Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

Rocky Mountain News

Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
By Bloomberg News
June 23, 2007

Apple Inc.'s iPhone was a top choice in a survey of people who plan to buy
an advanced mobile phone in the next three months, a sign the new device
may take market share from rivals.

The survey by ChangeWave Research found that 26 percent of likely buyers
would choose the iPhone, a combination mobile phone and iPod that will go
on sale Friday. It was tied for first place with Research In Motion Ltd.'s
BlackBerry.

Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., is betting the iPhone's features, such
as a touch screen, will lure customers away from the BlackBerry and Palm
Inc.'s Treo.

The U.S. market for so- called smart phones, which offer e-mail functions,
music players and cameras, may grow 43 percent this year to almost $6
billion, according to research firm Strategy Analytics.

"It appears that the Apple iPhone will have a huge impact on the smartphone
market," ChangeWave said in the report. The device "poses an enormous
challenge to the entire industry."

ChangeWave said 7.8 percent planned to buy an advanced phone within the
next 90 days

In article <slrnf7u6it.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Justin wrote on [25 Jun 2007 01:09:18 -0000]:
> > Rocky Mountain News

> Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> overhyped piece of crap.
>
> Piss off.

Did Steve Ballmer brush you off?

--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8

"Jim Lee Jr." wrote:
>
> In article <slrnf7u6it.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > Justin wrote on [25 Jun 2007 01:09:18 -0000]:
> > > Rocky Mountain News
>
> > Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> > overhyped piece of crap.
> >
> > Piss off.
>
> Did Steve Ballmer brush you off?

Who cares. I'm tired of reading all this iPhone crap in
misc.consumers, too. Just because all the hype seems to indicate
that the iPhone is going to be a life changing experience
doesn't mean that posts about it have the right to be spammed to
off-topic newsgroups.

Bill

In article <467F4203.F953A2DF@prodigy.net>,
Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:

> "Jim Lee Jr." wrote:
> >
> > In article <slrnf7u6it.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
> > Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Justin wrote on [25 Jun 2007 01:09:18 -0000]:
> > > > Rocky Mountain News
> >
> > > Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> > > overhyped piece of crap.
> > >
> > > Piss off.
> >
> > Did Steve Ballmer brush you off?
>
> Who cares. I'm tired of reading all this iPhone crap in
> misc.consumers, too. Just because all the hype seems to indicate
> that the iPhone is going to be a life changing experience
> doesn't mean that posts about it have the right to be spammed to
> off-topic newsgroups.

This topic is perfectly on topic for a consumers group, so learn about
kill files. Just filter anything that says "iPhone" in it. Problem
solved.

On Jun 24, 6:09 pm, justincas...@gmail.com (Justin) wrote:
> Rocky Mountain News
>
> Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
> By Bloomberg News
> June 23, 2007
>
> Apple Inc.'s iPhone was a top choice in a survey of people who plan to buy
> an advanced mobile phone in the next three months, a sign the new device
> may take market share from rivals.
>

Lemme guess....the status seekers, right?

> The survey by ChangeWave Research found that 26 percent of likely buyers
> would choose the iPhone, a combination mobile phone and iPod that will go
> on sale Friday. It was tied for first place with Research In Motion Ltd.'s
> BlackBerry.
>
> Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., is betting the iPhone's features, such
> as a touch screen, will lure customers away from the BlackBerry and Palm
> Inc.'s Treo.

Untill they find they can't run the kind of apps they want.
>
> The U.S. market for so- called smart phones, which offer e-mail functions,
> music players and cameras, may grow 43 percent this year to almost $6
> billion, according to research firm Strategy Analytics.
>

Cool. Let's just hope these are real smart phones that the user has
control over, and not the teenybopper
locked down crippled shit with cool names (like that "Upstage " phone
for example. To me, the name alone screams "LOOK! I am a Hollyweird/
DRM controlled peice of crap!!!!!11!!) that so many
companies are pushing on the (m)asses these days. Its ashame too,
because the hardware is great,
but the crapware on it only allows you to do what the companies want
you to do.


> "It appears that the Apple iPhone will have a huge impact on the smartphone
> market," ChangeWave said in the report. The device "poses an enormous
> challenge to the entire industry."

I really hope they wise up and release an SDK and not try to lock out
the indie or freeware developer
in anyway. The iPhone looks like a great peice of hardware, but if
it's another locked down, Hollywood
pop-culture deal, that would suck. The market is already flooded with
phones like that. :|

>
> ChangeWave said 7.8 percent planned to buy an advanced phone within the
> next 90 days

On Jun 24, 9:19 pm, Bill <billru...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Jim Lee Jr." wrote:
>
> > In article <slrnf7u6it.nv.nos...@debian.dns2go.com>,
> > Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > > Justin wrote on [25 Jun 2007 01:09:18 -0000]:
> > > > Rocky Mountain News
>
> > > Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> > > overhyped piece of crap.
>
> > > Piss off.
>
> > Did Steve Ballmer brush you off?
>
> Who cares. I'm tired of reading all this iPhone crap in
> misc.consumers, too. Just because all the hype seems to indicate
> that the iPhone is going to be a life changing experience
> doesn't mean that posts about it have the right to be spammed to
> off-topic newsgroups.
>

Uh oh, you won't like the jPhone then

The Jphone is the best thing scince viagra, rogane, and sliced bread!
Everybody will swoon over it....
DAMMIT! START SWOONING!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In article <slrnf7u6it.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> overhyped piece of crap.
>
> Piss off.

Fine, continue with whatever piece of crap phone they gave you that has
features the manufacturer built in crippled by Verizon. Loser!

At $1400 for the first year I could probably get a large TV and high
end cable
service to satisfy my viedo needs.

rick++ wrote:
> At $1400 for the first year I could probably get a large TV and high
> end cable
> service to satisfy my viedo needs.

You're not supposed to add the handset cost to 12x the monthly cost...it
makes it seem so expensive.






[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]

In article <1182766023.944929.238320@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:

> On Jun 24, 6:09 pm, justincas...@gmail.com (Justin) wrote:
> > Rocky Mountain News
> >
> > Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
> > By Bloomberg News
> > June 23, 2007
> >
> > Apple Inc.'s iPhone was a top choice in a survey of people who plan to buy
> > an advanced mobile phone in the next three months, a sign the new device
> > may take market share from rivals.
> >
>
> Lemme guess....the status seekers, right?

Have you watched the videos of the iPhone in use? It provides by far the
best user experience of any handset on the market. As a desktop
operating system developer, Apple brings far more to the table on this
front than companies which have previously only designed UI for
simplistic embedded devices.

I'm using a four year-old Nokia Series 60 phone simply because I don't
particularly consider anything I've seen recently to constitute much of
an upgrade. I'll probably be buying an iPhone.

The people who sit around counting the number of bullet points on spec
sheets are seriously missing the point, just as they did with the iPod.

Apple's major recent successes practically all revolve around taking
technologies that are out there, but that regular consumers don't quite
get, into mass market technologies. They played a fairly large role in
doing this with WiFi, and they did it with the iPod. Apple didn't do
anything in these instances that was *technically* much different from
what others were doing. What they did was package the technology to make
it palatable to regular people, and create a use case for it that
regular people understood.

They're now looking to do the same thing in the smart phone market.
Currently these phones appeal to business types and tech-heads. Apple is
going to make one that works for the iPod demographic.

It's really dangerous to underestimate Apple here. To lift from a post I
made to CSMA a couple of weeks back:

At first glance, in this market, it appears that Apple is going up
against well entrenched, serious competitors. Upon further examination,
however, one realizes that most of the players in this space are,
frankly, amateurs compared with Apple.

Yes, I'm completely serious. Apple's established competitors in the
cell phone market (or the vendors they license software from) mostly
have backgrounds building simple embedded software systems for very
limited devices. A company that has been developing operating systems
for desktop computers for a few decades is in a far better position to
tackle the challenges of building a real platform for today's mobile
devices, which are no longer all that limited.

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.

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

In article <1182779526.491026.230010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote:

> At $1400 for the first year I could probably get a large TV and high
> end cable
> service to satisfy my viedo needs.

As if a loaded Blackberry is any cheaper?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Kurt wrote:
> In article <1182779526.491026.230010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
> rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At $1400 for the first year I could probably get a large TV and high
>> end cable
>> service to satisfy my viedo needs.
>
> As if a loaded Blackberry is any cheaper?

That's comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended. The Blackberry is
also a full PDA, that is primarily used by businesses, and paid for by
the employer. It has to run various corporate applications, most of
which are third party.

The iPhone is a consumer device that is a closed architecture and it
can't be used by businesses unless they make all the applications web
based. It should be cheaper than a Blackberry, if not in the initial
cost, at least in the monthly cost.

> The iPhone is a consumer device that is a closed architecture and it
> can't be used by businesses unless they make all the applications web
> based.

I heard Apple is opening it to developers.
Plus, if Linux isnt running on it by Sunday, I'm going to be
disappointed
in the prowess of my fellow nerds. They've reversed engineered the
Mac mini,
Xbox3, etc in a matter of days.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:19:25 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article <znu-D7C0D6.13192525062007@individual.net>):

> In article <1182766023.944929.238320@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 24, 6:09 pm, justincas...@gmail.com (Justin) wrote:
>>> Rocky Mountain News
>>>
>>> Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
>>> By Bloomberg News
>>> June 23, 2007
>>>
>>> Apple Inc.'s iPhone was a top choice in a survey of people who plan to buy
>>> an advanced mobile phone in the next three months, a sign the new device
>>> may take market share from rivals.
>>>
>>
>> Lemme guess....the status seekers, right?
>
> Have you watched the videos of the iPhone in use? It provides by far the
> best user experience of any handset on the market. As a desktop
> operating system developer, Apple brings far more to the table on this
> front than companies which have previously only designed UI for
> simplistic embedded devices.
>
> I'm using a four year-old Nokia Series 60 phone simply because I don't
> particularly consider anything I've seen recently to constitute much of
> an upgrade. I'll probably be buying an iPhone.
>
> The people who sit around counting the number of bullet points on spec
> sheets are seriously missing the point, just as they did with the iPod.
>
> Apple's major recent successes practically all revolve around taking
> technologies that are out there, but that regular consumers don't quite
> get, into mass market technologies. They played a fairly large role in
> doing this with WiFi, and they did it with the iPod. Apple didn't do
> anything in these instances that was *technically* much different from
> what others were doing. What they did was package the technology to make
> it palatable to regular people, and create a use case for it that
> regular people understood.
>
> They're now looking to do the same thing in the smart phone market.
> Currently these phones appeal to business types and tech-heads. Apple is
> going to make one that works for the iPod demographic.
>
> It's really dangerous to underestimate Apple here. To lift from a post I
> made to CSMA a couple of weeks back:
>
> At first glance, in this market, it appears that Apple is going up
> against well entrenched, serious competitors. Upon further examination,
> however, one realizes that most of the players in this space are,
> frankly, amateurs compared with Apple.
>
> Yes, I'm completely serious. Apple's established competitors in the
> cell phone market (or the vendors they license software from) mostly
> have backgrounds building simple embedded software systems for very
> limited devices. A company that has been developing operating systems
> for desktop computers for a few decades is in a far better position to
> tackle the challenges of building a real platform for today's mobile
> devices, which are no longer all that limited.
>
> 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.
>
> [snip]
>
>

Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS how to do a user interface
designed a phone. 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 (who ever designed it
must been on the Windows GUI design team). Its almost impossible to find
anything in its menus and when you do, they are so illogically placed that
you'll never remember where they are and every time you want to do "that"
again, you've got to spend many minutes searching for it. Heck, I can't even
find where they've hidden the phone's own number. I have to turn it off and
back on again any time I need to note the phone's number, because forget
finding it in the phone's setup menus even though it IS there. David Pogue's
TV show "Its all Geek to Me" on Discovery Science Channel did an episode on
cell phones. From the people he encountered on the street, I get the idea
that most phones are intrinsically user hostile.

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:19:25 -0700, ZnU wrote
> (in article <znu-D7C0D6.13192525062007@individual.net>):
>
>> In article <1182766023.944929.238320@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 6:09 pm, justincas...@gmail.com (Justin) wrote:
>>>> Rocky Mountain News
>>>>
>>>> Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
>>>> By Bloomberg News
>>>> June 23, 2007
>>>>
>>>> Apple Inc.'s iPhone was a top choice in a survey of people who
>>>> plan to buy an advanced mobile phone in the next three months, a
>>>> sign the new device may take market share from rivals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lemme guess....the status seekers, right?
>>
>> Have you watched the videos of the iPhone in use? It provides by far
>> the best user experience of any handset on the market. As a desktop
>> operating system developer, Apple brings far more to the table on
>> this front than companies which have previously only designed UI for
>> simplistic embedded devices.
>>
>> I'm using a four year-old Nokia Series 60 phone simply because I
>> don't particularly consider anything I've seen recently to
>> constitute much of an upgrade. I'll probably be buying an iPhone.
>>
>> The people who sit around counting the number of bullet points on
>> spec sheets are seriously missing the point, just as they did with
>> the iPod.
>>
>> Apple's major recent successes practically all revolve around taking
>> technologies that are out there, but that regular consumers don't
>> quite get, into mass market technologies. They played a fairly large
>> role in doing this with WiFi, and they did it with the iPod. Apple
>> didn't do anything in these instances that was *technically* much
>> different from what others were doing. What they did was package the
>> technology to make it palatable to regular people, and create a use
>> case for it that regular people understood.
>>
>> They're now looking to do the same thing in the smart phone market.
>> Currently these phones appeal to business types and tech-heads.
>> Apple is going to make one that works for the iPod demographic.
>>
>> It's really dangerous to underestimate Apple here. To lift from a
>> post I made to CSMA a couple of weeks back:
>>
>> At first glance, in this market, it appears that Apple is going up
>> against well entrenched, serious competitors. Upon further
>> examination, however, one realizes that most of the players in this
>> space are, frankly, amateurs compared with Apple.
>>
>> Yes, I'm completely serious. Apple's established competitors in the
>> cell phone market (or the vendors they license software from) mostly
>> have backgrounds building simple embedded software systems for very
>> limited devices. A company that has been developing operating systems
>> for desktop computers for a few decades is in a far better position
>> to tackle the challenges of building a real platform for today's
>> mobile devices, which are no longer all that limited.
>>
>> 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.

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.

> 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.

> (who ever designed it must been on the Windows GUI design team).

Still leaves the DOS UI for dead.

> Its almost impossible to find anything in its menus and when you
> do, they are so illogically placed that you'll never remember where
> they are and every time you want to do "that" again, you've got to
> spend many minutes searching for it. Heck, I can't even find where
> they've hidden the phone's own number. I have to turn it off and
> back on again any time I need to note the phone's number,

Plenty of phones dont even show it then.

> because forget finding it in the phone's setup menus even though it IS there.
> David Pogue's TV show "Its all Geek to Me" on Discovery Science Channel
> did an episode on cell phones. From the people he encountered on the
> street, I get the idea that most phones are intrinsically user hostile.

Nokia's arent. But some things just have to be remembered, there's
nothing completely intuitive about how to say lock the keypad.

In article <5easr6F38kglvU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:19:25 -0700, ZnU wrote
> > (in article <znu-D7C0D6.13192525062007@individual.net>):
> >
> >> In article <1182766023.944929.238320@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> >> 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.

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.

> 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.

> > 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.

But none of them come close to what Apple is doing with the iPhone. 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.

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

Justin wrote:
> That's funny. My phone has all the features it needs. It makes and
> receives phone calls.

You sound like someone with some sense.

What brings you to Usenet?

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

George Graves wrote:
> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS how to do a user interface
> designed a phone. 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 (who ever designed it
> must been on the Windows GUI design team). Its almost impossible to find
> anything in its menus and when you do, they are so illogically placed that

If it's "just a phone" why in the world does it
HAVE that many setup menus?

With most of these infernal thigs, the problem
is the absurd notion that a ten-button phone NEEDS
to do fifty things besides be a #$%^&(*^( PHONE.

(Says the guy who would like to get a #$%^&(*^( PHONE
without paying for those fifty other things!)

--
Wes Groleau

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined."
-- David Hume, age 37

"There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it."
-- Becky Groleau, age 4

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.

> 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.

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

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.

>>> 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.

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote
> George Graves wrote

>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS how to do a user
>> interface designed a phone. 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 (who ever designed it must been on the
>> Windows GUI design team). Its almost impossible to find anything in
>> its menus and when you do, they are so illogically placed that

> If it's "just a phone" why in the world does it HAVE that many setup menus?

Any decent phone needs some way to keep commonly used numbers etc even
if you are stupid enough to demand one that only makes and receives calls.

> With most of these infernal thigs, the problem
> is the absurd notion that a ten-button phone NEEDS
> to do fifty things besides be a #$%^&(*^( PHONE.

Fucked if I want to cart around multiple devices
to do what I want to do when out and about.

> (Says the guy who would like to get a #$%^&(*^( PHONE without paying for those fifty other
> things!)

Doesnt make any difference to the price.

Even with stuff like a camera that does need some extra hardware,
its going to cost more to have a special low volume phone that hasnt
got that when most have enough of a clue to want that capability in
the phone so its handy if you ever need it ocassionally.

You're always welcome to keep using some old dinosaur phone
that doesnt even have any memory if you want the lowest price.

In article <5eb50gF37dnamU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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 MS can improve the UI.
>
> > 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.
>
> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.
>
> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

It works very well for navigating large amounts of data on a tiny
screen. That's no easy task.

> >> 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.

I've never seen many complaints about iTunes UI. It's certainly a lot
more user friendly than what it replaced. If you'll recall back to early
2001 when it was introduced, the usual situation was that you'd use
separate apps for ripping, burning, organizing and tagging. And if you
had a music player, you were probably manually managing what songs were
on it from the file manager.

Apple stuck all of that into one app that had a single unified user
interface for the whole process.

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> In article <467F4203.F953A2DF@prodigy.net>,
> Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jim Lee Jr." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <slrnf7u6it.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
> > > Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Justin wrote on [25 Jun 2007 01:09:18 -0000]:
> > > > > Rocky Mountain News
> > >
> > > > Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> > > > overhyped piece of crap.
> > > >
> > > > Piss off.
> > >
> > > Did Steve Ballmer brush you off?
> >
> > Who cares. I'm tired of reading all this iPhone crap in
> > misc.consumers, too. Just because all the hype seems to indicate
> > that the iPhone is going to be a life changing experience
> > doesn't mean that posts about it have the right to be spammed to
> > off-topic newsgroups.
>
> This topic is perfectly on topic for a consumers group, so learn about
> kill files. Just filter anything that says "iPhone" in it. Problem
> solved.

With that logic, we could get rid of all the cellular and
computer groups and just let them post everything in
misc.consumers.

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.
>
>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:21 -0700, Wes Groleau wrote
(in article <VNYfi.2302$yp.1227@trnddc08>):

> George Graves wrote:
>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS how to do a user
>> interface
>> designed a phone. 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 (who ever designed
>> it
>> must been on the Windows GUI design team). Its almost impossible to find
>> anything in its menus and when you do, they are so illogically placed that
>
> If it's "just a phone" why in the world does it
> HAVE that many setup menus?

Good question. It has ring tones, screen wallpaper settings and the
methodology for adding names to the address book is byzantine. Setting up
voice dialing is likewise needlessly complex, etc.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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.

>>> 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.

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

>> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

> It works very well for navigating large amounts
> of data on a tiny screen. That's no easy task.

Sure, but there is a hell of a lot more to a decent UI than just that.

>>>> 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.

> I've never seen many complaints about iTunes UI.

All that shows is that most dont have much of a clue about a decent UI.

> It's certainly a lot more user friendly than what it replaced.

Thats no recommendation.

> If you'll recall back to early 2001 when it was introduced,
> the usual situation was that you'd use separate apps for
> ripping, burning, organizing and tagging.

Nope. It wasnt the only app to integrate those at that time.

> And if you had a music player, you were probably manually
> managing what songs were on it from the file manager.

Yes, and in many cases that was a better UI too.

> Apple stuck all of that into one app that had a
> single unified user interface for the whole process.

Sure, but it wasnt the only one to do that at that time.

And its a pretty clunky UI anyway.

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.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:38:19 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ebcgtF37mkbiU1@mid.individual.net>):

> 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.
>
>&