It's refreshing to see a tech video on HN that doesn't look like the ten thousandth attempt at making an Apple commercial. I might donate just to reward him for not using ( ukelele soundtrack + "this changes everything" voiceover )
This is very similar to another product that you can buy today https://www.adafruit.com/products/1652. It's basically an iPad 3/4 retina display that connects via DisplayPort. The main differences seem to be that the Kickstarter one will run off USB power (instead of 9V) and attaches to your laptop screen.
I've been tempted to try it, but can't really think why I'd need it.
I got one of the Motorola lapdocks for $50. They were meant to adapt an Android phone (Atrix or Bionic) to a laptop form factor, but with micro HDMI and USB keyboard/trackpad they're popular accessories for the Raspberry Pi. But they can also be used as just an HDMI display, either as a second monitor or with something like a Chromecast, Roku, etc.
This definitely seems like the most efficient route to go -- a LapDock for the Atrix runs $100, and every commercial alternative here is far more expensive.
Only shame is that the Lapdock 100 is unusable for it.
If I'm on the move, I tend to be working either on the train or in a coffee shop, and neither of those environments would be conducive to attaching an iPad-sized display to the side of my laptop (on the train, this would just not work at all; in a coffee shop, it might at a stretch, I guess).
If I'm in one of the two fixed locations I tend to do work - either my office or one of my clients' offices - I will already have access to a much larger and more usable external display.
There are also a bunch of apps for the iPad (and other tablets I'm sure) that'll do more or less exactly this over wifi, which will probably perform adequately (for some tasks).
There are also a bunch of apps for the iPad (and other tablets I'm sure) that'll do more or less exactly this over wifi, which will probably perform adequately (for some tasks).
Way to not watch the video at all. He addresses WiFi as unsuitable both because it has too slow refresh rate, and because on any site with firewall-restricted-WiFi it doesn't work at all.
I find this comment interesting - "Way to not watch the video at all", as if it was somehow self-evident that someone HAS to sit through several minutes of video, which if you think about it is a very slow and almost old-fashioned way of presenting information compared to the speedily-read, rapidly-understood alternative of straightforward plain text.
Kickstarter pages are a good example of this phenomenon. Fundamentally, my time is not unlimited, so I read the text first. Only if I'm fascinated do I then go on to watch the video. Is it just me?
You start with "as if it's somehow self-evident that you HAVE to sit through the video" and continue onto "Kickstarter pages are well known for having information in the video which isn't in the text", so you do expect that to be the case.
It does seem self-evident that if you open a page and it has a large video center stage, then the video is the bit they're wanting you see.
Fair enough that you prefer text, but the "I didn't look at the thing you wanted me to look at, but think you probably have no clue about your problem and haven't done any research before spending ages making your prototypes and starting a kickstarter and announcing plans for a manufacturning run" is weak.
I actually did watch the video, and that was the reason for my bracketed "for some tasks" caveat.
If you're doing the kind of work at a client site - typically the kind of place where wifi would be restricted - where having a second display is useful, you could just ask to borrow an external display: it's in their best interests to find you one if it's going to get the job done faster.
On a similar note, does anyone have any experience with the apps that let you use your iPad as a monitor? Last I checked they were a bit flaky, but I was wondering if the situation had improved (and if they work when connected to e.g. public wifi, or if you need a private network to connect them).
Would be nice if Apple just allowed you to connect one directly via the Lightning port via Airplay.
It sure would be nice. I use Air Display sometimes, but there's enough lag to irritate me, and every two or three hours I momentarily lose WiFi connectivity for one or two seconds, which is distracting when I'm trying to work. Beyond that, there's just the astounding stupidity of using WiFi even though the iPad is physically connected to my MacBook already by a cable.
I use Air Display quite a bit with a LiveReload web browser or an additional terminal in the second window, and it works great. Lowering the resolution speeds up the response, but I've never experienced a 4 second lag.
According to Avatron, Apple does not allow them to use USB. [1]
>> Can Air Display connect using a USB cable...
>> No. In order for iOS apps like Air Display to access the USB connector, its developer must be part of Apple’s Made for iPod/iPhone/iPad (MFi) program. As Avatron is not a hardware shop, we are not eligible for this program and therefore cannot support USB.
However, Jailbreaking the iPad is a workaround since you can create a USB private network for Air Display to connect. [2]
I've still yet to figure out why an ultra-thin, 15"-17" laptop style display you can toss in a backpack with a laptop that has a normal DVI/HDMI connector isn't available somewhere. I've seen some on the market, but they're way too thick and heavy for that kind of use-case. I'm talking rMBP display quality and thickness heaviness.
DVI/HDMI can't deliver power. DisplayPort and USB3 can. I think that'd be a big factor for people. I'm almost ready to buy this thing: http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Portable-USB-Powered-Monitor-MB16... because I don't want to haul around another power brick for a second monitor
What's needed isn't just a smaller monitor, but an interface appropriate for this form factor.
I would love to run a dashboard on a smaller screen like this, or to have a communications hub for hangouts and email. A flash and an alert and I can drag over and use my keyboard and mouse to do what needs to be done.
I've played around with doing this on a mobile device, but there isn't anything out there that lets you use synergy as a destination point on mobile device.
We know the Display Port version of Packed Pixels won't suit everybody but the KickStarter is just that, to kick start things. We are working on a HDMI version but this is more complicated (not just on the technical front) and so is unlikely to form part of the KickStarter.
Aside from the higher resolution, this doesn't seem very compelling compared to the various On-Lap products from GeChic (http://www.gechic.com/product_en.asp) or other manufacturers. In fact, it's actually inferior in every way outside of resolution. So what makes this so good?
My complaints:
- Display Port is a tough sell considering that it's not standard on all laptops. Especially when competing products use USB or HDMI.
- I don't see a mention of the type of screen used so I assume it's TN and not IPS.
- Lack of various extra features since this is just a screen (ex: touch, battery, selection of sizes).
- Not competitively priced.
I'm also sceptical of their gaming claim.
> Since Packed Pixels utilises DisplayPort connectivity you can perform full frame-rate activities such as video playback or gaming.
All other products on the market can handle gaming, but only for low frame rate games. Unless they show a spec sheet with drastically improved response times, they will end up with the same result in reviews that all other similar products have with regards to gaming - not fast enough.
It's the same display as an iPad (he says in the video) which means it's IPS.
It's not offered or sold with 'extra features' so complaining that it doesn't have any is a bit weird. It's USB powered so it will chew on your laptop battery if you need it to be portable.
Why are you skeptical of the gaming claim? It's a screen connected by cable to a video out. It's much higher bandwidth than software compressed USB or WiFi. It's as much gaming as plugging an external display in - because that's exactly what it is.
I wouldn't use any of the ones you linked to, but I would use this. The key feature is the mounting clip that holds it beside the laptop monitor, so it's actually usable on a lap, not just on a table. The reason for DisplayPort is probably because MBPs have two DisplayPort outputs and only one HDMI output, so it has to be DP if you want one on each side.
This product uses the same screen as that what is used on the iPad. The iPad screen is plenty fast enough for gaming on an iPad, I don't see why it wouldn't be fast enough for gaming when connected to a laptop.
Display Port is the only way to push that many pixels at 60 FPS, HDMI and USB just don't support it (there is a variation of HDMI that is supposed to support it, but I don't know any manufacturer that actually uses it)
> I'm also sceptical of their gaming claim.
Assuming they are using a tablet screen, using DisplayPort makes gaming support trivial.
> Especially when competing products use USB
BTW this is why many are slow, doing USB leaves a lot of work on your end and often a delay.
> In the past we have supported some crowd funding campaigns that have been funded but then they have realised they needed to raise additional funds to complete the project, which causes delays. It is because of this the target for this campaign is quite large. At this level we can deliver all pledges without any additional funding or prospect of further sales.
Don't understand why they didn't just make an iPad mount. There's plenty of software to extend your desktop remotely. A small display like this doesn't need to be able to run high frame rate games.
Yes, it's the same display as an iPad. Pretty sure he mentioned that in the video. I'm glad someone is doing this commercially. I hoped someone would since I first saw this DIY project last year: http://emerythacks.blogspot.ca/2013/04/connecting-ipad-retin...
I don't see the issue with calling it small. Small and large are sizes, whereas resolution is a quantity independent of size. A 9.7" screen is small, whether it's 1x1 or 2048x1536 or 4096x2160.
Even if I have a 10" display, I don't want my computer effectively transcoding video all day, degrading my wifi connection, and my iPad to have 5 seconds of latency making it impossible to see what I type. If the client and host have hardware to handle the resolution on-chip (upscaling/downscaling or compression/decompression), then that's a fair statement. To be fair, this might be the case. Regardless of the physical size of the display, it sets off reliability alarm bells to say "hey, we'll just compress 2048x1536 video on the computer, stream it over wifi, and decompress it on a tablet."
