Huge wrote:
On 2016-09-21, Tim wrote:

In , Huge
wrote:


On 2016-09-21, Simon wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 12:25:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:


I have more cameras than phones but most peole I know have more phones than
cameras.

Anyone know why film taken with a phone looks like it was taken through a
letterbox?


Hows does it prove anything theres no mobile phone in the picture the thing
on the right is an old ipod which doesn't have a camera.

That "old" i-pod is a 160GB model which will never have such great capacity
ever again as people want their music on phones, even if it is only a few
GB.

Progress in reverse.

Couldn't agree more, with every point you've made. Except that I find having
a smart-phone handy, but not handy enough to pay hundreds of pounds for one.
The screens are too small, the "keyboards" inadequate, the apps poor and
locked down so can't be replaced, the cameras lousy, the storage capacity
inadequate. I have "proper" tools for all of these, like you.

Quite. AISB, the smartphone is a solution looking for a problem.

Oh, it is, and it is quite a good solution to the provision of a very
limited computing environment, heavily constrained by portability. But
as a general purpose computing environment, it sucks in all respects.

[6 lines snipped]


Prolly wait until we change car and then get one built in.

The problem with these is that the car manufacturers abandon them quite
soon after release, and even if they don't, the map updates are
outrageously expensive.



I bought a new cheap 7in sat nav last year, it still managed to
direct me down a single track road with passing places! However it does
have lifetime map updates and whines about speed limits being exceeded
all the time, which is perhaps not a bad thing?