I would love it – for one thing: Drawing. iPads have never really done that well. But maybe this one, with its Pencil, beats the Wacom tablets.
Its not a computer. It drives me crazy on the iPad to add items to a calendar – to edit anything, it is such a pain to try to get the curser to go to the right place! I can’t see it replacing a Mac where the input options include a trackpad and a mouse. Touch screens that flop around laptop-style are so wrong – as Steve Jobs said “ergonomically terrible”!
But a Mac is no good for drawing.
I had a Toshiba M200 that was ok, it converted quite well – back in 2002! (Images) It went from vertical to horizontal.
Steve Jobs would not have succumbed to the vertical iPad. There has to be a better solution. An OSX device that incorporates touch, something like the new Surface Book (Images) is one possibility. I can’t bear the thought of going back to Windows & Microsoft, Surface Book reviews mention the crashes, the lack of attention to detail in the hardware design. Will convergence that allows conversion in hardware and software functions come to Apple?
In the meantime – and for a long time I imagine – in the Apple world we are stuck with the need for two devices, a Macbook and an iPad Pro. Probably three devices, I’d still want my iPad Mini for curling up with, the iPad Pro seems too big for that.
I hate seeing the iPad Pro used like a laptop, copying the ergonomically terrible Microsoft devices. As a horizontal drawing tool they look great.
Best advice for Apple: Create a touch/non-touch convertable OSX beta for the iPad pro. Maybe they are working on this?
I’ve been using Pocketcasts on the iPhone. The first one I’ve liked in all these years. The iTunes one never satisfied and the way I used to do it – was clumsy. But it worked and was essentially what I did on the Palm.
Amy Goodman from Democracy Now hosts this debate between Julian Assange and Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Žižek — From the Troxy Theatre in London, July 2 2011. Also streaming in HQ from Democracy Now for those with faster lines. Brilliant debate!
I wish I’d got hold of this a year ago when it came out, but it is worth watching any time!
“Capitalism will have trouble with intellectual property” – Slavoj Žižek In the Amy Goodman interview with Julian Assange
I’ve come away thinking that if property is theft then intellectual property is the most obscene form of theft, as it steals from us what is most human, our creativity and spontaneity.
Are we in an information age, or is this still the industrial age where the workers will create socialism? What is Slavoj Žižek saying here? If capitalism can’t cope with intellectual property then it can’t cope because of some new relationship of production?
If that is the case who is the new revolutionary class? Is it still the industrial proletariat?
What clout does any other class have?
Or is it that as the information sector becomes the most consumed sector of the total produce – eg Amazon can afford not to make a profit on hardware as it sells intellectual property – as does Google – then these companies – like newspaper and music companies will falter as consumers protest about the punishments metered out to people who share!
Not only that but people who create – lets not call it property but intellectual goods and services – are the most advanced producers of social production (recall Marx ‘s point that the contradiction in capitalism is that production is social and ownership is private). Look at the credits in a movie, while that creation is tied to hardware there is a way to pay the creators and for the middle men to cream most of that off. Even solitary creation like a novel or science is mostly people standing on the shoulders of giants. All creation is a mash up.
Capitalism inhibits creation.
Capitalism inhibits sharing.
Capitalism inhibits the distribution of culture.
But information, creation that is not thwarted by capitalism has already been co-opted by capitalism.
The potentially revolutionary class then is the creators, and that is all of us. As Clay Shirkey put it so beautifully following Marshall McLuhan The fundamental shift in the electronic world is that consumers become creators. Just pressing a Like button is on the lowest end of the spectrum of creativity, with great art and science at the other end, but it is on the continuum! There is a qualitative shift that was made with the Internet.
Perhaps the early slogan – Information wants to be free – is a forerunner of a class of creators becoming a class that is conscious. Releasing information is a crime, Bradley Manning, Kim Dotcom, the latter has become a local hero, because he is fighting the superpower and exposing New Zealand’s subservience.
For people to move fully into a world where information is the dominant item of consumption, and we are probably a long way off that, then a new relationship of production is called for. New relationships of creation. New ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Think of what that might mean, no copyright, new forms of socialized payment for creativity, no advertising to pay for content. Most of all education, news and culture in the hands of the creators would change everything. Intelligence in the CIA sense would be free, releasing information would be heroic. Secreting publicly beneficial information wld be a crime.
Where does the money come from to pay for all this…
Wait… Money is information, it is currently owned by the ruling class, they create laws (also information) to control all information, about the flow of money, and the creation of money,
This does require a new relationship for the means of production of physical goods. The same dynamics apply, (material) goods too want to be free, and goods too are created by the very people who use them (could the but afford them) Its is not about the nature of the goods we are dealing with here. It is labour power, let think of it all as creativity power. Imagine the force of an alliance of all people who create, but who do not own or share equitably in what they create.
Marx said little about the future – but he did say we could all have the leisure to be philosophers. Sounds like he had an inkling there of the implications of his perspective related to creating ideas.
Found my copy of War & Peace in the Global Village AmazonWikipedia thinking about the “ten thunders” and how they relate to Marx’s historical materialism.
Have not sorted that one just yet, but love reading the opening of the book again… and how true the discussion about the fear of cyberspace sounds today. Even as we are fully in the new space of the technology it shifts so fast for us to feel the fear each day. Today I was feeling it in relation to sandboxing on the Mac, ah they might fuck up my environment, just as I’m getting used to it!
And notice the bit from Finnigan’s Wake (which today I read as Fun Again Wake up!)
Probably written about a century before Flickr but drawing to the same source I imagine, flicks of energy, light, nothing, everything, eternal, gone.
Might see how it looks in its context, sometime/maybe.
It may or may not be a good practice, but I often post half finished posts, then edit later, often years later! But mostly minutes or hours later. If there has been discussion i wont tamper with the context. if it is years later i might insert a date to show the progression.
The point is that the RSS feed which sends the whole post (currently) is often the worst way to read this blog.
I will set it to post a snippet only. That way the reader will need to come to the blog, where there is often a more completed post, with more links and images. (and less bad grammar and typos).
I have no doubt behaviour patterns change. The article makes sense. But I don’t like the way people talk about humans. As if we are just a bunch of neurones. It may be true, but music is just vibrations, so are paintings, lightwaves on the retina. That is not human talk.
So a more disturbing phenomena is that people are seen as computers by psychologists.
An interesting article follows none the less about the use of cell phones by kids, and the effect of the net on our concentration.
This paper actually reworks some of the ideas in an earlier paper I wrote here called “Cyberspace: Shadow of the Cultural Imagination?” It was inspired by a meeting between my class at Pacifica Graduate Institute and James Hillman.
This is the same article linked to below in a different place – perhaps not quite?