George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Michelle Steiner wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?

>>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
>>>>> you already have on the computer for example.

>>>> Explain, please.

>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
>>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
>>> are already used to than a special purpose app.

>> No it isn't.

>>>>> And what applications do those things better?

>>>>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
>>>>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

>>>> That's one option you have with iTunes.

>>> Not with the file manager you use for everything else.

>> And that file manager can't play music. Let's see, with your
>> preferred method, you use one application to download music,
>> another to play it, another to copy it to the iPod, and another
>> to burn it to CDs. I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of
>> those functions in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.

> I think we've found ourselves another cross-posting Apple hater Michelle.

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I just
left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.

> Apple's way is no good because it's ...well....Apples way.

Wrong again. Its just much more intuitive for a device to
showup as just another drive, and be able to use the device
just like any other device when loading and unloading it.

Sure, include a dedicated app for the stupids who dont even
know what a drive is, but let those who do know what a drive
is deal with the device just like any other drive if they want to.

> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.

Just another mindless Apple bigot.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to have a look at my
posting history and see that I hardly ever make any comment about
Apple, and that when I do, I have said that the ipod particularly is a very
decent product, albeit with some real downsides with iTunes particularly.

Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.

>>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.

>> Right here, we're talking about the iPod

>>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
>>>>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.

>> Gee, right here, you're changing it to cell phones.

>>>>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?

>>>>> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone ever
>>>>> showed up.

>> And here you're talking about cell phones again, still in response to
>> the iPod interface.

>>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.

>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

>> And now, you're talking about media players.

>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

>>>> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
>>>> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.

>>> They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.

>>>> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't download music
>>>> from the computer to the phone, period.

>>> Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.

>> But we were talking about one of the reasons I'm planning to switch
>> from Verizon.

>>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster
>>>> than that.

>>> Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.

>> Oh, so you're saying that Apple should have produced a cell phone
>> years ago?

>>>> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the market before
>>>> the iPod made no impression on them?

>>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.

>> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?

>>>> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at Apple to
>>>> make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally didn't do) because
>>>> it was, by God, an *Apple*, whose computers they refused to buy.

>>> Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.

>> If they hadn't shown an interest in wanting an iPod, Apple wouldn't
>> have made the iPod compatible with Windows in the first place. But
>> even if you're right, that means that people who had avoided both
>> Apple and MP3 players in droves suddenly swarmed to get iPods
>> because Apple made the iPod available for Windows? Do you realize
>> how senseless your thesis is?

>> I'll tell you one thing, though; if the iPhone won't do voice dialing
>> and if it won't upload its address book to my car (which has
>> Bluetooth capability for cell phones), I won't buy one. If it does
>> one, but not the other, I'll have to decide.

> It won't surprise me if it doesn't do one or the other.

Me neither, and when so many of its competitive products do
both, AND allow the device to be used just like any other drive...

> Rarely do I buy a technology product (or even a computer application) that will
> do everything I would put in it had I designed it. I suspect we're all that way

Pity that the functionality she wants is there in the competitive products.
With a real keyboard too, which is much better for email.

AND the competitive products allow you to add 3rd party
apps to do what the product itself doesnt come with too.

Yes, many of the stupids dont enhance their device with 3rd party
apps, but anyone with a clue does when some functionality is missing.