And thank goodness for that. I'd rather see Apple have a handful of well-managed, well-placed products that ship and ship complete (versus being dumped out the door to meet self-imposed deadlines).
MS spends how many billions on R&D per year and basically produces nothing. We don't need to see Apple do the same.
Apparently, yes. Excellent downside management, I dare call that.
I'm actually a little surprised that Apple hasn't already made use of the virtual real estate afforded by up and down-- unless they're worried that an errant flick might send you hurtling off onto screens you'd never seen before and you would become frightened.
Dumb people might get frightened. The average user might be curious the first time, and then either use or not use the feature the second time.
You and Apple are seemingly so concerned about the stupidest possible user that functionality is denied to average users.
Giving the user all the control leads to chaos and geekiness. Giving a better balance is frankly going to be better. That's the philosophy that makes the iPhone so great.
I paid a shitload of money for the device. It belongs to me. I want all the control.
I do not want Apple to be my nanny and protect me from "geekiness and chaos". They are not real dangers in my world. I don't want to be transported to the world of the stupid and needy who like having a nanny watch over them.
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
Competition is more fierce than it was, and Apple can't stay aloof, and pretend it doesn't exist.
See, I never understand these kinds of arguments.
Was Apple "aloof" when they released the original iPhone?
Quote:
It's not possible that Apple hasn't been working on many of these features for some time. The way software development works, and it's true for OS's as well, is that many features get finished well before the project as a whole is complete.
...
I'm positive that many features are completely ready and bug tested, and are just sitting there waiting for release. Only features that are dependent on overhauls of other areas of the OS won't be ready, or nearing completion.
Perhaps, perhaps they aren't fully baked yet. That's my point.
Quote:
It's up to Apple as to how they want to do this. But they could if they wanted to.
Your absolutely right it's up to Apple how they releases new features. My point is, they will do it when it makes sense in the context of the overall experience. Apple rarely is reactionary to their competitors - indeed, the majority of the time it's the competitors that are reacting to Apple - and for good reason. Many of the killer "features" that have been cited as compelling on Android and the Pre in actually are just incremental checklist features that matter mainly to geeks. The evidence is in the sales (or lack of) of these devices compared to the iPhone.
If Apple was as arrogant or incompetent at releasing features as half of the people in these threads continually imply, then that means the last three iPhone releases were total flukes
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
I paid a shitload of money for the device. It belongs to me. I want all the control.
I do not want Apple to be my nanny and protect me from "geekiness and chaos". They are not real dangers in my world. I don't want to be transported to the world of the stupid and needy who like having a nanny watch over them.
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
We all paid a shitload of money for the device. Being astute buyers, we all did our research and got what we paid for-- a quality product that performs as advertized... better actually, as it has been updated, over time, with no sacrifice to the original function or quality.
Most would agree that the device satisfies the majority of users because Apple limits the changes that can be made to the device after the sale.
Few would argue that the device does everything everyone wants,
We all know that functionality (implementation of this or that feature) has a cost to develop, test, maintain and support-- and a projected benefit for that cost.
But it is irrational, (and tiresome) for us to insist that the device must be totally open with a "make it do what I want and do it my way" solution-- at the expense millions of other users.
Those of us who desire more openness and less control can re-sell the device for a shitload of money, because the device, "as advertised" has a high resale value.
Having done that, and shopping for an open device with total user control, we should take extra care in the selection, because it, likely, will not be upgradeable, nor will it maintain a high resale value-- we will be stuck with our choice... it will belong to us!
The 3GS was easily the best existing choice at the time of purchase (which is no longer the case...). And because Verizon reception is not good sitting here at my desk in front of my computer.
Most would agree that the device satisfies the majority of users because Apple limits the changes that can be made to the device after the sale.
No, I don't think that is the reason why the device satisfies the majority of users. Indeed, I would venture that reason ain't got hardly nothing to do with "satsifaction of the majority".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But it is irrational, (and tiresome) for us to insist that the device must be totally open with a "make it do what I want and do it my way" solution-- at the expense millions of other users.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not a binary world where flexibility and options are always "at the expense of the majority". To think that these limited choices are the ONLY choices is irrational.
Here's my point: It is not impossible to make a full-featured device which is easy to use. A great device could be made with advanced functionality which is transparent to disinterested users. To be truly great, basic functionality should be intuitive to novice and stupid users. (Some might argue that the current Mac meets this description).
There is no dichotomy between "easy to use" and "full functionality". I believe your premise is defective.
No, I don't think that is the reason why the device satisfies the majority of users. Indeed, I would venture that reason ain't got hardly nothing to do with "satsifaction of the majority".
So, any developer should be able to distribute an app that is able to modify, replace or remove any existing app-- say, the phone app, browser app, contacts app... And, the developer's app should be able to replace any and all components of the GUI with whatever arcane menu system he desires.
This, certainly would impact the usability and desirability of the device. It would create chaos, and fragment the market for the device.
Quote:
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not a binary world where flexibility and options are always "at the expense of the majority". To think that these limited choices are the ONLY choices is irrational.
I understand the point... it's just that my idea of flexibility is different than yours. Sure, I want more multitasking-- but not at the expense of battery life or usability. I also want IR and RFID capability-- shouldn't that trump what you want?
Apple provides a given set of functions and a given amount of flexibility. They do this with an implied warranty that the device will function as advertised.
They can (and have) expended additional resources to improve the functionality and usability without compromising the base product.
It is their device-- they can decide when/what/how to include features!
If this doesn't meet our needs, we can seek satisfaction elsewhere. It's called free enterprise!
Quote:
Here's my point: It is not impossible to make a full-featured device which is easy to use. A great device could be made with advanced functionality which is transparent to disinterested users. To be truly great, basic functionality should be intuitive to novice and stupid users. (Some might argue that the current Mac meets this description).
There is no dichotomy between "easy to use" and "full functionality". I believe your premise is defective.
I have no problem with "easy to use" and "full functionality". But this costs resources and $ for an expected return. Apple has chosen the combination that they expect will give them the best ROI, over time.
Who's definition of full functionality are we to use-- yours, mine or the guy with his "pants on the ground"?
I never text, so, let's remove that and replace it with whatever I want... screw everyone else!
You or I can buy a Droid or Nexus 1, and get more functionality... why don't we do that? I know my reasons! I suspect that you don't think there is enough additional value, today, and that you will not be able to upgrade or re-sell it in the future.
I paid a shitload of money for the device. It belongs to me. I want all the control.
I do not want Apple to be my nanny and protect me from "geekiness and chaos". They are not real dangers in my world. I don't want to be transported to the world of the stupid and needy who like having a nanny watch over them.
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
That isn?t how life works. If you want complete control then format and install Linux on it, but what ever you do stop bitching that Apple makes a complete solution for the average user who just wants a smartphone that works as advertised.
Dumb people might get frightened. The average user might be curious the first time, and then either use or not use the feature the second time.
You and Apple are seemingly so concerned about the stupidest possible user that functionality is denied to average users.
Yeah. And you're so interested in establishing the negatives of Apple's customers that it precludes you from noticing when someone is being a bit tongue in cheek.
No, I don't think that is the reason why the device satisfies the majority of users. Indeed, I would venture that reason ain't got hardly nothing to do with "satsifaction of the majority".
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not a binary world where flexibility and options are always "at the expense of the majority". To think that these limited choices are the ONLY choices is irrational.
Here's my point: It is not impossible to make a full-featured device which is easy to use. A great device could be made with advanced functionality which is transparent to disinterested users. To be truly great, basic functionality should be intuitive to novice and stupid users. (Some might argue that the current Mac meets this description).
There is no dichotomy between "easy to use" and "full functionality". I believe your premise is defective.
But of course without defining "full functionality" you're just waving your hands and creating a fake standard that the iPhone of course fails to meet.
There's no such thing as "full functionality", there's only specific devices and what they can or cannot do. Since the design of such devices is always a matter of multiple tradeoffs, different designers are going to differ in what they choose to do. It may not have occurred to you, but it's just possible that the iPhone's status as "best at the time" and the philosophical underpinnings of its design might be related. As in the relentless pursuit of making the thing as easy to use and intuitive as humanly possible based on a clearly defined set of user cases is exactly why the iPhone is what it is, why it's so popular, and why it's become the template for the industry. At any rate, your blithe assurance that Apple could make exactly the same phone with all kinds of extra tinkery bits cleverly hidden from the casual user is exactly the kind of thing that makes the people who actually have to make all the tough decisions about design tradeoffs laugh hard.
Very clearly, for the majority of use cases, Apple has designed a device that does what it says it will do, out of the box, and does it well. Surprisingly, many people seem to like that. I have no idea what compels you to argue that such people are stupid or wrong somehow, or that Apple is in some way obliged to provide more opportunities to tinker, or that such opportunities constitute a universal standard of proper functionality. As others have pointed out, there are now phones on Verizon that should provide you with the experience you want, which should make everything OK, yeah?
Dumb people might get frightened. The average user might be curious the first time, and then either use or not use the feature the second time.
You and Apple are seemingly so concerned about the stupidest possible user that functionality is denied to average users.
I'm not going to bother because addabox has already ripped your argument to shreds, but for a guy called "iGenius," you sure make some dumb arguments and for someone arguing on a forum about Apple design, you sure don't seem to know much about either Apple or design.
It's pretty obvious to any designer what choices were made and why in regards flipping up down and sideways. To argue that any random screen could use an upward or downward flip is to miss the whole point of the UI design of the iPhone. Try to think about what you're saying before you say it maybe?
As for your idea about their *not* being a dichotomy in regards "full functionality" versus what the dumber/simpler users need I'd like to see you come up with a good example of same instead of just stating it as fact. The only example I can think of at the moment is that of the one-button/two-button mouse functionality, but that particular design choice is almost universally lambasted by Apple critics like yourself.
That is one of the nicer mockups that have been around for awhile, though I think going that thin is still aways off while still getting the same or better performance from the HW.
So, any developer should be able to distribute an app that is able to modify, replace or remove any existing app-- say, the phone app, browser app, contacts app... And, the developer's app should be able to replace any and all components of the GUI with whatever arcane menu system he desires.
This, certainly would impact the usability and desirability of the device. It would create chaos, and fragment the market for the device.
Well, I dunno about any of those specifics.
But generally in terms of "allowed to distribute", I'd say "yes". Please note that there is no way in hell to prevent anybody from distributing anything. Please also note that anybody can and does distribute any software they want for your Mac, with little ill effect.
And note that the Palm Pilot allowed many of the things you mention, which is one of the main reasons for its long-lasting success.
And besides, the question is not what people should be able to distribute. I was disputing your statement that: "Most would agree that the device satisfies the majority of users because Apple limits the changes that can be made to the device after the sale." I was not championing the making of patchwork quilts with badly designed software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I understand the point... it's just that my idea of flexibility is different than yours. Sure, I want more multitasking-- but not at the expense of battery life or usability.
Then fer chrissakes don't use multitasking. I've said a zillion times that this has already been implemented for the iPhone in a simple manner. And that there is no dichotomy between full(er) functionality and performance or ease of use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I also want IR and RFID capability-- shouldn't that trump what you want?
Sorry. I'm not sure what sort of a hierarchy you're talking about. Your original point, so I thought, was that additional functionality would make the device worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It is their device-- they can decide when/what/how to include features!
It is not theirs anymore. I find your attitude to be bizarre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I never text, so, let's remove that and replace it with whatever I want... screw everyone else!
You seem to have this exactly backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
You or I can buy a Droid or Nexus 1, and get more functionality... why don't we do that? I know my reasons! I suspect that you don't think there is enough additional value, today, and that you will not be able to upgrade or re-sell it in the future.
It is because I am an ATT customer for the duration. None of the current Android phones work with ATT's 3G. Once ATT gets in their 5 Android phones, I'll take a look at them. I usually keep a phone for the length of the contract. The only exception was a WinMo phone, which I got rid of because I didn't like it. I got a used Palm Treo on eBay to replace it. So I don't really think much about resale value or use it as a factor in my decisions.
But generally in terms of "allowed to distribute", I'd say "yes". Please note that there is no way in hell to prevent anybody from distributing anything. Please also note that anybody can and does distribute any software they want for your Mac, with little ill effect.
[?]
You seem to be under the delusion that Apple is your company and the company should bend to your needs. Yes, when you buy a product you own it and you do what you want with it, but don?t expect support when you violate the intended use of the device.
Your expectation of Apple to allow you and and everyone else to install any and all apps while still making them responsible for overnight shipments and repairs of the device because you think the average user should be allowed to install Flash, Java, have access to root, etc. is just your feeling of entitlement, but that isn?t reality.
How about this? You jailbreak it and do what you wish while taking the risk that that you might not support if you do something stupid; or you not buy an iPhone knowing that Apple isn?t building a device to suit your geeky fetish but a device that is suited for the average consumer, as shown by the massive growth of the smartphone market since the emergence of the iPhone. Regardless, stop your bitching.
Comments
I really hope so. Having to quit a game just to answer an IM is really not ideal, and rather irritating.
amen
btw, your name makes me warm and fuzzy
get it ?
And thank goodness for that. I'd rather see Apple have a handful of well-managed, well-placed products that ship and ship complete (versus being dumped out the door to meet self-imposed deadlines).
MS spends how many billions on R&D per year and basically produces nothing. We don't need to see Apple do the same.
Apparently, yes. Excellent downside management, I dare call that.
I'm actually a little surprised that Apple hasn't already made use of the virtual real estate afforded by up and down-- unless they're worried that an errant flick might send you hurtling off onto screens you'd never seen before and you would become frightened.
Dumb people might get frightened. The average user might be curious the first time, and then either use or not use the feature the second time.
You and Apple are seemingly so concerned about the stupidest possible user that functionality is denied to average users.
Giving the user all the control leads to chaos and geekiness. Giving a better balance is frankly going to be better. That's the philosophy that makes the iPhone so great.
I paid a shitload of money for the device. It belongs to me. I want all the control.
I do not want Apple to be my nanny and protect me from "geekiness and chaos". They are not real dangers in my world. I don't want to be transported to the world of the stupid and needy who like having a nanny watch over them.
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
Competition is more fierce than it was, and Apple can't stay aloof, and pretend it doesn't exist.
See, I never understand these kinds of arguments.
Was Apple "aloof" when they released the original iPhone?
It's not possible that Apple hasn't been working on many of these features for some time. The way software development works, and it's true for OS's as well, is that many features get finished well before the project as a whole is complete.
...
I'm positive that many features are completely ready and bug tested, and are just sitting there waiting for release. Only features that are dependent on overhauls of other areas of the OS won't be ready, or nearing completion.
Perhaps, perhaps they aren't fully baked yet. That's my point.
It's up to Apple as to how they want to do this. But they could if they wanted to.
Your absolutely right it's up to Apple how they releases new features. My point is, they will do it when it makes sense in the context of the overall experience. Apple rarely is reactionary to their competitors - indeed, the majority of the time it's the competitors that are reacting to Apple - and for good reason. Many of the killer "features" that have been cited as compelling on Android and the Pre in actually are just incremental checklist features that matter mainly to geeks. The evidence is in the sales (or lack of) of these devices compared to the iPhone.
If Apple was as arrogant or incompetent at releasing features as half of the people in these threads continually imply, then that means the last three iPhone releases were total flukes
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
You bought an iPhone because.....??
I paid a shitload of money for the device. It belongs to me. I want all the control.
I do not want Apple to be my nanny and protect me from "geekiness and chaos". They are not real dangers in my world. I don't want to be transported to the world of the stupid and needy who like having a nanny watch over them.
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
We all paid a shitload of money for the device. Being astute buyers, we all did our research and got what we paid for-- a quality product that performs as advertized... better actually, as it has been updated, over time, with no sacrifice to the original function or quality.
Most would agree that the device satisfies the majority of users because Apple limits the changes that can be made to the device after the sale.
Few would argue that the device does everything everyone wants,
We all know that functionality (implementation of this or that feature) has a cost to develop, test, maintain and support-- and a projected benefit for that cost.
But it is irrational, (and tiresome) for us to insist that the device must be totally open with a "make it do what I want and do it my way" solution-- at the expense millions of other users.
Those of us who desire more openness and less control can re-sell the device for a shitload of money, because the device, "as advertised" has a high resale value.
Having done that, and shopping for an open device with total user control, we should take extra care in the selection, because it, likely, will not be upgradeable, nor will it maintain a high resale value-- we will be stuck with our choice... it will belong to us!
•
You bought an iPhone because.....??
The 3GS was easily the best existing choice at the time of purchase (which is no longer the case...). And because Verizon reception is not good sitting here at my desk in front of my computer.
Anything else?
Most would agree that the device satisfies the majority of users because Apple limits the changes that can be made to the device after the sale.
No, I don't think that is the reason why the device satisfies the majority of users. Indeed, I would venture that reason ain't got hardly nothing to do with "satsifaction of the majority".
But it is irrational, (and tiresome) for us to insist that the device must be totally open with a "make it do what I want and do it my way" solution-- at the expense millions of other users.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not a binary world where flexibility and options are always "at the expense of the majority". To think that these limited choices are the ONLY choices is irrational.
Here's my point: It is not impossible to make a full-featured device which is easy to use. A great device could be made with advanced functionality which is transparent to disinterested users. To be truly great, basic functionality should be intuitive to novice and stupid users. (Some might argue that the current Mac meets this description).
There is no dichotomy between "easy to use" and "full functionality". I believe your premise is defective.
No, I don't think that is the reason why the device satisfies the majority of users. Indeed, I would venture that reason ain't got hardly nothing to do with "satsifaction of the majority".
So, any developer should be able to distribute an app that is able to modify, replace or remove any existing app-- say, the phone app, browser app, contacts app... And, the developer's app should be able to replace any and all components of the GUI with whatever arcane menu system he desires.
This, certainly would impact the usability and desirability of the device. It would create chaos, and fragment the market for the device.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not a binary world where flexibility and options are always "at the expense of the majority". To think that these limited choices are the ONLY choices is irrational.
I understand the point... it's just that my idea of flexibility is different than yours. Sure, I want more multitasking-- but not at the expense of battery life or usability. I also want IR and RFID capability-- shouldn't that trump what you want?
Apple provides a given set of functions and a given amount of flexibility. They do this with an implied warranty that the device will function as advertised.
They can (and have) expended additional resources to improve the functionality and usability without compromising the base product.
It is their device-- they can decide when/what/how to include features!
If this doesn't meet our needs, we can seek satisfaction elsewhere. It's called free enterprise!
Here's my point: It is not impossible to make a full-featured device which is easy to use. A great device could be made with advanced functionality which is transparent to disinterested users. To be truly great, basic functionality should be intuitive to novice and stupid users. (Some might argue that the current Mac meets this description).
There is no dichotomy between "easy to use" and "full functionality". I believe your premise is defective.
I have no problem with "easy to use" and "full functionality". But this costs resources and $ for an expected return. Apple has chosen the combination that they expect will give them the best ROI, over time.
Who's definition of full functionality are we to use-- yours, mine or the guy with his "pants on the ground"?
I never text, so, let's remove that and replace it with whatever I want... screw everyone else!
You or I can buy a Droid or Nexus 1, and get more functionality... why don't we do that? I know my reasons! I suspect that you don't think there is enough additional value, today, and that you will not be able to upgrade or re-sell it in the future.
*
I paid a shitload of money for the device. It belongs to me. I want all the control.
I do not want Apple to be my nanny and protect me from "geekiness and chaos". They are not real dangers in my world. I don't want to be transported to the world of the stupid and needy who like having a nanny watch over them.
It is entirely possible for the device to be simple to use AND to have advanced functionality. It is NOT laudable to strip functionality in the name of simplicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
That isn?t how life works. If you want complete control then format and install Linux on it, but what ever you do stop bitching that Apple makes a complete solution for the average user who just wants a smartphone that works as advertised.
The 3GS was easily the best existing choice at the time of purchase (which is no longer the case...)
Then you should be able to sell your iPhone and get something else pretty easily. Resale for iPhones, as others have pointed out, is really good.
And because Verizon reception is not good sitting here at my desk in front of my computer.
So get a one of the better smart phones already.
Anything else?
I could ask but I think we both know it would be pointless.
Dumb people might get frightened. The average user might be curious the first time, and then either use or not use the feature the second time.
You and Apple are seemingly so concerned about the stupidest possible user that functionality is denied to average users.
Yeah. And you're so interested in establishing the negatives of Apple's customers that it precludes you from noticing when someone is being a bit tongue in cheek.
No, I don't think that is the reason why the device satisfies the majority of users. Indeed, I would venture that reason ain't got hardly nothing to do with "satsifaction of the majority".
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not a binary world where flexibility and options are always "at the expense of the majority". To think that these limited choices are the ONLY choices is irrational.
Here's my point: It is not impossible to make a full-featured device which is easy to use. A great device could be made with advanced functionality which is transparent to disinterested users. To be truly great, basic functionality should be intuitive to novice and stupid users. (Some might argue that the current Mac meets this description).
There is no dichotomy between "easy to use" and "full functionality". I believe your premise is defective.
But of course without defining "full functionality" you're just waving your hands and creating a fake standard that the iPhone of course fails to meet.
There's no such thing as "full functionality", there's only specific devices and what they can or cannot do. Since the design of such devices is always a matter of multiple tradeoffs, different designers are going to differ in what they choose to do. It may not have occurred to you, but it's just possible that the iPhone's status as "best at the time" and the philosophical underpinnings of its design might be related. As in the relentless pursuit of making the thing as easy to use and intuitive as humanly possible based on a clearly defined set of user cases is exactly why the iPhone is what it is, why it's so popular, and why it's become the template for the industry. At any rate, your blithe assurance that Apple could make exactly the same phone with all kinds of extra tinkery bits cleverly hidden from the casual user is exactly the kind of thing that makes the people who actually have to make all the tough decisions about design tradeoffs laugh hard.
Very clearly, for the majority of use cases, Apple has designed a device that does what it says it will do, out of the box, and does it well. Surprisingly, many people seem to like that. I have no idea what compels you to argue that such people are stupid or wrong somehow, or that Apple is in some way obliged to provide more opportunities to tinker, or that such opportunities constitute a universal standard of proper functionality. As others have pointed out, there are now phones on Verizon that should provide you with the experience you want, which should make everything OK, yeah?
Dumb people might get frightened. The average user might be curious the first time, and then either use or not use the feature the second time.
You and Apple are seemingly so concerned about the stupidest possible user that functionality is denied to average users.
I'm not going to bother because addabox has already ripped your argument to shreds, but for a guy called "iGenius," you sure make some dumb arguments and for someone arguing on a forum about Apple design, you sure don't seem to know much about either Apple or design.
It's pretty obvious to any designer what choices were made and why in regards flipping up down and sideways. To argue that any random screen could use an upward or downward flip is to miss the whole point of the UI design of the iPhone. Try to think about what you're saying before you say it maybe?
As for your idea about their *not* being a dichotomy in regards "full functionality" versus what the dumber/simpler users need I'd like to see you come up with a good example of same instead of just stating it as fact. The only example I can think of at the moment is that of the one-button/two-button mouse functionality, but that particular design choice is almost universally lambasted by Apple critics like yourself.
Found this.
So you found a year old mockup.
Found this.
image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/...175851803b.jpg
That is one of the nicer mockups that have been around for awhile, though I think going that thin is still aways off while still getting the same or better performance from the HW.
So, any developer should be able to distribute an app that is able to modify, replace or remove any existing app-- say, the phone app, browser app, contacts app... And, the developer's app should be able to replace any and all components of the GUI with whatever arcane menu system he desires.
This, certainly would impact the usability and desirability of the device. It would create chaos, and fragment the market for the device.
Well, I dunno about any of those specifics.
But generally in terms of "allowed to distribute", I'd say "yes". Please note that there is no way in hell to prevent anybody from distributing anything. Please also note that anybody can and does distribute any software they want for your Mac, with little ill effect.
And note that the Palm Pilot allowed many of the things you mention, which is one of the main reasons for its long-lasting success.
And besides, the question is not what people should be able to distribute. I was disputing your statement that: "Most would agree that the device satisfies the majority of users because Apple limits the changes that can be made to the device after the sale." I was not championing the making of patchwork quilts with badly designed software.
I understand the point... it's just that my idea of flexibility is different than yours. Sure, I want more multitasking-- but not at the expense of battery life or usability.
Then fer chrissakes don't use multitasking. I've said a zillion times that this has already been implemented for the iPhone in a simple manner. And that there is no dichotomy between full(er) functionality and performance or ease of use.
I also want IR and RFID capability-- shouldn't that trump what you want?
Sorry. I'm not sure what sort of a hierarchy you're talking about. Your original point, so I thought, was that additional functionality would make the device worse.
It is their device-- they can decide when/what/how to include features!
It is not theirs anymore. I find your attitude to be bizarre.
I never text, so, let's remove that and replace it with whatever I want... screw everyone else!
You seem to have this exactly backwards.
You or I can buy a Droid or Nexus 1, and get more functionality... why don't we do that? I know my reasons! I suspect that you don't think there is enough additional value, today, and that you will not be able to upgrade or re-sell it in the future.
It is because I am an ATT customer for the duration. None of the current Android phones work with ATT's 3G. Once ATT gets in their 5 Android phones, I'll take a look at them. I usually keep a phone for the length of the contract. The only exception was a WinMo phone, which I got rid of because I didn't like it. I got a used Palm Treo on eBay to replace it. So I don't really think much about resale value or use it as a factor in my decisions.
Well, I dunno about any of those specifics.
But generally in terms of "allowed to distribute", I'd say "yes". Please note that there is no way in hell to prevent anybody from distributing anything. Please also note that anybody can and does distribute any software they want for your Mac, with little ill effect.
[?]
You seem to be under the delusion that Apple is your company and the company should bend to your needs. Yes, when you buy a product you own it and you do what you want with it, but don?t expect support when you violate the intended use of the device.
Your expectation of Apple to allow you and and everyone else to install any and all apps while still making them responsible for overnight shipments and repairs of the device because you think the average user should be allowed to install Flash, Java, have access to root, etc. is just your feeling of entitlement, but that isn?t reality.
How about this? You jailbreak it and do what you wish while taking the risk that that you might not support if you do something stupid; or you not buy an iPhone knowing that Apple isn?t building a device to suit your geeky fetish but a device that is suited for the average consumer, as shown by the massive growth of the smartphone market since the emergence of the iPhone. Regardless, stop your bitching.