Well as long as the screen doesn't scratch easily??
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And does not cost like as much as a PS3??
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
$499 for the 4GB, $599 for the 8GB.
<-- Not a shill, just exuberant.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Wait a second, Euripides. You've only been here for 840 posts, edited my Brown essay, and made some good jokes. How can we trust ya, you dirty shiller?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Good jokes? Where?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering what it does, I think the price is perfectly fair.
It's an iPod/phone/PDA/internet browser/blackberry etc etc all in one.
Consider what you would pay for all those devices separately and then what Apple is charging for this thing. The price is VERY fair. So long as the screen is VERY scratch proof, I think this COULD be a revolutionary device.
The only problem is, I already have an MP3 player, and a phone. I'm not going to pay for this thing, especially with it doesn't have the same 3G network capabilities that my current phone has. When the price drops a bit, the kinks are ironed out, and the tech advances, I'll actually consider getting one, even if I don't need the mp3 player in it.
The only personal strike against it is that I don't like Apple as a rule. I don't want to use iTunes. It's Cingular, which I already have, but I'll wait for Microsoft to release the same thing in two years, probably with Verizon as a partner. These types of all in one devices are here to stay I think.
For the sake of it: The RAZR when I bought it cost $100 when bought with a new plan. My mp3 player cost $150 (I have a Sansa e270). My Sony Clie was I think also $150. Those alone equal $400, which is $99 shy of the cost of the cheapest iPhone. The thing also pretty much works like mapquest. It detects where you are, searches for nearby restaurants and then syncs up with the phonebook to give you the number of the restaurant.
It's like a friggin tricorder from Star Trek. I wonder how long the battery actually lasts on it. That'd be my biggest concern, along with scratch resistance.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Euripides: Wait a second. You're telling me that the vast majority of your posts...weren't jokes? I was supposed to be taking you seriously? Darn. And I was getting such good laughs from 'em.
^^;;
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Tricorder! Well put, Lyrhawn.
Although I don't understand why you prefer not use Apple products, you are right that this is a revolutionary product. One of the finest integrations of applied technology, IMHO (and a very well marketed integration of technology, to be sure). There's been a need for it for a long time, and mobile phone companies have tried doing it repeatedly, but in a half-assed way.
The iPhone goes all the way with bringing the power of computers into your breast pocket, and it does so with style. Why are you going to wait for the tasteless Microsoft rip-off to come?
The iPhone is coming out in June in the States.
Australia: 2008?
[ January 10, 2007, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto:
Euripides: Wait a second. You're telling me that the vast majority of your posts...weren't jokes? I was supposed to be taking you seriously? Darn. And I was getting such good laughs from 'em.
^^;;
Oh there were plenty of jokes, but I've always thought my sense of humour needs a little work.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well, for myself, a 500$ price tag is more than a good enough reason to avoid this product.
ADD:
I remember you made a joke that made me laugh, so I mentioned it ^^.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I showed the site to Fahim. He's salivating. As soon as he's employed again, he wants one. Never mind that he just got a new phone a month and a half ago.
Euripides, you could always ask someone from the US to ship one to you. That's probably what Fahim will do. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Funnel me the money, plus a respectable finder's fee and I'll get one and mail it to you Eurip.
Dazzle your friends and make the geeky ladies flock to you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Considering what it does, I think the price is perfectly fair.
It's an iPod/phone/PDA/internet browser/blackberry etc etc all in one.
Consider what you would pay for all those devices separately and then what Apple is charging for this thing.
iPod: I spent $70 for my mp3 player. I love it. Phone: I've never paid money for a phone. I always get free ones. PDA: I spent $70 and $20 for my last two Clies. They are great. Internet Browser: I have no interest in browsing the internet on a handheld device Blackberry: I have no interest in one
So from Apple I can combine 3 gadgets into one, but I have to pay $500 instead of $140.
No thank you.
Judging from how much other people are salivating, I'm guessing that I'm just not the market they're shooting for.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Hey, that's a great idea. I was worried that it wouldn't work with our telecom infrastructure.
I've got a friend in California who will be getting one for himself, so I can ask him. Thanks for the offer though Lyrhawn.
[ January 14, 2007, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Judging from how much other people are salivating, I'm guessing that I'm just not the market they're shooting for.
I'm not so sure. Even if the browser doesn't interest you, the idea of centralising all this data and communications technology will benefit almost everyone. (And you did say you already use a PDA, which means you prefer to organise schedules and other bits of information digitally and in a mobile medium.)
The iPhone represents the direction telecom and mobile IT generally will be going, and the product will surely become cheaper.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, that's not ALL it is, but if you don't want the other things that it does, I certainly don't blame you for avoiding it.
I mean, imagine you get up one morning, your phone's alarm woke you up. You pick it up and it has your daily schedule on it. You hop in your car and head to work but there's a traffic jam, so you take the time to check your iPhone for your email, and ironically see a report about the accident that's four miles up the road. The phone suggests a detour and you accept it, searching for a Starbucks along the way. Finding one, you get off, get a coffee and cruise off to work.
At lunch you hop in your car and head out to grab a bite to eat. You receive a call from a friend asking you meet you, suggests a restaurant and you say sure. You aren't sure where it is, so you google it on your phone, find it, and the phone detects where you are and plots directions to the restaurant telling you when to turn and such. You realize this might take longer than you thought, so you use the phone to find the number for the restaurant and call ahead for seating, then you call your friend and tell him you might be a little late.
When you get to work, you get an urgent instant message from someone at work telling you of a crisis with a client. The coworker forwards you the email to your phone, you read it, and discover it really isn't that big a deal, email the client, and go back to your lunch. You double check the tip you should pay on your iPhone, wish your friend well and head back to the office.
At the end of a long day, you head back home, and sync your phone to the car to play some calming music for the drive home off the phone's mp3 player.
Like I said, if none of that interests you, you're absolutely right that the price for this thing is outrageous, but for a lot of people I think this has a lot of attractive qualities. I think they are targeting business professionals and networked young people, and I'd say this is a good product to market to them.
Include a slot for Nintendo DS games and you're relaly off to the races.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And you did say you already use a PDA, which means you prefer to organise schedules and other bits of information digitally and in a mobile medium.
Nope. I almost exclusively use my PDA exclusively for reading books in electronic format. I have nary a contact nor appointment on it.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to have 1 gadget replac 3. I'm just not willing to pay three times as much for the privelidge.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Fahim's a geek who loves his geek toys. His last phone was about $800. It's basically a phone, a pocket PC, with a camera, MP3 player, GPS tracking system, and a bunch of other stuff. He really got it for the phone and pocket PC bit - it comes with an OS that's easy for him to program in. Yep, he creates his own apps for his own phone.
And yes, he's the target demographic.
I'm not as much of a geek gadget lover as he is, but I would still find it oh so useful. Able to carry around contact information with me - not just names and phone numbers, but addresses, instructions on how to find their place, notes. Shopping lists. Ideas that occur to me while I'm out and about. Databases for books or CDs or DVDs so we don't buy duplicates.
Euripides - you really need to check out the specs to see if it is compatible with the Australian mobile phone system. It may be, it might not be. Different areas use different frequencies and, um, stuff. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I love the idea of this, and have wanted something like this for a long time. Something that could combine all the handheld electronic devices seamlessly into one unit. I've never really wanted internet browsing on a phone, but now that I think about it, it'd be pretty handy to be able to do google, wikipedia, maps, and moviefone searches any time I wanted(and others of course). The usability of this device looks amazing. I watched all the vidoes on the site and I'm awed. I LOVE how you can turn the device sideways and the screen re-orients itself for widescreen.
How does it work when you're listening to music or watching a video when the phone rings? Ideally for me it would pause automitically while you answer the phone, and then let you start up again manually. I'm also curious how the internet connection interferes(or if it does at all) with the phone usage.
I'll be waiting to buy something like this for a bit though for the following reasons:
much larger storage capacity, i want my whole music collection on a device, with room to spare for pictures, and videos. And my music is 40-50 gigs alone.
assurance that the screen can withstand everything it's going to have to put up with. my cell phone screens don't do well(neither do my cell phones though)
a bluetooth headset that can function as both an earpiece AND headphones(ideally with some sort of connector to allow just the single earpiece for regular phone usage, with an added extension for fully functional headphones)
better camera. at least 4 megapixels so i can get rid of my digital camera.
i also just hate the hassle you have to go through to get non-itunes media on an ipod.
[ January 09, 2007, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Nope. I almost exclusively use my PDA exclusively for reading books in electronic format. I have nary a contact nor appointment on it.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to have 1 gadget replac 3. I'm just not willing to pay three times as much for the privelidge.
I see. Fair enough then.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
Euripides - you really need to check out the specs to see if it is compatible with the Australian mobile phone system. It may be, it might not be. Different areas use different frequencies and, um, stuff.
Thanks quid, will do.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
The only thing I don't like about it is that it won't be available in Australia for a year....
I think the price is extraordinarily reasonable - My friend's JasJam is worth $1000 here - even in Australian dollars, the 8GB will be under $800.
Good deal.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Considering what it does, I think the price is perfectly fair.
It's an iPod/phone/PDA/internet browser/blackberry etc etc all in one.
I think the iPhone looks cool and all, but I think your list is a little bit of a misrepresentation. Most (if not all) PDAs these days have internet browsers, and a blackberry is a phone/PDA as it is, so your list basically just says it's an iPod/blackberry or iPod/PDA/phone. It seems to be much better than anything already out, but one of my friends just got a new blackberry (could be a different brand, I'm not sure), and a really good one at that, for I think $200.
My favorite feature I think is the way the voicemail works. Not having to listen to every message to find the one I want would be amazing!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm just way too much of a tightwad to be much of a gadgeteer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackberrys and PDAs these days have GPS trackers and the like on them?
Strider -
Wait for wireless USB 2.0 to become standard. It'll put Bluetooth out of business.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
$599 + 2 year contract w/ Cingular...no thanks. It looks nice though.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Hmm, I might have to wait until Apple irons out a deal with an Australian telecom company. 2008, they say. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Lyr, don't care how it works, just that it does what I want. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah, but you might care how it works when the battery life on Wireless USB gives you two to three times longer listening time than bluetooth does, mightn't you?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
of course. but my point was the details and differences in the technology aren't of much interest to me, as long as the surface functionality is what I want. In other words, whichever is out, and better, I'll use.
This is of course all untrue as my geeky nature cares GREATLY about how everything works, just having some fun though.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think Strider hit all my concern points.
I'm not one much for phones (you will never see me owning a Razr) but it would be nice to have one device that can do all that. My ipod, phone, and digital camera all take up an insane amount of room in my purse. And I've always wanted a PDA since my old one was put to the wayside since we could never find a connecting cable for my laptop.
But that price for that little gigspace...I'll wait. I wanted an ipod will a big viewing screen but what's the point if you can't fit more than a few videos on it at a time? Between all the software, music files, contact info, and other fun media...its just not enough space for me.
When that changes and when the screens prove to be strong and there's proof that the battery has some kick to it, then I'll fork over the money.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
There's pretty much no way I won't buy this device.
I'm highly resistant to change: I own no mp3 player, I use a Nokia 3595, and own no PDA and I am still unbelievably excited for this.
I use a prepay plan because a $50 refill on minutes lasts me 4-5 months. I don't care. I will sign up for a 2 year contract with Cingular if that is what it will take to get me this device.
Apple's going to hit one straight out of the ballpark with this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's the same phone my dad had...back in like 1998. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm just way too much of a tightwad to be much of a gadgeteer.
That's cool, too. You'll retire earlier than the rest of us.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I use a prepay plan because a $50 refill on minutes lasts me 4-5 months.[/QB]
Dude. I use a prepay plan as well. A Rs.400 ($4US) refill expired a few weeks ago with Rs.177 and change still left - Rs.223 ($2.23ish) in cell phone charges in a year. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I was pretty surprised to see them use the name iPhone, since Cisco had already grabbed that name. But apparently they worked out a deal with Cisco about it, according to some of the reports I read....
FG
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm exactly the target market for this, and while I think it's really cool there's no way I'll shell out 500-600 bucks for this.
Plus, I actually find that the most annoying thing about mobile devices is the short battery life. So I prefer to keep my music separate from my phone, since I'm listening to music pretty much at all times.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I feel like Apple figured out exactly what I wanted in a portable device, then traveled 5 years into the future to get it.
That's unfortunate. The technology to do this has been available for almost eight years. In fact, I've owned a number of devices that do all this. In most cases, however, the devices are crippled by the carriers, who want you to pay them extra money to download ringtones and/or subscribe to data plans for an additional $50/month.
There's nothing technologically revolutionary about this product, as is so often the case with Apple; it's all about the pretty case and the potentially revolutionary (for America, that is; Europe and Asia have had these things for years) deal with the carrier. But since we haven't seen specifics of the carrier's deal, we don't know that this isn't just a glorified PDA phone.
Note that PDA phones are in many ways undesirable. Not being able to feel the buttons as you're dialing them is problematic unless you always do voice-dial, and battery life tends to be an issue. I'm speaking here as someone who LIKES PDAs and PDA-phones. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, the technology doesn't appear to me to be revolutionary either. I doubt Fahim sees it that way, either. With him, the user interface is really important, seriously important. He hates things with ugly user interfaces. I suspect that what appeals to him with this one is, more than anything else, the screen - it looks pretty. Functional, it looks like, and that's also more important, but with the functionality must be prettiness.
If that makes sense. To anyone other than him and I.
He's had a PDA/phone for the last four years (I have it now since he upgraded to something newer, prettier, and shinier) that has most of the toys that the iPhone has, including internet access and who knows what else. I think the MP3 player is the only thing this phone doesn't have. The phone he has now has even more.
It's all about the pretty.
And in that, this marks the second or third time that I have been in full agreement with The Tom. Amazing. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Tom, I'd have to agree that none of the technology here is new (though it's never been integrated so well). But it's more than a pretty case and a telecom deal. It's good design (object design, software design, interface design). UI and good design are really important. That's what the end user sees and interacts with; what makes or breaks the experience of using a product.
Why would we need the specifics on the carrier to know if the iPhone is a glorified PDA phone?
As for this sort of thing being available in Europe and Asia for years, what products are you talking about? While in Japan I remember mobile phones with built-in mp3 players, laptops the size of envelopes which have internet access, and PDA phones, but nothing which does everything the iPhone does, let alone as well as the iPhone does it. What those other gadgets say to me is 'Hey, here's a phone and [insert gadget] all in one!' Whereas the iPhone says, 'Want to live in a digital world? Here, take this.'
Apple doesn't invent new microprocessors and didn't come up with Unix, sure, but their software really is miles ahead of the competition, and their implementation of existing technology is top notch. Also, the cases are pretty.
I hope I'm not being too defensive, but I believe good design is undervalued. We have so much raw technology but so few intuitive and simple UIs.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Quid beat me to it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What's really funny is that so far there have been zero announcements about Macintosh hardware or software from Apple Com-- er, Apple Inc. at what is ostensibly the MacWorld Expo.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:let alone as well as the iPhone does it.
Are you really claiming to have data on how well the thing works already?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Um, except that, since the iPhone isn't on the market yet, we don't actually know how well it's going to perform. All we know right now is what it's supposed to be able to do and how it looks.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The UI matters a lot. I've already seen talk by quite a few business folks (on economics-related blogs I frequent) how the improvement in voicemail interface alone will probably draw them in. For that sort of person, having the most convenient interface in its class is more than worth the money.
The technology that apple's at the cutting edge of has long been design, not hardware, but design technology is quite possibly the most important technology out there for companies of that sort in these days of commoditization.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sure, UI matters. It can make life a whole lot easier with a good interface. But if the functionality isn't there, then no interface in the world will save a product.
Which isn't disagreeing with you, fugu, but expanding. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, we probably did. Oh wait, I wasn't around then... Hey, neither were you. *looks at Zeugma suspiciously*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: I swear we had this exact same conversation back in 2000 or whenever the first iPod came out. Half the people were drooling over it, the other half were wondering what the big deal was, since all the technology in the iPod had been around for years.
There were similar reactions to the G4 Cube, so that doesn't necessarily bode well.
For my own part, I don't much care because I don't have a cellphone or PDA, and don't want either.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, I was more responding to some earlier posts .
The functionality probably will be there; apple's pretty darn good at delivering on specific statements (except when outside their control, such as processor speed bumps). Since they already have their contract with Cingular, anything that's said about what will be possible should be possible.
The exact usability of the UI will be subject to user experience, of course, but Apple has an excellent track record there, including with handheld devices going back over a decade (the Newton, appearing in 1993).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Personally, once I can reasonably afford unlimited data + minimal voice capabilities (which will be a few years ), I'll probably get one. In many situations the iPhone would substitute for a laptop for me, in a considerably more convenient package.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:let alone as well as the iPhone does it.
Are you really claiming to have data on how well the thing works already?
Nope. I was talking in terms of user interfaces, and the screencasts and keynote give a pretty good idea of what the UI is like.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Careful -- in my experience, making so much as a conditionally positive statement about Apple will earn you the "Apple fanboy/fangirl" label from Tom. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
*befriends Zeugma*
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I hate iPods. I hate Macs. I hate Apple.
AND I'm an animation student.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have every confidence that Apple will take immediate steps to address your concerns, probably by withdrawing all of their products from the market.
Posted by Kyle Katarn (Member # 3567) on :
O RLY?
They can close the Apple store next, you can fit 3 stores in the space they use to show off a bunch of tiny little devices. Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
The gist of it is that we won't see the iPhone make a big impact until a)they sell it unlocked, like most smartphone manufacturers are starting to do, and b)show it running enterprise-level mail apps. Until then, it'll be a cool-but-expensive consumer toy.
But it's a good start.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb] Blackberrys and PDAs these days have GPS trackers and the like on them?
Plain cell phones now have that, man.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I was wondering how Apple called it the iPhone when Cisco owns the trademark ( and before anyone says anything trademark is from 2000). Well Cisco Sues Apple. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Am I the only one who not only isn't excited about this, but am disappointed with what Apple made?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb] Blackberrys and PDAs these days have GPS trackers and the like on them?
Plain cell phones now have that, man.
One's that give you street to street directions and tell you when to turn etc. etc. like that "Tom Tom" device I'm always seeing on tv? I know all phones have GPS on them, mine does, I think just so 911 can always tell where I am, and maybe so the FBI can spy on me. Anyway, I was referring to more than just being able to pinpoint someone.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged:
I was wondering how Apple called it the iPhone when Cisco owns the trademark ( and before anyone says anything trademark is from 2000). Well Cisco Sues Apple.
I am putting my money on Apple's legal team.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eh, I don't know. The best legal team in the world can't out and out win when you're fighting a losing battle like that. Cisco has the trademark, and Apple is using it illegally. Apple doesn't have any sort of rights to i____ fill in the blank ad infinitum.
Forget Apple's legal team, I think they'll lose, but it won't matter. Long before Apple changes the name, or the legal decision is made, they'll settle out of court.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Careful -- in my experience, making so much as a conditionally positive statement about Apple will earn you the "Apple fanboy/fangirl" label from Tom.
I'll wear that moniker proudly.
I've never owned a mobile phone in my life, but I'll be getting this as soon as it comes out. The 8 gig model. I was literally giddy when I was watching the keynote.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*shrug*
I've got a PDA phone that does almost everything that phone does. I've had it for more than two years, and it cost quite a bit less. I also like a UI that is essentially the same as the one I use on my PC.
(And I hate the "service" I get from Cingular.)
I just don't get all the salivating.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
the thing about the copyright is that even though apple doesn't necessarily own the actual copyrights, they have so much popular bacground with the i<insert product here> branding that many people are going to be calling them iphones even if they change the name and even if Apple never officially used the term. it would still be the whole "apple has a cellphone now, it's called ... something, you know the iphone or whatever..." conversation.
As for the product itself, I agree that my first blush was that it's not that much different from a blackberry (albeit with more media capabilities). Yes the interface is much different, which is important and rather revolutionary, and would potentially be enough to get me to buy one down the road, but the technology isn't anything out of this world. My main complaints looking at the initial technical specs are as follows:
1) storage capacity (as already mentioned) sure 8 gig's is alright to store a decent amount of music, but as soon as you start throwing movies/tv shows on there you are going to run out fast (especially if you have other files taking up space as well). 2) battery life. this is critical. 5 hours battery life when you're using it doesn't seem reasonable. If my phone can't at least be on and take a few calls for approximately 24 hours or more it's going to be near-worthless for me (and assuming I can get by through just constantly recharging it while I can one can only presume that the battery will wear down that much quicker because of more cycling) 3) camera quality. maybe 2 megapixels is enough to take decent-ish pictures, but considering how much it costs I'd expect to take photo-quality pictures. My current gripe about most camera-phones is that the pictures are poor enough that I can't do anything with them outside of showing them in tiny tiny format on my phone. (that being said maybe my understanding of the camera capabilities/expectations is way off, so I'll leave this as a distant third behind the first 2)
/edit also, just to make sure, the phone has built-in GPS capabilities? some of the talk and demos seemed to infer that, but I never saw a clear statement about it. maybe it's in the talks that I haven't had a chance to listen to yet. /edit
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Let's face it. Cisco isn't going to be able to use the iPhone name anymore. Apple's branding identity is too strong.
And it's not clear that Apple is completely in the wrong. Do we know how far the deal with Cisco went? Both sides knew that the iPhone had to be unveiled at Macworld. I wouldn't be surprised if Cisco was just milking the situation for all the money it was worth.
But in the absence of written permission from Cisco allowing Apple to use the trademark, yes, it was illegal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, Cisco WILL be able to use the iPhone name, Apple certainly can't stop them. What remains to be seen is whether or not it's worth it for them. And Eurip, Cisco bought the company that had the trademark on iPhone, and they've held it since 2000. So no dice.
Grim -
I was thinking about the camera too, but really, aren't you expecting too much out of it? I paid $350 for my 5.1 MP camera. The standard for laymens seems to be creeping up to 7MP now. Two MP is actually pretty good, but there's a dozen other factors involved that make an actual CAMERA much better with 2MP than a cameraPHONE.
Besides, the first digital camera I had was 2.1MP, and the quality of the images for 4x7 and 3x5 was quite good. The rest is up to a host of other technical issues that have little to do with how many megapixels the image will have.
I don't think they can get the storage capacity much past 8GB without installing an actual harddrive on the thing (I'm assuming it uses flash memory for storage).
The battery on my Sansa MP3 player lasts more than 12 hours, and the battery on my cell phone lasts for several days. I agree they need to drastically improve the battery on this thing before I'll consider getting one. It has to last me a whole day without a recharging, assuming constant use.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm curious, though, Tom, I remember you in particular having exactly the same reaction to the iPod when it was first introduced... nothing special, just a redesign on cheaper technology that had already been around for years. Has your opinion changed since then?
Not remotely. iTunes is still unbearably crippled, the click wheel is a terrible interface for all but volume control, and the iPod itself is overpriced for what it offers. It's popular, but that's largely due to the "pretty case" and lots and lots of groupthink. The actual user interface is genius only in the way it limits the user's ability to recognize that they might want to do more with the device, and thus don't miss out on the options that, ostensibly in the name of simplicity, have been left out.
My existing PocketPC does everything this phone does (and more), came out two years ago, and was over two hundred dollars cheaper then (not counting the memory; buying another 4GB of flash memory brings us to parity on that score, with the added flexibility of being able to swap out memory cards as needed). It's not as slick, but neither is it as crippled.
EXCEPT that my wireless carrier chooses to cripple the ways in which I can use my PPC as a phone, and vice versa, so that they can maximize their profits. If Apple can talk Cingular into creating a plan that allows unlimited data usage, connects to an Exchange server for email downloads, and DOESN'T rip out half the features the phone could otherwise offer -- all for under $50 a month -- that would be a powerful argument for switching. Until then, I'll just remain jealous of Japan.
See, when I'm talking about the superiority of Asian and European dataphones, I'm not talking about the design; we can get most of their designs here. I'm talking about the plans, the pricing and the features permitted. If Apple can talk Cingular into offering a European-style plan, that will be a revolutionary thing for this country and a clear broadside aimed at the rest of the wireless industry -- which has otherwise been enjoying its cushy profits.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, Cisco WILL be able to use the iPhone name, Apple certainly can't stop them. What remains to be seen is whether or not it's worth it for them. And Eurip, Cisco bought the company that had the trademark on iPhone, and they've held it since 2000. So no dice.
Sure, I was speaking in terms of practicality for Cisco. If they bring out a product with the name 'iPhone', their customers' first thoughts are going to be 'Apple'.
As for the legality of it, yes, as I've said unless Apple can produce a written document in which Cisco grants them permission to use it, it was illegal.
I think Cisco will get lots of money out of this. My guess is that Apple will still be using the name 'iPhone' a year from now.
Tom, what's crippled about iTunes or the iPod (other than the clickwheel)? What else do you want them to do?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They ALREADY have a product out with the name iPhone, it just doesn't have the same recognition or get the free publicity that Apple gets with every new gadget.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I stand corrected, though I still think their branding will be overpowered.
You know, I'm not trying to justify Apple's trademark infringement here...
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I wonder if Apple will make the iPhone G3 before it comes to Australia. That's my only real worry.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Well 3G is extremely well embedded here, so it's at least a possibility.
Depends on the exclusive carrier tho.
My two guesses are Vodafone or Telstra. Vodafone has a progressive track record, great 3G coverage and could do the iPhone justice.
Telstra have their new proprietary wireless network and a bucketload of clout.
Optus is too stogdy, Virgin Mobile is now *owned* by Optus (I heard, could be wrong) and 3 have their own branding they won't want to dilute.
So - I reckon Telstra's the likely choice, but we might get lucky and Vodafone might get it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Just to bring back the little Apple politics debate, I just wanna say two things (2).
1. I love Apple products, generally, but I hate their marketing. I hate getting the feeling that computers are for idiots, or that simple people need to compute too. This stuff worked for them when there were alot of people who thought email was going to be a fad and was scary, but that's over. The reputation and the snarky comments about drinking the apple juice will remain for a long time- certainly as long as Apple keeps treating people like idiots. "The Genius Bar" was a BAD idea, as are most of the add campaigns, short sighted attempts to grab attention in the moment, that will haunt apple for years and years. I just like the products- not because I'm stupid, not because I'm too slow to do the work of owning a "real computer" and not because it looks nice, but because I genuinely like it- the whole package appeals to me.
2. Apple doesn't invent anything, and I'm tired of Apple and Apple fans implying or doing everything possible to give the impression that they invent things that are not even new. This is a perfect example- in 5 years Apple will be called, by some people, the pioneer in the multimedia pda department. Forget that Sony has been doing it with the PS3, the Blackberry has been out for years, the PDA has been out for over a decade, and nothing is technically "BRAND NEW" in the iphone. Yeah, the presentation is a cut above, and the thing is sure to be interesting and good and probably innovative, but it's not a pioneer- Apple doesn't EVER take risks on these products- everything they make is simply an improved and better looking device than the market has yet provided us. I own an ipod, but I'll never claim that the personal mp3 player was an apple invention- heck, I remember the days when I owned an imac that didn't have a program for playing mp3s.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Troubadour: Let's hope. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I've never felt like Apple marketing campaigns assumed I was a simpleton; only that I prefer things simple. The majority of Apple's competition overcomplicates life (i.e. add extra work, which is not necessary) through bad design.
Being able to use conterintuitive software isn't a sign of intelligence. Patience, maybe.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:1. I love Apple products, generally, but I hate their marketing. I hate getting the feeling that computers are for idiots, or that simple people need to compute too. This stuff worked for them when there were alot of people who thought email was going to be a fad and was scary, but that's over.
You could not be more wrong. In all likelihood, it will never be over.
Just today, I took a phone call from a customer asking about our popcorn machine products and whether it was okay to pay by check. I tried to explain to her that we have mail-in payment instructions on the website (reachable from any page of the website with two clicks), and she couldn't do it, so I asked her if I could e-mail her the information (the return instructions are very specific, and making the customer read them in writing prior to returning a product ensures we are not liable if they screw up).
She had no clue what her e-mail address was, and no clue how to find out.
I took another call today for a department I don't normally work with because the morning rep was caught in traffic. I didn't know all the answers to her questions, so I told her to e-mail info at gadgetshack.com and a representative would get back to her. She was silent a moment, then said "Well, I don't know how to do that, so I'll call back later."
Apple's marketing isn't saying "We make products for stupid people," it's saying "we make products for people who like things simple and easy." Two of my coworkers - the ones whose offices are closest to mine - use internet explorer as their primary browser and won't use Firefox. They've both tried it, but didn't like it, and I couldn't understand why. Their reasoning was:
IE comes with Windows, so they don't have to bother downloading anything else. Also, because it comes with Windows, it must work better with Windows.
IE has more features and tools.
More people use IE, so it must be better.
Now, in and of itself, this seems more like disinformation than a desire for simplicity, but:
I explained to them that Firefox is extremely customizable through the built-in features and especially through add-ons, and they rolled their eyes at me and said, "Yeah, but that's so much work" and "That's so complicated."
I explained that IE doesn't follow W3C guidelines for code and is a very broken browser, and they said "All the pages I look at work just fine." I tried to explain that this is because major websites take great pains to use bloated, outdated code so their pages display properly in IE, and they said, "Then what's the problem?"
Neither of them is particularly interested in the iPhone, or in Apple products, generally speaking.
To re-emphasize what Euripides just said:
quote:I've never felt like Apple marketing campaigns assumed I was a simpleton; only that I prefer things simple. The majority of Apple's competition overcomplicates life (i.e. add extra work, which is not necessary) through bad design.
Being able to use conterintuitive software isn't a sign of intelligence.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Also, to add to eros's point about the general public and technology, I present a Christmas story about my mother (who's a college grad and a pretty sharp lady):
I compiled everyone in my immediate family's Christmas list into an excel spreadsheet. That way everyone would have a copy of what everyone was asking for. The things on mine and my brother's list that I didn't think my parents would be familiar with I linked to amazon.com or wherever it was being sold online, the thought being they could just click on the stuff they weren't sure about and see a picture, description, and price for it.
My mom got the spreadsheet in an email, opened it up, and printed it right out without reading it.
Two hours later I got a phone call asking about 4 things on my list -- what they were and where she could find them.
When I explained to her that the spreadsheet linked to the actual products she said that she didn't know what a hyperlink was, or that she was supposed to click on them.
This is a woman who emails daily, buys online, and downloads pictures onto her laptop but who had no idea that blue, underlined text was clickable.
People don't know, and that's not a problem I see going away anytime soon.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Right. And so if you want a product that does less but does it in a prettier way, Apple has historically been your go-to brand.
That's starting to change. I hope it changes, because Linux isn't stepping up to be the Microsoft competitor I'd like it to be. But the iPhone is just another example of something that's not remotely revolutionary being presented as Apple's "next big thing." It's only a "big thing" if you've been living under a rock for a decade.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Right. And so if you want a product that does less but does it in a prettier way, Apple has historically been your go-to brand.
That's starting to change. I hope it changes, because Linux isn't stepping up to be the Microsoft competitor I'd like it to be. But the iPhone is just another example of something that's not remotely revolutionary being presented as Apple's "next big thing." It's only a "big thing" if you've been living under a rock for a decade.
It's only not a "big thing" if you think mass appeal, a Mac OS on a handheld, multiple-point touchscreen technology, the revolutionary voicemail UI, etc. in a single unit that costs less than $900 is not a "big thing."
Apple doesn't just do things in a prettier way. They do things in a dumbed down, easily accessible way. That's why Linux has more or less reached maximum penetration: IT folk and tech geeks swear by it, but it's still far too difficult and nebulous to use for your average joe.
And that's the way it should be. One of my old roommates had a dad who forced his whole family to use Linux when it was still a relatively new thing, and refused to let them use Windows, ever. Their lives were hell, because they were not (and incapable of becoming) computer savvy enough to diagnose and repair their own Linux problems, and there is zero official support for the platform. The average user simply doesn't have the time or technical know-how to search knowledge base forums and read books on how to use Linux; when a simple problem occurs like a virtual drive becoming unmounted, they want a quick and easy fix.
If major manufacturers began preinstalling Linux on their home models, things might change. But no manufacturer is stupid enough to try.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
eros: there's not too much point in arguing, Tom doesn't generally believe in usability (amusing as that is given his experience as a system administrator), and he definitely doesn't believe in most of the design principles that lead to usable software.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: ...a Mac OS on a handheld...
It's interesting, actually -- during the keynote, at least, Steve Jobs described the OS on the iPhone exclusively as "OS X," not "Mac OS X."
It isn't yet clear how "stripped-down" this mobile version of OS X actually is.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: ...a Mac OS on a handheld...
It's interesting, actually -- during the keynote, at least, Steve Jobs described the OS on the iPhone exclusively as "OS X," not "Mac OS X."
It isn't yet clear how "stripped-down" this mobile version of OS X actually is.
It will be interesting. All my comment meant, though, was that the OS on the unit was Mac OS based as opposed to Palm or Windows based.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
<rant>
So, since I'm not a huge fan of Apple products, I must hate intelligently designed software? 'Cos, you know, Apple's the best. And the fact that I run a PC must mean I like broken and stupid software/hardware, too.
^^^ ||| This is how Apple advertises, complete with smarmy-twenty-something-hipster. How am I not supposed to feel like an idiot?
Further example:
Intel processors never did anything useful in a PC anyway - it took the Mac to really free them!
^^^ ||| It may look good to the ad firm and Apple fanboys, but it's insulting to a lot of IT people.
Not that I hate Apple. I think they're very, very good at marketing. And some of thier products are innovative in some ways - but I really, really, really can't stand the pompus, arrogant, and ignorant attitude that thier ads and fanboys spew.
(I wonder what Douglas Englebart thinks everytime someone claims that Apple invented the mouse - like Steve's most recent keynote, for example.)
</rant>
I can understand why Tom doesn't care for Apple's self-vaunting - I don't think it means he hates usability. He just doesn't like arrogant corporate advertising or thier defenders.
Edit: It should be noted that I'm obviously emotional about this, yet I intend to buy a Macbook Pro soon so I can play with Quartz Composer - yay VJing!
[ January 11, 2007, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:<rant>
So, since I'm not a huge fan of Apple products, I must hate intelligently designed software? 'Cos, you know, Apple's the best. And the fact that I run a PC must mean I like broken and stupid software/hardware, too.
^^^ ||| This is how Apple advertises, complete with smarmy-twenty-something-hipster. How am I not supposed to feel like an idiot?
If you don't understand that people with a modicum of technical expertise aren't the target audience for Apple's advertising, then feeling like an idiot certainly seems like a foolish choice for you to be making.
quote:It may look good to the ad firm and Apple fanboys, but it's insulting to a lot of IT people.
Again: they aren't talking to you. If I call the guy next to you ugly, why would you take it as an insult to yourself?
quote:Not that I hate Apple. I think they're very, very good at marketing. And some of thier products are innovative in some ways - but I really, really, really can't stand the pompus, arrogant, and ignorant attitude that thier ads and fanboys spew.
That, at least, I can agree with. True fanboys irritate me, and all of the "Mac vs PC" ads make me grind my teeth. The older iPod commercials, on the other hand - wonderful.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
You're right that I'm chosing to take offense - I know I don't have to. But when I meet and work with people who seem to embody that smarmy arrogance exemplified in the Mac vs. PC commercials...
AAAAARGGH!
(These are the kind of fanboys who claim that pretty much every inovation in HCI and software design came from Apple first - Grrr!)
*breathes deeply* Okay, I'm trying to calm down...
Edit: Oh, and I think the new Shuffle commercial is fantastic. I don't think I'll evey buy a Shuffle, though - I might swallow it by mistake. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: ...a Mac OS on a handheld...
It's interesting, actually -- during the keynote, at least, Steve Jobs described the OS on the iPhone exclusively as "OS X," not "Mac OS X."
It isn't yet clear how "stripped-down" this mobile version of OS X actually is.
It will be interesting. All my comment meant, though, was that the OS on the unit was Mac OS based as opposed to Palm or Windows based.
Yeah, your comment just sent me off on a tangent is all. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't say he hates usability, I said he doesn't believe in it .
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
You mean like "Usability doesn't exist! All computers are hard to use!", or "Well-designed interfaces are for sissies!" ? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I dunno-- the price tag's a bit much for the hardware; and then you have to pay for the service on a month by month basis...
Probably not for me. When the service comes free, then come back and we'll talk.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I dunno-- the price tag's a bit much for the hardware; and then you have to pay for the service on a month by month basis...
Probably not for me. When the service comes free, then come back and we'll talk.
If you're going to wait on getting a cell phone (or landline phone, for that matter) until the monthly service is free...well, you're going to be awfully lonely. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
How about unlimited?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I really dislike Apple's marketing. Apparently it works, but I'm usually more irritated or uninterested than I am intrigued.
I'm not sure how the click wheel is a bad interface. I have yet to come across anything else on a music player that is as simple, intuitive, and efficient. If the iPod is overpriced, then so is every other music player, because the iPod line is pretty close in price to the other leading brands.
The iPhone really does not have anything remarkable in it in regards to technology. Sure, there are some gimmicks like the different sensors, but I'm not sure that they are groundbreaking in any practical way. I personally don't like the idea of touch sensitive buttons, so this phone doesn't really appeal much to me in terms of usability.
I think the key for Apple here is the software and overall interface. It has a lot of potential but I think the intentional limitations might hold it back from achieving all that it can.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If the iPod is overpriced, then so is every other music player, because the iPod line is pretty close in price to the other leading brands.
In searching for a 1 GB flash mp3 player for listening to audio books last year (which excludes the shuffle), I found that I could get a great one from Creative for $70, while the iPod Nano cost me $200.
If I look at the same mp3 players today, the Creative one is still $70 while the iPod is down to $150, which is still twice as expensive.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If the iPod is overpriced, then so is every other music player, because the iPod line is pretty close in price to the other leading brands.
In searching for a 1 GB flash mp3 player for listening to audio books last year (which excludes the shuffle), I found that I could get a great one from Creative for $70, while the iPod Nano cost me $200.
If I look at the same mp3 players today, the Creative one is still $70 while the iPod is down to $150, which is still twice as expensive.
You're comparing dissimilar products. I'm assuming you're excluding the shuffle because it doesn't have a screen. For the same reason, in order to make a comparison to the lowest end Nano (2gb, $149), you would need to compare with a Creative 2 gb player with a color screen.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
In about 20 seconds of searching, the Creative Zen V player (with color screen) is $119 at their site (may be cheaper elsewhere).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
$119 vs $149 is within the normal variance for differently branded products of the same type, and a significant difference from a comparison of $70 to $200, or even $70 to $140.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You made me curious, so I looked it up. The Zen V is twice the volume of the Nano.
Added: To be clear, I'm not saying that the Zen V is bad product, or even that the Nano is better. I'm just satisfying my own curiosity in public.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You're comparing dissimilar products. I'm assuming you're excluding the shuffle because it doesn't have a screen. For the same reason, in order to make a comparison to the lowest end Nano (2gb, $149), you would need to compare with a Creative 2 gb player with a color screen.
I'm comparing two products which fulfil my needs. I don't care if it has a color screen, since a color screen doesn't help me.
I disqualified the shuffle because when listening to an audio book, I have to be able to set what order I listen to the mp3s in. The inability to do that is an absolute deal-breaker.
I was not talking about the Zen V. I was talking about the Zen Nano, which is much cheaper.
In about 20 seconds of searching, I found a 1 GB iPod Nano for $150 on Amazon.com, and I found the 1 GB Creative Zen Nano (the mp3 player which I have and love) for $66.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:In searching for a 1 GB flash mp3 player for listening to audio books last year (which excludes the shuffle), I found that I could get a great one from Creative for $70, while the iPod Nano cost me $200.
If I look at the same mp3 players today, the Creative one is still $70 while the iPod is down to $150, which is still twice as expensive.
someone already mentioned that for the $150 iPod you're getting twice as much storage space.
But also, you can get a 1GB shuffle for around $110. Not quite $70, but much lower than $150.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: I disqualified the shuffle because when listening to an audio book, I have to be able to set what order I listen to the mp3s in. The inability to do that is an absolute deal-breaker.
you don't have to shuffle.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But also, you can get a 1GB shuffle for around $110. Not quite $70, but much lower than $150.
As I said earlier, the suffle is no good to me, as I cannot listen to my audio book files in order.
I know, it's a "feature" and not a bug, but it still is a deal breaker.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
He may not need to shuffle, but surely it would be nice to be able to alter the playback sequence on the fly for his purposes. I mean, come on, it's not like the iPod ABSOLUTELY MUST BE THE BEST CHOICE FOR EVERYBODY WE ARE APPLE OF BORG WE WILL ADD YOUR UNIQUENESS TO OUR OWN FULL STOP
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:As I said earlier, the suffle is no good to me, as I cannot listen to my audio book files in order.
You've been misinformed about the shuffle. I own one, and you can absolutely listen to the files in any order you choose.
Edit: You do have to establish that order before you load the songs onto it, though. Once they're one the player it's either shuffled or not. Either way, you already have a player that you like so it's not really an issue.
Edit2: Really? What software did you use to load the files? Itunes?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The iPod Nano is smaller than the Zen Nano as well. That surprises me, actually.
Now I'm curious about what the smallest 2GB+ portable audio player on the market actually is...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When I borrowed my brother's shuffle, I was unable to get it to play the files in the correct order.
But even if there is a way, the lack of a screen is still a serious lack. I might consider a screenless shuffle, but only if it were much cheaper than the Zen Nano, instead of more expensive.
I'm sorry, but for my needs, the Creative Nano is a much better product for the price than an iPod shuffle or an iPod Nano.
edit: Yes, I used iTunes to load the ipod shuffle.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I don't even really like apple that much. I don't own any apple products and i've been resistant to buying an ipod for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. But I do feel the prices have become much more comparable with other brands.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The iPod Nano is smaller than the Zen Nano as well. That surprises me, actually.
I wouldn't say that. I've got my Zen Nano and Bev's ipod Nano right here. While the ipod is about half the thickness of the zen, its footprint is over twice the area.
edit: That's not correct. My measurment must have been in error. The footprint area of the ipod is less than double the footprint area of the zen. It's still quite a bit bigger, though.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's odd, Porter, because I've never had that problem with my shuffle.
I'm not saying that you should buy one, anyway. I'm glad you found something that does what you want it to and I'm not an apple shill. I've directed as many people away from iPods as I have towards them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't check the dimensions of the first-gen iPod Nano, only the second-gen, but I think the second-gen is slightly larger; in any case, the total volume was smaller than the Zen Nano. Unless I can't do arithmetic, the Zen is 18% larger by volume.
Since its most likely storage location is probably a pocket, being thin is to the portable audio player's advantage.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: He may not need to shuffle, but surely it would be nice to be able to alter the playback sequence on the fly for his purposes. I mean, come on, it's not like the iPod ABSOLUTELY MUST BE THE BEST CHOICE FOR EVERYBODY WE ARE APPLE OF BORG WE WILL ADD YOUR UNIQUENESS TO OUR OWN FULL STOP
I don't think I've heard anyone even remotely suggest that this is the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure that the smallest 2GB player out there is the mobiBLU.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: He may not need to shuffle, but surely it would be nice to be able to alter the playback sequence on the fly for his purposes. I mean, come on, it's not like the iPod ABSOLUTELY MUST BE THE BEST CHOICE FOR EVERYBODY WE ARE APPLE OF BORG WE WILL ADD YOUR UNIQUENESS TO OUR OWN FULL STOP
I don't think I've heard anyone even remotely suggest that this is the case.
You don't think Porter was just essentially dogpiled? To the point where he felt he had to apologize for not having purchased an iPod Shuffle or Nano? I'm using hyperbole for effect, yes, but the point stands.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That's odd, Porter, because I've never had that problem with my shuffle.
You say you have to set the order beforehand? Do you set the order in itunes, or can the shuffle just find the correct order according to filename and track title?
Here's a few more interface question about the shuffle -- is it possible to have two (or more) different playlists on a shuffle and go back and forth between them? With the Zen Nano, this is extremely simple. I just put them in different directories on the player.
Also, does it remember its exact place in the middle of a file if you turn it off and then come back to it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm pretty sure that the smallest 2GB player out there is the mobiBLU.
The mobiBLU US2 is a smidgen larger than the current iPod Nano, but the Nano is about 30% larger than the mobiBLU Cube2, which claims to be the world's smallest digital multimedia player.
That's an awkward form factor, but it does look nice.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Size is overrated for mp3 players. If it fits in the same pocket, does it matter if it's 3/8 of an inch thicker or weighs an extra ounce? For a laptop, where you are adding a few extra pounds to lug through the airport, sure. I have a somewhat bulky mp3 player (for a flash based model, anyway). However, it has a screen, plays (and can record) FM radio stations, can be upgraded via SD card, and has a replaceable battery. It came with a free car FM adapter so I can listen to it in the car. All for less than half of the closest capacity iPod model at the time of purchase. *shrug* I don't mind people buying something because it is trendy, but many of the so called 'Apple fanboys' want people to believe they are the only viable option.
Maybe I'm strange but an extra two tenths of an inch is not a big deal.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You don't think Porter was just essentially dogpiled? To the point where he felt he had to apologize for not having purchased an iPod Shuffle or Nano? I'm using hyperbole for effect, yes, but the point stands.
No, I don't think that at all.
My posts, for example, have nothing to do with his decision to purchase one device or the other. They have everything to do with the process of comparison between products. The products in question could have been a DVD and a Blu Ray disc of the same movie.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You say you have to set the order beforehand? Do you set the order in itunes, or can the shuffle just find the correct order according to filename and track title?
It needs to be "set" in iTunes, but the default iTunes ordering is by track number or, if that's not available, by track title.
quote:Here's a few more interface question about the shuffle -- is it possible to have two (or more) different playlists on a shuffle and go back and forth between them? With the Zen Nano, this is extremely simple. I just put them in different directories on the player.
No, the shuffle doesn't support multiple playlists due to its lack of a screen.
quote:Also, does it remember its exact place in the middle of a file if you turn it off and then come back to it?
Yes, all iPods do that by default.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You don't think Porter was just essentially dogpiled? To the point where he felt he had to apologize for not having purchased an iPod Shuffle or Nano? I'm using hyperbole for effect, yes, but the point stands.
No, I don't think that at all.
Then I can only suggest you read Porter's 3:20 PM post. Additionally, he's made clear repeatedly that his comparison is predicated on only the features that are useful to him.
quote:Originally posted by TheTick: Size is overrated for mp3 players. If it fits in the same pocket, does it matter if it's 3/8 of an inch thicker or weighs an extra ounce?
I agree with you in principle. As I said, I was just curious about relative dimensions, and felt like doing a little multiplication. My own portable audio player is a 30GB iPod Photo -- capacity is a lot more important to me than size. [Added: Provided we stay in "pocket" territory, that is.]
quote:Originally posted by TheTick: I don't mind people buying something because it is trendy...
The main thing that's annoyed me about Tom's posts so far is his implication that trendiness is the only reason to buy an iPod. [Added 2: Or any Apple product.] For my own purposes, I'll stick with iPods simply because no other vendors can be bothered to make their products work half as well with Macs as iPods do, and I'm not planning to switch to Windows in the near term.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote:Here's a few more interface question about the shuffle -- is it possible to have two (or more) different playlists on a shuffle and go back and forth between them? With the Zen Nano, this is extremely simple. I just put them in different directories on the player.
No, the shuffle doesn't support multiple playlists due to its lack of a screen.
This too would be a deal-breaker for me. In fact, I first bought a sandisk mp3 player, but it didn't allow multiple playlists, so I returned it to the store.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:No, the shuffle doesn't support multiple playlists due to its lack of a screen.
This, by the way, is why the shuffle will never be my primary mp3 player -- I need the screen. I never know what I'm gonna feel like hearing ahead of time. So I use the shuffle just for working out (and, truth be told, had it not been a gift I'd have bought another player for this purpose. A cheaper one, most likely) and my 30 gig ipod (that's now 4 years old) for when I'm driving.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Then I can only suggest you read Porter's 3:20 PM post. Additionally, he's made clear repeatedly that his comparison is predicated on only the features that are useful to him.
Once he pointed this out, I stopped bothering discussing it, because he had qualified his comparison process as completely subjective.
Read the posts directed at him. None of them are aggressive about his choice. The only posts I'm seeing are a) mine, or b) correcting his misconceptions about the products (e.g. the shuffle's ability to play songs in order).
If you think that's dogpiling, well, okay. I completely disagree, but okay.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
It's not the only reason - yours is an excellent one - but it IS a main reason that many folks get iPods without even looking at other players that may be cheaper/more useful for them.
edit: curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:For my own purposes, I'll stick with iPods simply because no other vendors can be bothered to make their products work half as well with Macs as iPods do
What do you mean by that, Twinky? One of the things that I like about my Zen Nano is that it doesn't try to "work" with anything. I plug it in, and it shows up as an USB drive. That's it.
I like not having to bother with a program like iTunes or Media Jukebox in order to load my player.
Actually, there was software that came with it that probably does all kinds of superfluous stuff, but I never even installed it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTick: It's not the only reason - yours is an excellent one - but it IS a main reason that many folks get iPods without even looking at other players that may be cheaper/more useful for them.
Can you reference this, please?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:For my own purposes, I'll stick with iPods simply because no other vendors can be bothered to make their products work half as well with Macs as iPods do
What do you mean by that, Twinky? One of the things that I like about my Zen Nano is that it doesn't try to "work" with anything. I plug it in, and it shows up as an USB drive. That's it.
I like not having to bother with a program like iTunes or Media Jukebox in order to load my player.
Actually, there was software that came with it that probably does all kinds of superfluous stuff, but I never even installed it.
This was the reason I was so hesitant to get a new mp3 player. At the time, I had a Creative Nomad 2, which functioned as a drag'n'drop, and I loved it, but for some reason every other player that Creative and anyone else had come out with during that time period (this is 4-5 years ago, IIRC) came with proprietary software.
Then I fell in love with iTunes and it became a moot point. But I definitely can see "no forced software use" as a huge, huge reason to choose against the iPod. It was my rallying cry for at least a year.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The main thing that's annoyed me about Tom's posts so far is his implication that trendiness is the only reason to buy an iPod.
No. Apple products are very good for people who don't need a lot of features and are willing to pay a premium for the option of not having features. I'm not speaking tongue-in-cheek here; that is precisely what they offer, and some people -- especially Apple zealots -- see a high value in a limited featureset.
Since then, I think the popularity of the iPod has become an issue of groupthink and a user base that passed the "blue event horizon;" once it became common enough, it became able to support a third-party economy. This made it roughly self-supporting.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:At the time, I had a Creative Nomad 2
I also had one of these, and loved it. Then it got stolen and I got an iPod for Christmas.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I definitely can see "no forced software use" as a huge, huge reason to choose against the iPod. It was my rallying cry for at least a year.
It wasn't a huge reason for me, but it is definitely a negative.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Since then, I think the popularity of the iPod has become an issue of groupthink and a user base that passed the "blue event horizon;" once it became common enough, it became able to support a third-party economy. This made it roughly self-supporting.
Tom -- I'm not familir with the term "blue event horizon". It appears to be a reference Pohl's Gateway, which I haven't read yet. Would you mind explaining the term to me?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:For my own purposes, I'll stick with iPods simply because no other vendors can be bothered to make their products work half as well with Macs as iPods do
What do you mean by that, Twinky? One of the things that I like about my Zen Nano is that it doesn't try to "work" with anything. I plug it in, and it shows up as an USB drive. That's it.
What filesystem is it formatted to? My iPod came FAT32 formatted for Windows use, but I reformatted it to Mac OS X's native HFS+ so I could use it for document backup. That part of it is drag and drop, just like your Zen Nano. I could even use my iPod as a boot disk if I wanted, since there's more than enough room for a full OS X install, my document backups, and the music I want to put on it. As far as I'm aware, formatting any other player to HFS+ would destroy its music playback capability, so the iPod is my only option.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ...some people ... see a high value in a limited featureset.
Yes, particularly true if the features are intuitive and easy to use. As fugu aptly noted on the last page, you're ignoring design to focus on functionality, when that's a false dichotomy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What functionality would you miss out on by keeping your iPod formatted to FAT32, which is what I assume my Zen Nano is formatted to?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Document backup would be partially functional, but there would be losses, quirks, and irritants because of the way HFS+ stores file metadata (and the way FAT32, um, doesn't). I would completely lose the ability to run applications from my iPod, up to and including the operating system itself.
Using the iPod for backup would go from "it just works" to "cumbersome, not fully functional, and annoying."
Added: To give an example, I don't think volume indexing would work on my iPod if it were FAT32 formatted, so the instant-search goodness that is Spotlight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_%28software%29) would be lost to me when trying to find a particular file. With about 2 GB of document and application backups on my iPod, that's a significant issue.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Back on topic...
Footage of Actual Use of the iPhone, from MacWorld Expo.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Re: Limited Features
Tom, you're definitely right that Apple values a limited feature-set. But what else do you want out of a music player? Or music organizer software?
To me it's like choosing between a novel in which the author includes every detail that comes to mind about the setting of the story, and a novel which cherry-picks what's important to the plot. The first author is not doing his job.
Of course, the quality of the novel will be highly dependant upon the author's ability to evaluate what is and is not important about the story.
Is Apple really leaving out the wrong things?
iTunes organizes, catalogues, downloads, burns, rips, and plays music. The function of the software is to perform the tasks most people will want to do with their music. And it does.
Same with the iPod, OSX, etc.
Re: Apple relies on groupthink for many products, Apple fanboys please stop trying to assimilate us
There are zealous idiots in any group which is passionate about what it believes in, but so far, not in this thread. I believe Apple makes superior products. That's all. And don't worry; Microsoft still has majority market share by far.
It's necessary for Apple advertising to adopt a 'righteous underdog' aspect. Because Apple still is the underdog.
So what if Apple is good at marketing? If Steve Jobs is so charismatic that Apple fans joke about his Reality Distortion Field? That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of Apple's products.
Here is a response to many of the common complaints regarding the iPhone. It's slightly sarcastic, but makes its points.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The function of the software is to perform the tasks most people will want to do with their music. And it does.
Absolutely. Apple has built an industry on identifying what most people want, then making any other options unavailable.
I'm not being critical, mind you. This can be extremely difficult, and can produce a wildly popular product. In fact, one of the traditional graphic design rules for creating a "luxury" brand is "Less is More." When you're doing a direct mail ad, for example, trying to attract a lower-class audience, you want to clutter it with zillions of bullet points and crazy headlines and exclamation points; the exact same product being marketed in a luxury lifestyles magazine should have at most ten or twelve words, in a low-contrast font, spread widely across the page. The idea that you only include those things which are absolutely necessary produces the perception of "simplicity," and simplicity is regarded as a luxury brand.
In my experience as a developer and a sysadmin, though, the ten to fifteen percent of people who want to do something else with their product will not always accept "we can't do that" as an answer. They'll want to know why, and will either demand workarounds or simply purchase a product that does have the feature or two they require, even if the price of that feature is an extra button or two on the user interface.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Simplicity isn't just about the appearance of luxury, most importantly, it's less work for the end user. Computers were invented so you could spend less time at your desk, not more. And 9 times out of 10, simplicity is also more beautiful.
You haven't answered my question though. What are the features Apple is missing but should include? Why are iTunes and the iPod "crippled"? Because so far your last paragraph could be used as an argument for all sorts of feature bloat.
Please don't take this as a character attack. Really, I'm happy as long I can buy my own Apple stuff. I'm curious to know what you think is missing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's necessary for Apple advertising to adopt a 'righteous underdog' aspect. Because Apple still is the underdog.
Not in the mp3 player market. They are the exact opposite of an underdog.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I'm buying it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What are the features Apple is missing but should include?
Things I consider desirable in a media player (regardless of whether or not the iPod does it): 1) Software neutrality 2) Ogg, MP3, and WMV support 3) Playlist control on device 4) File storage (ideally DnD) 5) Removable/replaceable battery 6) Voice recorder 7) One-handed operation 8) External speakers 9) Video and image playback 10) FM tuner/recorder 11) Outlook-synchronizable tasks, calendar, and contacts 12) eBook reader 13) Removable flash storage
I'd want more (much more) in a PIM, but I'd settle for the above featureset in a Nano-sized device.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's necessary for Apple advertising to adopt a 'righteous underdog' aspect. Because Apple still is the underdog.
Not in the mp3 player market. They are the exact opposite of an underdog.
And generally speaking, Apple avoids an aggressive advertising attitude completely in their mp3 player ads. The iPod commercials have never been an attack on their competitors in any way; they're simple and fun, the same ideas adopted in the design of the player itself.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What are the features Apple is missing but should include?
Things I consider desirable in a media player (regardless of whether or not the iPod does it): 1) Software neutrality 2) Ogg, MP3, and WMV support 3) Playlist control on device 4) File storage (ideally DnD) 5) Removable/replaceable battery 6) Voice recorder 7) One-handed operation 8) External speakers 9) Video and image playback 10) FM tuner/recorder 11) Outlook-synchronizable tasks, calendar, and contacts 12) eBook reader 13) Removable flash storage
I'd want more (much more) in a PIM, but I'd settle for the above featureset in a Nano-sized device.
Just so I can reassure myself that your expectations are too high for the current technology market, can you name an mp3 player that has all of the above features and is the same size or smaller than the Nano?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My Sansa does most of the things on that list.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My Sansa does most of the things on that list.
The big ones I don't see happening in a Nano-sized package with the other features: 6, 8 and 13. Maybe 13, assuming the unit does not utilize a micro drive for any internal memory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My Sansa (e270 I believe) does 6 and 13. It has an internal 6GB flash memory and you can insert removable MicroSD cards (which come in up to 2GB), and there's a little button on the side that turns on the voice recorder, I use it to record lectures at school. It doesn't have it's own speaker, but buying an accessory that'll fit on it for speakers is easy enough, so it doesn't bother me, nice though it would be.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's necessary for Apple advertising to adopt a 'righteous underdog' aspect. Because Apple still is the underdog.
Not in the mp3 player market. They are the exact opposite of an underdog.
There is nothing 'underdog'-like about the iPod advertising campaign.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The external speakers are the main one. I've only seen one player, a Samsung, that had a built-in speaker.
Also, the Sansa is almost twice the size of the Nano.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
1) Software neutrality - Fair enough, the iPod isn't software neutral. 2) Ogg, MP3, and WMV support - I don't find OGG is too common. WMV is a Windows specific format. The Windows version of iTunes has a converter too. 3) Playlist control on device - Check. Smart Playlists - Check. 4) File storage (ideally DnD) - Check. 5) Removable/replaceable battery - Okay. 6) Voice recorder - Most people don't need one. You can also get an attachment to do it. 7) One-handed operation - Check. 8) External speakers - You want these built in? 9) Video and image playback - Check. Notes, Calendars, Games - Check. 10) FM tuner/recorder - Again, most people don't need it, and you can get an attachment to do so. 11) Outlook-synchronizable tasks, calendar, and contacts - Well, it synchronizes perfectly with a Mac, and supports vCards and iCalendar calendars. 12) eBook reader - Converting ebooks to iPod readable text files is simple. 13) Removable flash storage - Personally, I'd rather not.
A lot of your criteria involve Windows-friendliness, which is fine. They won't matter to Mac users of course.
Also, I don't know of another mp3 player that does all this stuff.
eBook support, I agree would be nice.
These are my criteria, in no particular order:
1) Easy, intuitive navigation 2) Physical size 3) Storage space (music and files) 4) Firewire 5) Calendars 6) Video and Image playback 7) Support for major audio and video types 8) Effortless synching of all functions 9) Reliability 10) Battery life (one of the iPod's weaknesses, but performance depends on the treatment of the battery) 11) Extendibility 12) And yes, object design. I'm going to be carrying this around everywhere. I want it to look good, just as I want my watch to look good*.
I want as few removable parts as possible. I like a music player that is a single object - one pod.
*In case you are wondering, my watch cost about $20 or $30.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
External speakers are easy. Yeesh, my Palm has those.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Why would you even want external speakers built in? I don't get it.
Oh, and I haven't seen you around in a while rivka. Welcome back, if you did indeed leave for a while. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: External speakers are easy. Yeesh, my Palm has those.
Yes, but in a package the size of the Nano (1.7" x 3.5" x 0.26"), accounting for all the rest of the features?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Do the larger ipods have 'em? I don't think they do either.
Thanks, Eurip. I was taking a brief hiatus . . . and then my DSL modem went kaput. New one came yesterday. Only it turns out the problem was not the modem, but the cord/transformer. arg! Oh well, at least I didn't have to go through the annoyance of setting up a new one. And now I have a backup modem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The external speakers are the main one. I've only seen one player, a Samsung, that had a built-in speaker.
Also, the Sansa is almost twice the size of the Nano.
Meh?
Nano: Dimensions: 1.6 x 3.5 x 0.27 inches
e200: 1.7 in. wide x 3.5 in. long x 0.5 in. high.
It's basically the same size. It's less than a quarter of an inch thicker. Saying "almost twice the size" might be literally true with regards to thickness, but seems a bit dishonest when we're talking about such small sizes.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Thanks, Eurip. I was taking a brief hiatus . . . and then my DSL modem went kaput. New one came yesterday. Only it turns out the problem was not the modem, but the cord/transformer. arg! Oh well, at least I didn't have to go through the annoyance of setting up a new one. And now I have a backup modem.
Sorry to hear it. Did you get cold turkey?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's necessary for Apple advertising to adopt a 'righteous underdog' aspect. Because Apple still is the underdog.
Not in the mp3 player market. They are the exact opposite of an underdog.
And generally speaking, Apple avoids an aggressive advertising attitude completely in their mp3 player ads. The iPod commercials have never been an attack on their competitors in any way; they're simple and fun, the same ideas adopted in the design of the player itself.
Ah, good point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Sorry to hear it. Did you get cold turkey?
Um, do you mean "go cold turkey," or was that a question about leftovers? If the former, then yes. And if it weren't for the upcoming Shinda, I probably would've stayed away a while longer.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The external speakers are the main one. I've only seen one player, a Samsung, that had a built-in speaker.
Also, the Sansa is almost twice the size of the Nano.
Meh?
Nano: Dimensions: 1.6 x 3.5 x 0.27 inches
e200: 1.7 in. wide x 3.5 in. long x 0.5 in. high.
It's basically the same size. It's less than a quarter of an inch thicker. Saying "almost twice the size" might be literally true with regards to thickness, but seems a bit dishonest when we're talking about such small sizes.
When you're talking about how to squeeze that much hardware into a space? No, equating the two is dishonest.
Space comes at an even higher premium when you're working in smaller sizes.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I thought the phrase 'cold turkey' could be used as a condition, like 'catch a cold'?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, it synchronizes perfectly with a Mac
It bugs me that since Apple is also trying to make money in other areas, like OS X and music downloads, that they somewhat cripple their mp3 player. Granted, they aren't as bad as Sony, but it's still pretty distasteful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Er, what? Not in these parts it can't. The only way I've ever heard the expression used is "to go cold turkey," and it means to quit completely (as opposed to cutting back or reducing).
How is it distasteful? Deliberately blocking support for other platforms is distasteful, but not including support for Outlook synchronization?
Rivka, I see. Thanks.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I cannot think of a good reason for someone who just makes mp3 players to make it so that you DnD the mp3s onto and off of the player. Apple's players don't have that functionality because, I presume, they have a conflict by also selling music.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I find iTunes much easier than DnD. I own a 15GB iPod and a shuffle (which my mother got as a present but didn't need). When I want to synch my 15GB, I put it in the dock. That's all. I don't have to wonder which music folder I put my new tracks in, or whether I've bought new music since I last plugged in my iPod.
When I want to update my shuffle, I make up a playlist in iTunes, which is easier than rooting through my music folders looking for the tracks I want.
And iTunes was around long before the iTunes Store. That doesn't disqualify the store as being the reason Apple chose to go the iTunes route (as opposed to the DnD route), but it does make you wonder.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
eros -
I guess I meant it in more of an aesthetic sense. From a consumer point of view, an extra cubic inch and a half isn't that big a deal. It still fits in the pocket of a pair of tight jeans.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can drag and drop with an iPod, btw, it just takes a minor bit of know-how. Apple doesn't have it as the default because their way is a lot more user-friendly (and as noted, it was how it was done since well before the iTMS came into being).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Moreover, Mr. Jobs also appears to be restricting the potential for third-party software developers to write applications for the new handset — from ringtones to word processors.
To be sure, this strategy has not limited the success of the iPod, which has become the defining hand-held consumer appliance and fashion statement in the last half-decade. The world of digital cellular phones, however, is rapidly becoming a simple extension of the world of personal computing. The leading handset makers — Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Research in Motion, Samsung and Sony Ericsson — are all pushing in the direction of making their devices increasingly look like PCs you can put in your pocket.
Mr. Jobs is moving in that direction, too, but it appears that he wants to control his device much more closely than his competitors.
“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.”
The iPhone, he insisted, would not look like the rest of the wireless industry.
“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”
Rules it out completely for me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
I'm surprised they couldn't put some high level language in a decent resources sandbox to prevent interference with functionality.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: 1) Software neutrality - Fair enough, the iPod isn't software neutral. 2) Ogg, MP3, and WMV support - I don't find OGG is too common. WMV is a Windows specific format. The Windows version of iTunes has a converter too. 3) Playlist control on device - Check. Smart Playlists - Check. 4) File storage (ideally DnD) - Check. 5) Removable/replaceable battery - Okay. 6) Voice recorder - Most people don't need one. You can also get an attachment to do it. 7) One-handed operation - Check. 8) External speakers - You want these built in? 9) Video and image playback - Check. Notes, Calendars, Games - Check. 10) FM tuner/recorder - Again, most people don't need it, and you can get an attachment to do so. 11) Outlook-synchronizable tasks, calendar, and contacts - Well, it synchronizes perfectly with a Mac, and supports vCards and iCalendar calendars. 12) eBook reader - Converting ebooks to iPod readable text files is simple. 13) Removable flash storage - Personally, I'd rather not.
Did you notice that most of your rebuttals are of the type "the average user doesn't need/miss this"? Since the entire point of the list was the featureset Tom would like to see, I can't see how that's relevant.
------
re: Apple's ad campaign -- there's absolutely no reason why Apple can't advertise what they do well without denigrating Windows. It makes Apple look petty, and the ads turn me off almost as much as the real life Apple snobs do.
Both Apple and PCs have things they do well. I don't have any problem admitting that. An ad campaign that insults most of its potential customer base is a colossal failure in my opinion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, I just want to clarify that when I say "Nano-sized," I'm talking about height and width. Depth is almost irrelevant to me, as long as the thing isn't a cube.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
Did you notice that most of your rebuttals are of the type "the average user doesn't need/miss this"? Since the entire point of the list was the featureset Tom would like to see, I can't see how that's relevant.
It was about Tom's reasons for seeing the iPod as a "crippled" product. I don't think it's a crippled product, and asked why he felt that way. He put forward his points, and I explained why I disagree. How is it not relevant?
quote:re: Apple's ad campaign -- there's absolutely no reason why Apple can't advertise what they do well without denigrating Windows. It makes Apple look petty, and the ads turn me off almost as much as the real life Apple snobs do.
Are we talking about the switch commercials here?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm surprised they couldn't put some high level language in a decent resources sandbox to prevent interference with functionality.
Surely I'm not the only one who does not believe that they can't, and this is just an excuse?
Treos, for example, do occasionally have to be reset. But the research I did a year or so back (before I decided I definitely did NOT want my PDA/mp3 player to be the same device as my cell phone) indicates that it is only rarely (which is consistent with my experience with Palms in general).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:How is it not relevant?
I don't how to explain it any better than I already did.
quote:Are we talking about the switch commercials here?
If those are Apple computer's latest ad campaign (been running about a year or so), then yes.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
JT
quote:Did you notice that most of your rebuttals are of the type "the average user doesn't need/miss this"? Since the entire point of the list was the featureset Tom would like to see, I can't see how that's relevant.
What I see from that list is that most of Tom's desired features are addressed by the iPod, although perhaps not always in the most ideal way. It doesn't seem like most music players offer all of those features either. The iPod does seem to be more limited than it needs to be, but I wouldn't consider it to be "crippled" since there are ways to work around most of the issues. However, the primary goal of most of Apple's products seem to be about the overall user experience, so I can see how those that aren't as concerned about Apple's version of a desirable user experience may see their products as being crippled.
[Added]Although, I'd be curious to see those options ranked in terms of importance.
Euripides,
quote:Are we talking about the switch commercials here?
I thought the commerials announcing the switch to Intel were fairly insulting as were the commercials that insulted the Intel chips years ago.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
rivka: Apple's been big on improving the ease of creating user-developed applications in the OS. Given the flimsiness of their excuse and that, I suspect there's a technical reason (and one associated with several of the applications being very unfinished): namely, I suspect they're having performance issues with user apps, sufficient that they need to create their apps in C (likely Objective-C) or similar, which opens up the phone to exactly the problem Jobs is using as an excuse . IOW, I think their flimsy excuse is real, but just a byproduct of the real problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*skeptical*
I'm not sure if it is the fact that you are less cynical, or just that I am less knowledgeable. But you are giving them way more benefit of the doubt than I.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:re: Apple's ad campaign -- there's absolutely no reason why Apple can't advertise what they do well without denigrating Windows. It makes Apple look petty, and the ads turn me off almost as much as the real life Apple snobs do.
Part of the problem with that ad campaign is that the Windows guy is actually funny, and I always want to see more of him and less of of the Mac guy.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I hadn't seen the Intel ones (don't watch much TV) until now; just looked it up on YouTube.
If you feel insulted by these ads, there is probably nothing I can say to change your mind. But here's where I think Apple is coming from:
Apple is the minority in the computer market. Microsoft software is bloated with features, without taste, and counter-intuitive. Apple software contains just what most users need, is elegant and well designed, and user-friendly. The simplest way Apple can tell the consumer what their products all about, in the short time available in a TV commercial, is so state what it is not. A great many ad campaigns do this.
The characterisation of the PC is probably what is annoying people. I believe that's meant to play on PC users' own frustrations at their own computers. After all, the ads were produced for PC users, not for Mac users' entertainment.
As for the intel ad; it seems to be an extension of the 'Windows was made for office work, Mac was made for digital living' line.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:After all, the ads were produced for PC users, not for Mac users' entertainment.
Which is precisely why they're so ineffective. Ridicule is not an effective sales technique.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: BTW, I just want to clarify that when I say "Nano-sized," I'm talking about height and width. Depth is almost irrelevant to me, as long as the thing isn't a cube.
Ah. That changes everything, since my objections to the plausibility of your feature set were from an engineering standpoint.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Microsoft software is bloated with features, without taste, and counter-intuitive.
You make these assertions, and I believe they are to a significant extent unfair and untrue.
That Microsoft software is perceived this way does not necessarily indicate that it is reality.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
JT, They're meant to ridicule the computer, not the person using it. Also, PC users who are perfectly happy with their computing experience are not the target audience. PC users who find their computers frustrating, or want something more user friendly but have never considered switching; they're the target audience.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Microsoft software is bloated with features, without taste, and counter-intuitive.
You make these assertions, and I believe they are to a significant extent unfair and untrue.
That Microsoft software is perceived this way does not necessarily indicate that it is reality.
Popular perception was not a criterion in my evaluation of Microsoft's products. My first hand experience was.
I'm okay with the fact that you disagree. You can use your PC, and I'll save up for my Macbook Pro. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ALmost every article I see about "feature bloat" in Microsoft Office very quickly lists several features that I use regularly.
I also find them to have excellent UIs. Some of it is due to Windows' familiarity to me. But much of it is due to fairly consistent UI standards across applications.
There are a few Microsoft apps that, for some reason, have entirely different UIs. These UIs are more "intuitive" (in the sense that a total stranger can pick them up more easily and use without having to reason anything out) than most other apps. They very quickly become far more furstrating to use because the thing that makes them easy is that they have a single use path.
Intuitiveness is needed for seldom-used applications. Ease of learning and ease of use after learning - which are different things than intuitiveness altogether - are far more useful for apps that will be used often.
MS apps are by no means perfect. But they are not counter-intuitive and they, in general, have very good UIs compared to the rest of the desktop world.
I read a great book on the failure of intuitiveness as a UI goal a long time ago. I'll try to remember the name.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
What are you comparing the Microsoft UIs to? Have you tried Apple's apps?
OSX and its apps are far easier to learn and easier to use after learning.
Edit: It's 4:20am here. Good night for now Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can use your PC, and I'll save up for my Macbook Pro.
And while you're saving for the Macbook Pro, I'll be using my PC. It's a good thing you don't need any work done right now, really. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What are you comparing the Microsoft UIs to? Have you tried Apple's apps?
OSX and its apps are far easier to learn and easier to use after learning.
I have used Apple apps extensively in the past, some before I had extensive experience with Windows, some after.
They are not far easier to learn. They might be far easier to perform the single most common task, but this is not a good measure of ease of use.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:re: Apple's ad campaign -- there's absolutely no reason why Apple can't advertise what they do well without denigrating Windows. It makes Apple look petty, and the ads turn me off almost as much as the real life Apple snobs do.
Part of the problem with that ad campaign is that the Windows guy is actually funny, and I always want to see more of him and less of of the Mac guy.
Absolutely. The Mac guy is smug and boring. The Windows guy is my kind of geek.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Microsoft software is bloated with features, without taste, and counter-intuitive.
You make these assertions, and I believe they are to a significant extent unfair and untrue.
That Microsoft software is perceived this way does not necessarily indicate that it is reality.
Agreed 100%.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: JT, They're meant to ridicule the computer, not the person using it.
Very fine line, as the emotionalism and vitriol of too many computer debates shows.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: PC users who find their computers frustrating, or want something more user friendly but have never considered switching; they're the target audience.
Who are these people? Seriously, if someone is frustrated with their OS, why had they not considered switching?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Almost every article I see about "feature bloat" in Microsoft Office very quickly lists several features that I use regularly.
I also find them to have excellent UIs. Some of it is due to Windows' familiarity to me. But much of it is due to fairly consistent UI standards across applications.
There are a few Microsoft apps that, for some reason, have entirely different UIs. These UIs are more "intuitive" (in the sense that a total stranger can pick them up more easily and use without having to reason anything out) than most other apps. They very quickly become far more frustrating to use because the thing that makes them easy is that they have a single use path.
Intuitiveness is needed for seldom-used applications. Ease of learning and ease of use after learning - which are different things than intuitiveness altogether - are far more useful for apps that will be used often.
MS apps are by no means perfect. But they are not counter-intuitive and they, in general, have very good UIs compared to the rest of the desktop world.
Yes, yes, yes.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Can anyone say "commodity fetishism"? Yeah.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can use your PC, and I'll save up for my Macbook Pro.
And while you're saving for the Macbook Pro, I'll be using my PC. It's a good thing you don't need any work done right now, really.
Compared to a PC laptop with similar specs, Macbook Pros are not too expensive. The problem is that I'm a university student with an irregular income.
I'll be doing my work on this PC until then, thanks very much.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What are you comparing the Microsoft UIs to? Have you tried Apple's apps?
OSX and its apps are far easier to learn and easier to use after learning.
I have used Apple apps extensively in the past, some before I had extensive experience with Windows, some after.
They are not far easier to learn. They might be far easier to perform the single most common task, but this is not a good measure of ease of use.
What can I say. I totally disagree. In my own experience, the only reason people have had trouble learning how to use a Mac is because they have trouble shedding Windows habits. That would work the other way around too.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Who are these people? Seriously, if someone is frustrated with their OS, why had they not considered switching?
You don't know people who find their PCs frustrating? People who haven't tried other OSs because they prefer what's mainstream and supports the software they know, or don't have the time to deal with computer issues? I do.
---
As a typical example of Microsoft software, take Internet Explorer 7. The browser doesn't comply with W3C standards, which gives web developers and designers a headache - they have to write more illogical unsemantic code to work around IE's erroneous interpretation of code. But the end user doesn't see this. Okay.
IE7's new text rendering 'features' make small initialised text difficult to read, and makes large text look ugly. The old IE problems have not been fixed; it's still a leaking sieve security wise (thanks to the browser's many bugs), and IE7 is more difficult to navigate than IE6. Microsoft was late to include tabbed browsing, PNG alpha channel support, and each release has been bug-ridden.
It's a similar picture for most of Microsoft's products.
[ January 12, 2007, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Microsoft can't be all bad. After all Microsoft Office is on the Mac. The vast majority of Mac owners also use it. It would be a big blow if Microsoft stopped making it for the Mac.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Compared to a PC laptop with similar specs, Macbook Pros are not too expensive.
Errrmmmm...no.
Macbook Pro (mid-level model): $2499 Core Duo 2.33 2 gigs DDR2 667 RAM 120 gig hard drive 15" display 6x Combo Drive Radeon X1600 256 MB
For comparison:
Dell Inspiron E505: $1,579 as configured Core Duo 2.00 2 gigs DDR2 667 RAM 120 gig hard drive 15.4" display 8x Combo Drive Radeon x1400 256 MB
Mildly different specs (.33 ghz diff in proc speed but identical FSB/L2 Cache, Radeon x1400 instead of x1600), but an almost $1,000 difference in price.
quote: As a typical example of Microsoft software, take Internet Explorer 7. The browser doesn't comply with W3C standards, which gives web developers and designers a headache - they have to write more illogical unsemantic code to work around IE's erroneous interpretation of code. But the end user doesn't see this. Okay.
IE7's new text rendering 'features' make small initialised text difficult to read, and makes large text look ugly. The old IE problems have not been fixed; it's still a leaking sieve security wise (thanks to the browser's many bugs), and IE7 is more difficult to navigate than IE6. Microsoft was late to include tabbed browsing, PNG alpha channel support, and each release has been bug-ridden.
This, however, I definitely agree with. I hate IE. I hate that because so many people use it, almost every major page in existence warps their code to conform to it. As a designer, I hate having written wonderfully simple code only to discover that whoops, IE has no clue what to do with it. What's that, IE? You don't know how to interpret float when it applies to a freakin' div? You selectively read the spaces and hard returns in code, making it extraordinarily difficult to organize code for easy editing?
UGH.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I stand corrected re: the laptop prices.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I stand corrected re: the laptop prices.
Part of the problem is that Apple's prices & specs remain static for extended periods of time. Because Windows PC makers have such a wide variety of components to choose from (and are not competing not only against a rival OS, but also against each other), their prices and components change much more frequently.
Six months ago, when the MacBook was probably near identical in specs (edit: and price), the equivilant Dell notebook was probably closer to $2000-2200.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Cingular sucks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've never had any problems with it. For the year and change that I've had it, I've liked it more than I ever liked Sprint.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Cell service providers vary wildly in coverage and service from one region to another.
I know people in Florida who swear by Nextel, when it was all but useless here (in Louisiana) until two years ago. Sprint is generally loathed in the South, but my east coast friends use it almost exclusively. Cingular is very big here, but spotty in the NW (at least in the areas I've lived/visited).
Saying <huge company> sucks is about as accurate as saying "I hate blue jeans." For every one person who agrees there're probably 4 who've never had a problem with them.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I hate blue jeans. Really.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
<--- desperately wants an iPhone; is having a hard time justifying spending that much to call the 3 people she talks to on her cell
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IE is absolutely horrible. The only time I ever use it with pages that insist that I do so. Firefox is teh AWESOME. But I do not agree that IE is representative of Microsoft -- Office is good, and some pieces are great. I adore Outlook, really love Word, and Publisher and Powerpoint are fun.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I'm actually annoyed with Cingular. As an old AT&T wireless user I had to deal with the merge and change of names and the confusion around that. Since the "new" at&t gobbled up Bell South and thus gained 100% control over Cingular they are changing the name. From Cingular, to at&t.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
IE is absolutely horrible. The only time I ever use it with pages that insist that I do so. Firefox is teh AWESOME. But I do not agree that IE is representative of Microsoft -- Office is good, and some pieces are great. I adore Outlook, really love Word, and Publisher and Powerpoint are fun.
Outlook is definitely one of Microsoft's better programs, but still has serious security issues. I prefer Thunderbird, and Mail over both.
I don't use Publisher, so I can't say. But with Word and Powerpoint, how often does one use all of their functions? 99% of the time, Word is bloated for what I want to do with it - write a letter, essay, story, notes, etc.
And it's so much easier to create good looking presentation grade material using Pages and Keynote than it is with Word and Powerpoint. An example of Microsoft's lack of taste IMHO: Word Art, Word's drawing tools, Powerpoint's cheesy transition effects.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Outlook is definitely one of Microsoft's better programs, but still has serious security issues. I prefer Thunderbird, and Mail over both.
I'm not talking about Outlook Express, which I find annoying. I'm talking about Outlook, which does SOOOOOOO much more than just email! (And I'm not just saying that because my dad wrote a book about the previous version.)
And while you may not use most of the features in Word, I'll bet I use many more than you do. And it's a slightly different list than the ones my dad prefers -- because we have that choice.
I happen to think having those choices is a wonderful thing. You don't need 'em. *shrug*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
On the subject of Outlook (which is an excellent productivity application in combination with Exchange, though finally there are solutions starting to approach their capabilities), apparently the next version of Outlook will use Office's (Word's) HTML rendering engine instead of IE's. Notably what this means is, unless Word's HTML rendering engine takes a quantum leap forward, CSS will not be usable for positioning elements in emails. There're a lot of designers who are not going to be happy.
Word and Powerpoint are definitely high quality applications, though they have a lot of usability bugaboos, partly because its a bigger usability bugaboo to dramatically change things (usually). While there are paradigms in, for instance, Keynote and Pages that are far more usable, overall Keynote and Pages are not as capable, in ways that matter to some people. It would definitely be nice if Word and Powerpoint were to adopt similar capabilities.
A lot of the knocks against Word and Powerpoint are against abuses of Word and Powerpoint -- using either as a layout application, for instance. My personal opinion is that a lot of what is done in some worlds with word should really be done in plain text, partly for security reasons (for instance, its much harder to spread a virus with some plain text in an email rather than an attached word document), but that's my idealism peaking out .
Publisher is a scary story graphic designers tell each other around the campfire .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A blogger has speculated that there will be 3rd party iPhone software, but that it will be vetted by Apple and sold through the iTunes Store, much as the only 3rd party software for iPods (games) are now.
This seems quite likely, actually. I am less annoyed, though still annoyed, and hope the situation will be loose enough to allow for the applications I am interested in to be developed (I want a chat application and ssh, in particular; I'm amazed iChat isn't included on the list of included apps already).
I'm not the biggest fan of their iPhone Shuffle idea (half in jest though it might be). Speech recognition would be neat though, and they have a point about phasing out SMS.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: JT, They're meant to ridicule the computer, not the person using it. Also, PC users who are perfectly happy with their computing experience are not the target audience. PC users who find their computers frustrating, or want something more user friendly but have never considered switching; they're the target audience.
Thank you. That's true. Sorry to go back into the thread, but this is the heart of it for me, this is the whole thing; I don't care about anything else as much as this. I had a PC for three years, and in that time I spend countless, countless hours trying to fix things and do things and go back and figure things out and solve problems. Whatever the benefit was, I don't know. I've got a mac now, and I don't seem to be spending any time fixing things. Great. If I had to give up my ability to do stuff I didn't ever do anyway, that's cool.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A blogger has speculated that there will be 3rd party iPhone software, but that it will be vetted by Apple and sold through the iTunes Store, much as the only 3rd party software for iPods (games) are now.
This seems quite likely, actually. I am less annoyed, though still annoyed, and hope the situation will be loose enough to allow for the applications I am interested in to be developed (I want a chat application and ssh, in particular; I'm amazed iChat isn't included on the list of included apps already).
This was my original understanding, and my original comment stands. This will keep me from developing for the thing, so I don't want it.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
And the battery life is like 3 hours? No thanks. And if you lose it you basically lose your whole life. As a wise man once said "With great power comes great responsibility". I believe it was Ghandi. Or was it Yoda?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It was you, ten years from now.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Where did you get 3 hours?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And why would you lose your whole life? It'll sync everything to your mac, just like everything else Apple makes, and like they explicitly state.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Where did you get 3 hours?
quote:Battery Up to 5 hours (Talk / Video / Browsing) Up to 16 hours (Audio playback)
...
Up to 16 hours of battery life refers to music playback. Up to 5 hours of battery life is based on H.264 1.5-Mbps video at 640-by-480 resolution combined with 128-Kbps audio.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
FYI the macworld keynote is now available free from the iTunes Music Store.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
iPhone ad which recently ran in the New York Times.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
That's the Cisco iPhone that FG brought up earlier in the thread.
Anywho, I just found out about the Apple iPhone and I'm tweaking out. I think I'll get one in around September, when some bugs are worked out. I'm excited!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
This really is going to be the next ipod, isn't it?
"Well, it's Apple, so it has to be the best."
Meanwhile, other manufacturers are offering far more intuitive and feature-packed solutions at a fraction of the cost. This iPhone fad will be no different. LG's first attempt is already putting it to shame.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I stand by my earlier post. I recently upgraded my Siemenns SX-66 to a T-Mobile MDA, and I love it. (I loved my old phone, too.) There is very little--if anything--that iPhone can do that my phone cannot, and my phone cost a lot less.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The iphone will probably be succesful because it will be a bunch of innovation and interface improvement, packed into a campaign and a design which accomplishes that certain jay-nay-sais-something, that appeal, and holds a dominating share in a market that it is essentially revolutionizing.
That is what it means if you say that it is going to be 'the next ipod.' A smash success from any business angle. It does seem likely, too.
Cost is really the only issue. It's a lot of money to pay for something that is just a drop-in-the-toilet away from being a designer paperweight.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
(Ic, I was gonna get an MDA, too! You and your excellent taste in phones...)
The one thing the iPhone has that no other phone I've seen yet is offering is the voicemail system. The ability to browse your voicemail like a computer folder and manipulate them the same way...oh man, delicious.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
And I stand by my earlier posts as well.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
So, someone had to do it. I bought one. Bwahar. Thank my boss for being such a huge iPhone proponent that he offered me a $150 bonus on my next paycheck if I bought one.
Some iPhone plusses:
* Visual voicemail is...yeah. I cannot and will not stop raving about it. All of the web's naysayers who decry the iPhone as a 'retarded smartphone that does nothing new' are effectively forced to eat their words in the face of visual voicemail, period. I would pay an extra $200 for a handset for this feature alone.
* Dual-touch screen is about as you'd expect it: sexy. Quality is significantly better than a video iPod and the surface appears to be more scratch resistant.
* Camera is surprisingly good quality, even in relatively poor light.
* The on-screen keyboard is significantly easier to use than I'd anticipated. At first I was put off by the inaccuracy involved in a touch-screen keyboard: without the feel of the keys beneath my fingers, I'm much more inaccurate. Thankfully, the iPhone is obnoxiously good at figuring out what you meant. I can misspell "head" as "gwwf" and it will correct me. As a result, I actually type faster on the touch screen than I do using a standard qwerty interface - and MUCH faster than I can use handwriting recognition software.
* The integrated version of Google Maps is a godsend.
Some iPhone minuses:
* No voice dial? Are you serious? The iPhone even has a mic!
* No MP3 ringtones, despite being an iPod?
* The headphone jack is designed specifically to make plugging in any normal set of headphones impossible, thereby allowing Apple & their butt buddies Belkin to make and sell a $9.95 adapter, not unlike Nintendo with the GBA.
* The OS and whatnot take up enough space on the unit that my 4 gig is actually a 3.45 gig.
Beyond that, it's exactly what it looks like: standard smartphone features in a UI that many people (myself included) prefer, and others will sneer at.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
I love it, I want one. I'm in Europe I'm waitig expectantly. Harry Potter and the iPhone in one year? All my christmases have come at once.
Now just to b clear, I don't need one. I just want one! I'm gonna love it!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I remain completely uninterested in the iPhone. It's second-tier technology in a Gucci bathrobe.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Then the vast majority of cell phones being sold are using third-tier technology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Absolutely. But for a lower price than you'd pay for the iPhone, you can get first-tier technology and a more useful form factor.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I got one too, and I agree one hundred percent with your assessment Eros. The iPod functionality, while very pretty and more advanced than anything we've seen in the past, loses some of the convenience that makes an iPod with the lack of a four button wheel. However the integration with the apps on my mac, and within the phone between the internet, mail, and phone applications is nothing short of revolutionary.
Realistically I don't need an iPhone, but I've been saving for one since I heard about it, and I can justify it by saying I'm making the Apple stock I own go up by buying it.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I got an iphone too. In fact, I'm posting on Hatrack using the iPhone right now!
I love the web browsing capabilities. Whatever anyone else may say, I simply don't see other phones working as well online as does my new iphone. For instance, my Treo 680 wouldn't let me post on forums. The phone, maps, voicemail, iPod, and contacts features work excellently. Even surfing the web via EDGE isn't terribly slow (though wifi is much faster) and is a huge improvement over the speed of my old smartphone (which also used EDGE).
OTOH, I find myself missing several key features, such as:
eBook reader - Given the beauty of the interface, the iPhone would be a natural and effective way to read ebook. Apple could even theoretically manage ebook sales through iTunes. But as of now, I can only email myself .txt or .PDF files to be opened as attachments and don't remember places in the document.
MMS - no ability to send/receive multimedia text messages. Hopefully, this feature will be added in a future update.
Video - the excellent camera only takes still shots.
Document Creation - one can only view MS Excel or Word docs, no editing available.
No copy/paste - this is annoying when, say, copying text from a webpage to a memo or contact info would be needed. The lack of copy/paste is particularly odd given that Apple originally innovated this.
No built-in file browser - for saving, opening, editing, or creating documents or files.
No iPhone to iTunes access - you'd think that it would be in Apple's best interest to allow iphone users to download music directly from their store to their phone, but this feature is not available.
Despite the missing features, the iphone is a thrill to use, and many missing features may well be added in a future update. In the meantime, I'm having fun playing with my new toy.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Oh there were plenty of jokes, but I've always thought my sense of humour needs a little work.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As soon as he's employed again, he wants one. Never mind that he just got a new phone a month and a half ago. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)