On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Mr. Strat wrote:
> No, they didn't invent these things. But they looked at how bad
> existing products for them were and created superior products in each
> category.
Have you ever used any of the Xerox PARC systems that Macintosh imitated?
If you have not, then I respectfully suggest that you don't have a clue
about what you are talking about, since Mac OS X today is still quite a
bit inferior.
> What operating system (that's still around) is superior to OS X for
> usability and security?
Linux.
> What MP3 player is as elegant and simple in design as the iPod?
Who cares about MP3 players?
> What cell phone has the intuitive interface and design of the iPhone?
iPhone may be intuitive to a nerd, but not to a non-nerd (I choose "nerd"
instead of "geek" because very few computer people bite off the heads of
live chickens).
This is the Achilles' Heel of most technology products; they focus to the
male toy collector.
> I guess working in the U District has damaged your critical thinking
> skills.
Ah yes, a flower child of the 1960s from a bourgeois background who throws
out such phrases as "critical thinking skills" without comprehending its
meaning, but says it anyway because he thinks that it marks him as part of
"intellectual elite" (or "the brights").
Pray tell, what is your experience in the field of mobile devices? What
relevant specifications have you written?
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
> iPhone may be intuitive to a nerd, but not to a non-nerd (I choose
> "nerd" instead of "geek" because very few computer people bite off the
> heads of live chickens).
I was helping someone with an iPhone today who was trying to set up POP3
access to G-Mail. It was not intuitive to him (a non-nerd), or me (a
nerd) on how to set up the port numbers in the e-mail program. But what
was really amusing/annoying was to watch someone with normal size
fingers attempt to use the soft-keyboard. A stylus would really aid
usability. There are several manufacturers of styluses, but the demand
is so high that everyone is sold out.
In article <471d89c3$0$79942$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I was helping someone with an iPhone today who was trying to set up POP3
> access to G-Mail. It was not intuitive to him (a non-nerd), or me (a
> nerd) on how to set up the port numbers in the e-mail program. But what
> was really amusing/annoying was to watch someone with normal size
> fingers attempt to use the soft-keyboard. A stylus would really aid
> usability. There are several manufacturers of styluses, but the demand
> is so high that everyone is sold out.
I got to mess with an iPhone at an Apple store last month (the closest
is 100 miles away). I had no problem with the keyboard.
In article <_umTi.696$xg.173@fe097.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> I'd point to market share but would have to endure another "just because
> Brittany Spears sells a lot of records..." quip. Cute line, but Sinatra,
> Elvis and the Beatles all sold a ton of albums too, because they were good.
Just because someone sells a lot of something doesn't mean it's any
good. The reason for Windows' success can be traced to early-day
philosophies of the two companies.
In article <231020070904599327%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <471d89c3$0$79942$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was helping someone with an iPhone today who was trying to set up POP3
> > access to G-Mail. It was not intuitive to him (a non-nerd), or me (a
> > nerd) on how to set up the port numbers in the e-mail program. But what
> > was really amusing/annoying was to watch someone with normal size
> > fingers attempt to use the soft-keyboard. A stylus would really aid
> > usability. There are several manufacturers of styluses, but the demand
> > is so high that everyone is sold out.
>
> I got to mess with an iPhone at an Apple store last month (the closest
> is 100 miles away). I had no problem with the keyboard.
I find it much easier than my Treo ever was. Whole lot easier to do
numbers, @, .com, etc.
> Just because someone sells a lot of something doesn't mean it's any
> good.
Unless it's an iPod, right?
You're quick to point out that sales isn't an indicator of quality when
it's a category that Apple has a small fraction of the market, like PC or
OS sales, yet the market dominance of the iPod is somehow "proof" of it's
greatness.
> The reason for Windows' success can be traced to early-day
> philosophies of the two companies.
Yes, one was sold as an add-on to any compatible device with an open
architecture, while one was bundled as a value-add only available for or
with higher-priced computers with a closed architecture from a single
vendor.
Knock the instability of Windows all you like, but it has a tough task-
it has to install, and work, on a myriad of essentially untested hardware
configurations from dozens, if not hundreds of vendors.
Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
drivers or software to conflict with, etc.
In article <SwzTi.224$mg.118@fe093.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> Unless it's an iPod, right?
> You're quick to point out that sales isn't an indicator of quality when
> it's a category that Apple has a small fraction of the market, like PC or
> OS sales, yet the market dominance of the iPod is somehow "proof" of it's
> greatness.
The iPod is an excellent example of a do-dad that was engineered
brilliantly...so much so that even a dummy could use it...and they
captured the market with it.
> Yes, one was sold as an add-on to any compatible device with an open
> architecture, while one was bundled as a value-add only available for or
> with higher-priced computers with a closed architecture from a single
> vendor.
That's pretty much the deal.
> Knock the instability of Windows all you like, but it has a tough task-
> it has to install, and work, on a myriad of essentially untested hardware
> configurations from dozens, if not hundreds of vendors.
Yup, it's a tough gig. But the security model doesn't have to be as
lame as it is.
> Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
> sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
> of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
> is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
> drivers or software to conflict with, etc.
Which is why you won't see OS X sold for non-Apple computers.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <SwzTi.224$mg.118@fe093.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
>>sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
>>of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
>>is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
>>drivers or software to conflict with, etc.
>
>
> That's not true anymore. People are adding all sorts of hardware to
> their configurations, and expecting it to work.
>
"Traveling Man" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1m0q8s0lrivq.2iyq2ix6delk.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:08:49 -0700, Mr. Strat wrote:
>
>> What cell phone has the intuitive interface and design of the iPhone?
>
> Any simple cell phone without the added fluff.
>
> Using a cell phone to play MP3's is foolish IMO. It just runs down the
> battery sooner.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:23:18 -0400, Darin Lomax wrote:
> "Traveling Man" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:1m0q8s0lrivq.2iyq2ix6delk.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:08:49 -0700, Mr. Strat wrote:
>>
>>> What cell phone has the intuitive interface and design of the iPhone?
>>
>> Any simple cell phone without the added fluff.
>>
>> Using a cell phone to play MP3's is foolish IMO. It just runs down the
>> battery sooner.
>
> You think?? Man, you are smart.
> >> Hey jackass, stop posting to newsgroups that don't give a rat's ass about
> >> the ickphone. Man, I'm sick of this retarded bullshit!
> >
> >not sure what you mean? the iPhone is the future of all cell phones, so
> >you might as well start learning about how it works.
>
> Apple said the Mac was the future of computing too and it never became
> more than a niche device that managed to only gain foothold in a few
> segments of the market.
yes, and almost 24 years later they were exactly correct. Now most EVERY
computer uses the Mac interface. Sure, some are still using Windows
which are very poorly made "Mac Clones", but everyone uses a Mac. Apple
was correct.
> Saying that any one device is the future template for everything in
> that category is just assinine. Why? Because people don't use devices
> in the same way. I couldn't give two flips about listening to music on
> a phone because I'd rather be able to put most of my entire digital
> collection on one device that actually has good sound quality and
> battery life. You won't get that through a phone; no way, no how.
Ah, but you don't understand how all this works. Apple sets the
direction for others to "follow", Apple doesn't need to make every
machine, it just needs to set the direction. Look at the PC, WWW, iPod,
iPhone, these are all SJ/Apple inspired devices and it's what everyone
users at one level or another.
The iPhone has wonderful batter life and the best sound of any
Cell/Smartphone. So learn a little will you?
> Likewise, the real profit drivers for cell phone companies are
> business users that use enterprise-class devices like Blackberry
> handhelds. Those people -- me included -- want reliable access to
> their work e-mail and decent data speeds. I don't make any money
> listening to music on my phone, but I do everytime I perform a client
> task.
The iPod is only one aspect, it's simply not the PRIMARY aspect. It's
also a FULL web browser, full email, full phone, nobody else has that in
such a small, powerful, low cost package. Only Apple has the resources
for such an achievement.
> >everyone knows it's the most powerful phone ever released, but yes, what
> >is unknown is how many cell handsets will disappear because of it.
>
> This is the most overblown argument in the history of modern
> civilization. People are always predicting the death of something when
> a new product emerges, but that very rarely happens. HD hasn't killed
> off traditional terrestrial TV, satellite radio didn't kill off
> terrestrial radio, laptops didn't doom desktop PCs... the list goes on
> and on and on.
Yes, but again it goes back to "the direction" that Apple now has
control over the cell/smartphone industry. This industry was floundering
until Apple set it straight on June 29th 2007. You'll see what I'm
talking about in about 2-20 years. Everything will try and work like
what Apple is doing. It's just how the universe works.
> >apple now controls the cell industry, like it or not.
>
> Tell that to Research In Motion, Nokia and Motorola, among others.
> >
> >learn it or stay in the dark. at least watch the well done guided tour,
> >but until then, please don't comment since you'll be laughed at!
>
> If just by you, I think I'll risk it.
Re: iPhone is AT&T's top-selling handset 
Linear Mode
