I think that's what I've been saying, but I don't think childish describes my form of argumentation.
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
I think that's what I've been saying, but I don't think childish describes my form of argumentation.
No? Actually personally calling out my post (which wasn't even in response to you/yours) was about the most juvenile, and self-righteous action in this entire thread.
You want to take the high road (or think you do) then just ignore the comments, no one appointed you the forum standards police.
And that really goes for anyone else who cant see the point in forum arguments/debates (childish or not) no one says you have to read them, or take part in them, and if your posting a reply thats condemning it/them, take a step back and look at what a hypocrite your being.
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
Spoken like a true psychology major.
Or in the good lord's words
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or
"Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!"
The hypocrisy on this forum is outstanding tonight, but alas I truly fear for the delicate minds of the children.
Well because of the iTunes music store, and they think they are reinventing the music player.
JMHO, but I don't think they will ever make an iPod that is basically a PDA, simply because 1) Thats what they are doing (or basically have done) with the iPhone 2) PDAs that do not included phones are dated, even look at palms line, they are almost solely focusing on the TREO now, and its its best seller by far.
It would have been a simple matter to provide a dedicated iTunes client if that were the only intention. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new mobile computing platform. As to what it's called, that's a marketing strategy to provide inroads for the product, and to create the differentiation I was alluding to. Looking at the bigger picture, with technologies like Wimax around the corner, whether or not there is a "phone" included (in the sense that we currently use the term) won't ultimately make any difference.
Anyway, you will find from reading posts in these forums, some people want a device that includes a phone, some don't. There are many of us who are happy enough with their phones and don't want an all-in-one device, never mind being locked into an expensive contract for years. I don't see the point in making comparisons to Palm; they lost the plot a long time ago. By incorporating a phone they have given their lame devices some useful functionality. Apple is in a different league.
It would have been a simple matter to provide a dedicated iTunes client if that were the only intention. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new mobile computing platform. As to what it's called, that's a marketing strategy to provide inroads for the product, and to create the differentiation I was alluding to. Looking at the bigger picture, with technologies like Wimax around the corner, whether or not there is a "phone" included (in the sense that we currently use the term) won't ultimately make any difference.
Anyway, you will find from reading posts in these forums, some people want a device that includes a phone, some don't. There are many of us who are happy enough with their phones and don't want an all-in-one device, never mind being locked into an expensive contract for years. I don't see the point in making comparisons to Palm; they lost the plot a long time ago. By incorporating a phone they have given their lame devices some useful functionality. Apple is in a different league.
All good points, but we need to think about now, not what will be in three to five years, and what the product is not what it could be.
Yes as unfortunate as it is Palm is basically the standard in PDAs (yes they have done a terrible job). I only referenced them because they indicate PDA buying trends. With that IMHO a phone has become the most important feature of a PDA, could it someday be replaced, yes, but thats not where the technologies at yet. As for contracts, your pretty much forced into them no matter what with regards to PDA/cell phones. And if you've ever had a phone with AT&T/cingular, you'd know they let you update your device after six months if you extend the contract (yes its an endless process, but any decent device requires a contract anyway, and I love AT&T's service in my area).
As for those who don't want an AIO, why aren't they complaining about the lack of calendar features on their phone, or maybe they are, maybe they do want an AIO and just don't know it yet.
Now what I'm really trying to point out is its an iPod, not a PDA, not a Media Center, not a device to signal aliens. An iPod, so far, only true purpose is to be a media player (yes the internet has to become media, hence safari). As this, the touch iPod (along with the iPod feature of the iPhone) is the best iPod ever to be released. For those waiting for other features that may or may not ever come you do realize life is passing you by.
No? Actually personally calling out my post (which wasn't even in response to you/yours) was about the most juvenile, and self-righteous action in this entire thread.
You want to take the high road (or think you do) then just ignore the comments, no one appointed you the forum standards police.
And that really goes for anyone else who cant see the point in forum arguments/debates (childish or not) no one says you have to read them, or take part in them, and if your posting a reply thats condemning it/them, take a step back and look at what a hypocrite your being.
Uh, what? I'm not calling out anything. I was merely agreeing with you and, admittedly, defending myself which may have been somewhat rash on my part. Quite the backlash for such a small matter if you ask me, speaking of the forum standards police...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolHandPete
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
Now what I'm really trying to point out is its an iPod, not a PDA, not a Media Center, not a device to signal aliens. An iPod, so far, only true purpose is to be a media player (yes the internet has to become media, hence safari). As this, the touch iPod (along with the iPod feature of the iPhone) is the best iPod ever to be released. For those waiting for other features that may or may not ever come you do realize life is passing you by.
It's a great device, but the point is they've crippled it for a seemingly non-sensical reason.
I'll never buy this thing until we get Notes and Calendar both as they are in the iPhone, uncrippled, and working properly. It's called functionality, which used to be an Apple trademark, but now gets your threads deleted from the Apple discussion boards should you point out how they screwed up their own device.
This device is more than an iPod. Things are advancing. Get over it. We now expect more of what we buy gadgetwise, because we are all carrying too damn many gadgets. I'm simply not carrying a Palm TX AND a phone AND an iPod. AT&T service sucks in my area - very bad coverage- and I will NOT buy an iPhone.
The iPod has had Notes for generations. Apple is crippling their own product to push iPhone sales, and get further into our wallets, as if the iPod touch is not already a very premium priced product.
What's next, taking "g" and "n" 802.11 functionality off of the MacBook to protect MBP sales?
Stupid thinking, Apple. Just plain $tupid. Like M$FT stupid.
Now If the iPod touch calendar is crippled so they can force you to use a web-based .Mac calendar my initial holler at the crippling is going up a few decibels. Anyway, I could be totally wrong and hopefully this is just Apple holding back on including the calendar input while they tweak it to splendor.
I agree with everyone complaining about the lack of functionality. To those who basically say "stop moaning it's meant to be just an ipod", well, that's an awesome piece of hardware+OS for just playing media, and why include Safari?
If you read between the lines of Steve Jobs' intro of the touch, he gives a piss-poor reason to include Safari.
He emphasized that Safari was included to help log onto Wi-fi networks...oh, and it can surf the Web too. It almost sounds like the only reason they put it on was because for people to be able to log onto Wi-fi networks -- and in turn use the Wi-Fi Music Store -- they HAD to include Safari.
I'll never buy this thing until we get Notes and Calendar both as they are in the iPhone, uncrippled, and working properly. Stupid thinking, Apple. Just plain $tupid. Like M$FT stupid.
Well in the big scheme of things. How important are Notes and Calendars? Of the 110 million iPods that have been sold, how many people even use the Note and Calendar apps? Probably very few.
I do agree the iPod Touch can make a nice PDA and that Apple is likely playing that down to help iPhone sales. Apple is doing what it feels it needs to grow the markets for each device. At this point we don't know what the long term strategy for the Touch. Apps may be added fairly quickly.
No offense, but this all sounds like Apple apologist crap. While it may all basically be true in principle, the fact is that many websites use Flash and that many websites are also rendered useless without Flash (even if they shouldn't be). And Flash is far more widely used than Quicktime, so I would almost consider a browser without Flash not a "real browser." Maybe Flash would rapidly drain the battery, but it should still be available on the iPhone/iPod Touch as an option even if it's turned off by default.
A plug-in doesn't define a browser, rendering HTML and CSS correctly does. If I'm apologizing for anyone it's Adobe.
My main point was that there ARE people who want more than 10 GB of space, as the OP said he knows of no one who does. I do use a smart playlist almost identical (rating and hasn't been played recently) to yours (especially nice with the nano), but I don't want to be tied to just that. I appreciate your viewpoint, and think that's the best part of the current iPod lineup--something for everyone.
While I probably use the iPod Classic (actually 80GB 5.5G) most, I wouldn't call it my ideal iPod. My ideal iPod would have WAY more capacity than the current Classic (enabling me to listen to everything in ALAC), the small size of the nano, the WiFi and nice screen of the Touch, with additional features such as bluetooth, usb/firewire ports and OS X open to developers. Obviously impossible with current technology, but how much of this could be done now (excluding nano sizing) to make it the Mac Ultraportable some of us have been really waiting for?
My old Newton might have been more capable and if it had the ability to store and hold tunes and looked as sweet as this thing with such a pretty touch screen - still in use. Many of my old Palms can certainly outdo this new device, except they do not have the storage capacity (but they do have storage card slots). My WinDoze handhelds also have a lot of the capabilities… none are near as slick looking or small.
That being said I have to join the whiners and ask: why with everything in place to provide a truly capable iPod device that could function as a full featured PDA, did Apple choose to introduce something with such limited capabilities?
I had to search my experiences to come up with the answers.
Apple could not deliver something like that for sale for THIS Xmas season. The first generation of this device is very nice and has its merits and I am sure the Apps will be developed for it… but until that time I will hold on to my hard earned cash. And, Apple included Safari so they could generate more revenue by selling to the impulse buyer. It is why they put the gum next to the cash register.
By not putting a camera, microphone, speaker, more Apps and some of the other things people are carping about; Apple was able to manufacture and deliver on a full compliment of ‘music’ devices in addition to the iPod Touch and boost its earnings and its status in the marketplace. It certainly will not hurt their market share, stock prices or dividends. Let’s get real now: that is what this whole thing is all about.
By introducing products like these, corporations can determine in real time where they should put their R&D dollars and what products they should introduce in the marketplace for second and third generations.
When Apple gets a little further down the road, I will purchase a Touch or one of the other devices from some other company that will do the things that I want it to do. Woz, we need you baby!
I was completely baffled when i saw this mysterious piece of plastic hold up the ipod! I've been pondering over this piece of shit for more than 2 days now.
HOW DID I NOT FIGURE THAT OUT? I gotta try this with mine, hold on...
Comments
I think that's what I've been saying, but I don't think childish describes my form of argumentation.
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
yes. yes i do.
I think that's what I've been saying, but I don't think childish describes my form of argumentation.
No? Actually personally calling out my post (which wasn't even in response to you/yours) was about the most juvenile, and self-righteous action in this entire thread.
You want to take the high road (or think you do) then just ignore the comments, no one appointed you the forum standards police.
And that really goes for anyone else who cant see the point in forum arguments/debates (childish or not) no one says you have to read them, or take part in them, and if your posting a reply thats condemning it/them, take a step back and look at what a hypocrite your being.
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
Spoken like a true psychology major.
Or in the good lord's words
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or
"Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!"
The hypocrisy on this forum is outstanding tonight, but alas I truly fear for the delicate minds of the children.
Well because of the iTunes music store, and they think they are reinventing the music player.
JMHO, but I don't think they will ever make an iPod that is basically a PDA, simply because 1) Thats what they are doing (or basically have done) with the iPhone 2) PDAs that do not included phones are dated, even look at palms line, they are almost solely focusing on the TREO now, and its its best seller by far.
It would have been a simple matter to provide a dedicated iTunes client if that were the only intention. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new mobile computing platform. As to what it's called, that's a marketing strategy to provide inroads for the product, and to create the differentiation I was alluding to. Looking at the bigger picture, with technologies like Wimax around the corner, whether or not there is a "phone" included (in the sense that we currently use the term) won't ultimately make any difference.
Anyway, you will find from reading posts in these forums, some people want a device that includes a phone, some don't. There are many of us who are happy enough with their phones and don't want an all-in-one device, never mind being locked into an expensive contract for years. I don't see the point in making comparisons to Palm; they lost the plot a long time ago. By incorporating a phone they have given their lame devices some useful functionality. Apple is in a different league.
It would have been a simple matter to provide a dedicated iTunes client if that were the only intention. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new mobile computing platform. As to what it's called, that's a marketing strategy to provide inroads for the product, and to create the differentiation I was alluding to. Looking at the bigger picture, with technologies like Wimax around the corner, whether or not there is a "phone" included (in the sense that we currently use the term) won't ultimately make any difference.
Anyway, you will find from reading posts in these forums, some people want a device that includes a phone, some don't. There are many of us who are happy enough with their phones and don't want an all-in-one device, never mind being locked into an expensive contract for years. I don't see the point in making comparisons to Palm; they lost the plot a long time ago. By incorporating a phone they have given their lame devices some useful functionality. Apple is in a different league.
All good points, but we need to think about now, not what will be in three to five years, and what the product is not what it could be.
Yes as unfortunate as it is Palm is basically the standard in PDAs (yes they have done a terrible job). I only referenced them because they indicate PDA buying trends. With that IMHO a phone has become the most important feature of a PDA, could it someday be replaced, yes, but thats not where the technologies at yet. As for contracts, your pretty much forced into them no matter what with regards to PDA/cell phones. And if you've ever had a phone with AT&T/cingular, you'd know they let you update your device after six months if you extend the contract (yes its an endless process, but any decent device requires a contract anyway, and I love AT&T's service in my area).
As for those who don't want an AIO, why aren't they complaining about the lack of calendar features on their phone, or maybe they are, maybe they do want an AIO and just don't know it yet.
Now what I'm really trying to point out is its an iPod, not a PDA, not a Media Center, not a device to signal aliens. An iPod, so far, only true purpose is to be a media player (yes the internet has to become media, hence safari). As this, the touch iPod (along with the iPod feature of the iPhone) is the best iPod ever to be released. For those waiting for other features that may or may not ever come you do realize life is passing you by.
No? Actually personally calling out my post (which wasn't even in response to you/yours) was about the most juvenile, and self-righteous action in this entire thread.
You want to take the high road (or think you do) then just ignore the comments, no one appointed you the forum standards police.
And that really goes for anyone else who cant see the point in forum arguments/debates (childish or not) no one says you have to read them, or take part in them, and if your posting a reply thats condemning it/them, take a step back and look at what a hypocrite your being.
Uh, what? I'm not calling out anything. I was merely agreeing with you and, admittedly, defending myself which may have been somewhat rash on my part. Quite the backlash for such a small matter if you ask me, speaking of the forum standards police...
Do you ever feel there are people who come to these forums to bring in some frustration that they are unable to express in the "real world"? In my view, our discussions often exemplify the kind of discourse that should be held as the standard for exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Other times, they serve as examples of how emotion and vitriol can destroy solution-oriented debate.
Yes, see above.
Now what I'm really trying to point out is its an iPod, not a PDA, not a Media Center, not a device to signal aliens. An iPod, so far, only true purpose is to be a media player (yes the internet has to become media, hence safari). As this, the touch iPod (along with the iPod feature of the iPhone) is the best iPod ever to be released. For those waiting for other features that may or may not ever come you do realize life is passing you by.
It's a great device, but the point is they've crippled it for a seemingly non-sensical reason.
This device is more than an iPod. Things are advancing. Get over it. We now expect more of what we buy gadgetwise, because we are all carrying too damn many gadgets. I'm simply not carrying a Palm TX AND a phone AND an iPod. AT&T service sucks in my area - very bad coverage- and I will NOT buy an iPhone.
The iPod has had Notes for generations. Apple is crippling their own product to push iPhone sales, and get further into our wallets, as if the iPod touch is not already a very premium priced product.
What's next, taking "g" and "n" 802.11 functionality off of the MacBook to protect MBP sales?
Stupid thinking, Apple. Just plain $tupid. Like M$FT stupid.
Now If the iPod touch calendar is crippled so they can force you to use a web-based .Mac calendar my initial holler at the crippling is going up a few decibels. Anyway, I could be totally wrong and hopefully this is just Apple holding back on including the calendar input while they tweak it to splendor.
I agree with everyone complaining about the lack of functionality. To those who basically say "stop moaning it's meant to be just an ipod", well, that's an awesome piece of hardware+OS for just playing media, and why include Safari?
If you read between the lines of Steve Jobs' intro of the touch, he gives a piss-poor reason to include Safari.
He emphasized that Safari was included to help log onto Wi-fi networks...oh, and it can surf the Web too. It almost sounds like the only reason they put it on was because for people to be able to log onto Wi-fi networks -- and in turn use the Wi-Fi Music Store -- they HAD to include Safari.
I don't think they wanted to, though.
I'll never buy this thing until we get Notes and Calendar both as they are in the iPhone, uncrippled, and working properly. Stupid thinking, Apple. Just plain $tupid. Like M$FT stupid.
Well in the big scheme of things. How important are Notes and Calendars? Of the 110 million iPods that have been sold, how many people even use the Note and Calendar apps? Probably very few.
I do agree the iPod Touch can make a nice PDA and that Apple is likely playing that down to help iPhone sales. Apple is doing what it feels it needs to grow the markets for each device. At this point we don't know what the long term strategy for the Touch. Apps may be added fairly quickly.
No offense, but this all sounds like Apple apologist crap. While it may all basically be true in principle, the fact is that many websites use Flash and that many websites are also rendered useless without Flash (even if they shouldn't be). And Flash is far more widely used than Quicktime, so I would almost consider a browser without Flash not a "real browser." Maybe Flash would rapidly drain the battery, but it should still be available on the iPhone/iPod Touch as an option even if it's turned off by default.
A plug-in doesn't define a browser, rendering HTML and CSS correctly does. If I'm apologizing for anyone it's Adobe.
My main point was that there ARE people who want more than 10 GB of space, as the OP said he knows of no one who does. I do use a smart playlist almost identical (rating and hasn't been played recently) to yours (especially nice with the nano), but I don't want to be tied to just that. I appreciate your viewpoint, and think that's the best part of the current iPod lineup--something for everyone.
While I probably use the iPod Classic (actually 80GB 5.5G) most, I wouldn't call it my ideal iPod. My ideal iPod would have WAY more capacity than the current Classic (enabling me to listen to everything in ALAC), the small size of the nano, the WiFi and nice screen of the Touch, with additional features such as bluetooth, usb/firewire ports and OS X open to developers. Obviously impossible with current technology, but how much of this could be done now (excluding nano sizing) to make it the Mac Ultraportable some of us have been really waiting for?
My old Newton might have been more capable and if it had the ability to store and hold tunes and looked as sweet as this thing with such a pretty touch screen - still in use. Many of my old Palms can certainly outdo this new device, except they do not have the storage capacity (but they do have storage card slots). My WinDoze handhelds also have a lot of the capabilities… none are near as slick looking or small.
That being said I have to join the whiners and ask: why with everything in place to provide a truly capable iPod device that could function as a full featured PDA, did Apple choose to introduce something with such limited capabilities?
I had to search my experiences to come up with the answers.
Apple could not deliver something like that for sale for THIS Xmas season. The first generation of this device is very nice and has its merits and I am sure the Apps will be developed for it… but until that time I will hold on to my hard earned cash. And, Apple included Safari so they could generate more revenue by selling to the impulse buyer. It is why they put the gum next to the cash register.
By not putting a camera, microphone, speaker, more Apps and some of the other things people are carping about; Apple was able to manufacture and deliver on a full compliment of ‘music’ devices in addition to the iPod Touch and boost its earnings and its status in the marketplace. It certainly will not hurt their market share, stock prices or dividends. Let’s get real now: that is what this whole thing is all about.
By introducing products like these, corporations can determine in real time where they should put their R&D dollars and what products they should introduce in the marketplace for second and third generations.
When Apple gets a little further down the road, I will purchase a Touch or one of the other devices from some other company that will do the things that I want it to do. Woz, we need you baby!
named Spam I Am (that's me!)
I don't like you Spam I Am
Well do you like the posts I cram?
I do not like them, Spam I Am.
Well could you, would you give me a hand?
Hell no, bub, your butt is banned.
I was completely baffled when i saw this mysterious piece of plastic hold up the ipod! I've been pondering over this piece of shit for more than 2 days now.
HOW DID I NOT FIGURE THAT OUT? I gotta try this with mine, hold on...
IT WOOOOORKS OMG!! Thanks man, you're my hero..
*stares at upright ipod on desk.. drooling