George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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 even MS can improve the UI.

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

They've already done that, and its hilarious how
much of the UI is spreading into Linux now.

>>> 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?

Yep.

> Most have a lousy UI.

Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.

ITunes in spades.

> Its one reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.

Nope, thats primarily due to the recognition factor. The same
thing that sees MS so completely dominate PC apps now.

>> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

> Huh? Are we talking about the same iPod?

Yep.

> 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.

Thats just plain wrong with loading it with what you want.

And finding a particular tune when its full of stuff too.

>> 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.

Nope.

> A child can figure out both in seconds

Fantasy.

>>>>> 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.