I am looking for an 'App' that would allow text communication between an iPad and an Android smartphone or Windows 10 PC Workstation.
The owner of the iPad does not have an iPhone. I mention this because apparently if you have an iPhone, you can sync to an iPad and get WhatsApp to work.
The owner of the iPad lives in a provincial hospice, lost both legs to a CN freight train a couple of years ago and has limited use of his hands. I occasionally visit this man and bring him edibles.
I am the one with the android and windows devices and would rather not have to buy an iPhone.
Suggestions?
What about good old Email?
Other than that, you could install Whatsapp on your Android (provided it is installed on the iPad and phone).
Same goes for Signal Messenger, as well as other messenger apps.
I am looking for an 'App' that would allow text communication between an iPad and an Android smartphone or Windows 10 PC Workstation.
The owner of the iPad does not have an iPhone. I mention this because apparently if you have an iPhone, you can sync to an iPad and get WhatsApp to work.
The owner of the iPad lives in a provincial hospice, lost both legs to a CN freight train a couple of years ago and has limited use of his hands. I occasionally visit this man and bring him edibles.
I am the one with the android and windows devices and would rather not have to buy an iPhone.
Well even more basic than that. The "missing" color book from Adobe that is the biggie is Pantone Solid Coated. That is a recipe book âliterallyâ for printers to mix a wide range of spot color inks. Using a palette of uniform base colors, you would weigh out 3 parts Rubine, 1 part black, 1 part cobalt blue and get, I dunno, Pantone 498. The customer in Schenectady and the designer in LA and the printer in Taos are all looking at the same swatch in their (expensive) Pantone guides, so there are no surprisesâas long as the guy mixing the ink knows how to use a scale and do a drawdown.
Pantone came out with a Process formula book that was all CMYK values, but it was different from Solid Coated and everyone referred to Solid Color numbers even though those were supposed to be spot colors only. Anyway, computers allowed people to export CMYK renditions of Solid Coated spot colors and everyone was happy even though those conversions aren't valid: your CMS settings can play havoc with how they're converted. So now rather than use the Process book, design firms specify a PMS color (Solid Coated) and then give what they want as a CMYK equivalent. So yes, access to Pantone for most designers is not needed; we only need that CMYK formula. Which should change depending on the paper used, but absolutely zero agencies address this, so I guess no one is as anal retentive about consistency as they used to be in the 80s when designers got flown around the world to do press checks. Before my time, unfortunately, but I have a friend who works for âAdobeâ and she still gets to go on press checks in Vietnam.
I almost got to go somewhere East when I was doing the watery bum cleaning toilet attachment work but after almost 2 years of paying me 70/hour they put someone on the payroll full time. I wasn't offered the job. I couldn't have commuted that far anyway. Story of my life. Lucky they tolerated me such as they did.
Pantone was founded in the 1960's to standardize color naming and application so businesses could share an understanding of the exact same thing without having to be in the same room. They don't own the colors, but if you want to use their language you need to pay for it...especially in business. There are plenty of other ways to share color now (RGB, Hex, etc,), but if you want to use their naming scheme, you have to pay for it
Well even more basic than that. The "missing" color book from Adobe that is the biggie is Pantone Solid Coated. That is a recipe book âliterallyâ for printers to mix a wide range of spot color inks. Using a palette of uniform base colors, you would weigh out 3 parts Rubine, 1 part black, 1 part cobalt blue and get, I dunno, Pantone 498. The customer in Schenectady and the designer in LA and the printer in Taos are all looking at the same swatch in their (expensive) Pantone guides, so there are no surprisesâas long as the guy mixing the ink knows how to use a scale and do a drawdown.
Pantone came out with a Process formula book that was all CMYK values, but it was different from Solid Coated and everyone referred to Solid Color numbers even though those were supposed to be spot colors only. Anyway, computers allowed people to export CMYK renditions of Solid Coated spot colors and everyone was happy even though those conversions aren't valid: your CMS settings can play havoc with how they're converted. So now rather than use the Process book, design firms specify a PMS color (Solid Coated) and then give what they want as a CMYK equivalent. So yes, access to Pantone for most designers is not needed; we only need that CMYK formula. Which should change depending on the paper used, but absolutely zero agencies address this, so I guess no one is as anal retentive about consistency as they used to be in the 80s when designers got flown around the world to do press checks. Before my time, unfortunately, but I have a friend who works for âAdobeâ and she still gets to go on press checks in Vietnam.
So you clearly don't understand the problem that Pantone solves. Or how the dying dead-trees printing industry means fewer people have that problem. Pantone will likely die in our lifetimes and maybe Adobe is putting a boot to their neck deliberately, but it's not surprising that Pantone would try to come up with a way to keep their income up. Do I wish Adobe would have kept up? Sure. And like I said, I don't know why they haven't. Probably a sweetheart deal from decades ago that Pantone wasn't making any money off of. The short version is: I don't need Pantone. It's nice, but not $20/month nice, and I'm sure 95% of Adobe users haven't ever thought about it. But that 5% who do need it? $20/month is a no-brainer. Pantone's probably done their math and said something like "If we were getting 50¢/month per user on the old contract, then $20/month for 5% of all users will double our income." It's not greed, it's just numbers.
Saying it's a thing that can't be owned is like saying "how can they charge for cookbooks when I already have all the ingredients?" and then complaining when your chocolate chip cookies taste terrible because you put chicken in them.
I do understand what calibrating of device colors (sreen, printer) means. I have no preferences there, as you seem to. I don't publish anything, anymore nowadays. But I do know, Adobe, as well as Pantone aren't needed if one is serious about professional output in desktop publishing. It only may seem more comfortable, and that comfort comes with a price.
Regardless of - that's the way we've been used to doing it on Windows for decades...
Just calling out man's greediness! Making money of things that can't really be owned by one, or a group of people via patents.
So you clearly don't understand the problem that Pantone solves. Or how the dying dead-trees printing industry means fewer people have that problem. Pantone will likely die in our lifetimes and maybe Adobe is putting a boot to their neck deliberately, but it's not surprising that Pantone would try to come up with a way to keep their income up. Do I wish Adobe would have kept up? Sure. And like I said, I don't know why they haven't. Probably a sweetheart deal from decades ago that Pantone wasn't making any money off of. The short version is: I don't need Pantone. It's nice, but not $20/month nice, and I'm sure 95% of Adobe users haven't ever thought about it. But that 5% who do need it? $20/month is a no-brainer. Pantone's probably done their math and said something like "If we were getting 50¢/month per user on the old contract, then $20/month for 5% of all users will double our income." It's not greed, it's just numbers.
Saying it's a thing that can't be owned is like saying "how can they charge for cookbooks when I already have all the ingredients?" and then complaining when your chocolate chip cookies taste terrible because you put chicken in them.
So the question remains, what is the difference between "patenting" and just "buying the rights"?
Morally?
EDIT: I was yet editing my post... down there...
I was not debating the moral implications or analogies; I was referring to the literal meaning of the word. Words matter, semantics matter - well, they do to me. There's already more than enough reckless exaggeration and arbitrary redefinition out there.
Not intending to thread-jack. Only answering to Scott's question?
A bit late to the dance, but patents have created the environment that you benefit from countless times every day.
Only when your efforts can be rewarded (and not stolen), is it worth toiling to create something new. Capitalism thrives on innovation, which would stop if people had to share their efforts with whoever decided to use them without having to pay. Computer innovation over the past 40 years has been absolutly amazing, and mostly due to the pursuit of financial reward by inventors.
Pantone was founded in the 1960's to standardize color naming and application so businesses could share an understanding of the exact same thing without having to be in the same room. They don't own the colors, but if you want to use their language you need to pay for it...especially in business. There are plenty of other ways to share color now (RGB, Hex, etc,), but if you want to use their naming scheme, you have to pay for it.
They aren't selling water in the desert, they're selling sand with names on it. If you don't want theirs, grab some of the free stuff.
Obvious furthering of a thread-jack but what is this story about Nestle attempting to patent drinking water? I know Nestle drains water for bottling from various places around the world - even some places which have very limited supplies of drinking water, but that's not the same as patenting it. Purification systems, chemical treatments, or extraction methods can be patented, but 'patenting drinking water' sounds like hyperbole.
Watch out for the future, when sunlight will be patented just there by the energy undistry...
Obvious furthering of a thread-jack but what is this story about Nestle attempting to patent drinking water? I know Nestle drains water for bottling from various places around the world - even some places which have very limited supplies of drinking water, but that's not the same as patenting it. Purification systems, chemical treatments, or extraction methods can be patented, but 'patenting drinking water' sounds like hyperbole.
GIMP sucks balls. Interface is as inelegant as possible, probably as a middle finger to people who want things to be nice. Cheap bastards are better off buying Affinity Photo. It's less capable but less user-hostile than GIMP.
Pantone has had a proprietary system for communicating colors for 60 years, it's not a new thing. I don't know what the beef is between Adobe and Pantone but your take on the situation is just weird.
I've tried to do, but nothing is intuitive, and requires having a web browser open so I can search up how to do basic thingsâbut I would do it just to prove it could be done. But now I'm old and am a lot less stubborn about things.
just give me an AI based assistant to get that stuff done
maybe an elevated/genius smart screen
I added GIMP, tried it, and deleted it. Then I needed SVGs for a site. After adding it back and using it a bit more...it's OK. It could definitely be easier to use...but once I figured a few things out I've changed my mind.
I've had it available on my machines for 20 years and yeah it works for most things I've tried to do, but nothing is intuitive, and requires having a web browser open so I can search up how to do basic thingsâbut I would do it just to prove it could be done. But now I'm old and am a lot less stubborn about things.
I added GIMP, tried it, and deleted it. Then I needed SVGs for a site. After adding it back and using it a bit more...it's OK. It could definitely be easier to use...but once I figured a few things out I've changed my mind.
As far as dickin 'round with Walmart knockoffs.. you don't seem to know free and open-source software now, do you? Let me tell you about GIMP (GNU Linux Image Manipulation Program). It can do anything Photoshop can do, and it is completely free, as it is developed by a world community of voluntary Linux coders, again, for free.
I doubt Walmart would ever sell something like that, not even on knockoff, as you name it, as that would get them into legal trouble, because Open Source is an official license.
GIMP sucks balls. Interface is as inelegant as possible, probably as a middle finger to people who want things to be nice. Cheap bastards are better off buying Affinity Photo. It's less capable but less user-hostile than GIMP.
Pantone has had a proprietary system for communicating colors for 60 years, it's not a new thing. I don't know what the beef is between Adobe and Pantone but your take on the situation is just weird.
As far as dickin 'round with Walmart knockoffs.. you don't seem to know free and open-source software now, do you? Let me tell you about GIMP (GNU Linux Image Manipulation Program). It can do anything Photoshop can do, and it is completely free, as it is developed by a world community of voluntary Linux coders, again, for free.
I doubt Walmart would ever sell something like that, not even on knockoff, as you name it, as that would get them into legal trouble, because Open Source is an official license.
While y'all may be wealthy enough to pay all these ransom software fees for industrial standard (i.e. proprietary) software, how about some free and open source software (FOSS)?
