Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-01 23:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-04 19:35 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-01 23:53 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-02 19:42 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-02 14:24 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-02 21:49 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-02 20:26 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Tim <onelydad58@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 04:46 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 16:42 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-03 13:41 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 21:09 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-03 18:00 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 00:22 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-03 21:01 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-04 14:45 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 12:27 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 11:59 -0800
stored maps (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-04 20:32 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:18 -0800
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 02:04 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:18 -0800
Re: stored maps "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:26 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 16:42 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:08 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 18:22 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:52 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:15 +0000
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:34 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 20:13 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 21:58 +0100
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 21:39 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-06 01:18 +0100
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 20:39 -0800
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-06 14:28 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 09:58 -0800
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 14:23 -0400
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:57 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-06 14:23 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-07 23:11 +0100
Re: stored maps Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-05 21:42 +0100
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 22:05 +0100
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 21:41 +0000
Re: stored maps Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-06 22:36 +0100
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-07 01:20 +0000
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-07 16:23 +0000
Re: stored maps Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-07 16:53 +0000
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-07 18:47 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 13:49 -0800
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 19:10 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-08 00:21 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 20:53 -0800
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:01 -0400
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:26 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:09 -0400
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:11 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0400
Re: stored maps 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-07 18:41 -0700
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 21:04 -0800
Re: stored maps Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-08 05:55 +0100
Re: stored maps Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-08 06:55 +0000
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:38 +0000
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:31 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 22:08 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-06 11:25 +0000
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:18 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 20:16 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400
Re: stored maps Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-06 08:11 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 14:31 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:23 -0800
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 02:08 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 20:10 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:24 -0800
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:13 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 10:25 -0800
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:15 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:16 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:56 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:23 +0100
navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:29 +0000
Re: navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:40 +0100
Re: navigation "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 14:47 +0000
Re: navigation "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:04 +0100
Re: navigation 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-05 13:08 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:20 +0100
navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:34 +0000
Re: navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:51 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:21 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-05 12:11 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:16 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 20:28 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 20:21 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 22:11 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 20:25 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Tim <onelydad58@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 04:40 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-03 00:22 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 12:43 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-03 13:41 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 22:40 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 13:12 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-02 14:24 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Steve Oates <steveoates@tiscali.co.uk> - 2018-11-04 17:53 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 12:27 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2018-11-06 23:37 +0200
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-04 19:35 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 23:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Are Android Tablets Really Dead? |
| Message-ID | <prgs8r$vgg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android tablets (3 Digiland, 3 Samsung, and 1 Lenovo) on display. There were three times that number a few years ago. Makes me wonder if this article is true: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ (I didn't count the Amazon Fire tablet display as Android tablets though technically I suppose they are.)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pricrf.2jg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57030 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android tablets > (3 Digiland, 3 Samsung, and 1 Lenovo) on display. There were three times > that number a few years ago. Makes me wonder if this article is true: > > https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ > > (I didn't count the Amazon Fire tablet display as Android tablets though > technically I suppose they are.) Maybe in normal shops, but I just had a quick look at one of our major webshops and they had 78 differents ones. Even when guestimating 2 colours per model, that's still some 40 different models. Prices from 80 to 760 Euro (this webshop doesn't do the cheap stuff). I think the article's comparison of current Android tablets with future Chrome OS tablets is invalid. Many Android tablets are - partly or even mostly - used in a NON "cloud-heavy" [1] environment. All in all, I strongly doubt that Android tablets will go away anytime soon. [1] See the 'Chromebook Tab 10' link in the article.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prifb5$1qt1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57059 |
On 11/2/2018 12:42 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android tablets >> (3 Digiland, 3 Samsung, and 1 Lenovo) on display. There were three times >> that number a few years ago. Makes me wonder if this article is true: >> >> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ > Maybe in normal shops, but I just had a quick look at one of our major > webshops and they had 78 differents ones. Even when guestimating 2 > colours per model, that's still some 40 different models. Prices from 80 > to 760 Euro (this webshop doesn't do the cheap stuff). Are they up to date? Are the manufacturers putting out new models every year as they used to? The ones I saw at Best Buy were Android version 7 or less, likely last years (or earlier) models. > I think the article's comparison of current Android tablets with > future Chrome OS tablets is invalid. Many Android tablets are - partly > or even mostly - used in a NON "cloud-heavy" [1] environment. > [1] See the 'Chromebook Tab 10' link in the article. IF it works as advertised it looks like the Chromebook Tab 10 will do everything a current Android OS tablet will do plus some. What makes it "cloud-heavy"? I say "IF" because my Chromebook doesn't run several of my Android apps correctly. Some not in full screen. One not at all. Disappointing. > All in all, I strongly doubt that Android tablets will go away anytime > soon. Perhaps 'Dead' was too strong of a word. But things seem to have slowed down with the development of new Android tablets (not Android phones)...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 21:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prikab.qeo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57065 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > On 11/2/2018 12:42 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > >> Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android tablets > >> (3 Digiland, 3 Samsung, and 1 Lenovo) on display. There were three times > >> that number a few years ago. Makes me wonder if this article is true: > >> > >> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ > > > Maybe in normal shops, but I just had a quick look at one of our major > > webshops and they had 78 differents ones. Even when guestimating 2 > > colours per model, that's still some 40 different models. Prices from 80 > > to 760 Euro (this webshop doesn't do the cheap stuff). > > Are they up to date? Are the manufacturers putting out new models every > year as they used to? The ones I saw at Best Buy were Android version 7 > or less, likely last years (or earlier) models. I haven't checked. I assume the more expensive ones - Samsung etc. - are up-to-date. Maybe I'll have another look later. > > I think the article's comparison of current Android tablets with > > future Chrome OS tablets is invalid. Many Android tablets are - partly > > or even mostly - used in a NON "cloud-heavy" [1] environment. > > > [1] See the 'Chromebook Tab 10' link in the article. > > IF it works as advertised it looks like the Chromebook Tab 10 will do > everything a current Android OS tablet will do plus some. What makes it > "cloud-heavy"? That's indeed a BIG IF. Considering Google's track-record, I'll believe it when I see it. The term "cloud-heavy" is used in the referenced article. They probably mean "Not of much/any use without an always-on Internet connection." and that's indeed what I consider Chrome OS / Chromebooks to be. That's why I have a Windows laptop, instead of a Chromebook. > I say "IF" because my Chromebook doesn't run several of my Android apps > correctly. Some not in full screen. One not at all. Disappointing. Indeed, very disappointing. I get quite fed up with these "This is the end to all other OSs!" BS. Instead of convergence to one OS, we get umpteen ever so different ones. > > All in all, I strongly doubt that Android tablets will go away anytime > > soon. > > Perhaps 'Dead' was too strong of a word. But things seem to have slowed > down with the development of new Android tablets (not Android phones)... Which is perfectly fine by me. It's already bad enough that we 'need' another smartphone every year or so. By comparison, I 'only' had three laptops in the last 18 odd years. FWIW, my 4-year old (Samsung Galaxy Tab4 10.1", 4.4.2 -> 5.0.2) tablet still suits me fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prj4gi$om9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57066 |
On 11/2/2018 2:49 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android >> tablets There were three times that number a few years ago. Makes >> me wonder if this article is true: >> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ > The term "cloud-heavy" is used in the referenced article. They > probably mean "Not of much/any use without an always-on Internet > connection." Doesn't that also pretty much describe Android tablets? What would most people use them for without an Internet connection? > and that's indeed what I consider Chrome OS / Chromebooks to be. > That's why I have a Windows laptop, instead of a Chromebook. I have both. Each will do some things the other won't. >> my Chromebook doesn't run several of my Android apps correctly. > Indeed, very disappointing. Yes. Well in Google's defense they did advise that the Android app capability of my Chromebook to be still in Beta. Eventually updates should (may?) fix the problem. > I get quite fed up with these "This is the end to all other OSs!" > BS. I hadn't heard that. The Chromebook is quite a different animal than a Windows laptop. For the casual crowd it's much easier to operate. For the serious folks not so much. > Instead of convergence to one OS, we get umpteen ever so different > ones. Choice is good. OS's that live in my house: Android, Fire, Chrome, Windows, and iOS. Everyone gets along just fine... ;) > It's already bad enough that we 'need' another smartphone every year > or so. I haven't 'needed' a new device in years. I always just 'wanted' one. > By comparison, I 'only' had three laptops in the last 18 odd years. Gosh, I've lost track. I get several new toys every year. Some are as cheap as those $13(US) Android phones I found on the sale rack. And some as expensive as this $1300 W10 laptop I got a few months ago. And when I get tired of them they usually go to grandkids so it's a win-win for all. > FWIW, my 4-year old (Samsung Galaxy Tab4 10.1", 4.4.2 -> 5.0.2) > tablet still suits me fine. That's great. There's room in the world for all us different types...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim <onelydad58@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 04:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA98EF1EEB65E1timothybilyahoocom@69.16.179.28> |
| In reply to | #57079 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote in news:prj4gi$om9$1@gioia.aioe.org: > On 11/2/2018 2:49 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > The term "cloud-heavy" is used in the referenced article. They >> probably mean "Not of much/any use without an always-on Internet >> connection." > > Doesn't that also pretty much describe Android tablets? What would > most people use them for without an Internet connection? > I moved to android from the Palm Pilot world. About the only time I access any network is access something on my home PC that for one reason or another I didn't feel needed to be on my tablet. My tablet functions as my Day Planner, ebook reader, basic game app platform, and occasional movie player. It goes with me everywhere, and since I live in a somehate urban area, I can usually find an access point if I do need to access the net.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 12:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <the0bf-b16.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57079 |
On 03/11/2018 04.26, 123456789 wrote: > On 11/2/2018 2:49 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > >>> Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android >>> tablets There were three times that number a few years ago. Makes >>> me wonder if this article is true: > >>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ >>> > >> The term "cloud-heavy" is used in the referenced article. They >> probably mean "Not of much/any use without an always-on Internet >> connection." > > Doesn't that also pretty much describe Android tablets? What would most > people use them for without an Internet connection? Watch movies stored on the devices, or on USB sticks, or on the local LAN, for instance. Play games - yes, we had a family reunion at a place without internet and the kids did just that. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prkml0.4tg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57079 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > On 11/2/2018 2:49 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > >> Wandering my local Best Buy today I noticed only seven Android > >> tablets There were three times that number a few years ago. Makes > >> me wonder if this article is true: > > >> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/rise-and-fall-of-the-android-tablet/ > > > The term "cloud-heavy" is used in the referenced article. They > > probably mean "Not of much/any use without an always-on Internet > > connection." > > Doesn't that also pretty much describe Android tablets? What would most > people use them for without an Internet connection? Others have already mentioned some offline use of tablets. For me: - (GPS) navigation, route planning, etc.. - Campsites. - Music. - eBook reading. - Reading downloaded magazines. - Podcasts. - Offline reading of RSS feeds. My tablet is actually more offline than online. Some others: - Watching videos. - Taking pictures. Much easier to check the quality of a shot than on a phone. - Some people even use it as a phone, because they don't want to carry/own two devices. [...] > > I get quite fed up with these "This is the end to all other OSs!" > > BS. > > I hadn't heard that. The Chromebook is quite a different animal than a > Windows laptop. For the casual crowd it's much easier to operate. For > the serious folks not so much. Yeah, I *know*, but the hype was that Google would converge to one OS for smartphone, tablet, 'netbook' (Chromebook) and even laptop/PC, but none of that is happening and - as the article says implies -, tablets might even change their OS (from Android to Chrome OS). > > Instead of convergence to one OS, we get umpteen ever so different > > ones. > > Choice is good. OS's that live in my house: Android, Fire, Chrome, > Windows, and iOS. Everyone gets along just fine... ;) Indeed choice is good, however the point is that there is hardly any choice if you want a certain category of device and you do not want to pay the price of an Apple device, you're stuck with only one or two choices of OSs, mostly just one, i.e. none. > > It's already bad enough that we 'need' another smartphone every year > > or so. > > I haven't 'needed' a new device in years. I always just 'wanted' one. Yup, hence the scare quotes around "need". > > By comparison, I 'only' had three laptops in the last 18 odd years. > > Gosh, I've lost track. I get several new toys every year. Some are as > cheap as those $13(US) Android phones I found on the sale rack. And some > as expensive as this $1300 W10 laptop I got a few months ago. And when I > get tired of them they usually go to grandkids so it's a win-win for all. My oldest grandkid (14) has better toys than I do, so he would have only pity on poor granddad! :-) And my youngest (5+) is in an Apple houshold, so she would also frown on my left-overs! :-) But I love'm to bits anyway and vice versa, so all's good. > > FWIW, my 4-year old (Samsung Galaxy Tab4 10.1", 4.4.2 -> 5.0.2) > > tablet still suits me fine. > > That's great. There's room in the world for all us different types... Yup!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prl15c$1n33$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57097 |
On 11/3/2018 9:42 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> What would most people use them [tablets] for without an Internet >> connection? > For me: - (GPS) navigation, route planning, etc.. Online route planning gives me current road conditions and suggests local stores and restaurants. > - Campsites. Agreed. Fortunately I stopped camping years ago. I've come to like a little comfort in my old age... ;) > - Music. Agreed. My 2200 song collection is accessed from an SD card. > - eBook reading. While reading an ebook I may need (or want) to change devices at a moments notice. Having them synced online keeps my places in all my open ebooks. > - Reading downloaded magazines. Same response as ebooks. > - Podcasts.> - Offline reading of RSS feeds. > My tablet is actually more offline than online. My tablets are never offline since they all live at home. But the question was what would MOST people use tablets for without an Internet connection. I'm not sure either of us represent most people.... > - Some people even use it as a phone, because they don't want to > carry/own two devices. Some yes, but in this case I'm pretty sure not MOST. > the hype was that Google would converge to one OS for smartphone, > tablet, 'netbook' (Chromebook) and even laptop/PC, but none of that > is happening and - as the article says implies -, tablets might even > change their OS (from Android to Chrome OS). Ah. Well there was a time when the Palm OS looked promising. It ain't over til it's over... ;) > Indeed choice is good, however the point is that there is hardly any > choice if you want a certain category of device and you do not want > to pay the price of an Apple device, I recently bought the wife a new iPad. Was a little over $300 US. The quality seemed good to me and comparable to similarly priced Android tablets. I have no complaints with the device and don't think it's overpriced. > you're stuck with only one or two choices of OSs, mostly just one, > i.e. none. Depends on what you want to do. For example if I want to read my favorite Android apps I can't do it on my W10 tablet. If I want to use Tbird to post here I can't use my Android tablet. On and on. Truth be told though, I kinda enjoy playing with these different toys. > My oldest grandkid (14) has better toys than I do, so he would have > only pity on poor granddad! :-) And my youngest (5+) is in an Apple > houshold, so she would also frown on my left-overs! :-) But I love'm > to bits anyway and vice versa, so all's good. My oldest grandkid is 31 and have a greatgrandkid that will be a teenager next year so looks like I have a few years on you. There's 2 in the bucket and the total will be 37 (IIRC) when they get here. The biggest challenge is remembering names, especially when my memory is heading south fast... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prl6b5.8s8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57106 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > On 11/3/2018 9:42 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > >> What would most people use them [tablets] for without an Internet > >> connection? > > > For me: - (GPS) navigation, route planning, etc.. > > Online route planning gives me current road conditions and suggests > local stores and restaurants. Where I need navigation, there are no stores and restaurants, I *feel* :-) the current road conditions and there's no mobile coverage anyway, so there you go! :-) (Yes, that's uncommon - as in minority - use, but it's our use and of others like us.) > > - Campsites. > > Agreed. Fortunately I stopped camping years ago. I've come to like > a little comfort in my old age... ;) We have a 'small' 4WD camper. All the luxury we need, the weather permitting. And yes, every so often we want the luxury of a cabin, motel/hotel room, The Ritz, etc.. > > - Music. > > Agreed. My 2200 song collection is accessed from an SD card. > > > - eBook reading. > > While reading an ebook I may need (or want) to change devices at a > moments notice. Having them synced online keeps my places in all my open > ebooks. > > > - Reading downloaded magazines. > > Same response as ebooks. > > > - Podcasts.> - Offline reading of RSS feeds. > > > My tablet is actually more offline than online. > > My tablets are never offline since they all live at home. But the > question was what would MOST people use tablets for without an Internet > connection. I'm not sure either of us represent most people.... Who cares about 'most people'! Are you nospam's alter ego or something!? :-) > > - Some people even use it as a phone, because they don't want to > > carry/own two devices. > > Some yes, but in this case I'm pretty sure not MOST. > > > the hype was that Google would converge to one OS for smartphone, > > tablet, 'netbook' (Chromebook) and even laptop/PC, but none of that > > is happening and - as the article says implies -, tablets might even > > change their OS (from Android to Chrome OS). > > Ah. Well there was a time when the Palm OS looked promising. It ain't > over til it's over... ;) > > > Indeed choice is good, however the point is that there is hardly any > > choice if you want a certain category of device and you do not want > > to pay the price of an Apple device, > > I recently bought the wife a new iPad. Was a little over $300 US. The > quality seemed good to me and comparable to similarly priced Android > tablets. I have no complaints with the device and don't think it's > overpriced. We regularly get these kind of 'Apple devices are same-priced as comparable non-Apple devices' arguments from nospam. Most of them are debunked. The ones which seem to be legit for the US, seem to be valid only/mainly for the US. I.e. in the US, non-US products are probably higher taxed than US products. So for those of us in the rest of the world, we look at Apple's prices - which are way higher than in the US -, compare them to prices of non-Apple products and always the Apple product is more expensive, often quite a lot. > > you're stuck with only one or two choices of OSs, mostly just one, > > i.e. none. > > Depends on what you want to do. For example if I want to read my > favorite Android apps I can't do it on my W10 tablet. If I want to use > Tbird to post here I can't use my Android tablet. On and on. Truth be > told though, I kinda enjoy playing with these different toys. Well, SWMBO is sitting just a metre away, so I'm not going to agree with you, am I!? :-) > > My oldest grandkid (14) has better toys than I do, so he would have > > only pity on poor granddad! :-) And my youngest (5+) is in an Apple > > houshold, so she would also frown on my left-overs! :-) But I love'm > > to bits anyway and vice versa, so all's good. > > My oldest grandkid is 31 and have a greatgrandkid that will be a > teenager next year so looks like I have a few years on you. There's 2 in > the bucket and the total will be 37 (IIRC) when they get here. The > biggest challenge is remembering names, especially when my memory is > heading south fast... ;) If you want to think I'm 50, I'm not going to contradict you! :-) Have a good one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 18:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <031120181800080048%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57107 |
In article <prl6b5.8s8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > Indeed choice is good, however the point is that there is hardly any > > > choice if you want a certain category of device and you do not want > > > to pay the price of an Apple device, > > > > I recently bought the wife a new iPad. Was a little over $300 US. The > > quality seemed good to me and comparable to similarly priced Android > > tablets. I have no complaints with the device and don't think it's > > overpriced. > > We regularly get these kind of 'Apple devices are same-priced as > comparable non-Apple devices' arguments from nospam. Most of them are > debunked. nothing has been debunked. countless examples show prices are similar for similar spec products. what people inevitably do is compare products with *different* specs and then blame any price difference on apple, ignoring the difference in specs. the cheapest android phone may be cheaper than the cheapest iphone (although not by as much as some think), however, that's because its specs are lower. people also compare full retail price for apple with sale and clearance prices for other products. another bogus comparison. when comparing like with like, the differences are minor, if any. for example, the samsung galaxy s9 and note 9 as well as the google pixel 3 and 3xl cost roughly the same as the iphone xr, xs and xs max, all in the $800-$1000 range. in particular, the google pixel 3 is $799 and the iphone xr is $749. not everyone wants top of the line. the cheapest iphone is $139, new: <https://www.walmart.com/ip/Walmart-Family-Mobile-Prepaid-Apple-iPhone-S E-32GB-Space-Gray/357713686> there are also other differences than raw hardware specs. ios devices have a longer useful life, with system updates for 4-5 years, while android devices are lucky to get 2 years. ios tablets have a wider selection of tablet-optimized software, including the full photoshop coming next year. > The ones which seem to be legit for the US, seem to be valid > only/mainly for the US. I.e. in the US, non-US products are probably > higher taxed than US products. > > So for those of us in the rest of the world, we look at Apple's prices > - which are way higher than in the US -, compare them to prices of > non-Apple products and always the Apple product is more expensive, often > quite a lot. that has nothing to do with apple and everything to do with currency fluctuations, import taxes and/or tariffs other products from usa manufacturers would have similar issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 00:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ams2evuUvj3bFw+8@end.of.the.universe> |
| In reply to | #57109 |
In message <031120181800080048%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes >there are also other differences than raw hardware specs. ios devices >have a longer useful life, with system updates for 4-5 years, while >android devices are lucky to get 2 years. ios tablets have a wider >selection of tablet-optimized software, including the full photoshop >coming next year. I shouldn't respond to the temptation to leap in, but I will. I expect much more than 2 years out of anything electronic, certainly any tablet. My Android tablet is quite old and was bought off ebay for pennies because the previous owner had broken the back cover trying to make it fit into his car. Its new back is from some sort of aluminium tray produced for inside an oven. But my favourite tablet is still my Blackberry Playbook. Obsolete device, obsolete OS, but it takes excellent videos, the sound is as good as any tablet I've ever heard, and it is in use for hours each day to provide internet radio. It is also my alarm clock every morning. There is no temptation here to move to newer hardware. The laptops are old, but run everything I want, including Photoshop. Who actually wants to run Photoshop an a tablet? -- Bill --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 21:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <031120182101061511%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57113 |
In article <ams2evuUvj3bFw+8@end.of.the.universe>, Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> wrote: > There is no temptation here to move to newer hardware. The laptops are > old, but run everything I want, including Photoshop. nothing wrong with that. everyone's needs are different. > Who actually wants > to run Photoshop an a tablet? a lot of people do, including graphic artists who want to draw directly on an ipad using the pencil and photographers who want to edit & retouch photos without needing to lug around a much larger laptop, and have everything sync with their existing photoshop workflow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xW5My1sMsi3bFwIp@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57107 |
In message <prl6b5.8s8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes: >123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> On 11/3/2018 9:42 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> >> >> What would most people use them [tablets] for without an Internet >> >> connection? >> >> > For me: - (GPS) navigation, route planning, etc.. >> >> Online route planning gives me current road conditions and suggests >> local stores and restaurants. > > Where I need navigation, there are no stores and restaurants, I *feel* >:-) the current road conditions and there's no mobile coverage anyway, >so there you go! :-) (Yes, that's uncommon - as in minority - use, but >it's our use and of others like us.) You can get downloadable maps (when you _are_ in range of a wifi etc.); even where there's no mobile coverage, there's usually GPS, unless you're underground! And some of the more normal GPS app.s do have the facility to download part of your route if you pre-plan one, so it works as long as you don't deviate too much from the route. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Only dirty people need wash
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prn47c.2no.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57112 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <prl6b5.8s8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
> >123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/3/2018 9:42 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What would most people use them [tablets] for without an Internet
> >> >> connection?
> >>
> >> > For me: - (GPS) navigation, route planning, etc..
> >>
> >> Online route planning gives me current road conditions and suggests
> >> local stores and restaurants.
> >
> > Where I need navigation, there are no stores and restaurants, I *feel*
> >:-) the current road conditions and there's no mobile coverage anyway,
> >so there you go! :-) (Yes, that's uncommon - as in minority - use, but
> >it's our use and of others like us.)
>
> You can get downloadable maps (when you _are_ in range of a wifi etc.);
> even where there's no mobile coverage, there's usually GPS, unless
> you're underground! And some of the more normal GPS app.s do have the
> facility to download part of your route if you pre-plan one, so it works
> as long as you don't deviate too much from the route.
FYI, I know this all to well and use offline maps all the time. I was
just responding to 123456789's description of the advantages of online
navigation versus offline.
Where I travel (and need navigation), there's no mobile coverage for
hundreds and hundreds of kilometers, sometimes even for well over a
thousand km. So offline maps are the only way to go.
Thanks heaven for smartphones and tablets. Without them I would have
to spend fortunes on - mostly useless - GPS devices ('Tom Tom' et al)
and paper maps. Now the cost - in addition to the hardware - is only
some 25 Euro. Peanuts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prnh7n$1gh3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57125 |
On 11/4/2018 7:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Where I need navigation, there are no stores and restaurants, I
> *feel* :-) the current road conditions and there's no mobile coverage
> anyway, so there you go! :-) (Yes, that's uncommon - as in minority -
> use, but it's our use and of others like us.)
Your described conditions are not that uncommon here. Within one hours
drive from my metro area the conditions are as you describe. I have my
choice of thousands of square miles of forest and/or desert. I just
choose to stay on the Interstates, part of my comfort philosophy... ;)
Occasionally I read where a GPS device takes a tourist (lots of those
here) across a forest road and they're dumb enough to follow. The car
gets stuck and they have to be rescued, or worse they're found weeks
later deceased.
> Thanks heaven for smartphones and tablets. Without them I would have
> to spend fortunes on - mostly useless - GPS devices ('Tom Tom' et
> al) and paper maps. Now the cost - in addition to the hardware - is
> only some 25 Euro. Peanuts.
I had one of those GPS gadgets in my device ridden past. It worked OK
but these days I agree, the phone works fine.
I always scope out the trips ahead of time. On a recent trip Google
tried to reroute me. I know the way better I thought and ran smack into
a freeway parking lot. Turns out Google knew about the upcoming jam and
was trying to save me some time. So now I take Google's advice...that is
unless it looks like I'm entering a forest road...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57130 |
On 11/04/2018 11:27 AM, 123456789 wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 7:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> Where I need navigation, there are no stores and restaurants, I
>> *feel* :-) the current road conditions and there's no mobile coverage
>> anyway, so there you go! :-) (Yes, that's uncommon - as in minority -
>> use, but it's our use and of others like us.)
>
> Your described conditions are not that uncommon here. Within one hours
> drive from my metro area the conditions are as you describe. I have my
> choice of thousands of square miles of forest and/or desert. I just
> choose to stay on the Interstates, part of my comfort philosophy... ;)
>
> Occasionally I read where a GPS device takes a tourist (lots of those
> here) across a forest road and they're dumb enough to follow. The car
> gets stuck and they have to be rescued, or worse they're found weeks
> later deceased.
>
>> Thanks heaven for smartphones and tablets. Without them I would have
>> to spend fortunes on - mostly useless - GPS devices ('Tom Tom' et
>> al) and paper maps. Now the cost - in addition to the hardware - is
>> only some 25 Euro. Peanuts.
>
> I had one of those GPS gadgets in my device ridden past. It worked OK
> but these days I agree, the phone works fine.
>
> I always scope out the trips ahead of time.
Definitely. They all lose their minds sometimes. Random detours for no
reason at all, attempts to make you drive off a cliff, routing you off a
freeway due to traffic and then leaving you in the middle of a strange
place...
> On a recent trip Google
> tried to reroute me. I know the way better I thought and ran smack into
> a freeway parking lot. Turns out Google knew about the upcoming jam and
> was trying to save me some time. So now I take Google's advice...that is
> unless it looks like I'm entering a forest road...
No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My
Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from
the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I
wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service...
I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand
because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery
-- even if you're nowhere near a ski area.
--
Cheers, Bev
"You won't like me when I'm angry because I always back up my rage
with facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 20:32 +0000 |
| Subject | stored maps (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) |
| Message-ID | <BoygNzIid13bFwdS@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57132 |
In message <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes: [] >No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My >Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from >the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I >wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service... > >I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand >because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery >-- even if you're nowhere near a ski area. > (Google can, I understand, store a track too - not sure how far in advance you have to tell it though.) It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps, Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big an area)? Or what other system? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Farc gorillas who live in the plains of the undies ..." - automatic subtitling seen on BBC one o'clock news, 2016-8-25, by Cynthia Hollingworth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 14:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <prnr7d$p0u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57134 |
On 11/04/2018 12:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
> []
>>No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My
>>Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from
>>the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I
>>wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service...
>>
>>I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand
>>because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery
>>-- even if you're nowhere near a ski area.
>>
> (Google can, I understand, store a track too - not sure how far in
> advance you have to tell it though.)
>
> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps,
> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they
> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before
> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big
> an area)? Or what other system?
They store it by lat/lon|date/time as seen by your GPS chip. Plus other
stuff. Look at a .gpx file some time.
What really gripes me is how google earth insists on labeling the data
points. All I want is the direction of travel, not the number of the
point or anything else. If I want to know I can look at the point itself.
You can delete the date entry from the .gpx file itself to make the
labels even shorter, but that's still not short enough.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Don't bother looking for that key. There is no Esc."
-- M. Tabnik
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 02:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <PEejGsEQU63bFwPr@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57138 |
In message <prnr7d$p0u$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes: >On 11/04/2018 12:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps, >> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they >> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before >> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big >> an area)? Or what other system? > >They store it by lat/lon|date/time as seen by your GPS chip. Plus [] If they only store the points along the actual route, then presumably once you deviate by more than a few tens of yards, it just tells you you're on your own? I thought they (apart from the ones that store a whole area) stored a strip _around_ the route. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A perfectionist takes infinite pains and often gives them to others
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web