Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
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.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
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.
>
>> 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.
We can't be talking about the same iPod. Nothing could be simpler
>
>>> 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.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.
> We can't be talking about the same iPod.
Fraid so.
> Nothing could be simpler
Corse it could be simpler.
>>>> 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.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.
>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.
>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
you already have on the computer for example.
> 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.
> And how do they do them better?
See just above.
>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>> they integrate the media player with other capability.
> 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.
Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?
Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
the brand when they decided they needed a media player
and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>> 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.
The media player is just another drive. So are the cameras etc.
>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.
>>> 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.
> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.
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.
>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
> Slow?
Yep, everyone else has had phones that are
also media players for a long time now.
> 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.
>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?
>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised the brand
>> when they decided they needed a media player and a superficial look
>> showed that its a viable product.
> 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.
> 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.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
Corse it is. You dont have a separate app per device for starters.
>>>> 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.
Corse it can.
> 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.
Wrong again, I use the one file manager for all of that.
> I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of those functions
> in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.
Pity about all the other devices that also just show up as a 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
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist mindless bigots ?
>>>>>> 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.
Because even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that the iphone has both of those functionalitys.
>>>>> 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,
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist mindless bigots ?
> still in response to the iPod interface.
Wrong again.
>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.
>> Nope, we're talking about media players.
> And now, you're talking about media players.
Because even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that the iphone has both of those functionalitys.
>> 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.
Nope, we've moved on to rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that
Apple is VERY late with a phone that is also a media player.
>>>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>>> Slow?
>> Yep, everyone else has had phones that are
>> also media players for a long time now.
>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.
Typical mindless silly stuff.
>> 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?
Yep. Everyone else noticed the advantage of combining the functionality of a phone, media
player, web browser, camera, even GPS, etc LONG before Apple ever had a product.
>>>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>>>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>>>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?
>>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised the brand
>>>> when they decided they needed a media player and a superficial look
>>>> showed that its a viable product.
>>> 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?
Nope, never ever said anything like that.
>>> 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.
Bullshit. Even Jobs has managed to grasp that the
absolute vast bulk of the market doesnt use a Mac.
> 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?
Nope.
> Do you realize how senseless your thesis is?
Easy to claim, bigot.
> 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.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:07:21 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ebi1oF374pu6U1@mid.individual.net>):
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.
>
>>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>
>>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.
>
>>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
>
>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>
> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
> you already have on the computer for example.
Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes launches
pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard and
non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>
>> 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.
Yeah, I can see where that might be easier in some cases. But with works with
lots of related cuts, that could be a disadvantage.
>> And how do they do them better?
>
> See just above.
>
>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>
>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>>> they integrate the media player with other capability.
>
>> 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.
>
> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>
>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>
>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>
>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple
>> product?
>
> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's ever
come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have cited the
GUI as one reason.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:56:52 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ebrl0F379ssbU1@mid.individual.net>):
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
You can. But what about playlists, and song titles and on video iPods album
art that's associated with the music? These things need a dedicated
application to do. It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
>
> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>
>>> 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.
Yes you can, it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
associate album art or liner notes with the music. iTunes facilitates all of
that.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:23:10 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-E970F5.00231026062007@news.east.cox.net>):
> In article <5ebrl0F379ssbU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "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.
Apple's way is no good because it's ...well....Apples way. Any other way is
better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>
>>>>>>> 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. 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
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:55:14 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ebh14F37somcU1@mid.individual.net>):
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> 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.
>
>> We can't be talking about the same iPod.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>> Nothing could be simpler
>
> Corse it could be simpler.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>> Yet they do.
>
> No they dont, that seconds is a lie.
Well, if you're going to play the "literalist" card, I'm leaving the
discussion.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
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.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
> You can.
No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
regardless like you can with the competitive products.
> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
> These things need a dedicated application to do.
Wrong again.
> It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
Never said a word about any desktop, and it works fine even if you do that anyway.
>> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>>>> 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.
> Yes you can,
No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
regardless like you can with the competitive products.
> it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
> associate album art or liner notes with the music.
Have fun explaining how come the computer manages that fine with mp3s etc.
> iTunes facilitates all of that.
So does the file manager when that stuff is already on the
computer and you just want to dump it into the media player.
Sure, iTunes is worth having for the stupids who dont use a file
manager, but it should allow you to treat the device as just another
drive, like all the other removable drives any computer sees.
Its fucked having separate apps like iTunes for every device
because you cant use just one app for all the devices.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.
>>>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>>>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.
>>>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3s
>> you already have on the computer for example.
> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer
> (it automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when
> iTunes launches pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod".
There's more involved than that, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Boy that's sure hard and non-intuitive, yessir.
> I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
And it would be much more intuitive if it was just another drive,
like all the other media players, cameras, phones etc are.
>>> 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.
> Yeah, I can see where that might be easier in some cases.
Corse it is if you do that with all the devices you plug into the computer
like the media players, cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc.
> But with works with lots of related cuts, that could be a disadvantage.
Not clear what you mean by the first half, presumably a word is missing or something.
>>> And how do they do them better?
>> See just above.
>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>>>> they integrate the media player with other capability.
>>> 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.
>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?
>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
> It's more than just superficially viable.
Sure, but that isnt obvious until after you own it. I was talking there
about the purchasing decision. Most just have a quick look and maybe
a salesfool showing them how to select tunes etc and decide that it
looks like its a very neat design and buy it and return it later if they dont
like the fine detail like whats involved in installing it on their computer etc.
> Every test of players that's ever come down the pike has placed
> the iPod above all others. Many have cited the GUI as one reason.
Sure, but only a tiny subset of buyers buy from that sort of test.
Must just buy on gut instinct, brand recognition and a quick look at the actual
product in the store or at one that someone else has just bought and is raving
about. Thats why it took off, the right mix of decent design, brand recognition
and something about the design that appeals to all but complete technoklutzes.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:17:29 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ed72bF3719smU1@mid.individual.net>):
> 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.
Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
>
> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I just
> left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
>> 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.
That's a matter of opinion, don't you think? Anyway, its not mine. There are
things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall, its the best
integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
> 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.
You can do that with an iPod is you wish. See Apple gives you the choice. But
believe me, its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>
> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
>
> Even someone as stupid as you
Again, why the personal rancor? I've not called you any names have I?
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.
Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
> 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.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:24:42 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ed7fsF38dgilU1@mid.individual.net>):
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
>
>> You can.
>
> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
Well not for music, anyway.
>
>> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
>> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
>
> Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
> more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
What do Cameras have to do with iPods?
>
>> These things need a dedicated application to do.
>
> Wrong again.
>
>> It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
>
> Never said a word about any desktop, and it works fine even if you do that
> anyway.
>
>>> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>> Yes you can,
>
> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>
>> it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
>> associate album art or liner notes with the music.
>
> Have fun explaining how come the computer manages that fine with mp3s etc.
>
>> iTunes facilitates all of that.
>
> So does the file manager when that stuff is already on the
> computer and you just want to dump it into the media player.
>
> Sure, iTunes is worth having for the stupids who dont use a file
> manager, but it should allow you to treat the device as just another
> drive, like all the other removable drives any computer sees.
Why do you assume that anyone who works differently than you work is stupid?
>
> Its fucked having separate apps like iTunes for every device
> because you cant use just one app for all the devices.
I disagree. I think it makes using these devices easier and that therefore it
empowers people with their computers. Or are you one of those people who
would rather the computer remain an arcane device usable and fathomable only
by the initiated and knowledgeable? Many feel that way, and I don't see where
such an attitude is very helpful or useful. If the automobile industry had
maintained such an attitude, we'd still be using hand cranks to start our
cars.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.
> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.
>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
>>> 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.
> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.
> Anyway, its not mine.
Your problem.
> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
You need to get out more.
And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.
>> 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.
> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.
Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.
> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.
>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>> Even someone as stupid as you
> Again, why the personal rancor?
Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
> I've not called you any names have I?
Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'
>> 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.
> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.
>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.
Try getting something out of an ipod and
putting it in another media player for starters.
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> Name calling again.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
>>> You can.
>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
> Well not for music, anyway.
Precisely.
>>> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
>>> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
>> Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
>> more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
> What do Cameras have to do with iPods?
Everything to do with the sort of extra detail
that goes with the files the device handles.
Its much more intuitive if all those devices, media players,
cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc all just appear as
another drive when you plug them into the computer and
you can move stuff from one to the other at will with the
file manager you use all the time, rather than each device
having its own special purpose app like iTunes, each with
its own unique UI and way of doing things.
>>> These things need a dedicated application to do.
>> Wrong again.
>>> It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
>> Never said a word about any desktop, and
>> it works fine even if you do that anyway.
>>>> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>>>>>> 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.
>>> Yes you can,
>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>>> it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
>>> associate album art or liner notes with the music.
>> Have fun explaining how come the computer manages that fine with mp3s etc.
>>> iTunes facilitates all of that.
>> So does the file manager when that stuff is already on the
>> computer and you just want to dump it into the media player.
>> Sure, iTunes is worth having for the stupids who dont use a file
>> manager, but it should allow you to treat the device as just another
>> drive, like all the other removable drives any computer sees.
> Why do you assume that anyone who works differently than you work is stupid?
Never did. I just realise that there are indeed some stupids who dont
even know what a drive is and that those may well prefer to use iTunes,
particularly if they dont have any other devices that plug into the computer
like media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
Cant be too many of those left anymore tho.
>> Its fucked having separate apps like iTunes for every device
>> because you cant use just one app for all the devices.
> I disagree.
Your problem.
> I think it makes using these devices easier and that
> therefore it empowers people with their computers.
No it doesnt when each one has its own special purpose
app like iTunes with its own unique way of doing things.
> Or are you one of those people who would rather the computer remain an
> arcane device usable and fathomable only by the initiated and knowledgeable?
Nope.
> Many feel that way, and I don't see where such an attitude is very helpful or useful.
Sure.
> If the automobile industry had maintained such an
> attitude, we'd still be using hand cranks to start our cars.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:31:58 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5edbe0F36tc63U1@mid.individual.net>):
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> 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.
>
>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
>
> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.
Where did I call you a name? I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater
(from your posts) but that's hardly personal rancor.
>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
>
>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
>
> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
Again, what name calling? I have called you by no name.
>>>> 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.
>
>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
>
> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.
>
>> Anyway, its not mine.
>
> Your problem.
Not a problem, just a different opinion.
>
>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
>
> You need to get out more.
>
> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can
be.
I disagree
>
>>> 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.
>
>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.
>
> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.
>
>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
>
> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.
I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.
>
>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>
>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
>
>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
>
> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>
>>> Even someone as stupid as you
>
>> Again, why the personal rancor?
>
> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
I called you no name.
>
>> I've not called you any names have I?
>
> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'
I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call
you one. Even so, responding by calling me stupid, bigoted, incapable of
thought is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain
opinion (Apple hater) based upon their own words.
>>> 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.
>
>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
>
> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.
But relevant enough when you call me stupid because I haven't checked your
posting history.
>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.
>
> Try getting something out of an ipod and
> putting it in another media player for starters.
I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection, not from
stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>> Name calling again.
>
> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate, and I haven't
called you any names.
>> I don't get it.
>
> Your problem.
Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me. Of course if you don't
care, there's always the kill-file.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:51:33 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5edcinF379bk0U1@mid.individual.net>):
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
>
>>>> You can.
>
>>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>
>> Well not for music, anyway.
>
> Precisely.
>
>>>> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
>>>> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
>
>>> Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
>>> more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
>
>> What do Cameras have to do with iPods?
>
> Everything to do with the sort of extra detail
> that goes with the files the device handles.
>
> Its much more intuitive if all those devices, media players,
> cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc all just appear as
> another drive when you plug them into the computer and
> you can move stuff from one to the other at will with the
> file manager you use all the time, rather than each device
> having its own special purpose app like iTunes, each with
> its own unique UI and way of doing things.
>
>>>> These things need a dedicated application to do.
>
>>> Wrong again.
>
>>>> It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
>
>>> Never said a word about any desktop, and
>>> it works fine even if you do that anyway.
>
>>>>> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Yes you can,
>
>>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>
>>>> it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
>>>> associate album art or liner notes with the music.
>
>>> Have fun explaining how come the computer manages that fine with mp3s etc.
>
>>>> iTunes facilitates all of that.
>
>>> So does the file manager when that stuff is already on the
>>> computer and you just want to dump it into the media player.
>
>>> Sure, iTunes is worth having for the stupids who dont use a file
>>> manager, but it should allow you to treat the device as just another
>>> drive, like all the other removable drives any computer sees.
>
>> Why do you assume that anyone who works differently than you work is stupid?
>
> Never did. I just realise that there are indeed some stupids who dont
> even know what a drive is and that those may well prefer to use iTunes,
> particularly if they dont have any other devices that plug into the computer
> like media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
There are very few computer users who don't know what a drive is. Its just
that most find it more convenient to use a single app to handle all of their
iPod/Apple TV media files.
>
> Cant be too many of those left anymore tho.
>
>>> Its fucked having separate apps like iTunes for every device
>>> because you cant use just one app for all the devices.
>
>> I disagree.
>
> Your problem.
Not my problem, my opinion.
>> I think it makes using these devices easier and that
>> therefore it empowers people with their computers.
>
> No it doesnt when each one has its own special purpose
> app like iTunes with its own unique way of doing things.
I'd say that's YOUR problem ;-)
>
>> Or are you one of those people who would rather the computer remain an
>> arcane device usable and fathomable only by the initiated and knowledgeable?
>
> Nope.
>
>> Many feel that way, and I don't see where such an attitude is very helpful
>> or useful.
>
> Sure.
>
>> If the automobile industry had maintained such an
>> attitude, we'd still be using hand cranks to start our cars.
>
> Bogus analogy.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:34:07 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <5ed81hF37isv2U1@mid.individual.net>):
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.
>
>>>>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>
>>>>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.
>
>>>>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
>
>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>
>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3s
>>> you already have on the computer for example.
>
>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer
>> (it automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when
>> iTunes launches pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod".
>
> There's more involved than that, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
No, there isn't more to it than that. And this shows that you are just
another loser with a nasty disposition.
PLONK!
>> Boy that's sure hard and non-intuitive, yessir.
>> I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>
> And it would be much more intuitive if it was just another drive,
> like all the other media players, cameras, phones etc are.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> Yeah, I can see where that might be easier in some cases.
>
> Corse it is if you do that with all the devices you plug into the computer
> like the media players, cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc.
>
>> But with works with lots of related cuts, that could be a disadvantage.
>
> Not clear what you mean by the first half, presumably a word is missing or
> something.
>
>>>> And how do they do them better?
>
>>> See just above.
>
>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>
>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>>>>> they integrate the media player with other capability.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>
>>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>
>>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>
>>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple
>>>> product?
>
>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
>
>> It's more than just superficially viable.
>
> Sure, but that isnt obvious until after you own it. I was talking there
> about the purchasing decision. Most just have a quick look and maybe
> a salesfool showing them how to select tunes etc and decide that it
> looks like its a very neat design and buy it and return it later if they dont
> like the fine detail like whats involved in installing it on their computer
> etc.
>
>> Every test of players that's ever come down the pike has placed
>> the iPod above all others. Many have cited the GUI as one reason.
>
> Sure, but only a tiny subset of buyers buy from that sort of test.
>
> Must just buy on gut instinct, brand recognition and a quick look at the
> actual
> product in the store or at one that someone else has just bought and is
raving
> about. Thats why it took off, the right mix of decent design, brand
> recognition
> and something about the design that appeals to all but complete
> technoklutzes.
>
>
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:46 -0700, Justin wrote
(in article <slrnf82r1m.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:27:04 -0700]:
>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
>> automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes launches
>> pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard and
>> non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>
> Yup, and to achieve that alleged simplicity it runs two processes
> continually that take up way more ram than necessary.
>
>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
>>
>> It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's ever
>> come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have cited
>> the
>> GUI as one reason.
>
> Yep, the exellently intuitive gui that doesn't even tell you how to turn
> the thing off. Or how to recover from the frequent crashes it has.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> 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.
>> Corse it is. You dont have a separate app per device for starters.
> Well, lets see. iTunes will play and organize music on the
> computer; it will work with the iPod, AppleTV, and iPhone--
Pity about the camera, non iphone phone, USB key, etc etc etc.
> nope; don't need a separate app per device.
Corse you do.
>>> I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of those functions
>>> in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.
>> Pity about all the other devices that also just show up as a drive.
> "All those other devices" are a DVD/CD drive and an external
> hard drive; the file manager is used to manage files on them.
Pity about the camera, non iphone phone, USB key, etc etc etc.
> I don't play or organize music with them because
> a file manager isn't designed to do that.
Pity about the non music.
>> Because even someone as stupid as you
>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist mindless
>> bigots ? Easy to claim, bigot.
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid and a bigot.
Nope, just the stupid bigots like you.
> So much for rational discussion.
Yep, something you have never managed.
> Bye bye.
Good riddance, dont let the door hit you on the lard arse on the way out, bigot.
>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote
>> And to get music off an iPod, how do you do that?
> Oh, I just remove it from the playlist in iTunes and resync.
Doesnt get it off the iPod and into a different media player.
> Curiously, though, I haven't wanted to remove
> music from my iPod in more than a year.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not have in your ipod in spades.
>>> 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.
>> Yes, Winamp is miles ahead of iTunes as a music player. There
>> are plenty of much better video players than iTunes as well.
>> When burning CDs, Nero is light years ahead of iTunes. Using the
>> applications that people already use, that are better, than forcing
>> the use of a limited application that is more piggish and uglier is
>> retarded. In the true sense of the word.
> Got anything to support those opinions?
Got anything to support yours ?
>>>> 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?
>> You can't be fast and late to the market. Full stop.
> That paragraph does not make any sense in context (or out of context either).
Wrong, as always.
>>>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.
>>> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?
>> Yes.
> OK, so you're one of those "I know best; everyone who disagrees with me is wrong" types.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> 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.
>>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
>> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.
> Where did I call you a name?
Even you should be able to find 'another cross-posting Apple hater' above.
> I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater (from your posts)
Pity there isnt a shred of apple hate in any of my posts.
> but that's hardly personal rancor.
Its clearly name calling.
>>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
>>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
>>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
>> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
> Again, what name calling?
See above.
> I have called you by no name.
Bare faced lie.
>>>>> 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.
>>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
>> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
>> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.
>>> Anyway, its not mine.
>> Your problem.
> Not a problem, just a different opinion.
It your problem that your opinion differs.
>>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
>>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
>> You need to get out more.
>> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.
> I disagree
Your problem.
>>>> 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.
>>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.
>> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.
>>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
>>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
>> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.
> I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.
Your problem.
>>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
>>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>>>> Even someone as stupid as you
>>> Again, why the personal rancor?
>> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
> I called you no name.
Bare faced lie. You called me another cross-posting Apple hater.
>>> I've not called you any names have I?
>> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'
> I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call you one.
Pathetic.
> Even so, responding by calling me stupid,
Never did.
> bigoted,
Or that.
> incapable of thought
Or that.
> is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain opinion (Apple hater)
Just another of your silly little fantasys.
> based upon their own words.
Just like with your stupidity and incapability of thought. Funny that.
>>>> 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.
>>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
>> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.
> But relevant enough when you call me stupid
> because I haven't checked your posting history.
Never ever did that, liar.
>>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
>>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.
>> Try getting something out of an ipod and
>> putting it in another media player for starters.
> I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection,
> not from stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.
And you cant get stuff from somone else's ipod into your own very easily either.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Name calling again.
>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
> Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate,
You clearly did just that at the top.
> and I haven't called you any names.
Liar.
>>> I don't get it.
>> Your problem.
> Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me.
Nope.
> Of course if you don't care, there's always the kill-file.
No one give a flying red fuck what fools like you do or do not choose to read.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
>>>>> You can.
>>>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>>>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>>> Well not for music, anyway.
>> Precisely.
>>>>> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
>>>>> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
>>>> Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
>>>> more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
>>> What do Cameras have to do with iPods?
>> Everything to do with the sort of extra detail
>> that goes with the files the device handles.
>> Its much more intuitive if all those devices, media players,
>> cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc all just appear as
>> another drive when you plug them into the computer and
>> you can move stuff from one to the other at will with the
>> file manager you use all the time, rather than each device
>> having its own special purpose app like iTunes, each with
>> its own unique UI and way of doing things.
>>>>> These things need a dedicated application to do.
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>> It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
>>>> Never said a word about any desktop, and
>>>> it works fine even if you do that anyway.
>>>>>> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Yes you can,
>>>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>>>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>>>>> it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
>>>>> associate album art or liner notes with the music.
>>>> Have fun explaining how come the computer manages that fine with mp3s etc.
>>>>> iTunes facilitates all of that.
>>>> So does the file manager when that stuff is already on the
>>>> computer and you just want to dump it into the media player.
>>>> Sure, iTunes is worth having for the stupids who dont use a file
>>>> manager, but it should allow you to treat the device as just another
>>>> drive, like all the other removable drives any computer sees.
>>> Why do you assume that anyone who works differently than you work is stupid?
>> Never did. I just realise that there are indeed some stupids who dont
>> even know what a drive is and that those may well prefer to use
>> iTunes, particularly if they dont have any other devices that plug into
>> the computer like media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
> There are very few computer users who don't know what a drive is.
There are however quite a few who dont use a file manager much,
who just let their apps save things whereever the app chooses to
save things and those may well find iTunes useful, particularly if
they dont have any other devices that plug into the computer like
media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
> Its just that most find it more convenient to use a single
> app to handle all of their iPod/Apple TV media files.
Pity about all the other devices that plug into the computer
like media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
>> Cant be too many of those left anymore tho.
>>>> Its fucked having separate apps like iTunes for every device
>>>> because you cant use just one app for all the devices.
>>> I disagree.
>> Your problem.
> Not my problem, my opinion.
Its both.
>>> I think it makes using these devices easier and that
>>> therefore it empowers people with their computers.
>> No it doesnt when each one has its own special purpose
>> app like iTunes with its own unique way of doing things.
> I'd say that's YOUR problem ;-)
Nope. Not when discussing whats the most intuitive UI.
>>> Or are you one of those people who would rather the
>>> computer remain an arcane device usable and fathomable
>>> only by the initiated and knowledgeable?
>> Nope.
>>> Many feel that way, and I don't see where such an attitude is very helpful or useful.
>> Sure.
>>> If the automobile industry had maintained such an
>>> attitude, we'd still be using hand cranks to start our cars.
>> Bogus analogy.
> Your problem.
Can't even manage its own lines, or anything else either.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.
>>>>>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>>>>>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.
>>>>>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3s
>>>> you already have on the computer for example.
>>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer
>>> (it automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when
>>> iTunes launches pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod".
>> There's more involved than that, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> No, there isn't more to it than that. And this shows that
> you are just another loser with a nasty disposition.
Corse that wouldnt be you name calling eh ?
> PLONK!
Fat lot of good that will ever do you, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> Boy that's sure hard and non-intuitive, yessir.
>>> I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>>
>> And it would be much more intuitive if it was just another drive,
>> like all the other media players, cameras, phones etc are.
>
>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Yeah, I can see where that might be easier in some cases.
>>
>> Corse it is if you do that with all the devices you plug into the
>> computer like the media players, cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc
>> etc.
>>
>>> But with works with lots of related cuts, that could be a
>>> disadvantage.
>>
>> Not clear what you mean by the first half, presumably a word is
>> missing or something.
>>
>>>>> And how do they do them better?
>>
>>>> See just above.
>>
>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>>
>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>>>>>> they integrate the media player with other capability.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>>
>>>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>>
>>>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an
>>>>> Apple product?
>>
>>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
>>
>>> It's more than just superficially viable.
>>
>> Sure, but that isnt obvious until after you own it. I was talking
>> there about the purchasing decision. Most just have a quick look and
>> maybe
>> a salesfool showing them how to select tunes etc and decide that it
>> looks like its a very neat design and buy it and return it later if
>> they dont like the fine detail like whats involved in installing it
>> on their computer etc.
>>
>>> Every test of players that's ever come down the pike has placed
>>> the iPod above all others. Many have cited the GUI as one reason.
>>
>> Sure, but only a tiny subset of buyers buy from that sort of test.
>>
>> Must just buy on gut instinct, brand recognition and a quick look at
>> the actual
>> product in the store or at one that someone else has just bought and
>> is raving about. Thats why it took off, the right mix of decent
>> design, brand recognition
>> and something about the design that appeals to all but complete
>> technoklutzes.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> 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.
>>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
>> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.
> Where did I call you a name?
Even you should be able to find 'another cross-posting Apple hater' above.
> I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater (from your posts)
Pity there isnt a shred of apple hate in any of my posts.
> but that's hardly personal rancor.
Its clearly name calling.
>>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
>>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
>>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
>> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
> Again, what name calling?
See above.
> I have called you by no name.
Bare faced lie.
>>>>> 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.
>>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
>> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
>> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.
>>> Anyway, its not mine.
>> Your problem.
> Not a problem, just a different opinion.
It your problem that your opinion differs.
>>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
>>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
>> You need to get out more.
>> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.
> I disagree
Your problem.
>>>> 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.
>>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.
>> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.
>>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
>>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
>> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.
> I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.
Your problem.
>>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
>>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>>>> Even someone as stupid as you
>>> Again, why the personal rancor?
>> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
> I called you no name.
Bare faced lie. You called me another cross-posting Apple hater.
>>> I've not called you any names have I?
>> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'
> I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call you one.
Pathetic.
> Even so, responding by calling me stupid,
Never did.
> bigoted,
Or that.
> incapable of thought
Or that.
> is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain opinion (Apple hater)
Just another of your silly little fantasys.
> based upon their own words.
Just like with your stupidity and incapability of thought. Funny that.
>>>> 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.
>>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
>> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.
> But relevant enough when you call me stupid
> because I haven't checked your posting history.
Never ever did that, liar.
>>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
>>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.
>> Try getting something out of an ipod and
>> putting it in another media player for starters.
> I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection,
> not from stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.
And you cant get stuff from somone else's ipod into your own very easily either.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Name calling again.
>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
> Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate,
You clearly did just that at the top.
> and I haven't called you any names.
Liar.
>>> I don't get it.
>> Your problem.
> Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me.
Nope.
> Of course if you don't care, there's always the kill-file.
No one give a flying red fuck what fools like you do or do not choose to read.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 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.
>>>>> You can.
>>>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>>>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>>> Well not for music, anyway.
>> Precisely.
>>>>> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
>>>>> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
>>>> Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
>>>> more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
>>> What do Cameras have to do with iPods?
>> Everything to do with the sort of extra detail
>> that goes with the files the device handles.
>> Its much more intuitive if all those devices, media players,
>> cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc all just appear as
>> another drive when you plug them into the computer and
>> you can move stuff from one to the other at will with the
>> file manager you use all the time, rather than each device
>> having its own special purpose app like iTunes, each with
>> its own unique UI and way of doing things.
>>>>> These things need a dedicated application to do.
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>> It won't happen by moving files on the desktop.
>>>> Never said a word about any desktop, and
>>>> it works fine even if you do that anyway.
>>>>>> iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Yes you can,
>>>> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
>>>> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
>>>>> it just doesn't arrange them very well, or allow you to
>>>>> associate album art or liner notes with the music.
>>>> Have fun explaining how come the computer manages that fine with mp3s etc.
>>>>> iTunes facilitates all of that.
>>>> So does the file manager when that stuff is already on the
>>>> computer and you just want to dump it into the media player.
>>>> Sure, iTunes is worth having for the stupids who dont use a file
>>>> manager, but it should allow you to treat the device as just another
>>>> drive, like all the other removable drives any computer sees.
>>> Why do you assume that anyone who works differently than you work is stupid?
>> Never did. I just realise that there are indeed some stupids who dont
>> even know what a drive is and that those may well prefer to use
>> iTunes, particularly if they dont have any other devices that plug into
>> the computer like media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
> There are very few computer users who don't know what a drive is.
There are however quite a few who dont use a file manager much,
who just let their apps save things whereever the app chooses to
save things and those may well find iTunes useful, particularly if
they dont have any other devices that plug into the computer like
media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
> Its just that most find it more convenient to use a single
> app to handle all of their iPod/Apple TV media files.
Pity about all the other devices that plug into the computer
like media players, cameras, phones, USB keys etc etc etc.
>> Cant be too many of those left anymore tho.
>>>> Its fucked having separate apps like iTunes for every device
>>>> because you cant use just one app for all the devices.
>>> I disagree.
>> Your problem.
> Not my problem, my opinion.
Its both.
>>> I think it makes using these devices easier and that
>>> therefore it empowers people with their computers.
>> No it doesnt when each one has its own special purpose
>> app like iTunes with its own unique way of doing things.
> I'd say that's YOUR problem ;-)
Nope. Not when discussing whats the most intuitive UI.
>>> Or are you one of those people who would rather the
>>> computer remain an arcane device usable and fathomable
>>> only by the initiated and knowledgeable?
>> Nope.
>>> Many feel that way, and I don't see where such an attitude is very helpful or useful.
>> Sure.
>>> If the automobile industry had maintained such an
>>> attitude, we'd still be using hand cranks to start our cars.
>> Bogus analogy.
> Your problem.
Can't even manage its own lines, or anything else either.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
In article <slrnf837ba.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:32:28 -0700]:
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:46 -0700, Justin wrote
> > (in article <slrnf82r1m.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
> >
> >> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:27:04 -0700]:
> >>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
> >>> automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes
> >>> launches
> >>> pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard and
> >>> non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
> >>
> >> Yup, and to achieve that alleged simplicity it runs two processes
> >> continually that take up way more ram than necessary.
> >>
> >>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
> >>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
> >>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
> >>>
> >>> It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's
> >>> ever
> >>> come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have cited
> >>> the
> >>> GUI as one reason.
> >>
> >> Yep, the exellently intuitive gui that doesn't even tell you how to turn
> >> the thing off. Or how to recover from the frequent crashes it has.
> >
> > What frequent crashes?
>
> I know the nano I have crashes on two of three days at least once. Yes,
> it's updated, it's one of the current gen.
>
> No, I didn't buy it, it was a prize. It works OK for podcasts.
I'd visit an Apple store with it. I think my previous generation nano
has crashed all of once, ever. I've had it for a year.
--
"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
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows 
Linear Mode
