Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #10230 > unrolled thread

Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-01 17:05 +0000
    Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-02 14:26 +1100
      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-02 03:41 +0000
        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-02 06:36 +0000
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:24 +0000
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-02-02 09:33 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-02 12:55 +0100
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-02 11:34 +0100
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-03 09:38 +0300
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-03 11:59 +0100
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 11:38 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:55 -0500
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 18:02 +0000
                    Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 15:42 -0500
                      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 21:02 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 14:26 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-03 19:46 +0300
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 16:51 +0000
                    Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 13:01 -0500
                      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 19:19 +0000
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:59 -0500
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 17:57 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:37 +0100
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:29 -0500
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-02 11:03 +0000
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-02-02 13:11 +0200
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-06 00:57 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-06 01:19 +0000
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 03:23 +0000
                    Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-06 11:21 +0000
                      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 14:31 +0000
                      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-06 16:54 +0000
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-06 14:16 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-02-05 18:36 -0800
                  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 03:24 +0000
                    Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-02-05 21:56 -0800
                      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-02-06 08:41 +0200
                        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 14:34 +0000
        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 03:15 -0500
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-02 11:39 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#10230 — Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets

From the «abso-fucking-lutely» department:
Title: The 2015 Panic report
Author: Thom Holwerda
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:33:35 -0500
Link: http://osnews.com/story/29062/The_2015_Panic_report

Panic, one of the most respected OS X/iOS developer houses, published their
yearly report, this time covering 2015, obviously. This paragraph is
intriguing: iOS Revenue. I brought this up last year and we still haven't
licked it. We had a change of heart - well, an experimental change of heart -
and reduced the price of our iOS apps in 2015 to normalize them at $9.99 or
less, thinking that was the upper limit and/or sweet spot for iOS app pricing.
But it didn't have a meaningful impact on sales. More and more I'm beginning to
think we simply made the wrong type of apps for iOS - we made professional
tools that aren't really "in demand" on that platform - and that price isn't
our problem, but interest is. This obviously ties into the previous news item,
and Panic hits the nail on the head. They are, of course, specifically talking
about iOS, but the same applies to competing platforms like Android: nobody
wants to do anything even remotely resembling serious work on a "post-PC"
device, regardless of platform. Both Apple and Google are really trying to
posit their platforms for work (iPad Pro, Pixel C), but just as Microsoft is
having a hard time scaling Windows down for consumption, Apple and Google are
having trouble scaling their operating systems up for work. It is no surprise,
then, that Panic's upcoming great project for 2016 isn't a big new
application... But a videogame.


--
Posting to comp.misc, sci.misc, and misc.news.internet.discuss

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10236

On 2/02/2016 4:05 AM, RS Wood wrote:
>  From the «abso-fucking-lutely» department:
> Title: The 2015 Panic report
> Author: Thom Holwerda
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:33:35 -0500
> Link: http://osnews.com/story/29062/The_2015_Panic_report
>
> Panic, one of the most respected OS X/iOS developer houses, published their
> yearly report, this time covering 2015, obviously. This paragraph is
> intriguing: iOS Revenue. I brought this up last year and we still haven't
> licked it. We had a change of heart - well, an experimental change of heart -
> and reduced the price of our iOS apps in 2015 to normalize them at $9.99 or
> less, thinking that was the upper limit and/or sweet spot for iOS app pricing.
> But it didn't have a meaningful impact on sales. More and more I'm beginning to
> think we simply made the wrong type of apps for iOS - we made professional
> tools that aren't really "in demand" on that platform - and that price isn't
> our problem, but interest is. This obviously ties into the previous news item,
> and Panic hits the nail on the head. They are, of course, specifically talking
> about iOS, but the same applies to competing platforms like Android: nobody
> wants to do anything even remotely resembling serious work on a "post-PC"
> device, regardless of platform. Both Apple and Google are really trying to
> posit their platforms for work (iPad Pro, Pixel C), but just as Microsoft is
> having a hard time scaling Windows down for consumption, Apple and Google are
> having trouble scaling their operating systems up for work. It is no surprise,
> then, that Panic's upcoming great project for 2016 isn't a big new
> application... But a videogame.
>
>
> --
> Posting to comp.misc, sci.misc, and misc.news.internet.discuss
>

No real surprises there. The human physical interface is just too much 
of a pain to use.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10237

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 2/02/2016 4:05 AM, RS Wood wrote:
> > ...  Both Apple and Google are really trying to posit their
> > platforms for work (iPad Pro, Pixel C), but just as Microsoft is
> > having a hard time scaling Windows down for consumption, Apple and
> > Google are having trouble scaling their operating systems up for
> > work. ...

> No real surprises there. The human physical interface is just too
> much of a pain to use.

Tablets are intended to be _consumption_ devices, not creation devices.
Simple as that.  And it is not the OS that they are having trouble
"scaling up", it is the physical design and physical form factor that
are the limiting issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10238

On 2016-02-02, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 2/02/2016 4:05 AM, RS Wood wrote:
>> > ...  Both Apple and Google are really trying to posit their
>> > platforms for work (iPad Pro, Pixel C), but just as Microsoft is
>> > having a hard time scaling Windows down for consumption, Apple and
>> > Google are having trouble scaling their operating systems up for
>> > work. ...
>
>> No real surprises there. The human physical interface is just too
>> much of a pain to use.
>
> Tablets are intended to be _consumption_ devices, not creation devices.
> Simple as that.  And it is not the OS that they are having trouble
> "scaling up", it is the physical design and physical form factor that
> are the limiting issues.
>

I've had good luck on tablets in one way: taking notes in meetings, or
writing reports by the side of the pool.  I installed Softmaker Office
(textmaker, planmaker) on my Android tablet.  With a bluetooth keyboard
attached, it's pretty nice.  It's also useful for reading PDF reports
(works best if you buy the big, 12" screen tablet).  But for everything
else, I go straight to a real computer (desktop, not laptop) with real
keyboard and a big screen and a trackball.  

Panix tried making things like FTP clients for ipads and found they just
didn't sell.  I can sort of see why.

Love reading books, even reading usenet on a tablet.  But I prefer to do
my posting from home.  So much for the 'post-pc revolution'!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10242

On 2016-02-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

[17 lines snipped]

> I've had good luck on tablets in one way: taking notes in meetings, or
> writing reports by the side of the pool.  I installed Softmaker Office
> (textmaker, planmaker) on my Android tablet.  With a bluetooth keyboard
> attached, it's pretty nice.  It's also useful for reading PDF reports
> (works best if you buy the big, 12" screen tablet). 

So you just re-invented the laptop.


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 33rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10243

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2016-02-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> I've had good luck on tablets in one way: taking notes in meetings, or
>> writing reports by the side of the pool.  I installed Softmaker Office
>> (textmaker, planmaker) on my Android tablet.  With a bluetooth keyboard
>> attached, it's pretty nice.  It's also useful for reading PDF reports
>> (works best if you buy the big, 12" screen tablet). 
>
> So you just re-invented the laptop.

The detachable keyboard and rotating screen matter here.
Portrait-format media doesn’t work well on a standard laptop - the
choices are either using a fraction of the screen (with tiny text) or
constant scrolling up and down.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10248

On 2016-02-02, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>> On 2016-02-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> I've had good luck on tablets in one way: taking notes in meetings, or
>>> writing reports by the side of the pool.  I installed Softmaker Office
>>> (textmaker, planmaker) on my Android tablet.  With a bluetooth keyboard
>>> attached, it's pretty nice.  It's also useful for reading PDF reports
>>> (works best if you buy the big, 12" screen tablet). 
>>
>> So you just re-invented the laptop.
>
> The detachable keyboard and rotating screen matter here.
> Portrait-format media doesn’t work well on a standard laptop - the
> choices are either using a fraction of the screen (with tiny text) or
> constant scrolling up and down.

If I want to read without my specs, with a tablet I can also lock it in
landscape mode (for the larger text that gives) and can then hold it at
any angle I wish.  Yes that involves more vertical scrolling but I find
it a comfortable compromise.

-- 
An invention needs to make sense in the world in which it's finished,
not the world in which it's started.                  -- Ray Kurzweil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10244

On 2016-02-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
> I've had good luck on tablets in one way: taking notes in meetings, or
> writing reports by the side of the pool.  I installed Softmaker Office
> (textmaker, planmaker) on my Android tablet.  With a bluetooth keyboard
> attached, it's pretty nice.  It's also useful for reading PDF reports
> (works best if you buy the big, 12" screen tablet).

Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet with an
A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.

>  But for everything else, I go straight to a real computer (desktop,
>  not laptop) with real keyboard and a big screen and a trackball.  

Apart from watching movies I have zero use for full screen apps; I use
that screen real estate to view more than one thing at a time, e.g. one
or more PDFs that I am making notes from, or programming documentation
alongside a code editor (and in the latter case, data files in editor
windows with the program(s) I'm working on in yet another window).

> Panix tried making things like FTP clients for ipads and found they
> just didn't sell.  I can sort of see why.

I bought Pythonista for my iPad last summer but quickly found that to
avoid constant switching from one view to another I needed to view the
documentation on my desktop.  It's great where I can develop e.g. a web
scraper on the desktop and run it on the iPad, but developing on the
iPad itself is just too much hassle, not to mention error prone.

> Love reading books, even reading usenet on a tablet.  But I prefer to
> do my posting from home.  So much for the 'post-pc revolution'!

My iPad keyboard came in very handy when I was on holiday last summer,
mainly to keep a diary of what we did on which day, but that was written
in straight text, no special app required.

-- 
An invention needs to make sense in the world in which it's finished,
not the world in which it's started.                  -- Ray Kurzweil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10256

Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> Wrote in message:
> Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet with an
> A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.

If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen I will
 be the first to buy one.  Sadly, I think odds are slim at best. 
 And I agree with you that the current fetish of full screen apps
 (cough Gnome 3 cough) isn't useful to me. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10259

On 2016-02-03, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
> Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> Wrote in message:
>> Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet with an
>> A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.
>
> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen I will
>  be the first to buy one.  Sadly, I think odds are slim at best. 

I don't understand manufacturers' reluctance here.  Or is it as
simple as the fact that nobody in the right place has thought of
it?

>  And I agree with you that the current fetish of full screen apps
>  (cough Gnome 3 cough) isn't useful to me. 

I recall precisely one study from a few years ago which concluded that
folks could concentrate better if there weren't the distractions of
multiple windows, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon.

Look that's maybe fine on a small laptop or tablet, as long as you
give me the choice, but on my desktop I've got the best combination of
pixels and screen size I've ever had.  Why the hell should I want to go
back to the situtation I had with dumb terminals?

The latest fad in the Apple iThing world vaunts the "productivity gains
of multitasking" - essentially a split screen with 2 apps side by side.

It's all cyclical.  Oh, here we go again...

-- 
The Parental Lock password has been forgotten:
Enter 9999 for the PIN code. (PIN code 9999 is always accepted.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10261

Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2016-02-03, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
> > Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> Wrote in message:
> >> Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet
> >> with an A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.
> >
> > If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen I will be
> > the first to buy one.  Sadly, I think odds are slim at best.

> I don't understand manufacturers' reluctance here.  Or is it as
> simple as the fact that nobody in the right place has thought of it?

It may be as simple as dismissing it as too niche of a market to be
able to sell enough units to make back the cost of the LCD panel, given
the size of an A4 sheet of paper.

The problem is they are overlooking all the lemmings who play in the
"my tablet is bigger than your tablet" game, who would buy one, not
because they had a need for an A4 sheet size tablet, but just because
it was bigger than the next guys tablet.

> >  And I agree with you that the current fetish of full screen apps
> >  (cough Gnome 3 cough) isn't useful to me.

> I recall precisely one study from a few years ago which concluded
> that folks could concentrate better if there weren't the distractions
> of multiple windows, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon.

Sigh...  Are there really people out there who's attention span and
ability to concentrate are that low that having two, overlapping,
windows, one obscuring most of the other, becomes 'distracting'?  Wow.

> Look that's maybe fine on a small laptop or tablet, as long as you
> give me the choice, but on my desktop I've got the best combination
> of pixels and screen size I've ever had.  Why the hell should I want
> to go back to the situtation I had with dumb terminals?

Hear hear.  Using a giant, 21-27 inch monitor as a 'tablet' single
purpose screen is such a massive waste of space.  

> The latest fad in the Apple iThing world vaunts the "productivity gains
> of multitasking" - essentially a split screen with 2 apps side by side.

> It's all cyclical.  Oh, here we go again...

The next 'revelation' from the apple "i" folks will be a four quadrant
_enhancement_ to the "two apps side by side view", allowing "double the
productivity" of the old way.  And at least five press-member apple
fanbois will hearald this new enhancement as second only to the
development of sliced bread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10270

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Paul Sture wrote:

> On 2016-02-03, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> Wrote in message:
>>> Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet with an
>>> A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.
>>
>> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen I will
>>  be the first to buy one.  Sadly, I think odds are slim at best.
>
> I don't understand manufacturers' reluctance here.  Or is it as
> simple as the fact that nobody in the right place has thought of
> it?
>
I thought the thrust of ebook readers was for popular fiction, something 
you want to easily hold.  There probably is less of a demand for reading 
larger texts.

   Michael

>>  And I agree with you that the current fetish of full screen apps
>>  (cough Gnome 3 cough) isn't useful to me.
>
> I recall precisely one study from a few years ago which concluded that
> folks could concentrate better if there weren't the distractions of
> multiple windows, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
>
> Look that's maybe fine on a small laptop or tablet, as long as you
> give me the choice, but on my desktop I've got the best combination of
> pixels and screen size I've ever had.  Why the hell should I want to go
> back to the situtation I had with dumb terminals?
>
> The latest fad in the Apple iThing world vaunts the "productivity gains
> of multitasking" - essentially a split screen with 2 apps side by side.
>
> It's all cyclical.  Oh, here we go again...
>
> -- 
> The Parental Lock password has been forgotten:
> Enter 9999 for the PIN code. (PIN code 9999 is always accepted.)
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10275

Michael Black wrote:

> I thought the thrust of ebook readers was for popular fiction, something
> you want to easily hold.  There probably is less of a demand for reading
> larger texts.

Think of the /thud/ when an A4 sized reader bonks you on the nose as you 
drop off to sleep ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10277

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Andy Burns wrote:

> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> I thought the thrust of ebook readers was for popular fiction, something
>> you want to easily hold.  There probably is less of a demand for reading
>> larger texts.
>
> Think of the /thud/ when an A4 sized reader bonks you on the nose as you drop 
> off to sleep ...
>
I did read some books on my Blackberry Playbook tablet, and that's 
relatively small.  But yes, if I fell asleep, it would fall.  I find with 
my Kobo mini ebook reader, I'll wake and still find it in my hand.

On the other hand, no ebook reader is going to be heavier than "The Rise 
and Fall of the Third Reich" which I started to read in hardcover, and 
abandoned because I was afraid of dropping it on me.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10278

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Andy Burns wrote:

> > Michael Black wrote:
> >
> >> I thought the thrust of ebook readers was for popular fiction,
> >> something you want to easily hold.  There probably is less of a
> >> demand for reading larger texts.
> >
> > Think of the /thud/ when an A4 sized reader bonks you on the nose
> > as you drop off to sleep ...
> >
> I did read some books on my Blackberry Playbook tablet, and that's
> relatively small.  But yes, if I fell asleep, it would fall.  I find
> with my Kobo mini ebook reader, I'll wake and still find it in my
> hand.

> On the other hand, no ebook reader is going to be heavier than "The
> Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" which I started to read in
> hardcover, and abandoned because I was afraid of dropping it on me.

Is that one heavier than "War and Peace"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10265

RS Wood wrote:

> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
> I will be the first to buy one.

Near enough?

<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179696-REG/sony_dpts1_digital_paper_system.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10266

Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> Wrote in message:
> RS Wood wrote:
> 
>> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
>> I will be the first to buy one.
> 
> Near enough?
> 
> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179696-REG/sony_dpts1_digital_paper_system.html>
> 
> 

Yes! But the price tag of USD 799 - yikes!
And the battery life
 seems to be about 2 hours according to the comments.  I guess
 given the size of the screen that's to be expected but still
 ...
-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10267

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> Wrote in message:
> > RS Wood wrote:
> > 
> >> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
> >> I will be the first to buy one.
> > 
> > Near enough?
> > 
> > <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179696-REG/sony_dpts1_digital_paper_system.html>
> > 
> > 

> Yes! But the price tag of USD 799 - yikes!^MAnd the battery life
> seems to be about 2 hours according to the comments.  I guess given
> the size of the screen that's to be expected but still

According to the linked site, the display is e-ink, which then makes a
2 hour battery life absolutely terrible.

An e-ink device of this size should get significantly more than 2-hours
of battery life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10273

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Rich wrote:

> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>>> RS Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
>>>> I will be the first to buy one.
>>>
>>> Near enough?
>>>
>>> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179696-REG/sony_dpts1_digital_paper_system.html>
>>>
>>>
>
>> Yes! But the price tag of USD 799 - yikes!^MAnd the battery life
>> seems to be about 2 hours according to the comments.  I guess given
>> the size of the screen that's to be expected but still
>
> According to the linked site, the display is e-ink, which then makes a
> 2 hour battery life absolutely terrible.
>
> An e-ink device of this size should get significantly more than 2-hours
> of battery life.
>
>
Yes, since it's the changing of the pages that count, not the display 
itself.

I keep forgetting to charge my ebook reader, so it says 'time to charge", 
but the page remains seemingly indefinitely, no need to change anything so 
no power used.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10276

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Rich wrote:

> > RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> Wrote in message:
> >>> RS Wood wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
> >>>> I will be the first to buy one.
> >>>
> >>> Near enough?
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179696-REG/sony_dpts1_digital_paper_system.html>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >> Yes! But the price tag of USD 799 - yikes!^MAnd the battery life
> >> seems to be about 2 hours according to the comments.  I guess given
> >> the size of the screen that's to be expected but still
> >
> > According to the linked site, the display is e-ink, which then makes a
> > 2 hour battery life absolutely terrible.
> >
> > An e-ink device of this size should get significantly more than 2-hours
> > of battery life.
> >
> >
> Yes, since it's the changing of the pages that count, not the display 
> itself.

> I keep forgetting to charge my ebook reader, so it says 'time to charge", 
> but the page remains seemingly indefinitely, no need to change anything so 
> no power used.

That's the 'magic' of e-ink.  The display panel uses zero energy to
'maintain' an existing image on the display.

So the only source of power drain is in changing the pixels to display
a different configuration of dots.

Which means this linked device should get way better than 2 hours
battery life.  Something is very wrong if that is actually what it gets
in battery life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web