Android tablets have been a shit show since the first one came out. It's very clear that app developers do not think about tablets when they create their UIs - things don't scale to expanded screen real estate the way that they should, and many just assume things that are true about phones, but not necessarily true about tablets (like always having an internet connection, for example).

If you find a device that works for what you need it to do, great. However, using an android tablet as a general-purpose device is just painful and poorly executed even now, because Google hasn't tried to make it better, rather just shoveling out stuff to say they have that stuff.

So what you're saying is that a newer version of base software ceased being compatible with long-abandoned and unmaintained software that runs on it.

That has nothing to do with hardware at all. I don't know why you think what you said changes anything the person you replied to said.

That depends, can you even read the first sentence of the summary?

So what would you have said about a useless, ridiculously expensive "solution" to a question nobody asked?

The first part of starting a successful product launch, is having a product that people actually want, or having a product that serves a purpose. This does neither, and costs you $700 + $24/mo to do it.

I'm really not sure what you are looking for when this thing is so very obviously flawed and serves no obvious reason to exist at all.

Yes, there is. You see, there's been a concerted marketing effort for about 70 years now that say car ownership is a must, and mass transit is only for "the poors."

So you're saying that the Olympics don't use the same length / width swimming pools in their competitions?

What unbelievable horseshit.

Oh lookie; Wikipedia has specifications for length, width, depth, lane width, number of lanes, water temperature, and minimum light intensity.

Next time try not making shit up.

Your observation easily applies to the existing current state.

However, I would remind you that at one point people thought Apple was crazy for shitcanning Intel in favor of their own in-house ARM cores, which now flatten everyone on performance with the exception of extremely heavy GPU workloads (Nvidia still king there).

There's no reason to think this state will last forever though if Apple wants to throw gigabucks at it. Of course, they may fail at it too - there's always risk in going in-house.

Either way, their little decade+ long piss-fit with Nvidia is now a very poor choice for them. Literally every single one of their competitors has access to a solution they've self-selected out of due to petty bullshit that they just can't fathom getting over.

Honest question: is there anything Apple *doesn't* want to charge premium for?

It means that they are applying marketing value instead of real value.

We've reached the point in the hype crescendo where if you aren't messaging the ever living shit out of hand-wavey "AI" then you're seen as falling behind and your customers start looking elsewhere. We literally just had a meeting about this where I work - that customers were talking about leaving because we haven't been talking up AI or delivering AI features; but when we ask what AI features they would like to see us working on, it's crickets.

At this point, people just want to see "AI" without even knowing what the fuck they're asking for.

The best part: this outcome was widely predicted. Basically this is the timeline as I see it:

1. media distributors pull their content from popular 3rd party service, in order to start their own service to try to make more money
2. many media consumers regard their greed as not presenting reasonable value, so they don't subscribe. In addition, the previous service they were using isn't presenting the value it used to, so it may be cancelled as well. Returns on your media distribution catalog goes down.
3. media distributors: "piracy!"

One massive point about your analysis, specifically this bit:

And being seated as a juror requires attesting to your ability to decide based on the presented evidence and findings of fact. None of the juror's predispositions towards him are relevant in any way - he will be charged with a specific thing, and then the prosecution will present their supporting facts and witnesses to prove he indeed did do that thing. The defense will impeach those witnesses' testimony and cast doubt on or outright disprove the prosecution's facts.

And the jury decides based on those presentations, and ONLY those presentations.

Now, is it possible to completely block out predisposition? No. And that's why jurors are selected from a pool, and questioned under oath to probe to see if they are capable of the impartiality that is required.

Just writing off criminal trials because you think 12 people can't be objective is about the dumbest reason not to give someone who has been indicted their day in court. Let them show the prosecution's case is garbage and be publicly vindicated. Or, let the government make their case that this individual has broken the law and should be held accountable for that conduct.

Also, LED displays still suck out loud in direct sunlight. eInk does not have that problem.

Some people just want a solid device for displaying printed material, and being the absolute most power efficient possible while doing it so that the battery lasts for weeks instead of hours.

That's why eInk still exists, and is used for devices like this.

And for people that don't read at the speed of a 2nd grader, books have a "mass" and "volume" problem when you're talking about travel - for every book you bring, you add a linear amount of mass and volume to your limited packing space.

eReaders with digital storage do not have that problem, while having sufficient battery to last multiple days without charging. But good job ignoring the given constraints.

Oh wow you don't even have a single clue as to what you're talking about, while trying to be snarky and condescending about it.

Color LCD != color e-ink display. Also, the particular variant of display in the product being talked about here was only launched from the manufacturer a year ago.

So basically you're an idiot trying to make a false equivalence that can be disproven as absolute shit in 20 seconds of googling. Congratulations.