Related
Has anyone ever read it fully understood yet not be religious in anyway
jayjay8585 said:
Has anyone ever read it fully understood yet not be religious in anyway
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yep pretty much but it is pretty hard to apply in real life! I would like to know someone that was not on Oprah and had successfully applied those 'teachings' in real life.
The events shown in the bible hasn't even been proven, there are no hard evidents that those "events" even occurred through history.
re
I believe in a lot of things told and taught in the Bible but I also believe that there has been a lot of things added that are not true. Also I wish that It had never been changed so we could actually know the truth from when it was written.... I am not sure why there is always a new version or new testament. Also have you guys seen Zeitgiest? Although I disagree with some points it does raise some good points which are logical.
Also there is an EXCELLENT book called "Christiannity: A journey from fact to fiction" which you can read for free online.
Consider this the only warning for this thread. If it gets even slightly out of hand or inflammatory Bans will be given and the thread will be locked.
Otherwise have a nice discussion.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
The bible is largely a book of stories and moral guidance, it's not intended to be taken literally, and if you try, then you have to face the fact that it doesn't match up to recorded history and the scientific laws of the universe.
u can understand it if u have the traditional version.. cuz its very hard with the king james version.. but i think its about wat happened and wat will happen.. ps i didnt try to be religious
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and had to read the bible front to back many times when I was a teenager (I have read 3 different bibles front to back; KJV, NWT, ASV). I would call myself agnostic and can enjoy some of the NT on a sole spiritual level, I like the whole concept of unconditional love. I however don't agree with some of the epistle such as Timothy because of their very sexist view of women.
Check out John Shelby Spong he is one of my favorite theologians. He has a very interesting concept on Christianity.
JimmyMcGee said:
Consider this the only warning for this thread. If it gets even slightly out of hand or inflammatory Bans will be given and the thread will be locked.
Otherwise have a nice discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
boy, you sure know how to take all the fun out of a religious debate! chairs flying, fists swinging, and mouths running off so bad Vince Vaughn would have to put on earmuffs (Old School), that's the only way I know how.
datacrime said:
I believe in a lot of things told and taught in the Bible but I also believe that there has been a lot of things added that are not true. Also I wish that It had never been changed so we could actually know the truth from when it was written.... I am not sure why there is always a new version or new testament. Also have you guys seen Zeitgiest? Although I disagree with some points it does raise some good points which are logical.
Also there is an EXCELLENT book called "Christiannity: A journey from fact to fiction" which you can read for free online.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that is the excuse given (band-aid applied) to the increasingly ancient book known as the bible. The more modern civilization gets, the more we realize the bible's author wasn't god. It's quite understandable anyway, if I tried to write a bible of my own now, it would reflect all of the prevailing beliefs and scientific data of today. Fast forward two thousand years, say, about half of the things i wrote would make no sense in light of new discovery, and the other half could potentially be taken literally. Believers in my book, in order to maintain the infallibly of it, would be forced to say that the incorrect/incoherent parts were added on afterwards by mischievous hoodlums. It's similar to Orwell's 1984, where the truth is not based on some objective facts (i.e. history or the bible) but rather it is subjectively decided and controlled by those in power (Party members or priests).
Anyway, I hope I not offended anyone (so I don't get banned), although normally, I am not quite this tame (I place much credence in the first chapter of Dawkins' "The God Delusion," please read).
I think the problem is that Jay asked a bit of a loaded question right out of the gate. The bible is different things to different people. The way I understand isn't the way a atheist understands it, isn't the way a Christian understands it etc..etc.
The better question is do you mean "understand" in a purely scholarly way?
morning burgertime
i meant has anyone read the bible and fully understood it, while no being religious. ie are you athiest and read the bible im just curious as to how many havent read the bible
like the guy two messages ago says the more modern civilisation get you realise the author wasnt god
i think we all knew that as moses and all others wrote it and centurys have edited it, all i wsas asking is have any none religious bible read and understood the bible
im reading kjv and understand it fine
i wasnt wanting a debate as such just a curiosity and a guess at how many non beleivers blast bible ethics and religion but have never read them in person
Oh ok, in that case then yes. I prefer either the ASV or the NIV for ease of reading.
answer to question is: yes.
i am extremely well versed in the bible (straight from the original hebrew text, and also quite knowledgeable is ancient jewish bible commentators), and no, i don't believe a word of it. i do not know much about the new testament however.
I've tried reading the bible... No better way to fall asleep. I felt like I was reading a dictionary, no interest or belief whatsoever. Not meant to offend anyone, but I really could never see myself reading it front to back knowing I would never use any of it.
kingabraham3 said:
answer to question is: yes.
i am extremely well versed in the bible (straight from the original hebrew text, and also quite knowledgeable is ancient jewish bible commentators), and no, i don't believe a word of it. i do not know much about the new testament however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you ever heard the theories about the story of Jonah being a way for the old testament to seagway into the new testament? That sort of stuff fascinates me, how they had to explain away the difference in the God of the OT and the God of the NT.
Understanding is God Given
This is an interesting debate. I have read the Bible several times and understand more each time I read it. The Bible teaches that understanding comes from God which some might see as a cop out but I truly understand much more now as a Christian than I did before. I pray for understanding before and after I read and no matter how many times I re-read a portion, I almost always see more. As for the Bible being either fictional or unprovable, this is a narrow view put out mostly by those who have done little true investigation. There are many respected scientists and historians who do not doubt the legitimacy of what the Bible says. For examples, Google "Answers in Genesis".
I think the bottom line is that "faith" is a belief in something for which we don't necessarily have complete proof. In the case of Christianity, it's also a belief in the supernatural, a thing that many non-Christians have no problem with (astrology, tarot cards etc.). At the end of the day, if what I believe is wrong, it makes no difference, if it's true......
Honestly, I envy those who can be religious... It seems like it would be a good feeling, that someone's watching over you, that things happen for a reason, and that through the tough times there's more out there. I think it's great that it brings communities together to churches for not only masses, but I've seen many churches act like more of a community center than anything. Unfortunately, I don't know if it's in the way my mind works or the way I was raised, I just can't seem to hold onto 1 religion as being true... I just go my own way, I'm not sure if I believe there's a God out there, but I feel if there is he must be gracious enough to understand my confusion. As stupid as it sounds, I still pray, and I hope someday I can find the religion that really leads to my true beliefs... I just haven't pieced it together yet.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Understanding and the Bible
Hi all,
I am a committed Christian so I can't fully answer the question. However, my journey to faith did begin with the Bible. At the age of 13 I was made to read the Bible, specifically the sermon on the mount and Jesus' teaching in the Gospels, by a particularly keen "Scripture" teacher. While I didn't really "understand" what I was reading, when I read it something in me just clicked. It was like I had always known it was true. Strange I know. I decided that I believed in it and from there went on to become and call myself a Christian, found a church, etc. I am now 30 and still believe. I recently went to a church in Medford, Oregon where they have been having a healing revival. I saw several pretty undeniable miracles (short arms and legs growing, bones changing shape, etc.) with my own eyes. That doesn't say anything about the Bible I know but I think it demonstrates that there is a fundamental difference between understanding and belief. Many of the significant experiences I have had both reading the Bible and through my practice of the Christian faith fly in the face of my understanding.
On a more down to earth level, I think that much of what is written in the Bible only makes sense if you have a foundational belief anyway. When Jesus talked about the plank in people's eye (Matthew 7:3), he was talking about their sin against God, which is largely invisible here on Earth. If you take God out of the picture, what does the plank represent?
Ok. One of the points I meant by this WHOLE thread was NOT about how you can improve iOS or iPhone. Frankly there are way too many people who already postulated that on the whole of XDA and the interwebs.
I want to encourage people replying to this thread to put on their thinking caps, and think of what sort of futuristic product they can think of that may very well be a potential innovation from Apple. Not a phone, nor an iPad, nothing about iOS. Break free from that shackle. Steve always said that there is no way you can make a great product buy surveying the market and asking them what they want as consumers never know what they want until they see it and so you should think what will be the next revolution....
Soooooooooo...
The idea of this thread is this: (which got lost due to my frankly poor OP)
What would you say the next innovation is.
(P.S: I mention Apple in this thread a lot because traditionally they really where the pioneers of most major trends in electronics - Mac for GUI, then iPods then the in thing - smartphones with great GUI).
Soooooo, commence the scuffle!
--
Original OP (which was badly written and distracted from my main idea) can be found here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31513203&postcount=14
Actually Apple is doing very well for itself right now. It might backfire in the future but for now they are raking in money.
lol @ some random dude on xda saying he could run the most profitable company in the history of this planet better than they could. Man if they'd only found you sooner...
apple is the most valuable stock in NSE,
so its feeding off the rich isheeps
veeman said:
Actually Apple is doing very well for itself right now. It might backfire in the future but for now they are raking in money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point is not that Apple is making losses now. The point was not really about profits. The point was making innovative products that they used to do on a regular basis (iPods, then the iPod nano when they first came) and then the iPhone/iTouch. But now they are just not innovating - either by making cool new products Or improving the existent one.
So, what would u do to give us the "wow" factor from Apple. The resounding wow that everyone said when the iPhone debuted. What would that be?
litetaker said:
The point is not that Apple is making losses now. The point was not really about profits. The point was making innovative products that they used to do on a regular basis (iPods, then the iPod nano when they first came) and then the iPhone/iTouch. But now they are just not innovating - either by making cool new products Or improving the existent one.
So, what would u do to give us the "wow" factor from Apple. The resounding wow that everyone said when the iPhone debuted. What would that be?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow = overpriced gadget + mass media advertising + huge battalion of rich dumbas*es
orangekid said:
lol @ some random dude on xda saying he could run the most profitable company in the history of this planet better than they could. Man if they'd only found you sooner...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve Jobs when he first started off, was really into making products that "wow" people. He was also very business minded but still he did heavy investment and caused smaller profits because he spent a lot of time, effort and money on innovation. Same thing at the company "Next". I know I can't make Apple make MORE money than it does now, on its current line up. I am not a marketing or business guru...
I think you fail to see the point I make, oh good sir. What I am saying is Apple lost all innovation and is now purely gaining success on past success and marketing things to people.
And I claim I can and probably you can come up with "better" innovations than Apple does.
And so my question remains: What will you do at Apple as a CEO/Chief Designer that makes us WOW.
Because, if you feel "wow-ed" by Apple's current products, you probably have set a very (keyword: "very") low bar.
litetaker said:
Steve Jobs when he first started off, was really into making products that "wow" people. He was also very business minded but still he did heavy investment and caused smaller profits because he spent a lot of time, effort and money on innovation. Same thing at the company "Next". I know I can't make Apple make MORE money than it does now, on its current line up. I am not a marketing or business guru...
I think you fail to see the point I make, oh good sir. What I am saying is Apple lost all innovation and is now purely gaining success on past success and marketing things to people.
And I claim I can and probably you can come up with "better" innovations than Apple does.
And so my question remains: What will you do at Apple as a CEO/Chief Designer that makes us WOW.
Because, if you feel "wow-ed" by Apple's current products, you probably have set a very (keyword: "very") low bar.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that if you ran this specific corporation you would not be in it for profit but you would basically just have crazy R&D going to "innovate"
You don't need a corporation or a logo or to run someone else's company for that, you just need money.
Your title is misleading, this is basically just "If you had 20 billion dollars in capital, what would you spend it on as far as R&D goes without trying to attain the most profit but just to be 'innovative'?"
In which case I would say Google Glass is basically what I'd be into, like set up a full AR network as picture in the awesome as hell sci fi book 'Daemon" by Daniel Suarez, and integrate that into your cell phone/communications and stuff.
And as to your claim that you can "run Apple better than Apple does" what you're actually saying is "In my opinion if I had all that capital made from not being original except maybe the very first iteration of the iPhone, I would spend it all not on what has made profit for me but on in what my opinion would be more "innovative" than what I consider the latest rendering of the iPhone to be"
It's the most arbitrary and subjective statement ever. I could just as easily say "If I ran McDonald's I would introduce hormone free big beef patties and sugar free buns because that is much better for you and not just about cheap profit like the current management, like the old days when it was about making burgers, not money"
i mean you could say that about any aspect of any company. Bottom line is you would probably run that company into the ground within 2 years.
orangekid said:
That doesn't make any sense. You are saying that if you ran this specific corporation you would not be in it for profit but you would basically just have crazy R&D going to "innovate"
You don't need a corporation or a logo or to run someone else's company for that, you just need money.
Your title is misleading, this is basically just "If you had 20 billion dollars in capital, what would you spend it on as far as R&D goes without trying to attain the most profit but just to be 'innovative'?"
In which case I would say Google Glass is basically what I'd be into, like set up a full AR network as picture in the awesome as hell sci fi book 'Daemon" by Daniel Suarez, and integrate that into your cell phone/communications and stuff.
And as to your claim that you can "run Apple better than Apple does" what you're actually saying is "In my opinion if I had all that capital made from not being original except maybe the very first iteration of the iPhone, I would spend it all not on what has made profit for me but on in what my opinion would be more "innovative" than what I consider the latest rendering of the iPhone to be"
It's the most arbitrary and subjective statement ever. I could just as easily say "If I ran McDonald's I would introduce hormone free big beef patties and sugar free buns because that is much better for you and not just about cheap profit like the current management, like the old days when it was about making burgers, not money"
i mean you could say that about any aspect of any company. Bottom line is you would probably run that company into the ground within 2 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are making hasty conclusions and clubbing different sentences of mine out of context! Oh my gawd! How is it difficult for people to understand the following simple point I am making!?
Let me break it down for you, Internet style:
1) Do you think Apple is making the best and most innovative product every year?
A) NO.
2) Why?
A) Clearly there isn't one feature on iPhone 5 that isn't already there elsewhere. They just caught up with others. No innovation, and I am a sad panda.
3) Do you think spending some money in a multibillion dollar company for innovation is a good idea?
A) Yes. It will help differentiate their product and add value to it so people find it worth buying.
4) Do you think that will reduce profits?
A) In the long term definitely not. In the short term, may be but given the size of the company it is clearly worth investing for R&D.
5) Did other companies make interesting innovations THAT APPLE hasn't made?
A) Hell yes.
And (5) is my point people! Stop blindly trying to defend a corporation you like and just hear me out once. All I am saying is, and I bet you will agree, is that Apple didn't improve upon their OS/product in certain aspects thereby leading to not the best of the breed. I agree it is subjective, but still it is probably agreeable to a lot. The whole UI is still the same as before. They use a single button to accomplish 10 different things. Press the button one way and you get the homescreen, another way and you get access to task manager, another way and voice control. that is not particularly a fun thing to do. And then the homescreen is near useless for productivity.
For the first few generations of iOS, they were fine. But as the OS refines, it should try to change some of the ailing aspects of it. But they aren't doing that. And I bet even people like you and me can come up with those things. Most improvements to iOS that were "cool" came from the Jailbreak community (the stuff on the lockscreen giving info about various things - they hired a Jailbreaker to code it into iOS)
So, give me a break when you defend a company. When an ordinary developer on XDA or elsewhere can themselves come up with an idea that seems obvious (I mean, right from day one I was frustrated that my iPod touch did nothing on the homescreen other than just show me a wallpaper) I think I have justified what I mean by even I can do better than Apple.
It is a figure of speech, damnit! Why don't you see that and take it at face value and instead think of me as arrogant. I am just a frustrated ex-iOS user who understands both sides and kinda hates seeing Apple dig its own grave, slowly.... Marketing can take you only so far when people realize that they aren't getting what they want from their phone... and of course, there are iSheep as well... anyway point made. See y'all!
---------------
Side note: So as a consumer, you rather have a company MAKE the MOST profit out of you rather than they innovate? Are you telling me you are a billionaire and you wish for these greedy corporations to take more of your hard-earned money and rip you off more easily? Doesn't sound look good advice to me.
litetaker said:
You are making hasty conclusions and clubbing different sentences of mine out of context! Oh my gawd! How is it difficult for people to understand the following simple point I am making!?
Let me break it down for you, Internet style:
1) Do you think Apple is making the best and most innovative product every year?
A) NO.
2) Why?
A) Clearly there isn't one feature on iPhone 5 that isn't already there elsewhere. They just caught up with others. No innovation, and I am a sad panda.
3) Do you think spending some money in a multibillion dollar company for innovation is a good idea?
A) Yes. It will help differentiate their product and add value to it so people find it worth buying.
4) Do you think that will reduce profits?
A) In the long term definitely not. In the short term, may be but given the size of the company it is clearly worth investing for R&D.
5) Did other companies make interesting innovations THAT APPLE hasn't made?
A) Hell yes.
And (5) is my point people! Stop blindly trying to defend a corporation you like and just hear me out once. All I am saying is, and I bet you will agree, is that Apple didn't improve upon their OS/product in certain aspects thereby leading to not the best of the breed. I agree it is subjective, but still it is probably agreeable to a lot. The whole UI is still the same as before. They use a single button to accomplish 10 different things. Press the button one way and you get the homescreen, another way and you get access to task manager, another way and voice control. that is not particularly a fun thing to do. And then the homescreen is near useless for productivity.
For the first few generations of iOS, they were fine. But as the OS refines, it should try to change some of the ailing aspects of it. But they aren't doing that. And I bet even people like you and me can come up with those things. Most improvements to iOS that were "cool" came from the Jailbreak community (the stuff on the lockscreen giving info about various things - they hired a Jailbreaker to code it into iOS)
So, give me a break when you defend a company. When an ordinary developer on XDA or elsewhere can themselves come up with an idea that seems obvious (I mean, right from day one I was frustrated that my iPod touch did nothing on the homescreen other than just show me a wallpaper) I think I have justified what I mean by even I can do better than Apple.
It is a figure of speech, damnit! Why don't you see that and take it at face value and instead think of me as arrogant. I am just a frustrated ex-iOS user who understands both sides and kinda hates seeing Apple dig its own grave, slowly.... Marketing can take you only so far when people realize that they aren't getting what they want from their phone... and of course, there are iSheep as well... anyway point made. See y'all!
---------------
Side note: So as a consumer, you rather have a company MAKE the MOST profit out of you rather than they innovate? Are you telling me you are a billionaire and you wish for these greedy corporations to take more of your hard-earned money and rip you off more easily? Doesn't sound look good advice to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point is that from a business standpoint with that type of attitude you would run the company into the ground.
From an "innovative" standpoint those are your opinions on iOS, which mirror everyone who doesn't like iOS's opinions. We've heard it a million times from every user on these forums.
You disagree with how Apple is run, that's fine. But this is all arbitrary and subjective. There plenty of "intelligent" people who could provide a good argument for iOS 6 being better than JellyBean, starting with the malware ratio for one.
Every one of your questions/answers is arbitrary. That's why we have choices. Don't like iOS? buy Android. Don't like either? Buy WP8. Don't like one of those 3? Tough ****.
Let's go thru your checklist as an Apple fan would (you can see from my signature which phone I currently love to rock).
1) Yes, they always have the fastest CPU/GPU, the best battery life, the best DPI (except maybe a couple crazy ass Japanese phones), arguably the best camera only to be compared with PureView, and the best form factor.
2) Let's talk features. There was already no competitor for Siri on the 4S. S Voice utterly sucks and doesn't recognize what I say half the time. Google Now is kinda cool but doesn't talk back the same way as Siri does, now with iOS 6 update it takes it to a new level. The form factor is the best. Not cheap Samsung plastic, Aluminum + Glass on the back, squared form factor with a new elongated 4" screen that you can STILL easily hold and type with one hand. The A6 processor out benches even the new exynos quad core.
3) They have an R&D department...
4) If you spend too much on R&D and not enough on other things, then yes, you have to have the perfect balance like Apple.
5) Yes, just like Apple has made innovations that others haven't made. Hence choices...
You see, it can be argued either way.
Your opinion is that Apple isn't "innovative" same as most of the people on XDA, you're not bringing anything new to light. You're just saying you don't think Apple is "innovative"
That's fine, you can have your opinion, but that's all it is, opinion.
side note;
all of your side note is conjecture. You think Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt aren't in it for the money you are insane. But they also want to make cool **** I'm sure, just like Apple does.
orangekid said:
My point is that from a business standpoint with that type of attitude you would run the company into the ground.
From an "innovative" standpoint those are your opinions on iOS, which mirror everyone who doesn't like iOS's opinions. We've heard it a million times from every user on these forums.
You disagree with how Apple is run, that's fine. But this is all arbitrary and subjective. There plenty of "intelligent" people who could provide a good argument for iOS 6 being better than JellyBean, starting with the malware ratio for one.
Every one of your questions/answers is arbitrary. That's why we have choices. Don't like iOS? buy Android. Don't like either? Buy WP8. Don't like one of those 3? Tough ****.
Let's go thru your checklist as an Apple fan would (you can see from my signature which phone I currently love to rock).
1) Yes, they always have the fastest CPU/GPU, the best battery life, the best DPI (except maybe a couple crazy ass Japanese phones), arguably the best camera only to be compared with PureView, and the best form factor.
2) Let's talk features. There was already no competitor for Siri on the 4S. S Voice utterly sucks and doesn't recognize what I say half the time. Google Now is kinda cool but doesn't talk back the same way as Siri does, now with iOS 6 update it takes it to a new level. The form factor is the best. Not cheap Samsung plastic, Aluminum + Glass on the back, squared form factor with a new elongated 4" screen that you can STILL easily hold and type with one hand. The A6 processor out benches even the new exynos quad core.
3) They have an R&D department...
4) If you spend too much on R&D and not enough on other things, then yes, you have to have the perfect balance like Apple.
5) Yes, just like Apple has made innovations that others haven't made. Hence choices...
You see, it can be argued either way.
Your opinion is that Apple isn't "innovative" same as most of the people on XDA, you're not bringing anything new to light. You're just saying you don't think Apple is "innovative"
That's fine, you can have your opinion, but that's all it is, opinion.
side note;
all of your side note is conjecture. You think Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt aren't in it for the money you are insane. But they also want to make cool **** I'm sure, just like Apple does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright, I can agree with you here. Hmm... anyway, I really should think of a better topic to discuss on off-topic @xda. I kinda suck at picking good and "fun" things to argue about. Not even 3 pages, and already the debate here became heavy and I guess will eventually become pointless. Anyway, good to hear ur points too... I'm off to cooking up more light-hearted and probably more fun topics!
Up and away!
I'm only going to dispute one thing with you: the HTC Rezound has a higher PPI than the iPhone, and it certainly isn't some crazy Chinese phone lol.
iPhone 5 = 326PPI
Rezound = 342PPI
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using XDA Premium HD app.
litetaker said:
Alright, I can agree with you here. Hmm... anyway, I really should think of a better topic to discuss on off-topic @xda. I kinda suck at picking good and "fun" things to argue about. Not even 3 pages, and already the debate here became heavy and I guess will eventually become pointless. Anyway, good to hear ur points too... I'm off to cooking up more light-hearted and probably more fun topics!
Up and away!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol, every thread in this forum is pointless, and I argue just to argue half the time. Your topic was fine, I kinda just ran in a totally other direction with it.
If you just opened a thread saying "if you had a bagillion dollars what would you develop?" without using buzzwords like "iPhone" you'd do fine.
SteveG12543 said:
I'm only going to dispute one thing with you: the HTC Rezound has a higher PPI than the iPhone, and it certainly isn't some crazy Chinese phone lol.
iPhone 5 = 326PPI
Rezound = 342PPI
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using XDA Premium HD app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word. Forgot about the 4.3" 720p.
BUT I said Japanese, not Chinese. I win!!
Original crappy OP
The New OP was taken from this post. The original OP is here and the New OP from this post went to the OP making it the current OP
Well, it is a ballsy statement to say that one could run Apple better than someone experienced in the industry, especially since it is a multibillion dollar company. I say that smells.
Even I can run that company better and I have never, ever worked in an industry so far (unless you call interning at a company work experience).
It is not hard to see why. They are doing no innovation and 100% litigation. And all I see in their various products is upping the specs and prices and that's it. That is NOT innovation. It may be challenging to squeeze in more pixels in the same area, but guess WHAT. Apple didn't make that! It was hardworking other companies that manufacture better displays, better processors and chips that made that happen. Apple merely puts things together. In the light of this realization, we can clearly see that Apple did zilch, nada, शून्य, zéro, 零, нуль. No matter what language you speak, it will translate to "absolutely nothing". They did not improve the OS, just did minor tweaks or introduced features no one cares about (Siri, iMessages is a failure in implementation, facebook integration that I can do without, more facebook in my life != better life). Oh they added a new row of static and boring icons. If you see the jailbreak community, a good chunk of iOS users hate the interface and still stick with it. Beyond my understanding.
Oh, did I say absolutely nothing? My bad, I meant yes they did something alright - slow down an entire industry via litigation because "they couldn't come up with a new idea, boo-fricking-hoo!" It makes me think of the spoiled brat in the sandbox who fell down and wants to make others fall down too as he got hurt.
Side note: I never really thought Steve Jobs was involved in all the decisions made for the iPhone, but now it looks like he may have spear-headed the iPhone division after all. After he passed away, looks like the hard work he put in and the company he built is gonna die again (sad in some ways but also serves them right for bringing bad karma by suing Android and the Android device manufacturers).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Long story short, I want this thread to be innovative, wacky, weird and funny ideas for the following question:
What would you do differently, if you were the CEO of Apple?
Try to think without fanboy-ism. Imagine you were suddenly given control to this powerful corporation, you need no longer think about Android and all, so let your answer NOT be to destroy iOS and let Android win. Though that would be awesome. I want to see if we can come up with better products AND features in existing ones to warrant the name of this topic (which is we can run Apple better than Apple).
commence the scuffle!
orangekid said:
lol, every thread in this forum is pointless, and I argue just to argue half the time. Your topic was fine, I kinda just ran in a totally other direction with it.
If you just opened a thread saying "if you had a bagillion dollars what would you develop?" without using buzzwords like "iPhone" you'd do fine.
Word. Forgot about the 4.3" 720p.
BUT I said Japanese, not Chinese. I win!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, frankly they are Taiwanese! Whoops, you lose again!
+1 for the शून्य thing!
This forum has been overrun with Apple/iOS/iPhone threads lately. For the Android fan boys some of you claim to be, you seem extremely obsessed with Apple. I am not talking about any one person or group, just in general. js
litetaker said:
Ok. One of the points I meant by this WHOLE thread was NOT about how you can improve iOS or iPhone. Frankly there are way too many people who already postulated that on the whole of XDA and the interwebs.
I want to encourage people replying to this thread to put on their thinking caps, and think of what sort of futuristic product they can think of that may very well be a potential innovation from Apple. Not a phone, nor an iPad, nothing about iOS. Break free from that shackle. Steve always said that there is no way you can make a great product buy surveying the market and asking them what they want as consumers never know what they want until they see it and so you should think what will be the next revolution....
Soooooooooo...
The idea of this thread is this: (which got lost due to my frankly poor OP)
What would you say the next innovation is.
(P.S: I mention Apple in this thread a lot because traditionally they really where the pioneers of most major trends in electronics - Mac for GUI, then iPods then the in thing - smartphones with great GUI).
Soooooo, commence the scuffle!
Well, frankly they are Taiwanese! Whoops, you lose again!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol touche.
Well to answer you, I think Google Goggles used with AR in a sort of virtual world in plain site like that book Daemon would be pretty awesome.
is there a thread for "Why i hate android?" around here
deathnotice01 said:
is there a thread for "Why i hate android?" around here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes..should be somewhere around iphone-developers.com!
Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
first thing that needs to b done is make it open source
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
Since this is off-topic I was just thinking to come up with this subject. I know plenty of people who I consider good-looking but I'm curious what their day-to-day life is like compared to average-looking people. I consider myself average, though I've been called ugly and beautiful throughout my life. I don't really care about that stuff. I just want to be myself (even though in certain situations it seems pretty difficult for me). Not everybody will like me and I think I shouldn't even make myself likeable to everybody. I'd rather be considered average-looking and be happy in my own skin and know that I am healthy than be considered attractive by most people and be getting a lot of negative thoughts/things (like accidents, conflicts, murder) because of the competition inbetween same-sexes. I don't want that to happen to anyone. I'm just sayin'.
What do you think?
Well I'm happy and up myself, also have a healthy diet and am extremely skinny, though I eat tonnes. I'm also very nieve when it comes to bad things in the world and I don't think deeply about the world.
That's my story and I consider myself very happy. Don't know if its relevant though.
In my experience what you look like has nothing to do with how you interpret your time here. The two are mutually exclusive. If you're extremely good looking then it may open some doors for you, both figuratively and literally, but it will not change the core of who you are. That only changes with your own life experiences and cannot be guided or altered by single factors, like "beauty".
Alternatively, if you're extremely bad looking then you may have what others would consider a more difficult life. It all depends on what you think life is, and how you live it. If you spend your life looking for love and companionship, then being extremely attractive or extremely unattractive will probably stop that happening. However, you're more likely better off ugly in that case, as if you do find companionship with someone then you'll know without doubt that they love you for who you are. If you're very attractive then you'll most likely never find the good people in the sea of suitors that are only interested in what you look like, and not who you are.
In all honesty I'd say you have more chance of true happiness if you're simply average. You're more like the majority of people, and you're less likely to be either used or abused because of how you look.
Life is easier for good looking people. That's a simple fact. They're more likely to be hired, get a raise, find companionship and people treat them better and are more likely to help them. There's millions of research papers on this. Even to the point where women wearing high heels are more successful at getting people to listen to a charity speech on the street compared to women wearing flat shoes.
But because everything comes easier to them, they're also usually a lot less pleasant to be around.
If social interaction and companionship is important to you, then yes, being good looking makes you happier. Good looking people have more friends, people want to spend more time with them and they have less difficulty finding partners. Because people are horribly superficial. In theory relationships are based on enjoying eachother's company, but 90% of the time people will pick someone pretty over someone whose personality they like.
Personally I really don't care what others think of how I look. I'm average with a not-so-average hair colour. But as someone who's job hunting I have noticed they always hire the pretty ones over everyone else.
Since when off-topic became a place for very deep discussion?
ironman38102 said:
Since when off-topic became a place for very deep discussion?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the holiday season. People always get melancholy when this time of year comes around.
ShadowLea said:
If social interaction and companionship is important to you, then yes, being good looking makes you happier. Good looking people have more friends, people want to spend more time with them and they have less difficulty finding partners. Because people are horribly superficial. In theory relationships are based on enjoying eachother's company, but 90% of the time people will pick someone pretty over someone whose personality they like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would like to politely disagree to everything stated in the quoted paragraph.
While having a hot girlfriend seems great for a little while, long term people are more likely to stay is a committed relationship if they choose a partner they feel a bond with, brains rather than beauty etc.
Also, lasting friendships are more likely to be made with people based on interests or other bonds, rather than looks.
So it comes down to while people may choose beauty over brains these relationships (friend or intimate) are generally shorter than those not.
Jesse72 said:
I would like to politely disagree to everything stated in the quoted paragraph.
While having a hot girlfriend seems great for a little while, long term people are more likely to stay is a committed relationship if they choose a partner they feel a bond with, brains rather than beauty etc.
Also, lasting friendships are more likely to be made with people based on interests or other bonds, rather than looks.
So it comes down to while people may choose beauty over brains these relationships (friend or intimate) are generally shorter than those not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're free to disagree.
Sadly humans are a lot less decent than you believe them to be.
If people cared more for connection than looks, there wouldn't be so many affairs, cheaters and mistresses.
And even more regrettable is the fact that this this part of the teason humanity made it to the top of the foodchain. Partnering based on looks is as old as humanity itself.
I have seen millions of marriages fall apart because the woman stopped looking like she was 25. In the less modern cultures in the Middle East men take girls of 15 years old as their partners because their faith decides they should. And when the girl's breasts start to sag, they take another. And another. You can't tell me a 60 year old man forcing a 15 year old girl into a marriage (and consequentially sex) has anything to do with long term, brains or connections.
It is human nature for women to crave a long lasting connection (due to children requiring a lifetime connection), and for men to spread out their seed as much as possible to ensure the largest change of passing on their genes.
And by evolutionary reasoning, pretty people have better genes.
Modern society may wear a mask of 'decency' to hide that instinct, but it is still very much an active factor.
Do I sound cold, distant and possibly arrogant? Probably. I am both aromantic and asexual. That allows me to see humanity without the lies people tell themselves to feel like they're not sex-obsessed animals who learned to talk. Does that make me a freak? Many will certainly think exactly that right now.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 2
ShadowLea said:
You're free to disagree.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. Cause I still do. You may believe that humanity is full of liars, cheaters, and people who value beauty over brains, but once you remove media (which is always so pessimistic) out of the equation and just look at the real world, I believe the percentage of people valuing beauty over brains is actually quite small compared to the opposite.
Maybe I just live in a more positive community, but I generally find many more people who value brains, head over heart etc.
Feel free to continue disagreeing though. I'm interested in others opinions also.
j0k3rz said:
in my opinion, happiness is completely relative. you're only as good looking as you perceive yourself to be, and you only allow it to affect your happiness as much as you want it to. therefore, no probably not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great point! Me being up myself makes me happy. I can believe I'm really good looking but to be honest I'm probably average.
Well I see really interesting discussion over here. Back to topic. I have been considering myself as a average-bad looking person. Lately my psychologist showed me another point of view. Then I realised rather than being bad-avreage looking person I am good looking person. I started to pay much more attention to what people say about my appearance and I realised that people really consider me as a really good looking person. I must admit that realising that I am good looking person made my life happier. Sorry for some mistakes English is not my primary language
i think it has to do with self-confidence and recognizing ones good looks, at least in regard to the subjective opinion of the society.
People may say "It has nothing to do with looks".
I disagree.
Looks do play a part, though it is not everything.
I would say Im good looking. It has some advantages like average people tend to hang out with good looking and popular people.
Key sentence:
Good looks give you a start. Where you go from there depends on who you are.
BUT. Let me also add. If you are a Female. Good looks makes everything very very different.
Good looks for guys is not a big deal. Popularity,machoness, over confidence etc matters. Im good looking, yet a shy guy. Let me tell you life aint too good for me.
You know, leading up to my purchase of the Gear VR I watched countless Oculus Rift videos where the user was simply dumbfounded, dismayed and amazed by the complete immersion of the experience. Lots of swearing and laughing. A sense of "no longer being in the real world".
The Gear VR has a better screen than the Oculus Rift and the FOV is just slightly less (96 degrees vs 100 degrees). But to be honest, although it's cool, I am NOT getting that WOW moment where I feel I've been transported to another world. I can see pixels, I can see the binocular effect. Yeah it's cool but for me anyway, not remotely immersive. Perhaps 360 videos would be immersive if they weren't so badly out of focus. I can watch quality HD movies in the Cinema but those are movies on a screen - again not immersive - I'm not IN the action. Games come the closest but Android games tend to be a bit on the cartoonish side. Of the games I've played only Anshar and Darknet give me the sense I'm IN the game, Anshar being the best (I really wish they would release the full game - getting tired of playing one level forever).
So are these people in the Oculus videos just easily impressed? Don't get me wrong, the Gear VR is a fun device and worth the $200, but it just isn't AMAZING for me like all those folks in the videos seem to think the Oculus is. Never once have I felt like laughing or swearing or just being giddy at the experience. It's neat, but for me that's about it.
** Update: Turns out the best most immersive games for the GVR (such as Herobound) require a controller. Since I did not own a bluetooth controller previously I was not aware. Herobound is a very impressive VR game and gives a good sense of immersion. Very promising.
Maybe it's like hypnosis. Some people are easier to hypnotize than others. Maybe with VR it is just easier for some people to feel IN the environment than others? Dunno.
I guess the sad thing about the GVR is that we will never have games that can compete with what a PC with graphics card can spit out. There is an app to allow you to play PC games on your Note 4, but the lag over wifi is so bad they are kind of unplayable and you can't hard tether for obvious reasons.
Let it go man. if you dont like it - stop using it. But youve said all there is to say.
stevegee111 said:
Let it go man. if you dont like it - stop using it. But youve said all there is to say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, do you actually read posts before responding or just blurt things out? I said on numerous occasions in this thread that I like the GVR and it is worth the money, it just isn't the WOW experience I was hoping for. My advice to you, since you're new and clearly don't know better, is read the words someone has said before commenting on them.
SMH
Actually there is one experience for me that does have the WOW immersive feeling. It is the Lunar Theater in Oculus Cinema. When the lights come up just looking at that is so amazing. I don't care about silly fuzzy 360 videos, give me more content like THAT, not only to sit and look at but to roam and explore. Even have a moon monster or two jump out at me.
...and your point is?
the gear VR is a fun early adopter thing to experience the current status quo of VR. its impressive in some ways, not so much in others. thus the "innovator edition", thus no finished product on the open market yet from neither samsung nor oculus nor anybody else, thus the very transparent "this is only for people who like to come along for the ride early on" policy. the paths to better products is known, the technology is not quite there yet, but its already a lot of fun for some, and less fun for others. the end.
not sure what youre trying to accomplish here.
zorglub667 said:
...and your point is?
the gear VR is a fun early adopter thing to experience the current status quo of VR. its impressive in some ways, not so much in others. thus the "innovator edition", thus no finished product on the open market yet from neither samsung nor oculus nor anybody else, thus the very transparent "this is only for people who like to come along for the ride early on" policy. the paths to better products is known, the technology is not quite there yet, but its already a lot of fun for some, and less fun for others. the end.
not sure what youre trying to accomplish here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, did you READ the OP? Let me explain again. I am responding to the fact videos I have seen of people using the Oculus Rift (which has an inferior screen to this) that has them utterly gobsmacked. They laugh, they swear, they are AMAZED. Considering this device has a superior image I was expecting the same and am disappointed I have not experienced those emotions.
If you had actually read the OP I wouldn't have to repeat myself.
P.S., They are selling this commercially through BestBuy brick and mortar stores, so let's not pretend this is some alpha unit for "innovators" only, despite the clever name. Other than better content, I doubt future iterations of the Gear VR will be much improved until we get higher res displays.
** Dude, 13 posts in 8 years and you decide to finally pontificate in my thread?
Folks, if you disagree with my viewpoint that is your prerogative, but at least show that you read the words I wrote before commenting. It is clear from the last two individuals that they did not read the OP.
So another thread about the screen door effect ruining the experience for you'? Wasn't it enough to ruin just the one? IF you don't like the experience then sell the device and wait for the Note 5 or 6 (4K/5K screens) and Gear VR2.
The videos are a bit fuzzy I agree, but moving the device closer to your face will definitely increase your FOV (difficult to measure/calculate by just how much). Moving the lens further from your eyes doesn't make the pixel-issue disappear, but instead distorts the outer edges and makes for a worse experience (no wonder you hate it so much; you are lessening the amount of "in-focus" light that reaches your eyes while making the black edges all the more visible).
This is an INNOVATOR's edition and if you fail to see that then you truly shouldn't own one. The experience is the best VR experience we can achieve as of yet, and you aren't apparently able to comprehend that fact, and the fact that people are different; some aren't as anal about pixels being visible as you are, thus the "wow amazing!"-effect they get when using it..
1. i did read your opening post.
2. that some people have no trouble to oversee the obvious resolution shortcomings while others do, and that you in particular are disappointed in the resolution, all that has been discussed many many times now, i would say. would you disagree?
3. it appears you are pretty quick at judging people. my post was not meant as an offense in any way. i must say i found the tone of your reply surprisingly aggressive. we're just chitchatting about a tech gadget here. no reason to get worked up about it.
still fail to see the point in opening yet another thread about the same topic. no idea what youre trying to archieve by this.
yes, we will only get better resolution, once we have small displays with even higher resolution than the current qHD generation. in case anyone didnt know that already...
no, i do not think that the way samsung/oculus sell this is a cheat in any way. i fondly remember the *numerous* disclaimers i had to click through to get mine. rarely has a manufacturer tried so hard to NOT sell me a product
the product isnt even advertised in the slightest. if at all, one could argue that it appears that samsung has been quite surprised by the demand. what little batches they put out seem to have sold out pretty much anywhere rather quickly. so: demand is up even though its so openly communicated to be an prototype-y product, so the usual dynamics of the free marketplace kick in, so bestbuy jumps on the bandwagon. it appears, that many people seem to be fine with the current shortcomings. an argument could be made if they tried to sell this to people without letting them try it out first. to kind of HIDE the real nature of it or something. but that does not seem to be the case anywhere, and i dont find that surprising either - overall, most people really seem to react very much on the "wow, wtf!" side of things. that it didnt wow you, im really sorry and i mean that completely without any sarcasm whatsoever. but i think its enough to discuss this in 2 or 3 threads and opening yet another still seems kind of pointless to me. many people are impressed. you are not. what else is there to say?
oh, btw: ive been around on XDA for a long time (ever since the very early windows mobile days when HTC was still selling its phones not under the HTC brand but labeled as MDA/XDA/whatever). this is an old account i had forgotten and ressurected because i forgot the password of another. if you feel the need to judge people based on something as artificial as a forum post number, well: to each his own.
Toss3 said:
So another thread about the screen door effect ruining the experience for you'? Wasn't it enough to ruin just the one? IF you don't like the experience then sell the device and wait for the Note 5 or 6 (4K/5K screens) and Gear VR2.
The videos are a bit fuzzy I agree, but moving the device closer to your face will definitely increase your FOV (difficult to measure/calculate by just how much). Moving the lens further from your eyes doesn't make the pixel-issue disappear, but instead distorts the outer edges and makes for a worse experience (no wonder you hate it so much; you are lessening the amount of "in-focus" light that reaches your eyes while making the black edges all the more visible).
This is an INNOVATOR's edition and if you fail to see that then you truly shouldn't own one. The experience is the best VR experience we can achieve as of yet, and you aren't apparently able to comprehend that fact, and the fact that people are different; some aren't as anal about pixels being visible as you are, thus the "wow amazing!"-effect they get when using it..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And thanks for proving my point. You say, "so another thread about screen door effect ruining the experience for you?" Can you please point to me where in my OP I mention screen door effect at all? Right. I don't mention it. Not once.
This is a thread about whether you feel a "sense of immersion" that makes you say WOW. I am pleased that so many of you do. I have now shown this device to 10 people and not a single person has reacted that way. The general reaction has been, "Well, it's kind of cool but not what I expected" I ask them if they feel like they are "there" and not a single person has said yes. Most of my friends are older successful business people who aren't amazed by the latest bit of kit. Maybe older people have a more difficult time entering the VR world because they've been in the real world so long? 3 different people said, "Based upon the videos I've seen online I was expecting more (paraphrasing)".
The one exception, as I mentioned, is the actual theater (not the film but the theater itself) in Oculus Cinema. People thought the moon was the coolest and wondered why there wasn't more content like that. I'm hoping Oculus (or a developer) creates more soon.
BestBuy is now selling this device out of their retail stores with demo units set up in hundreds of locations. They are selling it at full retail. Name one other "beta" product that has ever been sold in this manner? I don't think that setting up store demo's is an attempt to "talk you out of buying this device".
I think by calling it an "Innovator Edition" Samsung is sort of giving themselves a "get out of jail free" card. Yes, here is our "Innovator Edition", don't expect much but oh yeah, we're selling it at BestBuy with demo units for full price. That's fine. They call it marketing. I do like this device and think it is well worth the $200 - as I have stated on numerous occasions which some members apparently miss each and every time.
I think the fact is (as I said in the OP that no one read), some people have more of a suspension of disbelief about VR than others. To me, while cool, most of it just seems like as handy film viewer (which is worthwhile on it's own). This is also the reaction my friends who have seen it give. Perhaps the real problem is simply content. There are some moments which are immersive - which I also stated but everyone seems to miss.
Assuming the GVR is truly a "beta" (it's really not - you don't sell betas in stores), what are people expecting from future products? This is plastic, some lenses, a headstrap and some electronics. Perhaps they will come up with some miracle lenses which parse out all pixelization? I honestly doubt that. The Gear VR is what it will be. What will change is the phone and content.
Here's one thing to keep in mind folks. Very very very few people come to forums such as this to discuss the Gear VR. Those who come tend to be fanboys and enthusiasts, and that's perfectly cool. The mistake people make is that they take the impressions of the few individuals here and project that over the marketplace.
On the other hand I am attempting to see this product through the eyes of the average non-enthusiast consumer. Many here say their friends have loved the product. We tend to associate with those who think as we do. In my own experience, the reaction has been far more muted.
If you wish to comment in this thread, please discuss the topic of immersion. Attacking me is not OT. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read the thread, simple as that.
** I'm wondering if people using the Oculus are having a more immersive experience not because of the technology but because of superior content? Watched a YouTube of a guy playing Assetto Corsa on the Rift and it looked incredible.
Hi folks,
If you don't want to participate in this thread or any other created by the OP or feel that it's not contributing to the well-being of XDA, please don't post. Trolling and arguing is not allowed on any thread. If people would learn to ignore others, possibly there would be less negative back and forth posts. Everyone, please ignoring threads and posts you don't like. Differing opinions are fine and it's ok to disagree with them but it's really not that serious. However, if something is bothering you to the point of distraction, then call a moderator.
Regards
mitchellvii said:
And thanks for proving my point. You say, "so another thread about screen door effect ruining the experience for you?" Can you please point to me where in my OP I mention screen door effect at all? Right. I don't mention it. Not once.
This is a thread about whether you feel a "sense of immersion" that makes you say WOW.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
which is exactly the point where one could argue that thats exactly the same thing. because, why again is it that you feel a lack of immersion? judging from most of your posts, that would be...oh right, the screen door effect.
q.e.d.
mitchellvii said:
I am pleased that so many of you do. I have now shown this device to 10 people and not a single person has reacted that way. The general reaction has been, "Well, it's kind of cool but not what I expected" I ask them if they feel like they are "there" and not a single person has said yes. Most of my friends are older successful business people who aren't amazed by the latest bit of kit. Maybe older people have a more difficult time entering the VR world because they've been in the real world so long? 3 different people said, "Based upon the videos I've seen online I was expecting more (paraphrasing)".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so, to be a bit more blunt, youre saying that in contrast to these friends of yours, whoever would disagree with their findings probably does so because...they "havent been in the real world for so long"? or maybe because theyre not "successful business people". or maybe because theyre "fanboys" that "make the mistake of not seeing this through the eyes of the average non-enthusiast consumer".
those are the things you are implying (albeit in a somewhat subtle, suggestive way). well then, so be it. i will leave this discussion, but id like to point out towards the forum moderation that the question about who is trolling and who is not is at the very least somewhat debatable.
zorglub667 said:
which is exactly the point where one could argue that thats exactly the same thing. because, why again is it that you feel a lack of immersion? judging from most of your posts, that would be...oh right, the screen door effect.
q.e.d.
so, to be a bit more blunt, youre saying that in contrast to these friends of yours, whoever would disagree with their findings probably does so because...they "havent been in the real world for so long"? or maybe because theyre not "successful business people". or maybe because theyre "fanboys" that "make the mistake of not seeing this through the eyes of the average non-enthusiast consumer".
those are the things you are implying (albeit in a somewhat subtle, suggestive way). well then, so be it. i will leave this discussion, but id like to point out towards the forum moderation that the question about who is trolling and who is not is at the very least somewhat debatable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once again you are attributing your interpretation to my intent then damning me for it. Do us both a favor and take my words at face value. I don't have a subtle meaning or agenda.
I was simply expressing the experiences of my friends and because it disagrees with your experience it has apparently short circuited your brain and convinced you that you possess psychic powers.
Couple factoids you should consider. Most people who lurk (read but do not comment) at this forum probably do not yet own the GVR. They are just here to read feedback from owners. The average typical consumer that buys a GVR from BestBuy has no idea XDA even exists, and so they won't be commenting. So we are left with mainly enthusiasts who are at least somewhat invested in the idea they made a good purchase. That's not to say their opinion is not 100% valid, but it is to say that one should not project the opinions here to the rest of the marketplace. The sample is skewed. It is my opinion that the typical non enthusiast consumer will not be as impressed with the sense of immersion as you are. My friends which are a good sample of an older non enthusiast demographic were not. They all thought it was cool. No one was saying OMG and begging me to try it again.
Here's a perfect example in the differences of perceived immersion:
I just played DreadHalls after watching a YouTube of a full grown man playing it. He was so frightened that I literally thought he was going to pee his pants. He had to take a break mid-game just to catch his breath and calm his nerves.
So anyway, I just played it. Seriously, WTF? I might have found this scary when I was 8. Just think really really weak Doom. I say weak Doom because Doom actually was scary. Immersive? I guess if cartoon bricks and groaning noises are immersive for you. So here is an example of a user who was actually physically frightened by a game I just found silly. He kept saying, "Wow, it's like I'm really there!" I kept saying, "Wow, cartoon bricks!"
I don't blame the Gear VR. A large part preventing me from experiencing immersion is simply a lack of content. I'm also spoiled by years of triple monitor gaming with a fast PC and awesome video card. Now THAT'S immersive. When they create games that have the realism and texture of the Lunar Theater, then I'll start getting more excited about this platform.
Just played HeroBound for the first time (didn't have a controller before). Now that game is very immersive. The opening scene with the big volcano is amazing. If you haven't played that game definitely give it a try. Hopefully someone will bring that level of graphics to a 1st person shooter.
Haha, I get what you mean. I read one thread on reddit saying that he was 'crying' after using the gearvr for the first time. LOL. Seriously, I just don't get it. I want VR to succeed so much, but I also have my feet on the ground and don't let the hype go straight to my head. Using it, the sweet spot for focus is tiny, right in the middle of the lense, look up or down left or right without moving your head and it immediately starts to get proportionally blurry. The resolution reminds of looking at one of those digital projectors from 10 years ago, the panasonic AE300. The resolution was quarter HD, like the iPhone 4 except blown up on a massive screen. That's what movie watching experience is like in Occulus Cinema, the black screen door probably takes 30% or more of the 'full' image, it just looks really bad, and that's not even talking about the low ass resolution this rectangle takes up.
Some might say I'm being too harsh, whenever I get a new product I find all the flaws first and gradually get used to those flaws if I decide to keep it. But I never say this product is better than it really is. Some might get caught up on the hype train and want for VR to succeed so much they never talk about what's currently wrong/broken or what can be improved. I think it will succeed eventually, but clearly the GearVR is not a consumer ready product. I honestly laugh thinking if Samsung released GearVR without Oculus and John Carmack's expertise. I mean the smoothness of the experience is what makes it special, not the lenses, or the screen.
Having said that, the one place it just works is games. Herobound, that ring toss game, Ikarus. These fixed point experiences are much better imo, competely avoids motion sickness and maximises the phone's graphic ability. The sea creatures of Ocean Rift have a solidity and fluidity that creates a compelling experience and makes me believe that VR is inevitable. The comments from people really depend on what previous experience and expectation the user has. Most people don't expect anything, don't have anything to compare it to and are amazed with Google cardboard when they first see it. The main issue that disappointed me was the fact that I had paid 250 for lenses that have barely acceptable focus and awful peripheral vision. GearVR needs way more adjustment, not only distance, but angle and individual lense focus.
Then regarding the media quality of the 360 video demos. Ranging from meh to this is terrible. The best material has been from alternative sources It's disappointing that Samsung supplied such low quality videos with the premier of a new category. One would think they want to prove what VR is really capable of. At least host a site where users can download high quality 360 video, 360 is probably overrated too, 180 is very immersive and a better balance of quality vs filesize.
The catalogue currently available is still small. I can see how new users can blow through content in a few days and leave the GearVR to gather dust. Overall this is very much a beta product. Procuring one was a pain in the hole as well, much like the Note 4 process. Samsung should definitely copy how Apple rolls out products.
Dear XDA,
I don't know how wrong I am. But I hear people say to me "why should we bother" when it comes to customisation. Not only for Android, but also for computers as well (Arch for example). All I can think is that tinkering around will result in a much more stable system, right? Am I right, people?
Your Regards,
AlpyzDX
I would say the opposite, that it becomes less stable, but the upside is better/different features, as well as personalisation. That's what I think anyway, and I don't really care about others opinions about what I do.
Plus, to get people on my side I show them stuff that's sorta relevant to them, such as:
Kid - Look, I'm sending my internet through China! (TOR network)
Audiophile - Viper4android adjustments
Random person I know - Check these new status bar colours/icons
Dumb IOS fan - But I don't understand how android works *installs new launcher, icon pack and home screen* See, it looks exactly the same!
Etc
Sent from my galaxy note 4 fake, now revived from the dead
The thing is that they always ask me that "Why should we bother with it?" and "Why are you wasting time with it?". If you do it yourself, you'll understand on how it works, as a channel of Tek Syndicate called "TekLinux" mentioned it in a video. Can't they realise that they'll have something better at the end?
Sent from my GT-I9515 using XDA Free mobile app
People also say that about cars. Houses. Clothing. Art. Hell, even hair. "Why should I dye it? What's the point?"
I've had people ask me why I waste so much time dyeing my hair a non-standard colour. The answer is the same, regardless of whether it's about my phone or my hair or the way every wall in my house has a different colour: "Because it's fun. Because I like doing it, and I like the result."
The ones that say that it's a waste of time and effort are people who are more happy being a number in a crowd, being normal and never being unique.
We customize and personalise because we want our system, cars, houses, even ourselves, to be better than average, different from everyone else, and we want it to work the way we prefer it.
The problem is that 'normal' people are selfish and shortsighted. They think that everyone like the same things as them, and can't accept that everyone is different. the idea that someone might have a different hobby, preference or idea is incomprehensible to them.
Perfect example: The average woman can't see the point of modding cars, the average bloke can't see the point of having so many different items of clothing and shoes. Yet both are the exact same principle, they just can't understand that someone is different.
Note the average, because both sides always have people who do see the point and enjoy it just as much. They are considered freaks by the common cattle. (In case anyone decides to feel offended by the 'freak' part, don't. I'm a woman who loves cars and tech, and hates shopping. I have a total of three pairs of shoes: sneakers, heeled boots and flat boots. I'm one of those socalled freaks. And proud of it.)
Customizing a phone's firmware to change the way it looks is no different from adding a bodykit to a car, or a scarf to a dress. It's the exact same thing, just different items.