Oh really. Well if you can just go ahead and deconstruct the analogy to the point where it is clearly "retarded", I will gladly apologise.
For one, as already stated Newspapers can arrive by some other means than roads. No one pairs roads and newspapers together as if Newspapers depend solely on Roads. Without the internet, there would be no world wide web. A school newspaper for example usually doesn't use any roads at all. They print them at the school and then pass them out. The world wide web would not exist if it wasn't for the internet.
Second of all, unless you have been living in a box with no communication for the past decade you would realize that the term "internet" is usually referring to the web. When someone says a generation that is growing up on the internet, they are talking about myspace, youtube, and other websites. When someone says "Our company is on the Internet". 99% of people will know they mean that they have a website. No one says "Our company has a road" meaning they have a newspaper. And no one would take it as that.
I could go into it more, but I've already wasted enough time on this pointless argument. If you know how the internet works, as you have said you do, and you know anything about the popular use of the term, then you should see why your analogy doesn't make sense.
For one, as already stated Newspapers can arrive by some other means than roads. No one pairs roads and newspapers together as if Newspapers depend solely on Roads. Without the internet, there would be no world wide web. A school newspaper for example usually doesn't use any roads at all. They print them at the school and then pass them out. The world wide web would not exist if it wasn't for the internet.
Second of all, unless you have been living in a box with no communication for the past decade you would realize that the term "internet" is usually referring to the web. When someone says a generation that is growing up on the internet, they are talking about myspace, youtube, and other websites. When someone says "Our company is on the Internet". 99% of people will know they mean that they have a website. No one says "Our company has a road" meaning they have a newspaper. And no one would take it as that.
I could go into it more, but I've already wasted enough time on this pointless argument. If you know how the internet works, as you have said you do, and you know anything about the popular use of the term, then you should see why your analogy doesn't make sense.
Your first paragraph explains why the analogy is not flawless. It does not make it "retarded".
Your subsequent paragraphs explain the need for the analogy. Everyone knows that roads and newspapers are different. They understand the function of roads, and they understand the function of newspapers. Just because nearly everyone calls the web "the internet" doesn't and shouldn't make it right.
How lovely. Thanks for that. I see you provide no actual explanation for this.
Do you deny that the internet and the web are two different things?
Do you deny that newspapers and roads are two different things?
Do you deny that the web is an information source?
Do you deny that newspapers are an information source?
Do you deny that the internet is a network?
Do you deny that roads form a network?
In order for the web to get to you, information travels over a network - the internet. In order for a newspaper to get to you, information travels over a network - the road network. You can even take it further and have trucks being the equivalent of HTTP.
Now sure, the analogy isn't perfect. But I think it actually does a pretty good job of translating something that causes most people to glaze-over into something they can relate to and understand.
That's a stupid analogy, and for that reason your breakdown of the analogy is irrelevant.
The birth of the internet goes back to the 50's, the web was created in 1990, they are different.
Today's standard usage says they are the same.
Yes, in the technical sense, they are different, but the Internet is inclusive of the World Wide Web for one...
Think abstraction latter ladies and gents!
Living things > People > Athletes > Golfers > Tiger Woods -- you can call Tiger Woods a living thing, and that would be true. But you can't call a living thing Tiger Woods
Objects > Large objects > Planets > the Earth -- you can call the Earth an object or a large object, and that would be true. But you can't call an Object the Earth.
Networks > the Internet > the World Wide Web -- I think you see where I am going.
And the abstraction ladder theory COMPLETELY ignores common usage and the fact that common usage considers the World Wide Web and the Internet to be synonymous NAMES of the same thing. The key is the word "name." They are names for the same thing -- per colloquial language.
Do you need further proof for the whole "name" theory?
Consider that many words have different meanings -- some newer than others.
Yes, in the technical sense, they are different, but the Internet is inclusive of the World Wide Web for one...
Think abstraction latter ladies and gents!
Living things > People > Athletes > Golfers > Tiger Woods -- you can call Tiger Woods a living thing, and that would be true. But you can't call a living thing Tiger Woods
Objects > Large objects > Planets > the Earth -- you can call the Earth an object or a large object, and that would be true. But you can't call an Object the Earth.
Tiger Woods is a "type" of living thing. The Earth is a "type" of object. The WWW is not a "type" of internet, or a type of network.
No it doesn't. The internet is a network. It does not "include" the WWW. It is the delivery mechanism of the WWW.
"The Internet is a worldwide, publicly accessible network of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP). It is a 'network of networks' that consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks, which together carry various information and services, such as electronic mail, online chat, file transfer, and the interlinked Web pages and other documents of the World Wide Web."
According to your usage and the definition above, the internet would be like the network of all roads in the US and the world wide web would be like the network of all US Interstates. The former is inclusive of the ladder.
Tiger Woods is a "type" of living thing. The Earth is a "type" of object. The WWW is not a "type" of internet, or a type of network.
Expect that the World Wide Web is a subset of the Internet. The World Wide Web could not exist without the internet. Newspapers could (and do) exist without roads. Newspapers existed without the use of roads to transport them. And the internet transports newspapers (in online form) via the subsets of the internet of email and the world wide web.
Saying that the web IS the whole internet is like saying that 1-900 porno lines are the entire phone network! they may be a subset, but they are not the whole thing...I love apple but this is deceptive advertising plain and simple.
The fact that most people are ignorant is no excuse for Apple to join in.
Again, calling the web "the internet" is exactly like calling a newspaper a road.
My God, Mr. H, give it a rest. Yes, you are smart. And you are technically correct. And you probably have a better pocket protector collection than all of us combined. But this is a useless argument. Apple is not trying to define these terms for us, it is trying to convince people that this phone is worth paying 10X the cost of most of the phones people have been buying--and that it will do things that we want it to do and are familiar with.
The road argument is old, lets go with phone terminology. If apple advertises that it is easy to "dial" the iPhone are you going to have a conniption? A dial is a round face with numbers around it. The common usage for cell phones is totally wrong!!! It should be "key in" the number. I am indignant that people have been using this word incorrectly for years.
And how about "hanging up?" You don't actually hang up a cell phone. The term should be "disconnect." I fully expect Apple to use their marketing $$ to correct these truly important common usage errors.
According to your usage and the definition above, the internet would be like the network of all roads in the US and the world wide web would be like the network of all US Interstates. The former is inclusive of the ladder.
No it wouldn't.
I'm amazed I can't get you to grasp this simple fact:
The internet is a transport network that is used to deliver the information of the world wide web.
The road network is a transport network that is used to deliver the information of national* newspapers.
If you did away with all roads, national newspapers would have to be delivered by some other transport network - helicopters perhaps? If you did away with the internet, the web (which would still exist - the computers that store the web just wouldn't be connected to a network) would require a different network to transmit its data.
*there you go, I added the word "national" to remove the school newspaper and such like issue.
Saying that the web IS the whole internet is like saying that 1-900 porno lines are the entire phone network! they may be a subset, but they are not the whole thing...I love apple but this is deceptive advertising plain and simple.
will the iPhone do SSH? remote VPN? standard ()read non-yahell) IMAP email? there is a lot that the internet does that "web" doesn't..
The road argument is old, lets go with phone terminology. If apple advertises that it is easy to "dial" the iPhone are you going to have a conniption? A dial is a face face with numbers around it. The common usage for cell phones is totally wrong!!! It should be "key in" the number. I am indignant that people have been using this word incorrectly for years.
No, I wouldn't get indignant about that, because dialling a number and keying in a number both achieve only one and the same thing. The internet and the WWW do not achieve the same thing/do the same job/whatever.
Saying that the web IS the whole internet is like saying that 1-900 porno lines are the entire phone network! they may be a subset, but they are not the whole thing...I love apple but this is deceptive advertising plain and simple.
No one ever said that "the web IS the whole internet." The internet is higher up on the abstraction level than the web. How do I prove that to you? If you go to a cafe and you want to browse the web, you won't ask to have access to the web, you will ask to have access to the internet. Because the web is a subset of the internet. Whether you are using ALL of the internet or not, you're still accessing the internet by accessing the web.
But there is no way this is deceptive advertising because 99% of the general public would be less confused by using the term internet rather than world wide web. Apple never claims to give access to ALL of the web. They just goggle over how pretty the internet is on this device.
And even regardless of that, you are ignoring that it is COLLOQUIALLY correct that the World Wide Web and the internet are synonymous.
No, I wouldn't get indignant about that, because dialling a number and keying in a number both achieve only one and the same thing. The internet and the WWW do not achieve the same thing/do the same job/whatever.
But that is exactly my point.
To 99% of the phone buying public out there, the internet and the web are the same thing. They do not know the diffference. They do not care about the difference.
Can they check the weather, get their email and read the paper? Many may be able to understand the difference but they do not care.
Apple is speaking to them.
Sure there is a difference. And you know it. And Apple surely knows it. And for the add it does not matter. In fact, it is important that they communicate effectively in a very brief (and expensive) window of time. If just 5% of the public thought: "That looks cool. Wait... it only does the web? it doesnt do the whole internet. Nevermind." it would be a disaster.
The fact that most people are ignorant is no excuse for Apple to join in.
Actually, in my opinion, the fact that people don't know the difference is perfect excuse to use the word 'internet' in place of 'web."
These commercials have one goal and one goal only: to sell as many iPhones as they possibly can. If, by changing one word to make it easier for the vast majority of potential buyers to understand, they piss off some uber-techies, and then sell millions of phones - I don't think they'll have any remorse, and rightfully so.
Comments
Oh really. Well if you can just go ahead and deconstruct the analogy to the point where it is clearly "retarded", I will gladly apologise.
For one, as already stated Newspapers can arrive by some other means than roads. No one pairs roads and newspapers together as if Newspapers depend solely on Roads. Without the internet, there would be no world wide web. A school newspaper for example usually doesn't use any roads at all. They print them at the school and then pass them out. The world wide web would not exist if it wasn't for the internet.
Second of all, unless you have been living in a box with no communication for the past decade you would realize that the term "internet" is usually referring to the web. When someone says a generation that is growing up on the internet, they are talking about myspace, youtube, and other websites. When someone says "Our company is on the Internet". 99% of people will know they mean that they have a website. No one says "Our company has a road" meaning they have a newspaper. And no one would take it as that.
I could go into it more, but I've already wasted enough time on this pointless argument. If you know how the internet works, as you have said you do, and you know anything about the popular use of the term, then you should see why your analogy doesn't make sense.
For one, as already stated Newspapers can arrive by some other means than roads. No one pairs roads and newspapers together as if Newspapers depend solely on Roads. Without the internet, there would be no world wide web. A school newspaper for example usually doesn't use any roads at all. They print them at the school and then pass them out. The world wide web would not exist if it wasn't for the internet.
Second of all, unless you have been living in a box with no communication for the past decade you would realize that the term "internet" is usually referring to the web. When someone says a generation that is growing up on the internet, they are talking about myspace, youtube, and other websites. When someone says "Our company is on the Internet". 99% of people will know they mean that they have a website. No one says "Our company has a road" meaning they have a newspaper. And no one would take it as that.
I could go into it more, but I've already wasted enough time on this pointless argument. If you know how the internet works, as you have said you do, and you know anything about the popular use of the term, then you should see why your analogy doesn't make sense.
Your first paragraph explains why the analogy is not flawless. It does not make it "retarded".
Your subsequent paragraphs explain the need for the analogy. Everyone knows that roads and newspapers are different. They understand the function of roads, and they understand the function of newspapers. Just because nearly everyone calls the web "the internet" doesn't and shouldn't make it right.
How lovely. Thanks for that. I see you provide no actual explanation for this.
Do you deny that the internet and the web are two different things?
Do you deny that newspapers and roads are two different things?
Do you deny that the web is an information source?
Do you deny that newspapers are an information source?
Do you deny that the internet is a network?
Do you deny that roads form a network?
In order for the web to get to you, information travels over a network - the internet. In order for a newspaper to get to you, information travels over a network - the road network. You can even take it further and have trucks being the equivalent of HTTP.
Now sure, the analogy isn't perfect. But I think it actually does a pretty good job of translating something that causes most people to glaze-over into something they can relate to and understand.
That's a stupid analogy, and for that reason your breakdown of the analogy is irrelevant.
Roads do NOT include newspapers
The Internet DOES include the World Wide Web
That's a stupid analogy, and for that reason your breakdown of the analogy is irrelevant.
Roads do NOT include newspapers
The Internet DOES include the World Wide Web
Newspapers are delivered using roads
That's a stupid analogy, and for that reason your breakdown of the analogy is irrelevant.
The Internet DOES include the World Wide Web
No it doesn't. The internet is a network. It does not "include" the WWW. It is the delivery mechanism of the WWW.
The birth of the internet goes back to the 50's, the web was created in 1990, they are different.
Today's standard usage says they are the same.
Yes, in the technical sense, they are different, but the Internet is inclusive of the World Wide Web for one...
Think abstraction latter ladies and gents!
Living things > People > Athletes > Golfers > Tiger Woods -- you can call Tiger Woods a living thing, and that would be true. But you can't call a living thing Tiger Woods
Objects > Large objects > Planets > the Earth -- you can call the Earth an object or a large object, and that would be true. But you can't call an Object the Earth.
Networks > the Internet > the World Wide Web -- I think you see where I am going.
And the abstraction ladder theory COMPLETELY ignores common usage and the fact that common usage considers the World Wide Web and the Internet to be synonymous NAMES of the same thing. The key is the word "name." They are names for the same thing -- per colloquial language.
Do you need further proof for the whole "name" theory?
Consider that many words have different meanings -- some newer than others.
The birth of the internet goes back to the 50's, the web was created in 1990, they are different.
Wait!!!
Didn't Al Gore invent the internet???!!! that would have made him, like, 8 or 9 years old when he invented it!!
No wonder so many people think he's so intelligent.
Today's standard usage says they are the same.
Yes, in the technical sense, they are different, but the Internet is inclusive of the World Wide Web for one...
Think abstraction latter ladies and gents!
Living things > People > Athletes > Golfers > Tiger Woods -- you can call Tiger Woods a living thing, and that would be true. But you can't call a living thing Tiger Woods
Objects > Large objects > Planets > the Earth -- you can call the Earth an object or a large object, and that would be true. But you can't call an Object the Earth.
Tiger Woods is a "type" of living thing. The Earth is a "type" of object. The WWW is not a "type" of internet, or a type of network.
No it doesn't. The internet is a network. It does not "include" the WWW. It is the delivery mechanism of the WWW.
"The Internet is a worldwide, publicly accessible network of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP). It is a 'network of networks' that consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks, which together carry various information and services, such as electronic mail, online chat, file transfer, and the interlinked Web pages and other documents of the World Wide Web."
According to your usage and the definition above, the internet would be like the network of all roads in the US and the world wide web would be like the network of all US Interstates. The former is inclusive of the ladder.
Tiger Woods is a "type" of living thing. The Earth is a "type" of object. The WWW is not a "type" of internet, or a type of network.
Expect that the World Wide Web is a subset of the Internet. The World Wide Web could not exist without the internet. Newspapers could (and do) exist without roads. Newspapers existed without the use of roads to transport them. And the internet transports newspapers (in online form) via the subsets of the internet of email and the world wide web.
The fact that most people are ignorant is no excuse for Apple to join in.
Again, calling the web "the internet" is exactly like calling a newspaper a road.
My God, Mr. H, give it a rest. Yes, you are smart. And you are technically correct. And you probably have a better pocket protector collection than all of us combined.
The road argument is old, lets go with phone terminology. If apple advertises that it is easy to "dial" the iPhone are you going to have a conniption? A dial is a round face with numbers around it. The common usage for cell phones is totally wrong!!! It should be "key in" the number. I am indignant that people have been using this word incorrectly for years.
And how about "hanging up?" You don't actually hang up a cell phone. The term should be "disconnect." I fully expect Apple to use their marketing $$ to correct these truly important common usage errors.
According to your usage and the definition above, the internet would be like the network of all roads in the US and the world wide web would be like the network of all US Interstates. The former is inclusive of the ladder.
No it wouldn't.
I'm amazed I can't get you to grasp this simple fact:
The internet is a transport network that is used to deliver the information of the world wide web.
The road network is a transport network that is used to deliver the information of national* newspapers.
If you did away with all roads, national newspapers would have to be delivered by some other transport network - helicopters perhaps? If you did away with the internet, the web (which would still exist - the computers that store the web just wouldn't be connected to a network) would require a different network to transmit its data.
*there you go, I added the word "national" to remove the school newspaper and such like issue.
will the iPhone do SSH? remote VPN? standard ()read non-yahell) IMAP email? there is a lot that the internet does that "web" doesn't..
The road argument is old, lets go with phone terminology. If apple advertises that it is easy to "dial" the iPhone are you going to have a conniption? A dial is a face face with numbers around it. The common usage for cell phones is totally wrong!!! It should be "key in" the number. I am indignant that people have been using this word incorrectly for years.
No, I wouldn't get indignant about that, because dialling a number and keying in a number both achieve only one and the same thing. The internet and the WWW do not achieve the same thing/do the same job/whatever.
Saying that the web IS the whole internet is like saying that 1-900 porno lines are the entire phone network! they may be a subset, but they are not the whole thing...I love apple but this is deceptive advertising plain and simple.
No one ever said that "the web IS the whole internet." The internet is higher up on the abstraction level than the web. How do I prove that to you? If you go to a cafe and you want to browse the web, you won't ask to have access to the web, you will ask to have access to the internet. Because the web is a subset of the internet. Whether you are using ALL of the internet or not, you're still accessing the internet by accessing the web.
But there is no way this is deceptive advertising because 99% of the general public would be less confused by using the term internet rather than world wide web. Apple never claims to give access to ALL of the web. They just goggle over how pretty the internet is on this device.
And even regardless of that, you are ignoring that it is COLLOQUIALLY correct that the World Wide Web and the internet are synonymous.
And even regardless of that, you are ignoring that it is COLLOQUIALLY correct that the World Wide Web and the internet (lowercase!!) are synonymous.
Internet is correctly spelt in upper case.
No, I wouldn't get indignant about that, because dialling a number and keying in a number both achieve only one and the same thing. The internet and the WWW do not achieve the same thing/do the same job/whatever.
But that is exactly my point.
To 99% of the phone buying public out there, the internet and the web are the same thing. They do not know the diffference. They do not care about the difference.
Can they check the weather, get their email and read the paper? Many may be able to understand the difference but they do not care.
Apple is speaking to them.
Sure there is a difference. And you know it. And Apple surely knows it. And for the add it does not matter. In fact, it is important that they communicate effectively in a very brief (and expensive) window of time. If just 5% of the public thought: "That looks cool. Wait... it only does the web? it doesnt do the whole internet. Nevermind." it would be a disaster.
If Mr. H. and a_greer are offended it is not.
The fact that most people are ignorant is no excuse for Apple to join in.
Actually, in my opinion, the fact that people don't know the difference is perfect excuse to use the word 'internet' in place of 'web."
These commercials have one goal and one goal only: to sell as many iPhones as they possibly can. If, by changing one word to make it easier for the vast majority of potential buyers to understand, they piss off some uber-techies, and then sell millions of phones - I don't think they'll have any remorse, and rightfully so.