Apple Patenting New Bicycle Computer Concept

13»

Comments

  • balthazar
    balthazar Posts: 1,565
    edited August 2010
    @Foucault: Apple registers a lot of patents. Patent-watching is a cheap way for tech sites to get page views, but I don't think it gives much insight into the direction of future Apple hardware. For one thing, the scattergun of patents is a useful smokescreen for Apple.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Foucault wrote:
    I don't really understand why the Windows vs Mac arguments still persist, especially as Windows 7 is pretty good. OK, so it has borrowed quite a lot from OSX in terms of style, but is that necessarily a bad thing? And for those Mac users who think they are immune from security issues, malware and trojans aimed at Macs really does exist in the wild (OK not in even at remotely the same level as Windows, but real all the same).

    Anyway, back to the original point about Apple's patent application, while I think there's potential there, I'm not convinced. For one I can't see the battery life being too good when GPS is switched on (it pretty much kills battery life on my iPhone). Also I don't think the iPhone/iPod is the most robust thing to strap to a bicycle and they aren't exactly watterproof, while any wattery ingress will void your warraty. The other problem I can see is that you wouldn't be able to operate it when wearing gloves-real buttons rather than touchscreen ones work better. On the plus side the interface has to be better than my Garmin 705.

    Finally just in case anyone thinks I'm anti-Apple, I should point out that I don't use Windows at home anymore and am typing this on one of my Macs :D

    I think the point is that they will start off with the iphone as a basis, add an app for routing, cut out battery usage things that don't apply (or improve the battery) and make it more rugged. Or, just a toughed up iphone with a larger battery.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Does OSX run many games?

    Does OSX run many technical scientific programs?

    Nope. So I'm out - Linux and Windows are capable though.

    As I said in one of my first posts on this thread, Macs maybe good if you are a graphic designer. However for anything seriously technical they are way behind windows and linux.

    I'm not an Apple-basher, I have two iphones, an Ipod classic and an ipod shuffle, OSX just won't do anywhere near as much as Linux and Windows.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Foucault wrote:
    I don't really understand why the Windows vs Mac arguments still persist, especially as Windows 7 is pretty good. OK, so it has borrowed quite a lot from OSX in terms of style, but is that necessarily a bad thing? And for those Mac users who think they are immune from security issues, malware and trojans aimed at Macs really does exist in the wild (OK not in even at remotely the same level as Windows, but real all the same).

    Anyway, back to the original point about Apple's patent application, while I think there's potential there, I'm not convinced. For one I can't see the battery life being too good when GPS is switched on (it pretty much kills battery life on my iPhone). Also I don't think the iPhone/iPod is the most robust thing to strap to a bicycle and they aren't exactly watterproof, while any wattery ingress will void your warraty. The other problem I can see is that you wouldn't be able to operate it when wearing gloves-real buttons rather than touchscreen ones work better. On the plus side the interface has to be better than my Garmin 705.

    Finally just in case anyone thinks I'm anti-Apple, I should point out that I don't use Windows at home anymore and am typing this on one of my Macs :D

    Because Mac users have to justify why they spent a huge amount of money on a computer which to all intents and purposes dose the same as a PC, but looks prettier.

    (OK that was a slightly troll like comment).

    The fact is Macs are good computers and the majority of the general public would be more than happy with a Mac, in fact better off with a Mac. Because if you don't know much about computers they do seem to run better for longer (I'm not saying Mac users are all computer illiterate BTW).

    Macs have the massive advantage that the hardware and software is speced and written by the same company - Apple, who may not be perfect but are pretty good.

    PCs have the problem that Microsoft is writing a operating system that has to work on a near infinite combination or motherboards/CPUs/RAM/graphics cards and all manor of other peripherals chucked in by the vendor or end user with all manor of either 'up to date' or 'out of date' drivers trying to hold the whole thing together.

    PCs are great as they are so flexible and pretty cheap. I've hobbled together my 3Ghz Intel Dual Core, 8Gb RAM, main HDDs in RAID0 and a separate WD Raptor just for Photoshop to use as a scratch disk for about £700, it flys through what I built it for (photography work in Photoshop) quicker than a Apple costing 3x as much. But I paid the price of having to build it myself and set it all up myself. Although this dose give me the advantage of choosing each individual component and if say the PCU blows up I pop down to PC world and buy another one if I desperate. Mac users can't so easily do this, I have a friend who was without his Mac for three weeks whilst Apple replaced a faulty PSU.

    I would agree that Average Joe who is only going to be using Facebook, Twitter, email and maybe write the odd letter is far better of with a Mac, if they can afford it.

    But PCs are far more flexible and if you know what your doing can easily be made to run as reliably as a Mac.
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    For £275, I managed to build up a quad core PC (X3350), 9800GTX, 2x2gb Corsair Dominator ram, Asus Rampage Formula motherboard and a Corsair TX450W. The equivalent spec today in a mac would cost nearly 1000+

    It's not hard to maintain a Windows system, sure you can argue, oh mac is better because you don't have to, but that's a silly argument. CCleaner, JKdefrag, Spybot S&D and Avast AV.

    If you're careful you can get away without anti virus, I did for a year before I could be bothered to put one back on. Now I don't how mac deals with temp files and all that, but that's what CCleaner does, cleans all the stuff accumulated by web browsers and temp files. Spybot, I never seem to find any spyware, but better to be safe than sorry.

    All in all it takes me about 1min to maintain my PC. Windows 7 is just rock solid.


    Why would you need 8gb ram, is that not overkill? I've never seen Photoshop use anywhere near that :shock:
  • Bunneh
    Bunneh Posts: 1,329
    Windows 7, is as far as I'm concerned pretty damn perfect. I found the cable to my ancient mobile phone, plugged it in to the USb, windows thought, then went out and downloaded the drivers and the software with no problems! XP wouldn't have done that, it would have sat there crying that I'd put something in it didn't recognise and how it was gonna tell on me to Bill.

    Why are Macs so safe? What's the difference? Are there no flaws in the software? Just interested, not trolling :)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Eurobunneh - My Youtube channel.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    Bunneh wrote:
    Why are Macs so safe? What's the difference? Are there no flaws in the software? Just interested, not trolling :)
    Is it because people haven't bothered to write viruses for them, or there aren't security loopholes in the browser, or people haven't exploited them yet, or something like that.
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    Bunneh wrote:
    Windows 7, is as far as I'm concerned pretty damn perfect. I found the cable to my ancient mobile phone, plugged it in to the USb, windows thought, then went out and downloaded the drivers and the software with no problems! XP wouldn't have done that, it would have sat there crying that I'd put something in it didn't recognise and how it was gonna tell on me to Bill.

    Why are Macs so safe? What's the difference? Are there no flaws in the software? Just interested, not trolling :)

    Microsoft by far has the largest market share, so attackers are going to develop malicious code for Windows, I reckon if Apple got the biggest market share overnight, you'd start seeing viruses cropping up more and more often on Macs.

    XP was a sack of ****, that was an awful OS, many times I tried to get the hang of Linux but pulled my hair out. People reckon XP was miles ahead of Vista, but in reality, they have no idea. Allthough Microsoft did intend Vista as a stop gap between Windows XP and Windows 7.
  • Bunneh
    Bunneh Posts: 1,329
    Kinda thought it was due to the market share. Not as many Macs so not as many people to screw over with little trojans. Target the mass market. There are flaws in any software, just takes someone with the patience to find them I suppose.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Eurobunneh - My Youtube channel.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    freehub wrote:
    Why would you need 8gb ram, is that not overkill? I've never seen Photoshop use anywhere near that :shock:

    A very good point.

    Normaly Photoshop will only use 4Gb as it's a 32bit application.

    But as I'm running the 64bit version of XP Windows will use the extra 4Gb as a scratch disk before having to use a HDD scratch disk.

    And yes it proably is overkill a little, but I can have as many programs and large files open as I like and the thing hardly ever slows down.
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    RichardSwt wrote:
    freehub wrote:
    Why would you need 8gb ram, is that not overkill? I've never seen Photoshop use anywhere near that :shock:

    A very good point.

    Normaly Photoshop will only use 4Gb as it's a 32bit application.

    But as I'm running the 64bit version of XP Windows will use the extra 4Gb as a scratch disk before having to use a HDD scratch disk.

    And yes it proably is overkill a little, but I can have as many programs and large files open as I like and the thing hardly ever slows down.

    4gb as scratch disk? pagefile?
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    freehub wrote:
    Why would you need 8gb ram, is that not overkill? I've never seen Photoshop use anywhere near that :shock:

    I'm putting 18GB of Triple Channel DDR3 in my computer and I'll be only surfing the internet.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    redddraggon wrote:
    freehub wrote:
    Why would you need 8gb ram, is that not overkill? I've never seen Photoshop use anywhere near that :shock:

    I'm putting 18GB of Triple Channel DDR3 in my computer and I'll be only surfing the internet.

    That means you fancy men.
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,349
    redddraggon wrote:
    Does OSX run many games?

    Does OSX run many technical scientific programs?

    Nope. So I'm out - Linux and Windows are capable though.

    As I said in one of my first posts on this thread, Macs maybe good if you are a graphic designer. However for anything seriously technical they are way behind windows and linux.

    I'm not an Apple-basher, I have two iphones, an Ipod classic and an ipod shuffle, OSX just won't do anywhere near as much as Linux and Windows.

    you are wrong, macs are perfect for "seriously technical" work

    i'm no fanboy, i find some of apple's practices loathsome

    but they do make some of the best personal computers around, yes some windows fanboy can always crow about how he (let's face it, it'll be a he) can make something faster

    but that's not making computers, that's a plug and play hobby requiring less skill than bike maintenance

    making personal computers means doing it in millions, delivering them globally, with an effective support network over their lifecycle, and the end result doing the job as advertised, apple and a few others can manage this, most can't

    my first tibook is over 10 years old, it's been dropped umpteen times, still works fine, as does my old pbg4, apple build quality is far higher than most, that's why it costs more

    os x runs mathematica perfectly well, and cad software, plus all the unix/x11/open source stuff i care to add

    it's "technical scientific" enough for me to design microwave striplines, run my microwave spectrum analyser, simulate networks, design bits for my bike, and of course i use adobe creative suite too, and xcode

    windows having more applications is not a good thing, most are dross, i don't need 1,000,000,000 sh1te apps, i need a handful of one good ones

    the downside with specialist mac apps is the smaller user base can mean higher price, but as most of the cutting edge stuff is open source that matters less, it runs on a mac, or windows, or linux box equally well

    computers are tools, i use mac/unix/linux, windows only if i'm forced and usually under vmware

    i've been in the industry over 30 years, i simply find mac os x a much sharper tool than windows, it works out of the box and carries on doing it while i get on with making money

    because microsoft never had the guts to draw a line and ditch backward compatibility, windows has become a stinking bloated carcass, it suffers from an insidious creeping bit rot, my time is too expensive to waste maintaining something that should not need it

    there's only one computer game worth playing, collossal adventure, it runs on os x and pretty much every other os there ever was, is, or ever will be
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • Ollieda
    Ollieda Posts: 1,010
    RichardSwt wrote:
    Normaly Photoshop will only use 4Gb as it's a 32bit application.

    Odd, seening as my laptop has only 2 gig of ram and I run photoshop fine, at the same time as dreamweaver as well.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Ollieda wrote:
    RichardSwt wrote:
    Normaly Photoshop will only use 4Gb as it's a 32bit application.

    Odd, seening as my laptop has only 2 gig of ram and I run photoshop fine, at the same time as dreamweaver as well.

    Sorry maybe I worded that wrong. What I mean is *up to* 4Gb, as a 32bit OS or program can only see 4Gb so it ignores anything over that.

    I have a little Samsung Netbook with 2Gb of RAM and even that will run Photoshop CS2 (quite slow, but usable).
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Does OSX run Panalytical Highscore plus?

    Nope. It might be able to run technical programs well, but only if they exist for OSX.

    I don't maintain my computer, it maintains it self.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • Will Snow
    Will Snow Posts: 1,154
    so is there actually any information on this apple bike computer yet or is it just a patent still??
    i ride a hardtail
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    Try editing a 3gb image file in Photoshop with 2GB of RAM. Yes, you can do it, but it works a hell of a lot faster when you have 8GB or RAM (or more). If not, the computer just works off HDD space - but it's a lot slower.


    For editing your holiday pics at home, 2GB or RAM will probably do the trick.


    More RAM means more apps open and they all run faster. In any system. (Simple explanation).

    And as for any specific piece of software not running on one system or the other - that's down to programmers. Not the computer/OSX makers.
  • bazbadger
    bazbadger Posts: 553
    Glad to know that Graphic Designers are not 'serious computer users'.

    I'll just get back to designing my christmas cards on my Steve Mobs 'computer' then :roll:
    Mens agitat molem
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    redddraggon wrote:
    Does OSX run Panalytical Highscore plus?

    Nope. It might be able to run technical programs well, but only if they exist for OSX.

    I don't maintain my computer, it maintains it self.

    I thought I installed CCleaner on your system? You could also do with Avast and JKDefrag. Your computer was an absolute sh1t tip when I came round, it did not maintain itself.
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    freehub wrote:
    redddraggon wrote:
    Does OSX run Panalytical Highscore plus?

    Nope. It might be able to run technical programs well, but only if they exist for OSX.

    I don't maintain my computer, it maintains it self.

    I thought I installed CCleaner on your system? You could also do with Avast and JKDefrag. Your computer was an absolute sh1t tip when I came round, it did not maintain itself.

    My computer was fine thanks,
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    redddraggon wrote:
    freehub wrote:
    redddraggon wrote:
    Does OSX run Panalytical Highscore plus?

    Nope. It might be able to run technical programs well, but only if they exist for OSX.

    I don't maintain my computer, it maintains it self.

    I thought I installed CCleaner on your system? You could also do with Avast and JKDefrag. Your computer was an absolute sh1t tip when I came round, it did not maintain itself.

    My computer was fine thanks,

    Maybe in cookoo land I'd agree with you.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    I blame The Beatles for all this.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    I'm sorry but I've had to skim most of this thread as it was only NapD making any sense.

    Don't know if this has been posted before but I get where they're going with it...

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apple

Categories