Re: [iPad] Question about screen

 

> I have a question maybe someone can help with. I bought an iPad mini about six weeks ago and just a couple of days ago, I noticed, when it is turned off I can see some ripples across the screen. I hadn't noticed them before ... I'm not sure if they just showed up or if they have been there all along. I don't see any distortion when it is turned on and I'm reading, etc. Just wondered if I should be concerned.
> Jan C in NW New Mexico

The only times I've seen ripples on a screen of an iPad when turned off is when the owner chose to put a screen protector on it.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [iPad] Question about screen

 

If you have an Apple store near you or an Apple certified store near you, I'd take it there and see if they can see what you're seeing and what they suggest. If it doesn't bother you, then I wouldn't worry about it :-)

\
  \   /\                Alice
  (   )    whiterabbit@gmail.com
.(     ).  Sent from my iPad mini

On Jun 30, 2013, at 12:09 PM, GLEN--JAN CRANDALL <glenjan52@msn.com> wrote:

 

Hi all.

I have a question maybe someone can help with. I bought an iPad mini about six weeks ago and just a couple of days ago, I noticed, when it is turned off I can see some ripples across the screen. I hadn't noticed them before ... I'm not sure if they just showed up or if they have been there all along. I don't see any distortion when it is turned on and I'm reading, etc. Just wondered if I should be concerned.

Thanks for any help!

Happy Fourth of July! 🇺🇸

Jan C in NW New Mexico
Sent from my new iPad Mini  🇺🇸

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [iPad] Editorial: Can Apple survive 2013?

 

Articles like that should let us know what kind of people they're using for their stats. Just because you buy an Android or iOS or Windows phone doesn't mean you're going to learn how to use most of its features or JB it or flash rom. It seems that when people have the iOS vs Android debates its all about my Android can do more than your iPhone or how many people buy whatever phone. I think those of us that are actually using their phones and want layers of folders etc, aren't the majority of users.  I'd like to see an article that talks about the majority of users, what they buy in phones, what they use them for and how many of the majority of cellphone buyers actually learn how to use their phones for more than texting and FB.

\
  \   /\                Alice
  (   )    whiterabbit@gmail.com
.(     ).  Sent from my iPad mini

On Jun 29, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Kris Murray <krismurray@gmail.com> wrote:

 



~KLM
\\ "If people are not laughing at your goals, your goals are too small..." ~Azim Premji //



Saturday, June 29, 2013, 05:08 pm

Editorial: Can Apple survive 2013?

Given the recent implosions of BlackBerry, Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, can we safely assume that Apple is next and will likely fail before the year is out, simply because, well… Android? 

What is Android?



Of course, you might be thinking, "but Apple earns three quarters of the mobile industry's profits and an even greater majority of the world's mobile app revenues. It has a successful desktop platform, millions of loyal customers who rank it far higher in satisfaction than Android, and it has a coherent strategy…" 

Well let me stop you right there: this is the Internet! We don't need facts or logic. The whole point of an open platform like the web is that you can celebrate the sheer volume of mouths in motion rather than focusing on the actual performance or reputation of any particular one of them.

And just like the web, Android doesn't have to profit to be wildly successful. As a loose ideology, it can be both the state of the art in mobile technology (Android 4.3 with NFC!) and, at the same time, the outdated and buggy version the majority is actually stuck with

Mobile OS installed base stats

Android is regarded a omniscient deity that gets credit for everything positive that ever happens without also getting blamed for all of the ugly cruelty and suffering in the world. Apple is more like the scientist who cures cancer, only to hear complaints of "why didn't you do that last year?" and "so you're not going to cure my obesity? What a jerk!"

After acquiring and deploying C3's technology for turning satellite images into interactive 3G maps last year, Apple's work has remained the subject a bizarre level of contempt. Just this week, CNET mocked a 3D image of a plane appearing on a tarmac as "bad news for passengers." Really? Is somebody going to get lost underneath that jet on the runway?

bad news for passengers?

CNET


The same sort of scorn hasn't been applied to Google Maps and Earth, which continue to portray Hoover Dam in false perspective and with a collapsed bridge a year after Apple was assailed for its own flawed rendering. Google doesn't even integrate global 3D imagery in Android's Maps+Navigation app, it's just sort of assumed that, just because it looks like an iPhone, it does everything an iPhone can do. 

iOS Maps Hoover Dam


Google Maps Hoover Dam


A bigger issue for the definition of "Android" is that it's not just the 66 percent of Google Play users that have no access to a modern version of Android; it's also the majority of the growing, "white box" market that is outpacing Samsung and the other Android licensees that everyone identifies as "Android."

As Needham's Charlie Wolf noted in a piece this morning by Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Apple 2.0, "most of these companies, located in China, have entered the market with low-end, cheaply produced Android phones that are not much more expensive than feature phones."

Wolf added, "Indeed, most buyers of these phones use them as feature phones."

What is Android doing?



Turning feature phones running some old version of a Java-like mobile OS into modern smartphone owners shouldn't be so difficult, right? After all, that's what Apple did with the iPhone, the reason why Nokia and its Symbian platform is no longer very relevant. 
Android is being swallowed by mediocrity so rapidly that it today looks more like an 8 year old Windows XP in 2009 than Windows XP actually looked in 2009. This is particularly remarkable given that Android is really only 4 years old.

So why is Google simply maintaining the status quo rather than affecting real change with Android to turn basic mobile owners into modern smartphone users? Part of the problem is that not even Samsung, the leader of Android licensees, is producing mostly modern smartphones. 

Android is being swallowed by mediocrity so rapidly that it today looks more like an 8 year old Windows XP in 2009 than Windows XP actually looked in 2009. This is particularly remarkable given that Android is really only 4 years old.

Unlike Apple's iPhone, where the installed base since 2010 overwhelmingly runs modern iOS 6 software on modern A4-class hardware with features like a Retina Display and 6-axis motion sensors, Android is fractured not only in software but also in hardware capabilities, from the display to the screen technology down to the GPU cores. 

That's what's really keeping Android software fragmented, and that fragmentation is keeping Android from accomplishing anything of real value other than converging Java feature phones into Dalvik feature phones.

What if Google realizes what Android is doing?



At some point, Google might realize that, in order to have a mobile platform like Apple, it will need to do some of the work Apple is doing. After experiencing the same sort of frustration Microsoft had with its innovation-deprived PC and then MP3 "PlaysForSure" partners, Google followed the same Zune strategy of releasing its own hardware.

Xoom

Google even spent $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola, the leading Android hardware failure, to prove that Microsoft's Zune strategy doesn't work even if you buy the Toshiba behind it. After the failure of Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb and Motorola's Xoom in 2011, Google set out to more closely copy the Zune in a loose partnership with Asus to bring the Nexus 7 to market in 2012. That didn't magically result in a iPad style success either. 

The only other way Google could pursue a more Zune-like strategy is by going "Zune HD" and bringing substantial work inside to deliver a new tablet product targeting the iPad years after it first became established. Google is due to release exactly that next year under its X brand. 

Really, how is it that Google's spectacular history of failure in Android tablets remains so quiet?

The real problem for Google is not that it is ineffectually copying Microsoft's Zune, but that Android is actually copying Apple's miserable history of the Mac System Software from the early 1990s. Just as with the half decade of tepid updates of Apple's System 7, Google has largely just rolled in features invented by hobbyist users. 

There's no apparent strategy (outside of NFC, which is failing without iOS support) and no effort to jump the platform ahead of the game by inventing anything spectacularly new. 

Instead, just like the Old Apple, Google is following the advice of those who thought Microsoft-style OS licensing was the only way to sell technology. The problem is that Microsoft-style licensing has only ever worked for Windows, and it only worked when Windows had a virtual monopoly that restrained all competition. Android doesn't have a monopoly over mobile devices, and it isn't holding back Apple from bringing products to market or selling them. Not at all.

In fact, the only way to make Android look competitive against iOS is to bundle in a huge segment of feature phones under the now meaningless term "smartphone," and ignore profitability and platform success in order to focus only on unit shipments. 

That's the same sort of creative math that Gartner and IDC used to hide the reality that the iPad was deeply gouging the PC market until "surprise!" they could announce that "there is something dreadfully wrong with PC sales and who could have possibly predicted this shift in the market that we failed to see, despite it being our primary job as market research firms?!"

Google's Android shares much more in common with Apple's failed Mac OS licensing program from the early 1990s than Microsoft Windows. Apple once struggled to compete against its own licensees, couldn't ask for enough licensing money to justify its engineering costs and faced stiff competition from an entrenched competitor with a much stronger platform. Now Google does. 

Newton Message Pad

Also like the Old Apple, Google is wasting its resources on a 7 inch tablet that users aren't buying in sustainable volumes because it has no specific function and what it does do is sort of half baked and has rough edges. Google is successfully copying Apple, but it's copying the wrong decade. 

The decade Google should be copying is the one where Apple build out a global retail chain; developed incredible first party native apps (like Final Cut Pro, iWork and iLife) to show off its platforms; assembled an in-house processor design group to take control of the future of device hardware and developed a operating system that could scale from workstation PCs to mobile devices, sharing technology advancements across its product line. Google hasn't done any of those things. 

What if Samsung realizes what Google is doing to Android?



If Google isn't empowering Android to compete against Apple, then might Samsung? Unlike Google, Samsung is vertically integrated and quite competent at building hardware products. It even has produced a series of first party apps, although not quite on the scale of Apple. 

Samsung also has its own leading chip design and fab, something that Apple has taken advantage of and even found it difficult to divorce itself from. Samsung doesn't have a software platform however, leaving it to hop between Windows Phone, Windows and Android (or combine them). That has has put it at the mercy of mistakes originating at Microsoft and Google, including grievous security lapses it has attempted to bandage with acquisitions like Knox

Samsung Knox SAFE for work

Samsung has also tried to replicate Apple's retail stores, announcing, just like Microsoft, a plan to open 1400 mini-stores inside Best Buy. However that too is something that's tied a lot closer to Apple's failure in the 1990s than Apple's more recent retail success.

After opening lots of "stores within a store" in partnerships with various big box retailers, Apple promptly began closing them because they didn't work. It has since focused its retail efforts on stores it owns and can control.

Shanghai 2

I could next write about the prospects of other Android licensees to more effectively take over and destroy Apple, but that would strain credulity. And that's because the entire premise of Android existing as an open platform to challenge Apple's "closed, walled garden" by empowering innovation and competition across the industry has imploded, just like Microsoft's similar claims that Windows worked as this open platform for expanding choice. 

Rather than serving some grandiose "open" purpose, the primary thing Windows and Android have done is to hide incompetence, reward failure and transfer intellectual property from an inventor to a pool of manufactures with myopic vision and waning creativity. They do this by forging a coalition between huge volumes of garbage products and a tiny minority of modern, decent products. 

In the end, the promise of freedom and choice boils down to a monoculture where there is no choice, or there are silly choices like Samsung's PC that runs Windows 8 paired with a tablet-like screen that runs Android, so that when you want to relax on the couch you can detach your system and continue to play Cut the Rope, but with ads. 

Realize what Apple is doing to Samsung, Google and Android



Apple's iOS 7 is highlighting a variety of things the company is doing that its competitors aren't. While critics tried to portray Apple as "catching up" with a "flat" appearance before iOS 7 even appeared, and then tried to maintain that there was nothing new to see here even after seeing it, a variety of observers from different places are now noting that Apple is doing something new. 

For starters, iOS 7 looks new. It also looks different, and involves lots of novel ideas nobody has really used before in a mobile OS. Why does it use bright colors in icons and highlights, a largely white background, thin fonts, translucency and gyroscopic motion-based animations? 

iOS 7

Some have suggested that the use of colors will appeal to Asian markets. That bright white backgrounds are difficult to copy on OLED screens (where white draws more power than black, as opposed to LEDs where backlighting is always required; this is why the Zune/Windows Phone is so overwhelmingly back). That thin fonts require typographical expertise and Retina Displays. That translucency requires A4 processing power, and that motion controls require a 6-axis gyroscope.

Put together, it sure looks like Apple is simply following its long term business plan of identifying advanced, enabling technologies and packaging them together in ways that communicate value for users. Apple scouts out hardware advances and software advances and sells the combination by developing clear and valuable applications for buyers, from FaceTime to Siri to Maps. 

Google and Samsung have both done a good job at finding cool new technologies, but neither has done a very good job of applying them in useful ways. A lot of the tech media hasn't figured this out, preferring to instead be enamored with specifications like CPU GHz and GB of memory installed. That model, copied from the WinTel era, is collapsing. On mobile devices, it's not about how fast you can run Office, but how long your battery can run while doing lots of useful things that are fun.

And while the various elements of iOS 7 point to an effort by Apple to ditch competitors with applied hardware and software advances, it really comes down to delivering an experience that is fun, and that works. There will be more from Apple in 2013 related to both fun and work.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [iPad] Google And Apple May Bring Us A Console War We Didn't See Coming

 

I sure hope if Apple does a gaming console, it won't be a compilation of AppleTV the way it is now and a gaming console combined.  I like my Apple TV the way it is now. Add cloud play for things like the TWiT app and your TV apps like CBS etc and I'll be happy.

\
  \   /\                Alice
  (   )    whiterabbit@gmail.com
.(     ).  Sent from my iPad mini

On Jun 29, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Tony <tdale@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

 

Yes, this is what I believe
 
Consoles theoretically released by Google and Apple would likely not be the kinds we see in our living rooms now. They'd be specifically designed to play all those massively popular Android or iOS handheld games on a big screen, rather than running the likes of Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and the endless array of triple A titles available on traditional game consoles like the Xbox and Playstation.
 
But I can see the proliferation of these middle games (Not so intensive and visually detailed) as growing of these two big boys went to war. Likely, or possibly, porting trimmed down versions of the big games?

From: Kris Murray <krismurray@gmail.com>
To: iPad@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 30 June 2013 10:08 AM
Subject: [iPad] Google And Apple May Bring Us A Console War We Didn't See Coming
 

Google And Apple May Bring Us A Console War We Didn't See Coming

Last night, the Wall Street Journal brought us news that Google GOOG +0.32% has now set its sights on making its own Android-based video game console. The kicker? This is supposed to be in response to Apple AAPL +0.68% doing the very same thing.
Google and Apple video game consoles? Are the Xbox One and PS4 dead already? No. Though this would change the game to some degree, it's more like Google and Apple are creating an entirely new league for themselves.
Consoles theoretically released by Google and Apple would likely not be the kinds we see in our living rooms now. They'd be specifically designed to play all those massively popular Android or iOS handheld games on a big screen, rather than running the likes of Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and the endless array of triple A titles available on traditional game consoles like the Xbox and Playstation.
Rather for now, this is competing with the little guy. Though "destroying" might be a better descriptor than competing. I'm talking about the Ouya, of course, the Kickstarted, hack friendly Android based console that may have been the inspiration for both Google and Apple's console dreams.
Once the Ouya racked up $8.5M in Kickstarted donations, blowing away their expectations, that told Google and Apple that people were indeed interested in a cheap console that plays phone games on their TV. There's no way to know if the Ouya was the actual spark behind this movement, but the relative success of the console, at least conceptually, was probably enough to make both brands seriously consider the possibility.
The chief complaint with the Ouya, which was just released this week, is that despite there being a good selection of games, the whole package can feel a bit cheap and hacked together, like it was built on a budget (because it was). It's hard to imagine Google and Apple not delivering a product with ten thousand percent more refinement, so it may be the case the Ouya won't be long for this world.
This would be the initial phase of a new console war that few saw coming, except our own Erik Kain of course, months ago:
"And Ouya? Well, it was a nice thought. It could have been disruptive. The problem is, aiming to disrupt the console business misses the point. Your real competitors are the big players in mobile, not in video games."
Is this instant death for the Ouya? It seems clear cut when going up against giants like Apple and Google, but it could have one thing going for it. Intentional or not, the Ouya is a piracy goldmine, allowing even users with a fractional amount of tech knowledge to get access to emulator roms of nearly every old video game in existence. You can bet that's a service Google and Apple won't offer. And the general hackability of the box is something the larger companies will shy away from too.
But let's say the Google and Apple boxes kill the Ouya. Then they face off against each other alone, and people have to decide whether they'd rather play iOS or Android games, nearly all of which would likely be available across both platforms. This is where the two boxes would have to differentiate themselves from one another. Is one cheaper? Does one have bonus app capability like Netflix NFLX -1.77% or Skype? Does the other have such a great design that people buy it as a decoration for their coffee table?
If Apple and Google slug it out in this "lower" tier of console wars, it's unclear what direct impact that would have on the likes of Sony , Microsoft and Nintendo, currently about to begin waging their next great console melee. I don't believe an Apple or Google box would at all be a replacement for a traditional video game console. A console that plays phone games on a TV and one that plays actual games are not in the same league. They may share a customer base to some degree, but someone shelling out $99 for an Android console that doesn't play major releases is still going to buy an Xbox One or a PS4.
It is worth wondering what would happen if things continued to evolve from there, however. What if Google or Apple did set their sights on the larger prize, an actual video game console, just as powerful as its top of the line competitors?
It may sound ridiculous, and in truth, I'm not sure how terribly likely  it is, but it shouldn't be ruled out. Once upon a time the idea that Microsoft would debut a video game console was laughable.
This would make the field exceptionally crowded, and some would say that's the case already with three major consoles and the Oculus Rift on the horizon. If there were ever five true video game consoles competing in the same sphere, there would be causalities. They would struggle to differentiate themselves from one another, and someone would have to bit the dust. It could be the newcomers, as Google and Apple wouldn't be trusted as console manufacturers. Or it could be a veteran like Nintendo, their struggling Wii U crushed by even more competition. The Xbox One and PS4 wouldn't necessarily be safe either. In short, such a development would result in a complete upheaval of the entire industry.
But let's dial back. A Google or Apple phone game console could fail from the get-go. I'm still not convinced there's that big of a market for such a device. The now-famous comment about the Ouya is that people were excited about an Android console that plays phone games on their TV, then were disappointed when it turned out to be just an Android console that played phone games on their TV.
And as for breaking into the next-tier market, facing off against Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? That would be an even bigger gamble, and one I'm not sure either Google or Apple would want to make. The market is crowded already. No one is floundering enough to even being close to dropping out of the game just yet, and as I said, it's doubtful the industry could sustain four or five consoles. It remains to be seen if it can even support three in this next generation.
Still, it's an exciting thought to hear that Google and Apple are thinking about getting into the console game, in whatever capacity. More competition and choice is a great thing for the industry. Not being particularly loyal to either brand, I'd love to see what Google and Apple's vision of a video game console would even look like, from the controller to the box to the OS. It's a rather fantastic notion, and I welcome hearing more news on this front.
Follow me on Twitter here and subscribe to my Forbes blog here.

Related on Forbes:

The Evolution Of Apple

1 of 15
Apple II: 1977

Apple II: 1977

Introduced in 1977, the 8-bit computer designed primarily by Steve Wozniak was one of the first successful personal computers.
~KLM
\\ "If people are not laughing at your goals, your goals are too small...." ~Azim Premji //

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [iPad] Re: TV towers

 

There are full episodes of shows on YouTube? Are they in 5 minute parts and you have to go and search out the other parts? I've found that true with TV shows I've wanted to watch.

\
  \   /\                Alice
  (   )    whiterabbit@gmail.com
.(     ).  Sent from my iPad mini

On Jun 29, 2013, at 5:01 AM, Maureen McKee <mmckee4@btinternet.com> wrote:

 

Thank you Ed. that explains it.  I have not found any way to change many things on iPad but really a laptop would serve me better. Apologies for any inconvenience.  
Maureen Ireland

Sent from my iPad


On 28 Jun 2013, at 23:59, "Ed" <huckleberryed@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Speaking to ME,  Maureen?    Not sure what you are referring to….. the color of my email posts to this group?    The vast preponderance of emails I post come from my home Windows PC using MS Outlook,  which of course allows one to change the color and nature of Fonts.  I do not know if this is possible on an iPAd,….. probably not.

 

Hope that answered the question.

 

Ed

 

 

From: iPad@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iPad@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maureen McKee
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:50 PM
To: iPad@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iPad] Re: TV towers

 

 

My curiosity is killing me Ed but how do you get coloured fonts on the ipad. This is one of the many things I'm still trying it learn but I took heart the other day when I read someone on this group was still learning after two years. Most of the time I have no idea what you are all talking about but I still enjoy the expertise of you all. Maureen

Sent from my iPad

On 27 Jun 2013, at 20:47, "Ed" <huckleberryed@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (57)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[iPad] Question about screen

 

Hi all.

I have a question maybe someone can help with. I bought an iPad mini about six weeks ago and just a couple of days ago, I noticed, when it is turned off I can see some ripples across the screen. I hadn't noticed them before ... I'm not sure if they just showed up or if they have been there all along. I don't see any distortion when it is turned on and I'm reading, etc. Just wondered if I should be concerned.

Thanks for any help!

Happy Fourth of July! 🇺🇸

Jan C in NW New Mexico
Sent from my new iPad Mini  🇺🇸

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Phuethreey Syankk Ortu Sllue and SotOng Jeanny have upcoming birthdays

facebook
Help Phuethreey Syankk Ortu Sllue and SotOng Jeanny celebrate their birthdays
Friday, July 5th
Saturday, July 20th
Go to Facebook
Plan an Event
This message was sent to fiiendgroupes@gmail.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please unsubscribe.
Facebook, Inc., Attention: Department 415, PO Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303

III gurlz-group III Selena Gomez in Santa Monica

 
.

__,_._,___