I think is ironic is that the iPad and the iPhone are unwitting
> competitors because few people are going to be willing to pay two 3G
> bills to AT&T each month.
One could argue the devices are complimentary: people wth iPhones or
smartphones would use the non-cellular version of the iPad, people with
dumbphones might choose the 3G model of iPad.
While the iPad looks like a neat gizmo, it's not exactly a mobile device-
no one's going to be walking down the street reading one, or whipping one
out in line at the deli just as you don't see netbook users doing those
things, so it's not going to replace the smartphone.
> Based on all the independent surveys of
> cellular coverage and quality, I'm not alone in being unwilling to put
> up with sub-par phone coverage.
Based on subscriber counts, it doesn't seem to be an issue for the 170+
million non-Verizon cellular phone users in the US.
At 29 Jan 2010 16:30:47 -0500 nospam wrote:
> In article <Xns9D0F95CE52A38noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Stevie is trying to restrict book sales to Apple's bookstore with DRM
> > ********.
>
> what about amazon and barnes & noble? they're doing the same thing but
> somehow that's ok? you're such a hypocrite.
Well, we're all speculating right now, but B&N and Amazon probably AREN'T
doing the same thing. As I said last night, "B&N and Amazon are in the
book business- their eBook hardware is just a means to the end of selling
eBooks- they offer their respective eBook reading software for various
computers and mobile devices as well..."
Sure, you can't put Nook content on a Kindle or vice versa, but you can
put either's content on a PC, a smartphone, etc.
If Apple limits iBooks to iTunes-capable devices (lkely, seeing that the
itunes store is the source,) iBooks will only work in the Apple
ecosystem, which wouldn't bother Apple, who is a hardware company.
Unlike Amazon who sells reader hardware to sell more eBooks, Apple would
be selling eBooks to sell more iPad hardware.
This would be the same mistake Microsoft made with MS Reader and the .lit
format- limiting access to Windows PCs, PDAs and phones. MS didn't care
about selling eBooks, they just wanted their software on every device
used to read eBooks!
> > Only problem is that for ebooks to flourish, every device needs to
render
> > every ebook available, not just Stevie's Bookshop ebooks.
> >
> > I don't think it's gonna fly with ebook lovers.
> >
> > Besides, Kindle needs a charge every month, not every 10 hours.
>
> yea and those videos look amazing on a black and white screen.
Despite the magical capabilities shown in the keynote, most of the books
we muggles read don't have embedded video yet!
>
> do you like *anything* in this world? or are you nothing but hatred?
Ironically, if he saw how locked down the Kindle was, I doubt he'd be
praising it.
Re: NEWS: Apple iPad and AT&T pricing, etc. 
data, so selling anything other than an unlimited
Linear Mode
