On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:30:06 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5eb50gF37dnamU1@mid.individual.net>):

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
>
>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm developing
>>>>> a platform that can match OS X? Creating and maintaining a
>>>>> desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of Apple's competitors
>>>>> really has any serious experience with it except for Microsoft, and
>>>>> Microsoft has its own problems.
>
>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.
>
>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.
>
>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.
>
> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that MS can improve the UI.

When are they gonna do it for their own computer OS users?

>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.
>
> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

Have you used many portable media players? Most have a lousy UI. Its one
reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.
>
> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

Huh? Are we talking about the same iPod? It's so intuitive that when I got
mine, (which was given to me) it came without a manual. I never needed one.
It was instantly obvious to even the most casual observer, exactly how the
lil' bugger worked.

> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.
>
>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.
>
>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.
>
> We'll see...
>
> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

You must be using iTunes and the iPod in a parallel universe. A child can
figure out both in seconds

>>>> I have a very simple Motorola V190. It's just a phone. No music
>>>> player, no built-in camera, not even bluetooth. It is without a
>>>> doubt the most illogically laid-out interface I've ever seen
>
>>> Sure, but the same functionality Nokias are much better in that
>>> regard. The most I ever have a problem with is which top level
>>> menu a particular function that I hardly ever use like the timer is in etc.
>
>> Yes, among the cell phone vendors, Nokia does seem much
>> better than the competition when it comes to UI. Motorola is
>> the worst among the first-tier handset makers, probably.
>
> Dunno, some of the Koreans are pretty obscene too.
>
>> But none of them come close to what Apple is doing with the iPhone.
>
> Sure, I was just commenting on that OS UI line. I dont believe its that
> relevant.
>
>> The iPhone looks like one of those technology demos tech
>> companies used to put together about what things would
>> be like in 10 years. Except it goes on sale in four days.
>
> Sure, like the ipod its certainly a significant advance.
>
> They aint the only operation thats produced a decent UI with a
> device that has just a touch screen tho, most obviously with the GPSs.
>
>