Total BS on the iPhone 2.0 software. I mean, it's going to be a big upgrade, but not a total overhaul.
I wouldn't be surprised "at all" if they call it 2.0.
If it does indeed have official 3rd party apps through iTunes, copy and paste, flash, iChat, etc. etc. I certainly wouldn't be surprised. Apple's all about marketing and software numbers are in-a-way marketing. Just look at iTunes, that went from 4 - 6.0 in a matter just over 1 month [version 5.0 lasted 5 weeks], with only really small visual differences between that and 6.0. Yes there was other differences, but nothing more [relatively] than what this iPhone update will be - if rumors turn true.
The rumor that the BBC are selling TV on iTunes is no longer a rumor but a reality...Torchwood, Life of Mars, Ashes To Ashes, Spooks, The Mighty Boosh, Little Britain, Robin Hood, The Catherine Tate Show and Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps are all now on iTunes.
The funny thing about list like this is that no one phone does all of this. And no one phone with a long feature list performs all of its functions equally well.
Its easier to make a long list of requests its not so easy to create a device that performs all of those requests well.
That's your opinion. I'm not stupid. I can operate a smartphone. Some of them aren't complex at all even.
When Apple gets around to adding the missing features, their interface may be easier but until then I'll take a phone that HAS all the features over one that doesn't have even all the basic features.
Im in the UK, a license payer too and they expect us to pay 1.89 per episode to get it on my mac/pc/ipod/iphone ??
I get them off the TV, with NO ADVERTS, then convert it to Xvid or H264 and soon we Brits will all be able to do this with HD versions of the programs too.
Play.com have just introduced downloads on mp3 format (between 192kps and 320kps), DRM free, for 65p+ a track. Most albums being between £6-£7. For example see Goldfrapp's Seventh Tree
Does the Apple Online Store being down this morning have anything to do with a 2.0 software release? Just noticed this when visiting and got the "We'll be back soon" post-it... hmmmmmm!!!
Im in the UK, a license payer too and they expect us to pay 1.89 per episode to get it on my mac/pc/ipod/iphone ??
I get them off the TV, with NO ADVERTS, then convert it to Xvid or H264 and soon we Brits will all be able to do this with HD versions of the programs too.
Play.com have just introduced downloads on mp3 format (between 192kps and 320kps), DRM free, for 65p+ a track. Most albums being between £6-£7. For example see Goldfrapp's Seventh Tree
I like Play.com it's a cool site, got a good reputation through its free delivery on everything. The more the merrier i say
A quick look reveals quite a few albums cheaper than iTunes. Kylie X, Arctic Monkeys, Stereophonics etc...all £6.99 as opposed to £7.99 from iTunes. You better get your act together Apple and sort your UK prices out.
That's your opinion. I'm not stupid. I can operate a smartphone. Some of them aren't complex at all even.
Its not my opinion. Most every phone cannot do all of the functions people have compared the iPhone with. There have been studies that show the longer the feature list the more difficult some features are to use. Which means most people won't use them very often if at all.
It has nothing to with the user being stupid or smart. Its about intuitive design from the manufacturer.
Its not my opinion. Most every phone cannot do all of the functions people have compared the iPhone with. There have been studies that show the longer the feature list the more difficult some features are to use. Which means most people won't use them very often if at all.
You seem to be suggesting that little used features are complicated, and complicated features are little used. I think the fact that people are requesting certain features indicates that they do use them, and as such, they are not complicated. So it's not that Apple didn't put them in because they are too complicated and people won't use them (because they do, otherwise they wouldn't want them), it's that Apple simply couldn't be bothered to put them in. Anyone who thinks the basic missing features are Apple 'protecting' the public against the evils of technology are just kidding themselves.
You seem to be suggesting that little used features are complicated, and complicated features are little used. I think the fact that people are requesting certain features indicates that they do use them, and as such, they are not complicated. So it's not that Apple didn't put them in because they are too complicated and people won't use them (because they do, otherwise they wouldn't want them), it's that Apple simply couldn't be bothered to put them in. Anyone who thinks the basic missing features are Apple 'protecting' the public against the evils of technology are just kidding themselves.
I believe you make some logical fallacies. TenoBell isn't suggesting that little used features must therefore be complicated. Some features just appeal to too few people.
On the flip side, complicated features are less used. Not because they appeal to the very few, but because the can only be understood by few. If the procedure is too complex then it will only be mastered by those that are required to learn it, have an overwhelming desire to learn it, or techno-masochists.
Also, the request of a feature only means there is a desire for the feature to be included. This has little bearing on the usage of a feature being popular. This hullabaloo seems to come from very few people but they tend to be the loudest and most fervent in their desire. Plus, despite the old adage, the consumer isn't always right and often horribly misguided.
Your purple prose about Apple "couldn't be bothered" is a little fanciful. You make it sound like they are cavalier with the features they choose. Could most people tell you access the web portable or calculator of their cell phones? I'm sure most know there is an a calculator but far less know they can access the internet with their phone. I could very easily tell you these things and more about my iPhone in a few short commands. You can give an iPhone to a kid, the elderly or a non-technical person and, except for a brief less in the multi-touch interface commands, they can use and understand the device within secs.
You seem to be suggesting that little used features are complicated, and complicated features are little used. I think the fact that people are requesting certain features indicates that they do use them, and as such, they are not complicated. So it's not that Apple didn't put them in because they are too complicated and people won't use them (because they do, otherwise they wouldn't want them), it's that Apple simply couldn't be bothered to put them in. Anyone who thinks the basic missing features are Apple 'protecting' the public against the evils of technology are just kidding themselves.
I disagree. There is a well know disorder called featureitist. People with this disorder have the unfortunate habit of counting the number of features a gadget has and considering the gadget with the highest count to be the best. They also ignore the actual functionality or usefulness of the features.
While people with this disorder will purchase the gadget with the highest count, I believe that most people will only use one or two of the many features being touted. This isn't because the features are complicated, or even because most add-on feature are long on promise and short on execution, but because most people just forget about the features they don't need. Go back, look at your cell phones, PDAs, GPS receivers or any other of your personal gadgets, and evaluate how many of the menus you don't go into anymore.
PS: And who is asking for these features? The ones with featureitist? Or engineers that say who say, "Hey I can add this with no cost."
Comments
Total BS on the iPhone 2.0 software. I mean, it's going to be a big upgrade, but not a total overhaul.
I wouldn't be surprised "at all" if they call it 2.0.
If it does indeed have official 3rd party apps through iTunes, copy and paste, flash, iChat, etc. etc. I certainly wouldn't be surprised. Apple's all about marketing and software numbers are in-a-way marketing. Just look at iTunes, that went from 4 - 6.0 in a matter just over 1 month [version 5.0 lasted 5 weeks], with only really small visual differences between that and 6.0. Yes there was other differences, but nothing more [relatively] than what this iPhone update will be - if rumors turn true.
It would be cool if UK citizens could download beeb programs for free.
It would be even better if the BBC's iPlayer could integrate directly into AppleTV so that we could download programmes for later viewing.
The funny thing about list like this is that no one phone does all of this. And no one phone with a long feature list performs all of its functions equally well.
Its easier to make a long list of requests its not so easy to create a device that performs all of those requests well.
That's your opinion. I'm not stupid. I can operate a smartphone. Some of them aren't complex at all even.
When Apple gets around to adding the missing features, their interface may be easier but until then I'll take a phone that HAS all the features over one that doesn't have even all the basic features.
Im in the UK, a license payer too and they expect us to pay 1.89 per episode to get it on my mac/pc/ipod/iphone ??
I get them off the TV, with NO ADVERTS, then convert it to Xvid or H264 and soon we Brits will all be able to do this with HD versions of the programs too.
Hello!
Im in the UK, a license payer too and they expect us to pay 1.89 per episode to get it on my mac/pc/ipod/iphone ??
I get them off the TV, with NO ADVERTS, then convert it to Xvid or H264 and soon we Brits will all be able to do this with HD versions of the programs too.
What are you using to record the source material?
Play.com have just introduced downloads on mp3 format (between 192kps and 320kps), DRM free, for 65p+ a track. Most albums being between £6-£7. For example see Goldfrapp's Seventh Tree
I like Play.com it's a cool site, got a good reputation through its free delivery on everything.
A quick look reveals quite a few albums cheaper than iTunes. Kylie X, Arctic Monkeys, Stereophonics etc...all £6.99 as opposed to £7.99 from iTunes. You better get your act together Apple and sort your UK prices out.
That's your opinion. I'm not stupid. I can operate a smartphone. Some of them aren't complex at all even.
Its not my opinion. Most every phone cannot do all of the functions people have compared the iPhone with. There have been studies that show the longer the feature list the more difficult some features are to use. Which means most people won't use them very often if at all.
It has nothing to with the user being stupid or smart. Its about intuitive design from the manufacturer.
Its not my opinion. Most every phone cannot do all of the functions people have compared the iPhone with. There have been studies that show the longer the feature list the more difficult some features are to use. Which means most people won't use them very often if at all.
You seem to be suggesting that little used features are complicated, and complicated features are little used. I think the fact that people are requesting certain features indicates that they do use them, and as such, they are not complicated. So it's not that Apple didn't put them in because they are too complicated and people won't use them (because they do, otherwise they wouldn't want them), it's that Apple simply couldn't be bothered to put them in. Anyone who thinks the basic missing features are Apple 'protecting' the public against the evils of technology are just kidding themselves.
You seem to be suggesting that little used features are complicated, and complicated features are little used. I think the fact that people are requesting certain features indicates that they do use them, and as such, they are not complicated. So it's not that Apple didn't put them in because they are too complicated and people won't use them (because they do, otherwise they wouldn't want them), it's that Apple simply couldn't be bothered to put them in. Anyone who thinks the basic missing features are Apple 'protecting' the public against the evils of technology are just kidding themselves.
I believe you make some logical fallacies. TenoBell isn't suggesting that little used features must therefore be complicated. Some features just appeal to too few people.
On the flip side, complicated features are less used. Not because they appeal to the very few, but because the can only be understood by few. If the procedure is too complex then it will only be mastered by those that are required to learn it, have an overwhelming desire to learn it, or techno-masochists.
Also, the request of a feature only means there is a desire for the feature to be included. This has little bearing on the usage of a feature being popular. This hullabaloo seems to come from very few people but they tend to be the loudest and most fervent in their desire. Plus, despite the old adage, the consumer isn't always right and often horribly misguided.
Your purple prose about Apple "couldn't be bothered" is a little fanciful. You make it sound like they are cavalier with the features they choose. Could most people tell you access the web portable or calculator of their cell phones? I'm sure most know there is an a calculator but far less know they can access the internet with their phone. I could very easily tell you these things and more about my iPhone in a few short commands. You can give an iPhone to a kid, the elderly or a non-technical person and, except for a brief less in the multi-touch interface commands, they can use and understand the device within secs.
You seem to be suggesting that little used features are complicated, and complicated features are little used. I think the fact that people are requesting certain features indicates that they do use them, and as such, they are not complicated. So it's not that Apple didn't put them in because they are too complicated and people won't use them (because they do, otherwise they wouldn't want them), it's that Apple simply couldn't be bothered to put them in. Anyone who thinks the basic missing features are Apple 'protecting' the public against the evils of technology are just kidding themselves.
I disagree. There is a well know disorder called featureitist. People with this disorder have the unfortunate habit of counting the number of features a gadget has and considering the gadget with the highest count to be the best. They also ignore the actual functionality or usefulness of the features.
While people with this disorder will purchase the gadget with the highest count, I believe that most people will only use one or two of the many features being touted. This isn't because the features are complicated, or even because most add-on feature are long on promise and short on execution, but because most people just forget about the features they don't need. Go back, look at your cell phones, PDAs, GPS receivers or any other of your personal gadgets, and evaluate how many of the menus you don't go into anymore.
PS: And who is asking for these features? The ones with featureitist? Or engineers that say who say, "Hey I can add this with no cost."