text:
|277 posts found
Novice Member
Joined: 10/05/03
Gaming should be about fun, not gender equality.
Originally posted by Eol-
Complete and utter nonsense. There have been plenty of MMORPGs with enough content for open world explorers and those games were made a decade ago. Ever heard of SWG? EQ 1? Asheron's Call?
You are making the misstake to think that a ThemePark is the only way to create an MMO and since in a ThemePark you cannot keep up with how fast players consume content then no MMO can do it. But that is a ThemePark problem, NOT an MMO problem.
ThemeParks are much easier for devs to create then a full fledged open world MMO like the one's mentioned above. It is easy to box the world into neat little zones with level bracketed content and static quests. It is much harder to create a huge world, which you can explore and create your own content by interacting with people.
Harder means more time, which means more development cost and that is what the issue is, NOT that MMOs cannot be possibly be done which centers around open world exploration. That has been done and can be done.
Login or Register to never see this panel
Novice Member
Joined: 9/09/05
Originally posted by Eir_S
Dang Eir_S. Not sure what this game did to you, but it must have been extreme.
Personally I like the fact that they are going in this direction. Without OWPVP, it makes no sense to see the enemy. This eliminates all of the people that would just emote and jump around the enemy.
Seems like the best compromise in order to allow us to explore the entire world.
I understand that we're all different, but I don't see a problem. I'm not a fan of phasing in general, but I think this is a prime example of why it should exist sometimes.
Here's hoping, anyway!
Playing: H1Z1, The Crew, Defiance, APB:Reloaded
Apprentice Member
Joined: 3/19/13
The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.
Advanced Member
Joined: 10/16/11
Originally posted by hMJem
If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 8/19/10
Originally posted by jacktors
The biggest problem SWToR had was lack of end game content. When hardcore players race ahead and run out of content thats one thing, when even the casual players are doing it the game has issues. The whole concept of keeping players in an MMO revolves around keeping them entertained, and SWToR did that for a month or two. It had expected 4-6 months of time before players reached that stage and so players had nothing to do so a lot unsubbed and went elsewhere for their entertainment. SWToR had a lesson to teach, have content ready before your current content is exhausted or have something to keep players entertained enough to keep subbing. Also last I checked SWToR was chugging along, or does failed mean it failed to retain it's initial sub base? It's switch to freemium? I will agree it failed to reach it's projected profits but equally by that measure very few games are successes.
I also have yet to see a forum that is like the in game community. Most forums are far more hostile, polarised and vocal than the vast majority you will meet in game. (Note that I said majority, you will still find such people in game).
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/11/08
I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos
SWToR was just as bad for casual gamers as anyone else. If a game is bad, it doesn't matter what group it targets. The game will not perform up to expectations.
You're assuming that casual gamers would like to SWToR regardless of how bad it was because it was a casual, solo centric game.
Doesn't matter which side of an issue you're on, assumptions aren't usually the best thing to run with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Novice Member
Joined: 3/18/10
i other news, i just permanently super glued my palm to my face. I figured id save myself the trouble ...
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
ROFLMAO Thank you!
Originally posted by Yamota
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. You mention SWG, there is no way there was enough 'exporation' content. Sure the planets were big but it was just the same mobs spread all over the planet. I love exploring, and I remember my disappointment going into dangerous areas solo and just finding more of the same mile after mile. Few landmarks of interest, just the same mobs, forever. As far as EQ1, that largely developed into a raid endgame which is not the same as 'open world exploration'.
Also, those games had much slower levelling than today's games, there were many time-sinks built into the game to slow down players from levelling too fast. By streamlining these things, WoW significantly increased the rate at which players level, for better or worse. In DAoC at release it took even the hardest core player several months to reach level 50, and when WoW came out players were doing that in weeks; casual players could take 6-12 months to hit level 50 in DAoC. DAoC slowed down crafting simply by having a timebar so it took minutes to do a single crafting action. Thats just a time sink, forcing players to slow down. Likewise with long slow horse routes and such, versus teleporting right to a spot like many games do it today. Or what about being forced to go back to your corpse, just another way to slow down players.
The point is, if you just want to go out and explore new areas, and if you play say a couple hours a day, there is no way there can be enough exploration material for you to play for years. No way. If you are a hardcore player and play 4+ hours a day, you will go through the material in weeks. Like I pointed out, they were able to create a hundred hours of content in Skyrim because the mobs levelled to some extent as you did, so most places you went to were level appropriate. A MMORPG cant even do that because they have to have level-specific content for all players, which means they need to create MUCH more material overall.
Its been shown over and over that hardcore players will rip through content at a rapid place to get to the 'endgame'. More casual players will take longer, but they will run out of exploration content too. Thats why MMORPGs need endgames, because sooner or later most players will hit max level. The question for ESO isnt 'do we have an endgame?', rather, its 'what type of an endgame will do provide?'. Open world exploration with many months of new material just isnt feasible. And this has nothing to do with 'sandbox' or 'themepark', which is an entirely different argument, it just has to do with the inherent economic limit on material they can include.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Originally posted by jacktors
You have to be kidding me. In no way shape or form are the MMORPG.com forums 'representative' of gamers. Most gamers dont bother to come to a forum and argue about games that havent even come out yet. Most players dont post in forums of games they DO play. If they do go to forums, its to look something up, not argue. Its just not worth their (limited) time, so they dont do it. By their very nature the forums tend to gather the harder core players, and MMORPG is the epitomy of that. There are literally millions of people who play MMORPGs, but most of them have not played nearly as much in terms of hours and number of games as the people who tend to post here. I remember in DAoC when people would argue on the forums, and try to act like a few hundred people commenting on the forums somehow accurately represented the tens of thousands who were playing the game. Ludicrous.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Originally posted by Miblet
I totally agree.
And by the way, I dont agree with the assumption from the other poster that SWTOR was a bad game. My son and I have been playing it for the last couple months and having a lot of fun. Its a good, fun, game and the graphics are nice. That being said, I agree there isnt much of an endgame (we just hit level 55) and so for hardcore players who raced through the content, naturally they wouldnt like the game as much and would be frustrated. But the lack of an endgame doesnt mean the levelling part of the game isnt good. Its a themepark MMORPG which isnt everyone's cup of tea. But my boy is a star wars fan, doesnt care about raids and such, and he has had a great time levelling up. That being said, it wouldnt surprise me if we move on in a couple months, but still they will have gotten 5 months of subs from two people plus 2 purchases of the expansion, which isnt bad.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Apprentice Member
Joined: 11/21/11
Oh the irony
Moaning about the game being "a daoc clone themepark"
Then using EQ as an example of "not a themepark"
EQ IS More themeparky than daoc. Vanilla EQ and daoc were very similar, but EQ turned towards instancing and endgame raid sets.
Of course TESO will be more themeparky than both though. But hopefully less so than other modern games like tsw, swtor, Neverwinter etc..
I'm thinking it will probably be gw2 done right.
Elite Member
Joined: 7/05/06
daoc went the instance route too actually (following EQ's lead with LDON)when they released catacombs about year after EQ implemented their instances.
Originally posted by tixylix
and for every person like you there are probably half a dozen for whom open world PvP would be a no sale.
The developers need to pick an approach, stick with it, and do it well. No approach will please everybody. Every approach will turn off some players and appeal to others. If they do a PvE game with endgame raids, people will say its a WoW clone. If they do RvR people will say its a DAoC clone. If they focus on open world exploration without an immediate endgame for hardcore players, people will say its a themepark. People are going to criticize them no matter what they do simply because we all want something different than the next guy.
Personally I think they've picked a pretty good approach that should fill a good sized niche in the mmorpg market. It will be nice to have a game where they try to instill some pride in your realm/alliance in an ongoing campaign rather than have PvP be just queued battlegrounds and such. But it sounds like there will be plenty of PvE also. Should be a nice mix with a reasonably wide appeal.
Elladan - ESO (AD)
Advanced Member
Joined: 8/21/07
This is actually a really bad idea. As someone said earlier why not only give people the choice, if you don't wanna PVP in PVE zones you just check a box and that's it. And then the people who love the immersion of going over to the enemy faction and exploring and PVPing?
It was SO much fun in DAOC to sneak over to midgard, took a really long time to get over there too and the excitement of staying alive and exploring was amazing. Oh well...
Novice Member
Joined: 6/27/12
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Wishful thinking on your part. Lol
Novice Member
Joined: 7/21/09
Originally posted by Eir_S
Wow... I totally disagree.
This totally takes away the grievers who will see the other faction and try to game the system.
WoW for example, players would try to stand in the opposite factions AE trying to trigger the PvP flag.
The biggest problem with MMOs is the players. Some players are simply disagreeable stupid morons with no life. Any method to keep the game fun by reigning in undesirables sounds good to me.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/21/12
Originally posted by Eir_S
Elite Member
Joined: 5/23/06
Originally posted by RogueCaster
This game wont be for everyone. All MMOs are like that and to the people who are shocked ESO fits in the same boat as most MMOs, not for everyone. I say, go find a game you do like, not like there is any lack of MMOs.
=-D Only on a forum can optimism be called the bad thing and pessimism is the good thing =-D
Apprentice Member
Joined: 3/19/13
My main problem with MMOs is the lack of a lively or populated world. In a lot of games nowadays, I feel like I'm playing a single player game. I'm not fond of the "shards" on Neverwinter or Dragon Nest. I want to see people also exploring and questing. Don't ask why, maybe its because when I play MMO I dont want to feel like I'm playing a single player game. It ruins the experience for me if it feels like you're playing a game that's dead. I mean, call me crazy, but imagine if real life was instanced off? People right next to you in your city that you cant see because of phasing and sharding? I know, very obnoxious comparison, but I want to see people doing things, or interact with them, atleast something. I thought Vanilla WoW and EQ got that part right, to be honest.


text:
Colorblock Tank Dress
Style # 217219
AVAILABILITY: Unavailable for immediate shipment.
Turn heads in bold colorblocking and a sexy silhouette with this bebe cocktail dress. Amp yours up with gold accessories and a pair of neutral heels.
- 65% rayon, 30% nylon, 5% spandex
- Center back to hem: 32" (81 cm)
- Lined
- Dry clean
- Imported
- Model is 5'9" and is wearing a US size S
Rated 5 out of 5�by 2 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5�by LoveLee This dress brings out your curves! This dress is phenomenal! I couldn't wait to get it in the mail and I finally got it! I also love how it is an online exclusive and not sold in stores! When I tried this dress on, it really hugged my body and displayed my curves very well. This dress is really a great summer dress and best worn at a club or party because you will definitely stand out in the crowd! It gives a great compliment about your body. The colors and the design for this dress is superb! Thank you bebe! May 28, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5�by petitebebe Very cute! I really like it! I like colorblock dresses and this is one of them. I also like the material they use in this dress. I think it runs a little small because I usually wear XS in bebe but the size small worked for me. May 4, 2013
1-2 of 2

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LOS ANGELES After playing in the sand, the Curiosity rover is poised to trek across the Martian landscape in search of a rock to drill into, scientists reported Thursday.
The six-wheel rover has been parked for more than a month at a sand dune where it has been busy scooping up soil, sniffing the atmosphere and measuring radiation levels on the surface. Its next task is to zero in on a rock and that requires driving to a new location.
Mission deputy scientist Ashwin Vasavada expected Curiosity to be on the move in the next few days.
Its the bedrock which really gives you the story of ancient Mars, said Vasavada of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which manages the $2.5 billion mission. The soil is a little harder to interpret because we dont know how old it is or where it came from.
The car-size rover touched down in Gale Crater, an ancient depression near the Martian equator, in August on a two-year mission to probe whether the landing site once had conditions capable of supporting microbial life. Armed with a high-tech suite of instruments, its the most sophisticated spacecraft to ever land on the red planet.
During the first three months, a weather station aboard Curiosity detected brief drops in air pressure, a sign of whirlwinds in the region.
These events are starting to occur more and more often, said Manuel de la Torre Juarez of NASA JPL. We expect to see more in the future.
Previous rovers have spotted and even recorded dust devils dancing across the Martian terrain, but scientists said Curiosity has not yet seen evidence that the swirling winds have lifted dust.
Curiositys ultimate destination is a 3-mile-high mountain rising from the center of the crater floor thats rich in mineral deposits. Scientists had hoped to drive to the base before the end of the year, but that doesnt look likely after the extended stay at its current spot.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.
We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click the X that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. This will send the comment to Facebook for review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.


text:
Tuscarawas News Detail
DEADLINE EXTENDED: Call for Papers/Posters, Information & Religion 2014 ConferencePosted Oct. 29, 2013
The Center for the Study of Information and Religion (CSIR) in the School of Library and Information Science at Kent State University will host its fourth annual conference on June 5 & 6, 2014, at the university.
The theme for the 2014 conference is "Information Management in Religious Organizations." Keynote speaker will be Kenneth Inskeep, Ph.D., director, Research and Evaluation, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and co-author of Chasing Down a Rumor: The Death of Mainline Denominations.
CSIR invites scholars and students to submit paper and poster abstracts that align with the chosen theme and represent original contributions exploring the intersections of religion and information. The deadline for abstract submission has been extended to Jan. 15, 2014.
For details and the proposal submission form, visit http://www.kent.edu/slis/research/csir/annual-conference-on-information-and-religion.cfm.


text:
In the March 8 Pinot Session, join us for vintage comparisons of our Big Tree and Peach Tree Block Pinot Noirs. As part of this session, get a sneak peek of the 2011 vintage for these wines before they are available. Winemaker Emeritus Russ Rosner will guide you through the tasting, discuss the change in vintages, and share stories about the winery and our wines. Our series of Pinot Sessions comes around only once a year, and we are excited for this to be the first year hosting them in our new Tasting Room.
Pinot Session with Russ Rosner
- Venue:
This event has passed.
- Start:
- End:
- Cost:
- Website:


text:
Now that you have amassed your wealth of information about your strengths and selling points by completing your worksheets, where do you go next?
Initially you will review your worksheets to make certain you have made the most effective use of your keywords and buzzwords.
The next step is minor compared to the tremendous amount of energy you have already expended. You will find an appropriate format and create a document using word processing software.
You can find samples of completed résumés in any of the FCPL books listed in Section K of this course; you can find online e-résumé sites with samples geared to your field or general samples; you can rely on help from sources such as mwejobs.com or through the FCWS. Whatever layout you like, you can begin molding your information into a presentation that you think will be powerful and effective.
Regardless of what you choose, bear in mind the following rules:
- Machines scan many résumés before a human eye gets to the "part two" portion of the review. It is critical that your buzzwords/keywords be prominent at the beginning of your résumé so you don't get shredded before you get out of the gate.
- Even when a human gets to your résumé, the chances are enormous that only the top third of your page will get read in the first pass. This is why, regardless of the format you choose, chronological; functional; or mixed; you will ALWAYS BEGIN WITH A QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY!
A Qualifications Summary is a three- to six-sentence summary of what you want highlighted for the job you are going after. In your second set of worksheets you put together at least three sentences about each job you held. Having those on hand makes it easy to switch up your emphasis, particularly if you possess skills that cross barriers or if you have had several careers
If you have, in your working career, been a professional editor, a university lecturer, a professional researcher and a reference librarian (note the overlap in many skill sets here) you may have an initial QS that reads like this in your generic résumé…
"Over 17 years in professional editing, 11 years as university faculty, 2 years in an academic library and 12 years in a public library. Trained and supervised up to 20 staff"
Now, let's say the job advertisement you are choosing to respond to is for: Public Librarian Adult Reference; MLS required. Prefer teaching/training experience
That would lead you to revamp you QS something like:
"MLS librarian from an American Library Association Accredited university; 12 years as public service reference staff; 2 years in academic library cataloging. University lecturer for Eastern New Mexico University for 11 years …"
See how much play you have from your original worksheets? You can buzzword, reshape, keyword and reformat to your heart's content.
This material must always be the top third of your information after your contact information.
Next, you will need to choose between chronological versus functional formatting. Most employers prefer chronological; today's technology almost demands it. Online résumés/applications are nearly always chronological.
This format is the most frequently used and simplest to prepare.
Start with your most recent experience and then move backward to create a highlighted list of your accomplishments. NO more than 15 years unless you want to draw on a job skill set older than 15 years, in which case you would want to seriously examine a Functional format if that is available to you. If you can't use a functional option, make your QS section shine.
Traditionally Chronological Choices
- Strong Career Progression / Past 5 years seeking position similar to current or recent position
- Name Dropping / Impressive employers (large, strong name recognition)
- Management Position
- Executive Position
- Recruiter-Assisted Position Search
- International Position
- Law/ Accounting,/Government Position
- Reentering Workforce in Same Career
- Changing Fields (Same skill set, New profession)
- Military to Civilian / Same Job Position
- New Graduate with Degree in Field
You choose the order of presented information (Résumé Sample 1) and how much information to provide. You have freedom to make use of buzzwords, positioning on page, and translation of how your skills transcend barriers (e.g. volunteer work, length of time in field, gaps in your work history).
Traditionally Chronological Choices When Permitted
- Reentering Workforce / New Career
- Military to Civilian / New Career
- Volunteer Translation of Duties and Skills / Make Your Unpaid Hours Count
- New Graduate / Position not in Degree Field
- Skill Sets Applicable to Many Fields
- Prefer Focus off "Work History" / Frequent job moves; Gaps; Relocations
- Looking to Voluntarily "Demote" Yourself / Position of Less Responsibility
- "Too Many Hours in the Field" / Prefer to Avoid Age Discrimination
If you do not want to bump yourself out of the running by saying "35 years in the accounting field" and imply that you are 55 years old, let your QS draw your strengths in a limited fashion.
QS Example:
"Over 11 years of governmental accounting specializing in audits; 7 years of teaching accounting at community college."
You did not tell them that you did these jobs sequentially; they might have been simultaneous because you did not provide dates. Manipulate the language to your advantage while highlighting your strengths.
How long is your résumé?
Preferred length: one page, especially if you're summarizing 10 years' experience or less.
Don't leave out anything important or strip out all the detail to make it one page. Remember you have the second side of your sheet. If need your second page to give the complete picture, take it, but fill it up!
If you have the luxury of a cover letter (a practice that is fading fast) use it. The Frederick County Workforce Services teaches excellent workshops on cover letter preparation.
Most important part: top 10-20 lines after contact information.
- The employer wants to know: What's in it for him? Your résumé must answer that question well enough to make him want to call you for an interview!
- Use the employer's job title, wording and order. Assume the first thing listed is the most important.
- Use keywords. Your reader is looking for them, in the same format in which they appear in the job listing. If the ad says, "lead," do not use "leadership." The closer the match, the better. This goes double for online job searches. Remember you have to make it past the robot-scan-eyes first.
- Support your claims with facts and results. Use numbers wherever you can. This makes you a more concrete producer in the employer's mind. "Saved 3% in overhead costs". "My team took in $20,000 over estimated sales for quarter." You can ballpark figures, but don't exaggerate deliberately.
- Accomplishments are more important than daily duties. Your accomplishments listed are on your second set of worksheets.
- Be sure to use current terminology and correct spelling for your target industry ("personnel" is an old term; "human resources" is current.).
Note on software: Create a word document (Word 2003) version of your résumé. Why 2003? Because if you have Word 2007 or later and your potential employer has 2003, he will not be able to open your document! This is true for every electronic submission you create. A newer version of a software package can usually read a file created with an older version of the software, but an older version of the software may not be able to read a newer file format. You can use Word 2007 to create a file that can be read by older versions of Microsoft Word – select "Word 97-2003 Document" for the file format when you're saving a document.
Sample chronological résumé - .pdf file
Sample functional résumé - .pdf file
Exercise: Write your résumé
There is no worksheet for this assignment – choose a format and build your résumé


text:
Apple Now Charging to Re-Download Apps on the iPhone?
UPDATE: Per comments below, this only seems to be effecting some users and only on 3.0 Beta firmware. We've also added a poll in the forum so we can see what everyone thinks. Beta behavior changes.
Looks like Apple's begun charging full price if you try to download an app you've already bought over the iPhone. This did not used to be the case -- previously you'd be given a dialog stating you'd already bought it and you could go ahead and re-download it for free. Now the dialog says you can still re-download it for free on your computer (via iTunes), but if you want to download it again directly to your iPhone, you've got to buy it again.
What's going on here? Not bandwidth control, since free apps and updates to paid apps are still free. Not device restriction, because you can still re-download for free via iTunes (though it's not as convenient, of course).
We're guessing that with the on-device account management coming to iPhone 3.0 -- where you can log in and out of multiple iTunes accounts right on your iPhone -- Apple is putting this in place to prevent the sharing of purchases between accounts. (Otherwise you could just log into 100 other iPhones with your account and give them all your paid apps right over the air).
We can understand the concern, but we'll miss the functionality. For example, I personally used the re-download ability all the time for app management. E.g I bought a FedEx tracking app that I delete when I'm not expecting anything and re-download when I am. Now I can't do that any time I want any more -- only any time I'm at my computer. I'd much rather keep that and ditch multiple accounts.
What do you think, is multiple on-device accounts worth the loss of free on-device paid app re-downloads?
[Thanks Jordan for the tip, iPhoneDocked for added confirmation]
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
Apple Now Charging to Re-Download Apps on the iPhone?
Don't their servers know whether you have a given app installed on a device, so they can determine whether to re-download it? It should be the case that Apple's servers know the last device you downloaded the app to, and whether it was deleted. If the last activity was "delete", the server should download the app. If not, the server can tell you the app is installed on device under your account. You can then call that person and tell them to delete the app, so you can download it to your device.
It appears to only be on 3.0 my wifes first gen 2.1 iPhone still offers a free DL http://img190.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ron.jpg&via=tfrog
Futile point to discuss.
We're hostage to their rules.
I'll play their game.
I am on 3.0 and I do not get that message. It still gives me the ability to download it for free. Just tested it 3 times.
Guys can I put in my 2 cents here,
Look up the app "epic pet wars" (this is just an example)
But in epic pet wars they have like 7-9 apps for it, each one is a different price.
I'll tell you why. Let's say you buy the 1.99$ app it will give you like 20 respect points or whatever.
Now I'd you want to get 20 more respect points for 1.99 you can't because you've already bought it.
Now with this change I'll be able to do this
Could apple be changing gears because of these micro pay option free to play apps?
I don't get the message, but I am not on 3.0.
Also, since five computers can still be authorized to use the same iPhone account, you can still have multiple iPhones using the same account for apps.
Re: iPhoneMilk - wouldn't in app purchases allow for this? You could buy respect points, or whatever, directly within the app? This is built in to 3.0.
I have all 9 pages full on my iPhone, so I am constantly removing and re downloading apps when I need them. I am NOT happy about this apple! :( - please find another way!!!
Apple iPhone users let apple know your opinion!!!
that's what I'm saying I agree with you guys on the new upcoming in app feature
But these micro pay "MMO" games that are free..... I wonder..
f-tarded. this is really lame. i also use the re-download feature to manage apps that I do not use frequently. ug.
Just tried it out and got the same message. I'm running 3.0. I think that this is really dumb to do this. But it's not working for everyone. So maybe it's just for certain apps?
i don't really mind it all that much... just don't uninstall apps people.. Why are you uninstalling them in the first place are you running low on Memory?
Just keep them all installed.
the stupid thing is it's far more likely people would account switch on the desktop as it's less hassle. Maybe apple is trying to lose as many customers as posible to the pre.
One word: "beta".
Who knows what Apple is doing. I will indeed miss this functionality should it be removed. However, the software is still beta, so anything is possible.
I have 1st gen iPhone and don't get this message.
This seems really arbitrary. I wonder if it's some unfinished feature that is just showing odd behavior right now.
Why the hell would you want to download it over the air to your iPhone again, if you've already got it on your computer. Just resync it and install the app.
Anyway, aren't all these gripes a little premature since the final product hasn't shipped yet. And true, anyone that's dissatisfied about this should just go and dump their iPhone and get a Palm Pre or Nokia N97 or something. You think those platforms are so great, good for ya. Absolutely no platform is perfect, but I think the Apple mobile platform is about as good as you're gonna get. Take the good with the bad and suck it up.
iTunes and hence its content is authorized via computer only and NOT devices such as the iPhone. If Apple didn't do this, then one could simply use his buddy's password to download an expensive app for free which his buddy had already paid for.
Certainly, verification would be done when the iPhone is reconnected to the computer to sync with iTunes, but one can easily delete the App before that is done (and do the same thing over again).
I bet they come back with an improved method in time for the release of 3.0.
Not unless the bitch level is really high. They may well sneak this in among all the goodies coming with 3.0 in the hopes that everyone will be so thrilled with 3.0 that they will just accept it.
If you use this feature a lot, you should visit the Apple suggestion page and whine.
I've never quite understood why they would let you put two accounts on any given phone. That is just asking for abuse.
Nor do I understand why anyone would want two accounts on their phone unless its to share purchases between friends, which seems borderline dishonest to me.
Isn't that an iPod touch you're downloading the app on?
If you bought the damn app on the iPhone 3G and then re- downloaded it on your machine or another machine, you can do that gazzilion times free-of-charge.. I just tried it on 3 different iPhones..
However, looking at how 3.0 will be free for the 3G while not free for the iTouch, i assume it has something to do with that message you got.. I think they actually did you a favor by allowing a free download via iTunes..
that's understandable.
I would be upset if they wouldn't let you re-download it for free on the same account.
I guess it would have to be personal accounts. Not everyone in a company will be allowed to download any app, so there must be a way to trace misusage. I believe that in many cases one would have one account connected to your private credit card, and one to your corporate (but still personal) card.
It's a beta. My guess is that they're trying to test another option that developers might have asked for. I'd guess that in the GA version it will depend on what the developer, not Apple wants. That's not to say that Apple may still charge developers for the second download. After all, they've never been a charity.
I will move to the Palm Pre (Verizon) if this is implemented. Apple is walking a fine line with me on the iPhone and I think it is about time for me to jump ship. Apple do not restrict applications on the iPhone even more. I already hate you for what you have done to the app store. (sling player mobile)
I came accross this webpage that apparently posted your BLOG word-for-word, with no props to TIPB. Not cool.
I just got my receipt from Apple for the Re-Download that I 'purchased' - was discussing this with a colleague and we both think that Apple is probably doing some testing, on their production servers.
@ 56 (Rob Renk): I've seen that too, and it happens to my articles on my site too (http://www.onemoretap.com). These are spammer sites that do nothing but copy articles from other sites hoping to see some love from Google. My advice: Ignore.
For the person who said, "why would you do this, just resync?" that's assuming you love to sync your iPhone all the time. I don't. I only sync it at home, and only when I need to charge it or put music on it. My PIM stuff syncs to the cloud, and I can't 'sync' at work or iTunes gets confused and erases all my apps.
I still bet this message doesn't mean what people think it means or it's in development. This is 'download protection' all over again, download protection is bullshit, and if Apple doesn't know that I will be amazed.
Sounds like something that might happen in a beta. You know, the phase when things don't work right or in their final form? Beta means incomplete, undecided, unfinished and not ready for final commentary. People freaking out about this and harshing on Apple owe it to them to let 3.0 go final before offering hard criticism.
Truth is this:
The screen shot refers only to the applications unloaded through redeem.
Rocky Romero Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 8:58 am
"Futile point to discuss.
We're hostage to their rules.
I'll play their game."
Hmmm.... MAC=Communism?
cant you just log onto someone elses phone with ur account download the app tell them to give u half the cost and then just plug ur phone onto itunes and redowload it on ur phone?
question. I am currently using an itunes account which I don't want to use anymore, as I have a new email address and new credit card. I don't want to use the other one anymore for personal reasons. However, I have downloaded about 70 dollars worth of applications with my old itunes account. Once I sync using my computer with the new account, am i still going to be able to use those apps? Another concern is, updates. I plan on canceling the other account, and so if I have downloaded the application with my old account, sync it, and then my other account is active on my phone, will it let me download? I really don't want to have to waste the applications I already have, not because of the money, but because of the information stored, example...a budget application or numerous other lists, like a shopping list program that has taken me FOREVER to load the items with prices that I like to purchase at the grocery store. To make matters worse, I live in Thailand and nothing ever works properly here. HELP!!!
hey guys, have you tried creating your own iPhone apps, your own iphone icons. It's free at http://iFace.us just wanted everyone to know. It's quite awesome. (nope, I'm not a spammer, just wanted to share...)
that sucks, I hate paying twice for the same thing. Once you buy it once it should be yours forever
Can I still redownload my Itunes Apps For free without getting charged Dont tell me i lost my games
I am interested in getting information on becoming a product tester at home or learning about other companies that offer free product testing from home.


text:
Are you interested in Video Production? Help us video tape the Schoolcraft Women's Volleyball game. No experience necessary. We will train. Just join us in the Gym in the Physical Education Building that day.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Meet at 2:00 p.m. if you are available to help set-up.
Meet for filming at 6:00 p.m.
Game starts at 7:00 p.m.
For more information, contact Jeanne at 734-462-4400 ext. 5559 or the Student Activities Office at 734-462-4422.
Anyone interested in joining is welcome to participate.


text:
Recently added item(s)
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Actively seeking new regional distributors, please contact JACO Athletics if interested.
FREE Shipping on Orders $100 and Up
Ground shipping, continental US only. See details
SKU# Jaco1137
Availability: In stock
* Required Fields
Hover on image above to magnify, and click images below to swap
Longer than traditional Vale Tudos, these shorts combine the proprietary fabric found in our best-selling Resurgence Fight Shorts with conventional Vale Tudo styling to put a technical spin on a classic style, with a longer cut.
Email to a Friend
Save 10% on your first order when you join the newsletter!
Jaco approved instructors, trainers, and athletes receive significant discounts on all Jaco gear.


text:
|59 posts found
Elite Member
Joined: 8/21/04
Logic be damned!
You know, I am starting to think more and more that the way FFXI and FFXIV do the whole "one character, switch to any combination of class/builds etc." is really the way to go.
I've got like... 3 level 85's and a level 89 in WoW I'm trying to level to 90 - but I keep finding myself seeing another player and being all like... "Man, I should level my Paladin..." or "Man, I should level my Priest..."
It's SO much work, and it is nothing but 100% redundant / nausia inducing tedium to level multiple toons through the same content over, and over, and over again.
Not to mention gearing them up, building reputation, and for the love of Jesus grinding through professions and secondaries...
I hate it.
And in the end, I want a character that heals like a Priest, Tanks like a Paladin, and DPS' like a Elemental Shaman.
#firstworldproblems I know
But I'm starting to really, really like the idea of "one character to rule them all" if anything just for the consistency.
I've probably been lurking for way, way too long.
Login or Register to never see this panel
Hard Core Member
Joined: 9/03/08
Playing: Everquest 2
I love the way Final Fantasy XIV does it. Its makes you just that more attached to your main character.
Elite Member
Joined: 8/13/09
"It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver". - Niccolo Machiavelli
one character, all classes? i think Final Fantasy 5 did that. I love that.
THis is brilliant. However, if i can switch to any class with one character, i assume they offer some sort of character customization in game? Im an altoholic so if i wont create more characters i expect to be able to change my appearance in game. Otherwise ill just keep gaming many characters with different looks :)
Advanced Member
Joined: 8/14/09
As a hopless altoholic, I approve...
Might also cut down on the lack of tanks/healers when everyone has the option to fill a role in a pinch.
Novice Member
Joined: 2/20/12
whatever gives more variety to a character is a plus in my book.. being stuck in a single role is one of the biggest turn offs for me in MMOs
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Originally posted by rojo6934
I came in a bit late to the game in version one after all the sweeping changes had been made, so I can't say too much about the original system.
But from when I started playing it, around patch 1.9 - 1.23 When you levelled up a class, you could take any ability you earned and use it on any other class. THere was a limit, you had a certain number of ability points you could use and each ability cost so many points. But by level 50, and with several classes of varying levels, you could make a really unique character.
There was a also passive traits, which I beieve you oculd use similarly. I think. (It's been awhile.)
Now, the Jobs were different. Jobs had specialized roles, and so you could only use abilities from specific classes to help sort of specialize you. As a Lancer (class), you cold use whatever ability you've earned on any class (more or less). As a Dragoon (Job), you oculd only use abilities from Lancer and Pugilist (Dragoon had several Dragoon only abilities), the benefit to thhis being it was specialized in doing lots of damage, far more than a lv 50 Lancer for example. Utility vs Role.
I really liked it.
I'd imagine that since this was one of the more succesful and well-liked aspects of the original FFXIV, they will be keeping it for ARR. I hope it doesn't change too much haha.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 4/17/11
Originally posted by rojo6934
I don't know about being able to make major changes to your look in game but Yoshi P. did say something about a barber shop for changing your hair styles.
Novice Member
Joined: 1/16/07
It's much better like that. I actually really don't understand why other MMOs don't do it like that. Especially ones that are heavily oriented toward raiding as it allows way more options on the fly.
Whatever else people might have as a concern about ARR it shouldn't be that.
Spotlight Poster
Joined: 8/24/06
FFXI was the first MMO that I only made 1 character (and actually played for more than an hour hehe, played it for like 4 years). I almost always have at least one for each class, and in sandboxes I'll have like 1 for each craft pretty much.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 10/06/06
FFXI was my first MMO, so it was a bit of a shock for me to go to WoW and found out I could only play one class per character. Didn't stop me from having five 80s in WotLK because naturally I'm going to want to try different things, but logistically it's much easier to do everything on one character.
I think I'd rather be known as that guy that can do 15 different things instead of having 15 different characters to be able to do the same thing.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 1/28/10
I cannot fiddle but I can make a great state of a small city.
This should be a standard feature in MMO's moving forward. I cannot fathom why no one else does it.
The ability to level alts is still there for people that enjoy that. For me, i hate alts with a passion. I liked that my name meant something in XI and the ability to level every class on one name only helped that.
My favorite part is that there are no Crafting Gathering "Professions" in this game.
They are all their own CLASSES with abilities and gear! ANd you can be ALL of them. I really likd that feature. :)
Novice Member
Joined: 2/25/13
I don't understand...is this game finally out yet?
Originally posted by BlueTiger33
No, it is in closed beta testing ATM.
But Phase 4 is open Beta, and should only be a month or two away, then release! It's not far off, I'm hearing a summer release form certain sources. :P
Novice Member
Joined: 9/04/09
Phase 2 starts on the 5th April which is mainly to test the pads, hopefully this only lasts for 2 weeks, then there is possibly a max of 2 weeks break for debugging taking us to the end of April. May will bring us phase 3 taking 1-3 weeks which is aimed at testing the importing of version 1 characters and the start of ps 3 testing, got a feeling this may take longer than 3 weeks, then we go into 2 week debugging before phase 4 starts which is open Beta, which should be starting around the front end of June hopefully. All goes to plan a July release is looking likely, August if problems arise.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 9/03/08
Playing: Everquest 2
Originally posted by redcloud16
I was wondering about this as I never got a chance to try it out in the original game. Diciples Of Hand are the crafters and you can be one of these classes leveling up and gettting gear?
Hard Core Member
Joined: 4/17/11
Originally posted by VastoHorde
Yup, you sure do.
Advanced Member
Joined: 8/04/08
I've read that you also have an overall rank (level). Do crafting classes count toward that? Or is that something entirely separate and no class/job has anything to do with it?
Advanced Member
Joined: 12/25/06
On WoW, my main used to be a priest but only ended up using it for dps since I liked shammy healing better. Waste of a priest unless you want shadow dps. So, I go for the fake classes like druid or pally etc now these days which can tank / dps / heal as the situation permits. So, yeah the idea sounds like a good one. I liked how DoMO did the multiclass thing as you could be pretty much anything you wanted on the one character.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Elite Member
Joined: 9/05/10
Logic, reason and fact do not supersede human nature. Ignorance reigns without justice.
There is a bit more depth to this than back in FFXI, while also having some parts that are simplified.
The simplified bit of it (so as to get it out fo the way) is that there is no longer a subjob. However, to replace this there is a system whereby you are able to pick say 1-5 abilities (not sure how it is in ARR but the higher level you were the more abilities you could pick and choose from other classes you leveled) from any starting class and add it to your hotbar. Though to place those abilities, you had to have leveled that class.
For instance, if you were a level 30 gladiator and wanted Protect and or Cure II, you had to be like a level 20 conjuror as well (just as an example, I don't remember the exact level). As a level 20 conjuror you could select any of the 1-20 abilities and place it on your hotbar as a gladiator (up to the maximum limit of however many skills you were allowed that were not your classes depending on your level).
You could also level each class individually (the way you got other classes to these levels), and essentially get each one to the max level on a single character (while picking your favorite abilities from other classes on your favorite class). There were exceptions to this, such as abilities that required the use of a specific weapon type that you didn't use.
In patch 1.18 they extended this into also added Jobs into the game. This was essentially like the advanced jobs from FFXI. Once you got to level 30, you could unlock these advanced jobs. It was used in a slightly different way, more along the lines of Ragnarok than FFXI. In that I a mean, each class could only advanced to a specific job (it has been said that each class may be able to advanced into multiple paths as more jobs are released after the launch of A Realm Reborn).
So basically if you wanted to be a Paladin, you had to be a level 30 Gladiator. There was usually a secondary condition as well. Since paladins could use White Magic, you also had to be a level 15 conjuror before the questline to unlock paladin was available to you.
Level 30 Gladiator + level 15 Conjuror = Quest to unlock the Paladin Job.
From there Paladin did not simply replace Gladiator. You simply got what was known as a Job Soul (Gem) that you could equip, and it will then turn you into that Job. So basically, you could be a level 50 Gladiator if you wanted, even if you unlocked the Paladin Job.
Jobs were intended to basically be the best for group content. Classes were the best for solo content.
This is mainly because as a Job you were no longer able to use any skill you wanted from other classes. You could no longer use your favorite monk skill as a Paladin as a Paladin was too focused on his/her own path. To make up for this, Paladins had very special abilities that were exclusive to them.
So basically if you equipped your Paladin Soul and thus turned into a paladin, you had access to new things while also being barred from being a jack of all trade.
Paladin Limitations:
Gladiator + Conjuror abilities and magic.
Paladin Specific abilities
Paladin specific stats (higher defense than a gladiator)
Paladin Exclusive Skills:
Level 30: Cover - Take damage in place of an ally.
Level 35: Divine Viel - Healing cast on you by other players adds a Heal Over Time effect to allies within range.
Level 40: Holy Succor - Spell that restores HP; when used on another player, you also get 50% of the amount healed.
Level 45: Spirits Within - Delivers a melee attack at close range; able to be combo'd with Phalanx; high threat generator
Level 50: Hallowed Ground - Renders you impervious to most attacks
Exclusive Paladin Artifact Armor gained through difficult tasks.
As you can see, the Job is very suited to being a tank whereas it will be missing some of the attacks or buffs you usually have as a Gladiator due to having access to other class's abilities.
Each job has it's own unique Artifact armor, in addition to the various armors within the game available through dungeons, boss fights, NPCS, the auction house, questing, levequests, Grand Company Seals and of course crafting. Pretty much only Artifact armor is exclusive to jobs. If your class is able to wear plate, it should be able to wear any type of plate. You are also able to wear specific crafting gear that may look like fancy cloth and the like. In the past you were able to pretty much wear any type of armor, even if you were the right level for it. It just wouldn't be very effective since you didn't specialize in it. I can't remember if that changed or not by 1.23, but I think it did start to restrict level and armor type with the new items that were introduced thenceforth.
When faced with strife or discontent, the true nature of a man is brought forth. It is then when we see the character of the individual. It is then we are able to tell if he is mature enough to grin and bare it, or subject his fellow man to his complaints and woes.


text:
if they will introduce more then 1024, that will be more attractive.
The problem with not going 2x with an iPad 2 Retina Display
Either iPad 2 will have a standard 1024x768 display or a doubled 2048x1538 Retina Display, or developers and users will be in for the type of frustration usually ascribed to Android. That's because, if Apple leaves iPad 2 at 1024x768, existing iPad apps will look just fine. If Apple pixel-doubles iPad 2 to a 2048×1536, existing apps will just use 4 new pixels for each 1 old pixel but remain the same physical size and still look just fine. Anything else and a bit of a mess ensues.
Let's say Apple goes for 1280x960 (so it hits the horizontal dimension of 720p). Apple then has 2 choices when it comes to existing iPad apps:
- Shrink them physically so they still occupy 1024x768 pixels on a higher density display.
- Stretch them so that they occupy the full 1280x960 but at the same 9.7-inch physical size as before.
The shrink approach will maintain pixel-perfect rendering. Everything will be sharp and crisp. But because the physical size will be smaller the touch targets in the UI will be smaller -- buttons, menu bars, everything -- and that will cause problems for users. Capacitive touch screens favor big, easy to hit targets. Shrunken apps don't work as well.
The stretch approach has the opposite problem. UI elements stay the same size so are as easy to hit as before but because the change in pixels isn't exactly double the art needs to be interpolated and so edges blur and you lose the crispness. For fast moving games or videos it won't matter. For anything with line work, grids, borders, etc. it will matter a great deal. Stretched apps don't look as good.
Neither option seems ideal and Apple seldom settles for less than ideal options. Historically they just wait until they can do it properly. So while I'd dearly love a Retina Display on iPad 2, my guess is if we don't get it Apple will stick with 1024x768... for now.
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
The problem with not going 2x with an iPad 2 Retina Display
interesting point guys.
so if they do go 2x, it's safe to say 1080p video playback?
I'd put money on no at this point. There's no way to keep the price point with the new screen + the RAM needed.
It is 2x in both directions which makes each old pixel 4 pixels. Otherwise the screen would be twice as tall but the same width, or vice versa.
Can someone who knows what they are talking about answer my question?
Mac OS X has may different display sizes and may different resolutions and every app works just fine on any Mac ( it may run slower but it runs just fine) from my understanding on the Macs we do not have this problem of
apps not working or looking funny, so what is the problem with doing the sanething on a iPad?
"Trust me when I say it's a PITA. The way iOS handles things is much, much, nicer."
Why should anyone trust what you have to say about it? Because you say "trust me"?
Because your opinion on this is remarkably far off the mark. Supplying DPI independent resources is an optional rudiment for when the resolution is so far off the expectations that the symbology no longer works. For instance if you've including text in a glyph. From an actual Android developer perspective it is one of the most incredibly easy, non-PITA aspects to the development, and it's good to have that option.
Apple is WAY behind the curve on this, and really this situation is an embarrassment. This is like warping back to the 80s and arguing over how tiny icons are on those new fangled 800x600 displays. It is an incredibly short-sighted, obsolete way of looking at it.
You are a fool, he says trust him because he is clearly a developer, and you are not. Any image you supply, from the initial icon of the app, to every image in the app needs to be supplies in at least 4 rez, this is a huge PIA, and Apple has manage to avoid this.
Saying that, there is no way Apple can go double on the iPad, unless they wanted to double the price at least.
Can't reply to cak directly, but I find their comment truly hilarious.
Aside from their ignorance (as I said, you can optionally provide DPI-specific resources. If you don't it will take the closest available and scale it), the funny part is that the iPhone now comes in three different DPIs, and two different form factors. Apple avoided nothing. Further, pixel doubling looks terrible. Of course we would hope that it would interpolate, as the iPhone 4 does, for instance, which demolishes many of the comments off the bat.
The ignorance is rife.
You are so incredibly obnoxious and ignorant it's ridiculous. Clearly you're not actually a developer, and if you are you aren't a very intelligent or rational one. Hey I got an idea, how about you head back home to Fandroid.com and stay off the Apple websites. Or maybe theres a reason you troll around on Apple sites leaving obnoxious comments. Perhaps a little jealousy? Maybe you shouldn't pay attention to Apple so much unless you actually use their products. It's amazing how much MORE fandroids pay attention to Apple stuff than even Apples own customers. Go figure.
Mac OS X (and Windows) just shrink the UI and show more screen area as pixel density and size increase. Since the WIMP GUI (mouse pointer) is single-pixel accurate, it doesn't matter how small a UI element gets, you can still click it pretty easily.
Fingers aren't single pixel accurate. You need big, bold touch targets so shrinking iOS UI isn't as workable a solution. Steve Jobs said "filing your fingers down" in reference to it for Android.
That's not entirely true... a 15" Mac has more pixels than a 13" Mac and (under standard configurations) is the same PPI. You just have more screen real-estate. I agree with all of your thinking but I think there is one more scenario that hasn't been considered: The current iPad has much larger icons and screen elements than the iPhone. They could ship a 1280×960 and shrink "old" iPad apps to run at 1024x768 in some kind of compatibility mode and it would be just as usable as any iPhone app. Put your iPhone and iPad side by side –– the iPhone icons are much smaller and it's still usable. Apple would probably then in iOS 5.0 have a new flag for applications that would indicate whether they work in 1024x768 or 1280×960. Developers would quickly update their apps to support 1280×960 so you wouldn't have this "compatibility mode" for long. I tell you why I like this approach: (1) It seems more likely from cost considerations (2) When they do eventually pixel-double the screen, you will get true Retina with a resolution over 300ppi and (3) Developers will support it no matter what so you won't really have a situation of incompatible apps for very long.
Mac OS X and Windows just make the screen larger, because an application doesn't have to take up the whole screen.
You have a 1200x800 image on a 1280x800 screen, it takes up most of the screen. You then upgrade to a 1920x1080 screen, and your image is still 1200x800, it's just less of the screen.
That doesn't work on the iPad, where the applications are designed for a set screen size and take up the full focus.
There's 2 parts to it. First, display resolutions don't vary as much. The Retina display is 100% higher, but current Mac displays vary by "only" 30%: http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2010/10/new-macs%E2%80%99-resolutions/
The second part is: well, it IS becoming a problem, for some of us. (See above blog post.) Text and on-screen controls keep getting smaller. Apple has toyed with some kind of resolution-independent display services over the years, but so far hasn't shipped anything that's user-ready yet, which is unfortunate.
It's totally different on the Mac:
• apps run inside windows, not full screen, the screen size can change and the window stays the same size
• the user has a tiny, sharp mouse pointer that enables them to hit buttons whether they are 20 mm square or 5 mm square, so real size is not as important as with touch
• developers test on various screen sizes and try to make their apps adaptable, iPad developers have not done this yet and would like to not have to.
But even with the way the Mac adapts, there are train wrecks, like every Adobe app. Apple does a pretty good job of making apps scalable, but many developers do not. The fact that developers don't have to do this on iPad means they spend their time on actual functionality and the apps are better overall.
Android is a train wreck also because of the various screen sizes. Apps are blurry, buttons overlap, some apps won't run on some phones, there are many problems.
What Apple did with doubling the resolution on iPhone was so brilliant, they will certainly do it again on iPad, and likely on the Mac later.
"Android is a train wreck also because of the various screen sizes. Apps are blurry, buttons overlap, some apps won't run on some phones, there are many problems."
I'm not entirely surprised that there is this sort of post on an iDevice blog, however everyone else should be aware that Hamranhansenhansen's observations are, shall we say, questionable.
"What Apple did with doubling the resolution on iPhone was so brilliant"
Now this just takes the cake. What Apple did with the introduction of the iPad, and then with the introduction of the "retina" display was the most lazy, easiest route they could possibly take. Hence why this absurdist discussion is taking place yet again over something so fundamentally rudimentary. It is an embarrassment.
And why am I not surprised to see THIS post on an iDevice blog. You obnoxious Android fanboys flock to Apple news more than Apple fans do. Absolutely pathetic. I never go on a single Android blog, nor do I have any reason to because I don't use their product and I don't particularly want to. Therefore I ignore them. But you fandroids don't seem to get that concept, and it's clearly because you're jealous of Apples products and popularity and feel like you need to sit on your high horse and talk about how crappy they are blah blah
And second of all, they took the lazy route? Ok, that makes no sense. So they took the effort to handle screen resolution the right way in a SMART, efficient, and very developer/user friendly approach, and that makes them lazy.
Wow. You might be one of the most brainwashed, sad mindless apple-hating Google robot I've ever seen. Congratulations. Now go back to your Android blogs and stop trolling around Apple sites, you're looking desperate.
Robert, im not a pro or anything, but I believe its different, because of the UI in OSX, its point and click based, unlike multitouch, which needs specific targets built into the apps themselves... I don't think scaling is the issue, more or how the apps UI target zones would be affected
Another thought. Maybe shrinking down larger images will look good on smaller screens.
There are supposedly 2048-pixel images for the iBooks app in the iOS 4.3b1 release. That could indicate that iPad 2 might get a 2048x1536 display. On the other hand, they could be there because ultra-high resolution images look OK when shrunk down to, say, 1280x960. I'm kind of doubtful about that, because switching to a resolution on a Mac really looks bad.
Scaling to odd multiples always means antialiasing.
It makes no difference which generation they double. If anything, later is better because there will be more users and developers will have made more money from their 1024x768 app and the investment to upgrade its art will be easy to make.
Of course, the problem with not going to a "retina" screen means I don't want.
Still, the marketing driven Apple i know best would wait til ipad 3 with this as an ipad 2 with just cameras would sell well. But other than apps, a non retina ipad wouldn't stand out much from android offerings. A retina screen would allow Apple to continue to dominate this new market.
So what choice will Apple make? There's a case for going retina now and the A5 specs may allow it. We know the ipad will get more RAM anyways.
And this: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/18/apples-invested-in-a-very-strategic-3...
This could simply be high density screens for its phones. But perhaps they're for the ipad?
Tim Cook said that they've made payments for the development of this strategic component in calendar Q4 2010 and will make another payment in Q1 2011. Something along the lines of tooling. (And we have the complimentary rumors of Apple investments with Toshiba and Sharp for LCDs).
Seeing as they just made the payout recently, the fruits of this investment won't come out for another year. If they are saying investments in tooling, it will at least be another year.
You already have an iPad with 2 year lifespan that is only 1 year old, so iPad 2 is not for you, same as iPhone 3GS was not for iPhone 3G customers.
And if you don't have an iPad then you're not in the game and there is going to be no pleasing you.
I almost think Apple should and probably will for this iteration skip the retina display. First of all there's still nothing that competes with the iPad so there's no need to improve the display that much. As Gruber said probably brightness, color reproduction and power consumption are going to be more important in this round. What Apple should probably do though is make the iPad smaller. Not 7 inches smaller. But like 8.7 or 9 inches with the same resolution screen. This would offer a higher pixel density and allow for more portability.
Changing size changes the size of the buttons on every app and will make them all obsolete. The current 9.7 inch screen is the smallest PC-class screen and fits into every bag I've ever tried it in, and in fact usually there is a pocket it seems to be made for. There are zero PC's with 7 inch screens. Even the original 1984 Mac had a 9 inch screen.
Read Victor's post again. He's not talking about changing the number of pixels, but rather the pixel density.
Upping the pixel density of the iPad to match the iPhone 3GS would give it a 7.85-inch screen, and the target area of the buttons would be exactly the same as it is on any iPhone or iPod Touch.
Personally I'd go for something in between, like Victor suggests, 8.5 or 9 inches; that should still give them the ability to use the term "retina" when they quadruple the number of pixels for iPad 3.
It's a 4:3 display not 16:10 or 9. Apple differentiates itself from the raft of android screens and will likely not change aspect ratio or support wide native resolutions full screen. It is meant to mimic a page not a video screen. That's not to say that resolution may ultimately increase so native widescreen video fits with black bars. For those who say video currently fits, they are right, but note I say "native".
Assuming developers use scalable vector graphics for most things (buttons, borders, windows, etc) the apps should scale to size just fine. Some thing will still be a bit blurred, anything that requires bitmap graphics.
Vectors take a ton more CPU and battery, don't look as good, and you still didn't solve the size problem where the developer thinks you have a 2 cm square button but it is only 1 cm square on your device.
Scaling the display on iPad is not like scaling a display on a PC. On the iPad, you are essentially also scaling the keyboard and mouse.
Vectors can look just as good - it's all down to the rendering. You can take the scaling hit once and generate a bunch of bitmaps (that will typically be much bigger than the vectors, but would have been needed anyway if you were using bitmaps in the first place). The whole point of resolution independence is that you can forget about pixels - when you specify a 2cm square, you get a 2cm square, regardless of the resolution.
Bear in mind that you see scaled vector elements all the time on both iPad and iPhone already - any web view can include elements drawn by CSS using resolution-independent units such as ems and mm. All look perfectly alright to me, so I have no problem with it being extended to the rest of the UI.
Blurring isn't the only problem. I remember from past WWDC sessions on resolution independence in Mac OS X that pixel cracks from non-integral scaling were a significant problem. Applications that assume the drawing they do will line up perfectly with pixel edges can suffer from gaps in drawing.
" If Apple pixel-doubles iPad 2 to a 2048×1536, existing apps will just use 4 new pixels for each 1 old pixel but remain the same physical side and still look just fine."
Although this is theoretically true, it isn't the case in the real world: pixel doubled apps on the iPhone 4 don't look as sharp as they do on a non-retina display. AFAIK the issue is with the spacing between the pixels: it's not absolutely zero, so some distortion is introduced.
While the article makes sense, I still believe we're going to see a Retina display with the iPad 2.
Apple has so much cash on hand that they easily can secure a huge forward buy on a higher resolution display... think about it for a moment:
If Apple wanted to add Retina to iPad 3, there's no reason they shouldn't do it now! In fact, it likely is cheaper for them to pay X bn $ now to secure, let's say, 3 years of supply. This way, like they did with flash memory, they have a stranglehold on supply.
Further to that, detractors will say that prices for such tech will decrease substantially in a year or two - which is true. But Apple will have negotiated that depreciation into their calculations and offer.
Any big LCD fab would love to get on board with something like this: you get the security of working with Apple (who is on the roll of their life this decade, and shows no sign of stopping), a nice cash infusion, and a contract for guaranteed work for a long time.
why not do it now? because doing so would mean installing a ton of memory on ipad2 to support 4 times as many pixels as before (2x in either direction). that raises the price. and they sure arent going to pay for it out of cash reserves.
thus, you wait until processors and ram are better suited. next year.
Apple has already made a large forward buy on RAM as well. No reason to think that they weren't already thinking this far ahead on their internal road maps.
This isn't a cell phone - there's certainly enough space inside the device to add 2x 1GB memory modules for RAM, which would certainly be reasonable cost-wise.
@Victor: The problem with shrinking the screen but keeping the same resolution at a higher pixel density is already described above: it makes all the on-screen controls smaller. This is not so much a problem with mouse-driven computers, but is very much a problem on a touchscreen when you're trying to hit smaller targets with the same-size finger! :)
I saw that post but I really don't think there's that much of a problem. Most UI elements are sufficiently large to be compatible at a 10% screen size reduction. But I imagine that is reason enough for Apple not to consider a smaller screen size. I would be fine with thinner, lighter and a smaller screen bezel though. Although who am I kidding I probably won't be able to afford an iPad until 2012 anyway and then the world's going to end. Fudge.
Agree with Travis - Apple would want to buy up the entire stock of iPad sized 2x resolution screens once they are ready for production. The screen cost originally was high - the tear downs had it at $100 (display +touchscreen).
Apple could output video above screen resolution (Eg 720p) for Airplay.
From the sounds f how the display manufacturers have got deals with Apple are are building to set up manufacturing, any production would be for iPad 3.
1 question - was the iPhone 3GS screen the same type but bigger as the iPad?
Is it a case of making bigger iPhone 4 type screens?
Going to be a pain regarding bad pixels!
What if they made a high end 2x display, but it was only for 64/128GB models? They have better margin, so could absorb the extra cost.
40% BOM - surely they'd realise they have to pay upfront to buy a large order, then reap lower costs/exclusivity down the line?
IPad2 =iPhone 3GS. Will it take 12 months to bring prices 2x resolution screen prices down?
The RAM for the A5 and the A5 itself will be a cost. Always somethin on the horizon - if it's not going to be hardware focused iPad, likely a good software update instead!
I disagree with John. (Gasp!) I bet a beer on it, too.
And I proposed a third path: Go with an in-between resolution. Encourage developers to get resolution-independent where possible and, where not possible (e.g., icons), go to 2x in anticipation of the "ultimate" iPad resolution. Because scaling down (decimating data) isn't nearly as bad as scaling up (inventing data).
You need to read this article again, you missed the point.
iOS device generations are only a year, yet a non-doubled display generates a couple of years of adaptation for the app platform. Better to just wait an extra year and double everything rather than do in-between step.
iPhone apps did this right. Why do it some other way on iPad? So the spec sheet can have a higher number on it? Why? People don't buy iPads for the specs.
Once the display changes, developers have to support both sizes. If the 2 sizes are compatible (one is double the other) it not only makes this support easier, it makes it optional. The old size continues to look the same as before in new hardware while the developer prepares their high-res art.
There are hundreds of thousands of native app developers. Doubling saves hundreds of man-years of work. There are millions of users. Doubling saves thousands of man-years of frustration.
I don't agree with the "blurry" theory.
Of course i know what scaling is, but the fact is there's more than one way to scale things up, just look at the various options in emulators. I mean : the illustration shows the worst possible antialiasing case. Anyway.
Just look at the iPad usages :
Videos : always resized
Internet : resized most of the time
3D games : textures => always resized
Mail, books, and bitmap apps : don't care if Apple provide a new UI.
Maps : vectors
What I mean is : i'm not sure users wouldn't have a global benefit of a better resolution.
Because the current iPad resolution isn't very good and it's not so nice for some applications the iPad is designed for like... reading texts (books or Internet), watching videos and playing 3D games (videos, 3D games...).
Anybody can see how iOS scales things right now. Open you browser, pinch.
Of course it's not perfect but it would be for a small period of time, until developers update their apps. And that could be very fast.
What could decide Apple to use better resolution that is not "retina display" : realism.
If they don't see any way to make a retina display iPad before 2 or 3 years, and if a better resolution leads to a better user experience, they won't wait.
But that would almost certainly be 1536 x 1024.
Of course, a retina display would be perfect but it might be expensive, ask too much power to animate... or even ask too much disk space to store the bitmap graphics.
Take an iPad screen capture and open it in Photoshop or Pixelmator (great app, only $29 at Mac App Store) and play with the scaling. Notice when you view at 50% or 25% zoom it looks nice and crisp but at every other multiple it does not.
Now, add pixels to the screen cap but don't change its size in centimeters on screen. The only sensible solution would be to add 4x the pixels and view at 25% zoom. Everything else is a disaster.
iPhone 4 retina display - about $30 per unit. So 4x (oversimplistically) would give $120 - thats only $20 over the original iPad's screen cost.
Does Apple not release the tech till Summer 2012? Wouldn't a rival tablet maker want to snaffle up these, and claim the high-ground with the better screen?
If Apple kept 4:3(SXGA- to QXGA) - does it have to go straight to QXGA's 2048x1536? Not like it'd be worth the effort just to go to SXGA+. UXGA of 1600x1200? bit in the middle. What if they got rid of some of the Bezel? They could then use a slightly larger screen.
2007: High Resolution 17" MBP introduced 1920x1200 (133ppi) - higher ppi than the 20 or 23" ACD (23" was 1920x1200 too).
2011: 17" MBP still 1920x1200, but the 27" ACD now up to 2560x1440 (the former 30" ACD's resolution).
Greatest need for high ppi is for devices closer to your eye. Highest for phone, high for iPad, good for laptop, screens can have similar, but be a larger size - it's like wanting the same pixel density per degree arc perhaps.
A doubled resolution puts it as a darn fine e-reader. Not if, but when I think we all agree anyhow.
We haven't seen anything like a 9.7" 2048x1536 screen - but then we wouldn't - because
a) Apple would be buying them all, and keeping them off the market/secret
b) Not like Wintek/LG are about to start parading their capability to make one. I'd imagine they'd be under NDA - don't you?
More likely to get the higher resolution screen confirmed by leak, than by any press release from the manufacturers lauding their newly obtained capability to get to 9.7" 2048x153.
The aspect ratio of the screen becomes more and more important for any-orientation devices as they get bigger and bigger. Our eyes and brains will find using displays with wide aspect ratios in a vertical orientation not just right. I'd bet a lot that this is the reason Apple went with 4:3 rather than 3:2 for the iPad.
All these upcoming 10" tablets at 16:10 or 16:9 won't be that great in vertical orientation. They are always demoed in horizontal orientations because they just won't feel as good in vertical orientation.
So, yeah. Apple would have loved to use 3:2 for the iPad for all of the benefits with using iPhone apps, but they did the right thing for the user experience by going with a 4:3 screen.
Basically, you're saying F' the users! Great attitude.
And then after developers do all that work, the next year's iPad would be double the original and all the 1.5 apps would break. How is that better than just waiting an extra year at 1024x768 and then doing one totally pain free doubling?
About the word "blurry." Blurry is better than "jagged." That's why anti-aliasing was created: it removes the jagged artifacts you see on diagonal lines (the "jaggies"), and it's been done for at least a decade by all good GPUs. Anti-aliasing uses pixels around the jagged edge of a line to soften the jagginess. The edges of the image are softened to hide the jagginess, and that might look blurry under certain circumstances.
For an example of extreme jagginess, look at the original 1982 "TRON." All the diagonal lines look like they are made out of tiny rectangles. Because they are! Anti-aliasing was too costly and time-consuming to do back in 1982, so they didn't do it. And it shows.
@ akatsuki - "I'd just make it 1.5 and tell developers that they can either make their apps resolution independent or have their apps look like crap."
That would be the Android attitude. Google only cares about how good AdMob ads look on their devices. In fact, the worse Android apps look, the better for Google.
People won't pay for ugly-looking apps. And free apps need to be ad-supported. And delivering AdMob ads is Android's prime directive.
So, the point being made here is about legacy apps. I'd say: There's no such thing as legacy-apps on the iPad. Any app with a minimum of audience will be updated within weeks of the iPad2 launch to have pixel-perfect UI, no matter what the resolution is. My money is on a higher-resolution display with the same aspect ratio as iPad1 - and I'll put on a biiig smile if that higher-resolution really is 2x :-)
No, you're wrong in a number of ways:
• once the screen size changes, all apps are legacy, and they all have to work
• if you think the 50,000 in App Store are not a lot, don't forget the many thousands of private apps that people and organizations make for themselves
• it takes longer than a few weeks to upgrade most apps, especially games
• there is just no point in the kind of needless disruption you are describing.
yeah, no. The launch of the iPad proved my point - apps were quickly ported to the new screen-size (and new ratio, which is much worse from a graphics standpoint!) OK, weeks is an optimistic bet, so let's say months, depending on the lead-time Apple gives us on the new size.
Will it be a pain in b*** for app-developers (like myself)? Yup
Would it stop Apple from making the screen on iPad2 better, blowing away Android rivals? Nope
All that said, I'm still rooting for 2x on the display-size - it would be awesome. I just don't think Apple will allow it, if they find they can't find the perfect match between hardware-performance and price-point. I sure hope they can.
I had an iPad for six weeks and really liked it, except that I really wished it had a higher resolution screen so that text would be crisp when reading (I overwhelming used it for reading--either websites or books and less for other media consumption).
A higher resoltuion screen is, for me, the critical feature to make me reconsider an iPad. No matter what else they add to the iPad2, if the screen resolution is unchanged I'll keep waiting. I'm not saying I'm typical or that Apple has to do it to keep them competitive. Sadly, though, I suspect that Gruber is on the mark and that I'll be passing on this one.
I totally agree! I'm perfectly happy with my iPad. I don't care about camera or sd card slot. Battery is absolutely amazing and another hour or two wouldn't make a difference. Faster cpu & more ram would be nice. The only drawback is resolution and washed out colours (comparing to iphone4) as I'm using it for reading a lot. High res and maybe even 11"inch (with minimum bezel) would be my preference and I'll be happy to pay extra for that. Maybe Apple will offer 2 versions. Who knows.
What about doing both?
Introduce iPad 2, Display "glued" to screen like in iPhone 4, which does wonders to image quality, plus cameras, but still old resolution.
Additionally introduce iPad Pro, starting at 999$, 2x Retina, faster processor. Such a thing would sell like crazy, while keeping very healthy margins.
I bet 1920x1280,straight double of iPhone 4 and great for all iPhone app.
Apple could just threaten that all iPad 1 app be updated for the new resolution in 3 months with some percent of premium return or be pulled off the store. The developers suffer once but will appreciate the saving of art work in future versions, even more so for universal apps.
The best part of this, from now on we get perfectly mapped resolution for iPhone/iPod touch and iPad.
Great for scaling up iPhone apps doesn't help a bit to get good iPad apps, and Apple advices very clearly against it.
iPad apps are usually designed differently for a number of good reasons, not to mention that the 4:3 screen ratio of the iPad is different from the 3:2 of the iPhone don't match anyway...
This is completely bogus. Sure, your "size accurate hi-res = blurred" picture is what you'll see, but only if you look at the display using a magnifying glass! It doesn't apply once the display has sufficient resolution. In normal use with normal applications I assure you that you won't notice any detrimental blurriness due to antialiasing.
Wow. People, listen up!
This is not the Apple of old, where devs were kept out of the loop, decisions were reversed, functionality dropped or disabled, all to maintain differentially similar models.
The new Apple has cut out the bloat, talks more(could do better) to devs, refined and standardised the product line and generally made the consumer's decision making, easier.
The result? Consumers are happy, devs are much happier - especially with better and well maintained tools and Apple sells more stuff, making shed loads of money and the world watches in awe.
Those who think Apple should change direction to satisfy a small percentage of people's needs, introducing fragmentation, dev frustration and extra work(I would have to do some serious heavy lifting to maintain just 3 apps) and consumer confusion should get real - it ain't going to happen. 2x res increase will happen and I already know in advance what I will have to do - that's the beauty of a well thought out product and spec., the future direction is predictable.
Anything else which demands engineering, tooling, packaging, dev work etc. changes, will eat into Apple's margins, piss-off devs and devalue the brand. Which is not what Apple 2011 is about.
Well, it seems you were right. Apple actually did wait in 2011 and stuck with 1024x768 when releasing the iPad 2, probably because a 2x resolution display was too expensive back then and a just slightly better resolution would have brought the problems you mention.
And finally today in March 7th 2012 they've unveiled the 2x display (2048x1536) we all hoped ;-)
I love making my friends watch this video its so funny to see there faces.


text:
BAKER — Tuesday night's season-opening girls basketball game between North Okaloosa rivals Laurel Hill and Baker was typical of early-season games. At times, the play was sloppy and both teams are still finding their basketball legs that will come as they get in better shape a few weeks into the season.
There also were moments that gave hope to both the Hoboes and Gators.
However, when the final horn sounded, Baker's Cassidy Anderson had scored a game-high 17 points, leading the Gators to a 46-30 win.
Baker got off to a fast start in the first quarter, taking a 12-3 lead at the end of the period behind Anderson's eight points.
A 3-point basket by Laurel Hill's Bree Owens 20 seconds into the second quarter cut the Gator lead to 12-6 — and that's as close as the Hoboes (0-1) got the rest of the game.
Every time Laurel Hill went on a run to get the score to cut the Baker lead to less than 10 points, the Gators answered with their own run to keep the visitors at arm's length.
"Once we cut the lead to eight, we couldn't dig any deeper," Hobo coach Scott Varnum said. "We had some missed opportunities down the court, but we were proud of our defensive effort tonight. We played some good defense.
"They are a really good team. They've got some great shooters and are senior loaded. You can tell they are experienced. We have some young players that got some more experience tonight. It's a long journey this season."
The Gators were up 23-12 at the third quarter's start, but Ruby Williams' quick 3-pointer cut the Baker lead to eight at 23-15. The Gators responded with three straight baskets by Anderson, Victoria Voorhees and Bethany Chestnut as Baker increased the lead back to double digits.
Laurel Hill got back to within eight points of the Gators early in the fourth quarter on a Grace Reese basket, but Anderson and Kathryn Quigg scores for Baker pushed the lead back to 12 and Baker maintained the double-figure lead the rest of the game.
Anderson was joined in double figures in scoring for the Gators by Chestnut, who had 10 points. Quigg had seven points; Voorhees and Lilly Phillips each had six points for Baker, which played without three players, Haley Wagner, Kaitlin Rickmon and Falin Lawson, members of the school's volleyball team who played in the state tournament Thursday.
Ty DeAndrade led Laurel Hill in scoring with 10 points. Reese added eight points and Owens six points.
Gator coach Brian Wagner was happiest to get the win, but he also saw some things the Gators, the defending District 2-1A champions, can build on.
"We had moments even without Haley being here (at point guard)," he said. "Sarah Hudson has come on. Victoria Voorhees stepped up her game tonight as well and Bethany Chestnut.
And, of course, you have your mainstays with Kathryn (Quigg) and Cassidy Anderson. I see improvement, but I also see a lot of areas to work."