Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Distinguished Bibliophile
bobstro
Posts: 3,789
Registered: ‎01-01-2012

Re: Down the semantical trail we go...

deesy58 wrote:
Well, I owned both a TI-58 and a TI-59.  While they were interesting devices, they were still calculators with limited capability, and not computers,  They were not considered to be computers by anybody that I am aware of, and Texas Instruments did not market them as computers.  

Argh! It was the Ti-59 with the tape stripe reader, wasn't it?

 

Surely it's the technical characteristics of the device and not just what the marketeers called it that determines whether it's a computer or not. In what way were they not "computers"?

 

keriflur is not old enough to have ever even seen a TI-58, much less own one. 

 

So wait. Keri is *not* me anymore?

Distinguished Bibliophile
patgolfneb
Posts: 1,759
Registered: ‎09-10-2011

Re: Defining "disposable"


bobstro wrote:
patgolfneb wrote:

[...]  I don't know your definition of disposable but I  don't consider a phone or tablet with a one year warranty and a 2 to 5 year product life  disposable. 

 

I think of it in terms of user servicable parts. If I can't replace the battery and the battery dies, well... I won't dispose of it, per se, but I'll probably not use it much at that point. I've got a drawer full of those sorts of things.

 

Arguably, up until my latest, my cell phones weren't really in this category since the battery could be replaced, but lack of functionality relegated them to the drawer all the same. Not to say that I couldn't have used them, but I think our cultural expectations have shifted, as you stated, to the point that many consumer devices are "effectively disposable" nowadays.

 

Without getting into the whole "computer" definition game, I think it's pretty clear that manufacturers don't think of tablets as durable items with long life expectancies. I can still get my 10 year old car repaired, and possibly even my 7 year old dryer. I'm going to have a hard time getting my 5 year old Zaurus fixed!


I think ability to repair is the traditional standard.  But I would rather base it on how soon a product is obsolete.  The items you listed are slow to become obsolete. Clearly manufacturers seek to make their old products obsolete so new sales can be made. The intersection of price and how obsolete an item is the deciding factor.  Some people base car repair decisions on the value of the vehicle. Although this has been proven an economic error it shows that  being repairable has limits. 

 

I think it would be unfair to say Kerifleur was saying tablets are disposable, she pointed out they were when compared to PC's.  I would say that has as much to do with PC's being a mature product, still relatively expensive, slow to become obsolete. Tablets are starting to reach that point. Advances are slowing, price is flattening so they will become obsolete more slowly I predict, and less throw away.  Smart phones are a special case because they are tied to the two year contract.  When your monthly bill doesn't reflect your phone purchase cost accurately that is a powerful incentive to replace your phone. 

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,486
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: Down the semantical trail we go...


bobstro wrote:
deesy58 wrote:
Well, I owned both a TI-58 and a TI-59.  While they were interesting devices, they were still calculators with limited capability, and not computers,  They were not considered to be computers by anybody that I am aware of, and Texas Instruments did not market them as computers.  

Argh! It was the Ti-59 with the tape stripe reader, wasn't it?

 

Surely it's the technical characteristics of the device and not just what the marketeers called it that determines whether it's a computer or not. In what way were they not "computers"?

 

keriflur is not old enough to have ever even seen a TI-58, much less own one. 

 

So wait. Keri is *not* me anymore?


The TI-59 had the ability to read and write on magnetic plastic cards.  The TI-58 did not.  The TI-59 was considered to be "Turing-complete," making it a true computer.  Other than the HP-67, are you aware of any calculators that might still be available today that are actually small computers?

 

TI introduced these devices in 1977 and discontinued them in 1983, meaning that keriflur was an infant when they were introduced, and about seven years old when they were discontinued. 

 

It is true that the TI-59 met the conditions required to call something a "computer."  It is questionable whether the TI-58 also met those requirements.  TI offered a thermal printer that worked with both calculators.  I owned one of those, too.  For all intents and purposes, the TI-59 really was a computer, but not the TI-58. 

 

Well, are you over 40 years old?

 

 

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,486
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: Defining "disposable"


patgolfneb wrote:

bobstro wrote:
patgolfneb wrote:

[...]  I don't know your definition of disposable but I  don't consider a phone or tablet with a one year warranty and a 2 to 5 year product life  disposable. 

 

I think of it in terms of user servicable parts. If I can't replace the battery and the battery dies, well... I won't dispose of it, per se, but I'll probably not use it much at that point. I've got a drawer full of those sorts of things.

 

Arguably, up until my latest, my cell phones weren't really in this category since the battery could be replaced, but lack of functionality relegated them to the drawer all the same. Not to say that I couldn't have used them, but I think our cultural expectations have shifted, as you stated, to the point that many consumer devices are "effectively disposable" nowadays.

 

Without getting into the whole "computer" definition game, I think it's pretty clear that manufacturers don't think of tablets as durable items with long life expectancies. I can still get my 10 year old car repaired, and possibly even my 7 year old dryer. I'm going to have a hard time getting my 5 year old Zaurus fixed!


I think ability to repair is the traditional standard.  But I would rather base it on how soon a product is obsolete.  The items you listed are slow to become obsolete. Clearly manufacturers seek to make their old products obsolete so new sales can be made. The intersection of price and how obsolete an item is the deciding factor.  Some people base car repair decisions on the value of the vehicle. Although this has been proven an economic error it shows that  being repairable has limits. 

 

I think it would be unfair to say Kerifleur was saying tablets are disposable, she pointed out they were when compared to PC's.  I would say that has as much to do with PC's being a mature product, still relatively expensive, slow to become obsolete. Tablets are starting to reach that point. Advances are slowing, price is flattening so they will become obsolete more slowly I predict, and less throw away.  Smart phones are a special case because they are tied to the two year contract.  When your monthly bill doesn't reflect your phone purchase cost accurately that is a powerful incentive to replace your phone. 


In addition to "ability to repair," price is another consideration.  At Best Buy, an Apple iPad 4 tablet with color screen can cost between $400 and $800, depending on the amount of RAM.  Dell sells a desktop computer (Inspiron One 2020) with 4GB of RAM, a 1TB HDD, a 20" monitor and an 8X CD/DVD burner/reader for as little as $519.99.  It also comes with Windows 8 for this price.  Granted, the CPU isn't much to write home about, but it is a desktop PC computer, and I believe that some desktops can be purchased for less than $500 at a number of places. 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Mercury_Glitch
Posts: 1,397
Registered: ‎06-07-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Defining "disposable"

Apple always has, and likely always will, charge a premium for their products.  It looks like you can get a Samsung tablet from around 199 to 379 depending on RAM. 

 

It's also worth noting that comparing a desktop to a tablet for price alone is faulty.  The desktop doesn't need to concern itself with mobility, the tablet on the other hand does.  I'd take a look at laptop prices, which I imagine increase the price difference.

The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills, and we are only the thread of the Pattern.
Bibliophile
laurieb52
Posts: 1,135
Registered: ‎12-13-2009
0 Kudos

Re: Nook future plans article

Another bad news article....

http://money.msn.com/investing/barnes-and-noble-time-to-turn-the-page

Life's a chair of bowlies...and it's all about Plan B!
DeanGibson
Posts: 2,187
Topics: 92
Kudos: 2,247
Solutions: 18
Registered: ‎04-12-2011

Pragmatic ducks

[ Edited ]

 Yes, Deesy, I completely agree with your assessment of B&N technical and management savvy regarding the Nook.  The Nook had a great start, as evidenced by Microsoft's buy-in.  Then, lots of opportunities were lost.

 

I had a TI-59, and I considered it a computer.  Yes, I consider my smartphone and my tablets computers.  I consider a device a computer (within the consumer meaning of the word) if I (or a 3rd party) can write software to do different, useful things with it.

 

Maybe that's not an exact definition, but is sure is useful.

 

As for whether something is a tablet, I use the "duck" test.  My particular ducks are pragmatic.

2 Nook HD/8GB + 2 Nook HD+/16GB: B&N 2.2.0 rooted
2 Nook Touch (one Ltd. Ed.): B&N 1.2.1 rooted; Dell Venue 8 Pro: Windows 8.1
Nook 1stEd/3G: B&N 1.7.0 rooted.; Acer Iconia A500: Android 4.0.3 rooted;
Nook Color: B&N 1.4.3 rooted; Samsung Galaxy Tab2 (7.0"): Android 4.2.2 rooted
Customer loyalty is earned, not commanded or deserved, and easily lost.
Never suspect intent where incompetence will do.
Distinguished Bibliophile
bobstro
Posts: 3,789
Registered: ‎01-01-2012
0 Kudos

Re: Pragmatic ducks

And when are the little ducklings due? I always thought ducks laid eggs. (sorry)
Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,486
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: Defining "disposable"


Mercury_Glitch wrote:

Apple always has, and likely always will, charge a premium for their products.  It looks like you can get a Samsung tablet from around 199 to 379 depending on RAM. 

 

It's also worth noting that comparing a desktop to a tablet for price alone is faulty.  The desktop doesn't need to concern itself with mobility, the tablet on the other hand does.  I'd take a look at laptop prices, which I imagine increase the price difference.


Well, I look at it like comparing a 4-door SUV with a Corvette.  Both vehicles are forms of transportation.  They both burn gasoline.  They will both operate at the speed limit of most roads and highways.  One will carry more passengers than the other, but the other can accelerate and turn faster than the first.  But they are still both motor vehicles, and for some models, they both cost about the same. 

 

Desktop and tablet computers are both computers.  In order to get portability, consumers must sacrifice screen size, processor power and memory capacity.  In order to gain processing power, memory capacity, screen size, applications capabilities and other features, consumers must sacrifice portability. 

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,486
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: Pragmatic ducks


DeanGibson wrote:

 Yes, Deesy, I completely agree with your assessment of B&N technical and management savvy regarding the Nook.  The Nook had a great start, as evidenced by Microsoft's buy-in.  Then, lots of opportunities were lost.

 

I had a TI-59, and I considered it a computer.  Yes, I consider my smartphone and my tablets computers.  I consider a device a computer (within the consumer meaning of the word) if I (or a 3rd party) can write software to do different, useful things with it.

 

Maybe that's not an exact definition, but is sure is useful.

 

As for whether something is a tablet, I use the "duck" test.  My particular ducks are pragmatic.


We used to purchase microcomputers for a particular application.  Not microprocessors, but microcomputers.  We wrote and tested our own microcode, and the chip was etched in Arizona, then mounted in Taiwan.  The microcomputer was a self-contained package that consisted of RAM, ROM and a CPU with I/O capability.  It was an 8-bit chip that was manufactured by General Instruments. 

 

What are the processors that control modern automobiles?  Are they computers?  I believe they are (at least some of them).