Why do people assume that technology will take over?

ysss

Obvious troll is obvious

newrival

exalted512 wrote: »

so can a tablet...oh, and its a computer...and most of that stuff has been around for years.

it's 1/5th the cost of a tablet and uses a completely different architecture. The ereader is for books. You're getting hung up on the generalities you're drawing. fine, a tablet is a computer. but an ereader is not. its made specifically for the task of reading books. lots of them and thats what makes it revolutionary.

but dont take my word for it:

http://robertbez.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-interesting-statistics-from.html
http://gigaom.com/2010/08/26/why-e-readers-are-good-for-books-people-read-more/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.html

cheddar

exalted512 wrote: »

I'd say that survey is full of s@#t as well.
-Cody

Wow, considering your own personal 'research methods', I'd say that's a pretty bold statement...I think at this point, you're just arguing to argue. Not sure there's much 'conversation' give and take left here...

exalted512

newrival wrote: »

it's 1/5th the cost of a tablet and uses a completely different architecture. The ereader is for books. You're getting hung up on the generalities you're drawing.

http://robertbez.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-interesting-statistics-from.html
http://gigaom.com/2010/08/26/why-e-readers-are-good-for-books-people-read-more/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758872.html

What kind of tablets are you looking at for $700?

cheddar wrote: »

Wow, considering your own personal 'research methods', I'd say that's a pretty bold statement...I think at this point, you're just arguing to argue. Not sure there's much 'conversation' give and take left here...

No, I dont think 46% of Americans regularly read books for pleasure. I saw an article that said something like 53% of Americans read a book in the year prior...dont doubt that. Do I think 87% of the 53% of Americans that actually opened a book read regularly, no...I dont.

Either way, I edited my post before you replied because its obvious that were not going to agree, and thats fine.

You think its revolutionary...great. I don't. And thats the last I'm going to argue about it.
-Cody

newrival

fair enough

exalted512

here...we can just get one of these and call it even
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/enTourage+-+eDGe+Digital+Reader+-+Ruby+Red/1403222.p?id=1218255999126&skuId=1403222
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

cheddar

exalted512 wrote: »

No, I dont think 46% of Americans regularly read books for pleasure. I saw an article that said something like 53% of Americans read a book in the year prior...dont doubt that. Do I think 87% of the 53% of Americans that actually opened a book read regularly, no...I dont.

Either way, I edited my post before you replied because its obvious that were not going to agree, and thats fine.

You think its revolutionary...great. I don't. And thats the last I'm going to argue about it.
-Cody

Not taking sides on the 'point' one way or the other. Just saying you're locked on to your point like a pitbull and no 'club' of discussion no matter how reasonable is likely to shake you loose. This really doesn't seem like a discussion anymore. So what else is there but to agree to disagree...

newrival

exalted512 wrote: »

here...we can just get one of these and call it even
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/enTourage+-+eDGe+Digital+Reader+-+Ruby+Red/1403222.p?id=1218255999126&skuId=1403222
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

hahaha
compromise is beautiful

nooshinjohn

newrival wrote: »

Your first point is spot on, but I strongly disagree with the part about the iphone not being revolutionary. It didnt change com in regards to telephony, but it brought for the first time a usable mobile solution for social communication and media. Others had tried it, but it was far too laborious and cumbersome for general use. Enter: iPhone. People could watch youtube videos anywhere, check and update twitter in seconds. anywhere. facebook, myspace, etc. communication was drastically changed by the iphone. Additionally it brought technologies into the palm of your hand that previously only resided in large stationary devices.

I said exactly this in my post....

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I do agree with you that the iPhone is not causing a revolution in communications, but the underlying technology, the cell phone itself, has had a dramatic impact on our lives and the way we communicate with family and how we conduct business. The off-shoot of this has been wireless data/internet, and this too, has forever changed how we interact with each other. The iPhone's place in this is that it combined both phone, data and MUSIC in a package that was easy to use and could fit in a shirt pocket. The iPhone is just a product of it's times and hardly revolutionary, but the network that makes it's use possible... is.

newrival wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why there are people arguing about the revolutionary aspect. Its like saying the first flat panel display wasnt revolutionary because we already had tv's. It's rediculous. Like it or not, the iPhone changed the direction of mobile communication. It's undeniable. And to call that anything short of revolutionary is to claim ignorance to from where technology has come

The technology of television.... revolutionary. Flat panel displays, not so much. They are the logical evolution of a mature technology, just as the iPhone is the product of an evolution of the revolutionary technology that spawned the cellphone.

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I said exactly this in my post....





The technology of television.... revolutionary. Flat panel displays, not so much. They are the logical evolution of a mature technology, just as the iPhone is the product of an evolution of the revolutionary technology that spawned the cellphone.

You make an interesting point but i feel the logic behind it is shaky. You contend that it's the natural progression of things and that it is merely the natural evolution of a product and that the network was the revolution. But by your logic, even the network is not revolutionary because it was based on NASA satellite technology, and RADAR research before that, preceded by wave theory, etc, etc. You can't pass off revolutionary milestones such as these merely because they have a foundation in older tech. technology is specifically cumulative. the newest techs are just aggregates of older techs with a new use or methodology. But this is EXACTLY why it's revolutionary.

newrival

and i think you have to admit flat displays are revolutionary. It singlehandedly changed how and where we experience media and information.

exalted512

I think the Bose Wave Radio is revolutionary.
-Cody

ysss

I think flat panel is quite revolutionary, both in terms of technology and its impact on our society. It enables thin and small interactive devices (from an ipod nano on your wrist, tablets, notebooks, flat panel pc screens, HDTVs, to large public displays.... just about all of which were not possible on CRT technology.

tonyb

Revolutionary ???

The wheel....too bad they didn't have patents back then,someone would own half the world....besides china.

BlueFox

You guys have done a great job of getting offtrack. :biggrin:

The OP was asking why haven't various media-touted technologies, or products, "taken over", and he gave several examples. His logic was because some technology, or product in some of the examples, has not yet become totally ubiquitous, it therefore is a flop. However, it is the other way around. The technology is taking over. Perhaps a particular product might not succeed, but the idea most likely will.

I find it fascinating that so many people can make such outrageous claims yet still miss the entire picture.

The irony in the OP's quote is absolutely overwhelming.

ysss

Would one say that what's going on in Egypt is (assisted by) a revolutionary use of technology?

Jstas

BlueFox wrote: »

You guys have done a great job of getting offtrack. :biggrin:

The OP was asking why haven't various media-touted technologies, or products, "taken over", and he gave several examples. His logic was because some technology, or product in some of the examples, has not yet become totally ubiquitous, it therefore is a flop. However, it is the other way around. The technology is taking over. Perhaps a particular product might not succeed, but the idea most likely will.



The irony in the OP's quote is absolutely overwhelming.

You should shut up and stop trying to speak for me because you've gotten the point completely wrong multiple times. It's irrelevant now anyway since the discussion has progressed so far.

As far as the discussion goes, it's a discussion that has managed to remain civil which is rare here. There are lots of good points made on each side of the discussion. It hasn't gotten "off track". It developed in to something. If I was as concerned as you are about how badly I wanted to prove my rightness over something I would have been ranting and raving about this thread pages ago.

I'm actually glad that for once, things didn't degrade. You seem hell bent on taking it to the gutter though. I'm enjoying reading the discussion and I've learned some things as well.

You should butt the hell out and stop crapping on the thread.

NJPOLKER

It's simple :rolleyes:

People are stupid and lazy generally speaking.

newrival

People have been using that argument for centuries. That somehow technological advancements in things like gadgets, devices, machines, etc, are merely due to peoples laziness. This is simply not true. While these things can lead to laziness, they are not a product of it. Its quite the opposite. These things make the things we do easier in a quicker more efficient fashion. They enable us to do more with less.

I don't share the same general outlook on people. Perhaps I just don't hang out with a different crowd.

tonyb

I dunno gents, in the buisness world, if you want to find the fastest, easiest way to do something, give that task to the laziest person, they will find it. Then assign the actual work to the hard workers. There's a fine line between being lazy,and tech that simplifies your life to make it appear your lazy. You don't necessarily need technology to "do more with less". Look at the depression era for reference. How many can actually can their own food ? Sew their own clothes ? Technology definately has a place in everyones life, but it should not run your life, if you know what I mean.

BlueFox

Jstas wrote: »

You should shut up and stop trying to speak for me because you've gotten the point completely wrong multiple times.

Sorry. But that is not true.

As far as the discussion goes, it's a discussion that has managed to remain civil which is rare here.

Until you chimed in.

You seem hell bent on taking it to the gutter though.

Proof please.

You should butt the hell out and stop crapping on the thread.

ROTFL. Again, the irony is overwhelming. It must be nice to live in denial. :rolleyes:

Jstas

BlueFox wrote: »

Sorry. But that is not true.

See, genius, it is true because I made the post and I know what I meant by the original post and I'm telling you, you're wrong. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

No wonder half the forum has you on their ignore lists. :rolleyes:

BlueFox

Jstas wrote: »

See, genius, it is true because I made the post and I know what I meant by the original post and I'm telling you, you're wrong. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Okay. I only know what you wrote. Not what you meant.

No wonder half the forum has you on their ignore lists.

Not my problem. Some people are overly sensitive. :rolleyes:

ysss

Get a room you two...

tonyb

Maybe those 2 should wake up in jail together.

Wouldn't that conversation be interesting.