The iPhone sucks pure and simple and is being funded by idiots with non existent standards with a me too, narcissistic complex. A generation of media brainwashed zombies. 3 revisions before you get cut, copy & paste? Zombie generation with no standards! A fourth generation to get a video camera? No office apps? Things that i have on my ancient Treo 650 or even my prehistoric Treo 600.
LOL, what are you 12 or something. If its your preference use it. This forum is for people who appreciate iPhone and want to talk about it, not bash it.
If iPhone sucked, 18 million of them wouldn't be sold in more than 80 countries
Fwiw to you, where I live, ATT > Verizon. Data from Sprint is nearly non-existent.
(Sheesh. Talk about the arrogance of extrapolating and generalizing from a few-mile radius of one's existence......)
1. Please post your zip code.
2. If you knew anything, you would know that Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other, so everywhere there is Verizon service, there is Sprint service, and vice versa.
What I don't get, is he obviously hasn't used the iPhone in any substantive manner.
The iPhone DOES multi-task; when on a call, I absolutely CAN run any other app. I can browse the web, send an email, view contacts, and text message, calculator, adjust a calendar appointment, etc. all while on a call. In fact, text messages and emails come and are delivered in the background while on a call. I can run any third party app, while on a call as well. When I'm playing a game, a call always preempts and comes through, pausing the game or other app. My ipod works while in any other App, as well.
What Apple does not allow, is for 3rd party apps in general, to run in the background & access the internet, bluetooth, wifi, etc. Besides accessing these services, there is no reason for them to run in the background, sucking up battery. That is why notification services is an important compromise.
Exactly, when setting a standard, you want to get it right.
Most applications don't need to run in the background, unless they need the internet. Apple's own programs already DO run background processes. Switching between other apps is fairly quick, and faster hardware will make it quicker. I see Apple putting more memory in for the applications, and possibly automatically saving your last 3 used apps in a sort of saved state with an instant on. (Do they already do this anyway?)
I want background apps - the main use I'd really like is an app that tracks my phone and plots it on a map. There's other odd things that would be useful too, and not possible with push. I can see why Push makes sense, I know the technical reasons, but equally Apple are able to run background apps on the iPhone without issue (e.g. checking for new mail), so why can't third party devs?
I'd be happy if they were really limited too, maybe 1% CPU time or something, or an update once every minute, that'd be fine. Either way, I'd like the option.
I agree with other people that I think we'll see it - possibly even this summer, though that does seem a little unlikely. Next year they're going to have a large band of iPhone 3G customers who's contracts are up for renewal - they're going to want to keep hold of them with some really meaningful features.
There are tasks (like downloading email) where the iPhone saturates the network or slows down for some other reason. Adding background tasks slows it down even further by the amount of CPU time and network access going to the background task PLUS additional losses for overhead. While I don't expect incredible performance from a phone, there's no point in slowing it down unnecessarily just because some people want to try to do 2 things at once.
Some day, mobile CPUs will be fast enough and use little enough battery power to make it practical. Until then, keep the overhead to a minimum.
Yes, actually I am speaking for you. When you listen to Pandora you can still get your email, the problem is you can't keep listening to Pandora and go view it. The task of downloading the mail had already occurred. Thats not because of lack of CPU, because you can listen to the iPod and go view websites.
I think the direction that Palm has taken with the Pre is smart, but it has its own limitations.
The Pre really only runs one App at a time. In fact it only has one app.
It runs a Webkit based browser, which can make use of data cached on the device.
The contacts page, the email interface are all just web-apps. Specialized web pages.
So when the Pre appears to be running multiple switchable applications, it is really just managing multiple web pages. Several pages are open at the same time and the user can flip between them, just like flipping pages in Mobile Safari.
Apple's very first iPhone was released with a similar level of "web-page" programmability. But I think Palm has done a better job. Their web apps have access to local data, can be cached on the device and can get access to the hardware. No need to load the app from the net.
This approach is brilliant, but restrictive.
More and more desktop applications are becoming web apps. Palm's web-apps are better than Apple's web apps. And we know that Web apps are fine for email, lists, rss-readers, image viewers, to-do lists and so on.
But there are things we can't do well on web pages.
Apple's native applications can do things that web-apps cannot. The single best example is games. Games need to run in native code. Get un-fettered access to the hardware, and want to use up 100% of the CPU.
Native apps are going to be intrinsically more efficient. Any given task is going to burn less battery when it runs in native code.
The two approaches are both valid. And I think had Palm copied Apple's solution, it would be doomed to playing catch up forever.
Should be interesting to see what happens next.
As someone invested in the iPhone, I think the Palm Pre is the best thing that could have happened to Apple.
2. If you knew anything, you would know that Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other, so everywhere there is Verizon service, there is Sprint service, and vice versa.
1) No, I won't post my zipcode. I don't need to prove a claim to some self-professed, smart-ass, know-it-all in an internet forum who overstates/exaggerates his case. (Go re-read what you originally wrote).
It really detracts from your point when you make definitive statements about things you've never used.
- How can you tell that the Pre has a better push system than the iPhone, no one has used either of them yet.
- You can assign short cuts to the Home Button, its likely Spotlight could be an option.
- What exactly is jaw dropping about the Pre OS? What does the Pre do that the iPhone needs a year to match?
- The iPhone does run background tasks.
-How do you know the Pre is a better phone, you've never used one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
Apple has a lot of things to do with os 3.0. The PNS system is horrible. It will like visiting a xxx website with all the popups that you will get. There also has to be a way that you can quickly access spotlight. Having to press the home button then scroll left is very sloppy. I hope it's something like a triple click.
The OS on the pre is certainly jaw dropping and something apple should take note of. My guess is that it will take another year for apple to catch up and move ahead. To say that nobody would like to run pandora in the background while using the gps is lying. Background tasks, whether apple wants it or not, is a neccesity.
At first blush, the pre is a better smartphone and the iphone is a better multimedia device. Apple had better catch up though, because many would choose a smartphone first
The iPhone sucks pure and simple and is being funded by idiots with non existent standards with a me too, narcissistic complex. A generation of media brainwashed zombies. 3 revisions before you get cut, copy & paste? Zombie generation with no standards! A fourth generation to get a video camera? No office apps? Things that i have on my ancient Treo 650 or even my prehistoric Treo 600.
I have a Treo 650 running Palm OS and it does so much for me as smartphone. Yes the browser is such a nightmare but it does a lot for example i can schedule a meeting and have all pertinent information at my finger tips like contact info, notes, etc all attached to one event. All i do is drag and drop or "clip" the items in Palm Desktop, sync and all that info is at my fingertips. Or when i call the roadside assistance folks, i'm able to talk and pull up all the vin number and info they need all from my address book and open up other apps for more information. Lots of useful applications for it even one to tether that does not get me charged by Sprint.
I've had no issue with background apps nor any battery problems. I love the use of the stylus, it makes data entry and selecting things easier for me. Video camera as well. Seriously who is Apple to dictate to me how i can and can not use my device? If there is a malware issue, then there will be companies to make anti-malware software. Apps run on my Treo 650 in background fine, i'm sure the mighty iPhone hardware and OS can handle it or can it? The only thing my Treo does not do well and is lacking is its browser. What BS from Apple, they just don't have the skill or engineering know how. All they do well is sell bright shiny, expensive, backward nonsense gobbled up by a genration of mindless, no standards zombies who are pitifully trying to act cool, self important and sophisticated.
Until they become a legitimate smartphone and start playing with the big boys (money has nothing to do with qualifying to play with the big boys of tech), i'm not buying one. I may just move to the PRE.
Do you do anything other than complain and call people zombies? Pretentious much? And do tell, how is Apple dictating your usage simply by not providing you with a video camera? You act as if it gave you one as a tease and refused to let you mess around with it. How dare several other vendors do the same thing. Also, please explain, in-depth, why a device aimed at entertainment needs office apps or, for that matter, how it's Apple's fault that a third party has yet to provide them.
Now, and here's the best part: if everything you say is so true, please explain why Palm hired the former iPhone project lead to relentlessly rip-off the iPhone's UI and why the company has not released any battery life estimates for background operations for what one might call modern apps that do more than show you what day it is. It only stands to reason that push notification with streaming media while surfing the HTML filled web will kill one's battery fast.
There's this wonderful thing about my generation: we're not pompous pricks who complain about artificial problems. iPhone is an entertainment device people like to use for business. A Treo is a business device that sucks complete ass at anything entertainment. And the Pre is what one calls patent and copyright infringement.
It's so funny, you think Apple can't compete with the "big boys" and yet Palm is the one on the verge of bankruptcy. Have fun with that irony.
It's not a hack. You just fail to see the bigger picture. With the notification server in place I can receive notifications from a hundred different sources without needing a single one of those clients/applications running in the background. On every other platform you would need to have all those clients running and maintaining their own connections and polling for incoming data and eating up CPU cycles.
Well, I don't fail to see the bigger picture as I've already noted that it pursues a certain architectural philosophy. I just don't agree with it. A well written app is not going to run in the background at full noise. It will know that it's in the background and should perform all the necessary things it needs to do to minimise usage. That's not an SDK issue, rather a programming practices issue. As Apple are in the enviable position to vet the quality (or lack thereof) of applications entering the App Store ecosystem, I don't see how that couldn't be a qualitative factor in determing the eligibility of a (background) app for consumption.
Quote:
What Apple is first trying to accomplish is removing the need to have superfluous clients running in the background when all they're doing is monitoring ports for data, which can be handled by the OS.
There are some things that might work very well with this approach. I can think of a number which might not. All the while, Apple has introduced another failure mode in making applications work over the internet. It's obviously taken some time for them to get it right because the 'feature' has been in the works for a while now.
Quote:
It is my belief that once Apple gets developers into this way of thinking, they will eventually open applications to run in the background that truly need to continue running, such as a music streaming client, etc.
One would hope so. But I still submit that the notification servier is a bit like using Opera for a mobile browser. You're depending on a third party to get it right for you.
The iPhone sucks pure and simple and is being funded by idiots with non existent standards with a me too, narcissistic complex. A generation of media brainwashed zombies. 3 revisions before you get cut, copy & paste? Zombie generation with no standards! A fourth generation to get a video camera? No office apps? Things that i have on my ancient Treo 650 or even my prehistoric Treo 600.
I have a Treo 650 running Palm OS and it does so much for me as smartphone. Yes the browser is such a nightmare but it does a lot for example i can schedule a meeting and have all pertinent information at my finger tips like contact info, notes, etc all attached to one event. All i do is drag and drop or "clip" the items in Palm Desktop, sync and all that info is at my fingertips. Or when i call the roadside assistance folks, i'm able to talk and pull up all the vin number and info they need all from my address book and open up other apps for more information. Lots of useful applications for it even one to tether that does not get me charged by Sprint.
I've had no issue with background apps nor any battery problems. I love the use of the stylus, it makes data entry and selecting things easier for me. Video camera as well. Seriously who is Apple to dictate to me how i can and can not use my device? If there is a malware issue, then there will be companies to make anti-malware software. Apps run on my Treo 650 in background fine, i'm sure the mighty iPhone hardware and OS can handle it or can it? The only thing my Treo does not do well and is lacking is its browser. What BS from Apple, they just don't have the skill or engineering know how. All they do well is sell bright shiny, expensive, backward nonsense gobbled up by a genration of mindless, no standards zombies who are pitifully trying to act cool, self important and sophisticated.
Until they become a legitimate smartphone and start playing with the big boys (money has nothing to do with qualifying to play with the big boys of tech), i'm not buying one. I may just move to the PRE.
Well, I don't fail to see the bigger picture as I've already noted that it pursues a certain architectural philosophy. I just don't agree with it. A well written app is not going to run in the background at full noise. It will know that it's in the background and should perform all the necessary things it needs to do to minimise usage. That's not an SDK issue, rather a programming practices issue. As Apple are in the enviable position to vet the quality (or lack thereof) of applications entering the App Store ecosystem, I don't see how that couldn't be a qualitative factor in determing the eligibility of a (background) app for consumption.
The problem isn't simply one app. The iPhone can contain 148 apps. How many of those apps can run in the background before it renders the phone useless? How is a customers supposed to decide which apps are important enough to be allowed to run in the background?
Quote:
All the while, Apple has introduced another failure mode in making applications work over the internet. It's obviously taken some time for them to get it right because the 'feature' has been in the works for a while now.
The problems wasn't that notifications didn't work. Apple clearly said the problem was that developers were submitting apps that used notifications in ways and in volumes that Apple had not thought of. They had to reacrchitect the entire system to handle what the developers wanted to do.
Quote:
One would hope so. But I still submit that the notification servier is a bit like using Opera for a mobile browser. You're depending on a third party to get it right for you.
For background tasks the developer has to properly write the app so that it doesn't hog resources. For that system to work Apple is completely dependent on the skills of the developer.
But for notifications to work, what exactly is Apple depending on the developer to do?
As soon as it comes to my hands on that Pre, I take a - very - keen look at its battery life. Palm will then realize, no perpetual motion exists, and what Apple say about background apps has some grounds too.
It is absolutely Apple's right to dictate how its devices are used
Ugh, this argument always sets me off, even if you are trying to slap down a troll like iLad.
Can you imagine if Microsoft dictated which apps could be installed on Windows systems? There would be a revolt. We would all be screaming about choice. You're saying Apple should have the right to ban Firefox from their laptops (it's THEIR device, Safari works better). ISPs should be able to say that you can't download any file over 50MB (it's THEIR service, there would be fewer slowdowns). Sony should be able to say you can't attach a non-Sony stereo up to your Sony TV (it's THEIR device, it creates a better end-user experieince). Car companies should be able to dictate that you can only replace your tires with a particular brand (it's THEIR car, you are safer if they make these decisions for you). That Microsoft should be able to ban Quicktime, because it duplicates the functionality of Windows Media Player.
There are so many things wrong with the argument that it's "X's right to dictate". You would be incredibly unhappy if every company actually dictated how their devices were used.
Back OT, I hope the Pre is better than the Storm. Competition is always good for the end-user.
Ugh, this argument always sets me off, even if you are trying to slap down a troll like iLad.
Can you imagine if Microsoft dictated which apps could be installed on Windows systems? There would be a revolt. We would all be screaming about choice. You're saying Apple should have the right to ban Firefox from their laptops (it's THEIR device, Safari works better). ISPs should be able to say that you can't download any file over 50MB (it's THEIR service, there would be fewer slowdowns). Sony should be able to say you can't attach a non-Sony stereo up to your Sony TV (it's THEIR device, it creates a better end-user experieince). Car companies should be able to dictate that you can only replace your tires with a particular brand (it's THEIR car, you are safer if they make these decisions for you). That Microsoft should be able to ban Quicktime, because it duplicates the functionality of Windows Media Player.
There are so many things wrong with the argument that it's "X's right to dictate". You would be incredibly unhappy if every company actually dictated how their devices were used.
Back OT, I hope the Pre is better than the Storm. Competition is always good for the end-user.
So far, despite all the yammering about it, the iPhone is still a phone with extra abilities.
As such, it is limited in its power and storage, as all other smartphones currently are.
Because of that, it surely is Apple's right to limit what they think should be done with it, just as it's your right to not buy it because it doesn't do what you think it should, and buy something else that does.
Back in the beginning of the personal computer, something I remember very well, software companies worked very hard to limit the footprint of their programs, and coded them very tightly to get as much performance as possible out of them.
It was later MS's philosophy, as stated by Gates, publicly, in response to a question as to why his software always ran so slow, that their purpose was to add as many features as possible, and to let the hardware companies worry about how fast they could get them to run. MS is basically responsible for the concept of "bloatware".
Now, with phones running over networks, a thing unimaginable way back in 1976, when this all started, manufacturers have to worry about things out of their direct control. Also, people these days are so used to the expectation that they can do anything on their computers because of the power and storage capacities, they also expect the same from their smartphones.
Well, smartphones can't deliver yet.
I have often seen over the past few years, people struggling with their phones. I had some problems like that with my Treo 700p which also didn't multitask, well, the iPhone does multitask, but the Treo didn't. Still there were problems. I see people tell me how well their phones work with background apps, only to see then barely function. The owners often seem happy, because they aren't expecting anything else. it seems normal to them, but I'm wincing.
Apple's customers are less forgiving. What someone else would forgive, an Apple customer will complain about.
Apple is about the experience of getting the features it does offer, to work as well as they can possibly get them to. We can see the complaints with AT&T's network. People, instead of thinking that such a huge increase in traffic would take AT&T a while to recover from, and then giving them the benefit of time, have been complaining.
I'd rather my phone worked well, which it does, than get bogged down by multiple apps competing for the limited program RAM, and cpu cycles, that would be the case otherwise.
What will happen, is that people will download all these free and $0.99 apps that require background use without realizing that they do, and then find that their phone is slow, and jerky in its response. Then they will complain. And complain. It won't occur to most of them that it's their fault. No, that won't happen, because it's never the fault of a stupid user, only the company that makes the possibility available.
I think that Apple understands this, and is walking a fine line right now.
Just as they've given way in a number of areas when the time, or network capacity was right, such as song downloads over 3G, for example, they will give way on this as well, once they feel the phone can handle it, but not before.
That's the way it should be.
Remember, there are other phones out there. When you find one that meets your expectations in ALL ways, then go buy it. If you like everything about the iPhone, say, except for not having all these background apps, then find that phone that matches the iPhone in all those ways, AND also allows third party background apps.
Ugh, this argument always sets me off, even if you are trying to slap down a troll like iLad.
Can you imagine if Microsoft dictated which apps could be installed on Windows systems? There would be a revolt. We would all be screaming about choice. You're saying Apple should have the right to ban Firefox from their laptops (it's THEIR device, Safari works better). ISPs should be able to say that you can't download any file over 50MB (it's THEIR service, there would be fewer slowdowns). Sony should be able to say you can't attach a non-Sony stereo up to your Sony TV (it's THEIR device, it creates a better end-user experieince). Car companies should be able to dictate that you can only replace your tires with a particular brand (it's THEIR car, you are safer if they make these decisions for you). That Microsoft should be able to ban Quicktime, because it duplicates the functionality of Windows Media Player.
There are so many things wrong with the argument that it's "X's right to dictate". You would be incredibly unhappy if every company actually dictated how their devices were used.
Back OT, I hope the Pre is better than the Storm. Competition is always good for the end-user.
However, you're skipping the second part of that idea, as stated, which is that anyone is free to not use a service or vendor if they make the restrictions too onerous.
In every one of the scenarios you list, the business actually does have the "right" to restrict what third party stuff works with their products. The only exception would be when a company with a monopoly position uses such restrictions as a strategy to stifle competition, as in the case of MS and browsers.
Otherwise, there's nothing stopping Ford from making a car that takes only one kind of specialized tire. Nothing, except sales. And even then, if such a car had sufficiently compelling advantages, there might be a sizable market of consumers willing to forgo tire choice in order to gain whatever benefits such a car would offer.
So it's not actually about whether a company has a "right", in some moral, abstract sense, to restrict how flexible or amenable to modification or easy to accessorize their products are, but rather a question of what people are willing to pay for.
Again, as long as we're not talking about a monopoly position, there's nothing wrong at all with building something that is entirely closed and unmodifiable, as long as that thing offers enough benefits to make it an attractive choice, even if there are competing offerings that are quite open.
It would appear, based on sales, that a lot of people prefer Apple's approach of locking things down in order to deliver a device that "just works." You could argue that they could do both-- be more open and still maintain ease of use and reliability-- but that's a difficult argument to make, since it requires speculation based on information we don't have.
At any rate, going forward, if iPhone sales appear to be being hurt by consumers seeking fewer restrictions, I'm sure Apple will respond. I don't think that will happen, though, because I don't think the average consumer finds the iPhone to be in any way constrained. Quite the opposite-- they look at the app store and the vast array of third party accessories, and see the phone with the most choices.
Because of that, it surely is Apple's right to limit what they think should be done with it, just as it's your right to not buy it because it doesn't do what you think it should, and buy something else that does.
It is not Apple's right. The rights of the consumer supersede the rights of any particular company in the US. The EFF is taking Apple to court over jailbreaking iPhones, and if they win, iPhone jailbreaking will be made completely legal. Nothing Apple can do about it. Apple has absolutely no power to dictate the rights of the consumer, that's for the judicial system to decide. Simple as that. Now, Apple can win by arguing that the consumer is best served by not allowing jailbroken iPhones, but, again, that is not for Apple to decide.
In every one of the scenarios you list, the business actually does have the "right" to restrict what third party stuff works with their products.
No it doesn't. The rights of the consumer supersede the rights of any particular company. If any companies actions are found to be anti-competitive, monopolistic, or harmful the consumer, those practices can be shut down.
Comments
The iPhone sucks pure and simple and is being funded by idiots with non existent standards with a me too, narcissistic complex. A generation of media brainwashed zombies. 3 revisions before you get cut, copy & paste? Zombie generation with no standards! A fourth generation to get a video camera? No office apps? Things that i have on my ancient Treo 650 or even my prehistoric Treo 600.
LOL, what are you 12 or something. If its your preference use it. This forum is for people who appreciate iPhone and want to talk about it, not bash it.
If iPhone sucked, 18 million of them wouldn't be sold in more than 80 countries
Fwiw to you, where I live, ATT > Verizon. Data from Sprint is nearly non-existent.
(Sheesh. Talk about the arrogance of extrapolating and generalizing from a few-mile radius of one's existence......)
1. Please post your zip code.
2. If you knew anything, you would know that Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other, so everywhere there is Verizon service, there is Sprint service, and vice versa.
What I don't get, is he obviously hasn't used the iPhone in any substantive manner.
The iPhone DOES multi-task; when on a call, I absolutely CAN run any other app. I can browse the web, send an email, view contacts, and text message, calculator, adjust a calendar appointment, etc. all while on a call. In fact, text messages and emails come and are delivered in the background while on a call. I can run any third party app, while on a call as well. When I'm playing a game, a call always preempts and comes through, pausing the game or other app. My ipod works while in any other App, as well.
What Apple does not allow, is for 3rd party apps in general, to run in the background & access the internet, bluetooth, wifi, etc. Besides accessing these services, there is no reason for them to run in the background, sucking up battery. That is why notification services is an important compromise.
Most applications don't need to run in the background, unless they need the internet. Apple's own programs already DO run background processes. Switching between other apps is fairly quick, and faster hardware will make it quicker. I see Apple putting more memory in for the applications, and possibly automatically saving your last 3 used apps in a sort of saved state with an instant on. (Do they already do this anyway?)
I'd be happy if they were really limited too, maybe 1% CPU time or something, or an update once every minute, that'd be fine. Either way, I'd like the option.
I agree with other people that I think we'll see it - possibly even this summer, though that does seem a little unlikely. Next year they're going to have a large band of iPhone 3G customers who's contracts are up for renewal - they're going to want to keep hold of them with some really meaningful features.
You're not speaking for me.
There are tasks (like downloading email) where the iPhone saturates the network or slows down for some other reason. Adding background tasks slows it down even further by the amount of CPU time and network access going to the background task PLUS additional losses for overhead. While I don't expect incredible performance from a phone, there's no point in slowing it down unnecessarily just because some people want to try to do 2 things at once.
Some day, mobile CPUs will be fast enough and use little enough battery power to make it practical. Until then, keep the overhead to a minimum.
Yes, actually I am speaking for you. When you listen to Pandora you can still get your email, the problem is you can't keep listening to Pandora and go view it. The task of downloading the mail had already occurred. Thats not because of lack of CPU, because you can listen to the iPod and go view websites.
I think the direction that Palm has taken with the Pre is smart, but it has its own limitations.
The Pre really only runs one App at a time. In fact it only has one app.
It runs a Webkit based browser, which can make use of data cached on the device.
The contacts page, the email interface are all just web-apps. Specialized web pages.
So when the Pre appears to be running multiple switchable applications, it is really just managing multiple web pages. Several pages are open at the same time and the user can flip between them, just like flipping pages in Mobile Safari.
Apple's very first iPhone was released with a similar level of "web-page" programmability. But I think Palm has done a better job. Their web apps have access to local data, can be cached on the device and can get access to the hardware. No need to load the app from the net.
This approach is brilliant, but restrictive.
More and more desktop applications are becoming web apps. Palm's web-apps are better than Apple's web apps. And we know that Web apps are fine for email, lists, rss-readers, image viewers, to-do lists and so on.
But there are things we can't do well on web pages.
Apple's native applications can do things that web-apps cannot. The single best example is games. Games need to run in native code. Get un-fettered access to the hardware, and want to use up 100% of the CPU.
Native apps are going to be intrinsically more efficient. Any given task is going to burn less battery when it runs in native code.
The two approaches are both valid. And I think had Palm copied Apple's solution, it would be doomed to playing catch up forever.
Should be interesting to see what happens next.
As someone invested in the iPhone, I think the Palm Pre is the best thing that could have happened to Apple.
C.
1. Please post your zip code.
2. If you knew anything, you would know that Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements with each other, so everywhere there is Verizon service, there is Sprint service, and vice versa.
1) No, I won't post my zipcode. I don't need to prove a claim to some self-professed, smart-ass, know-it-all in an internet forum who overstates/exaggerates his case. (Go re-read what you originally wrote).
2) I suggest you take a look at http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261_7-10209477-51.html, and stew in it.
3) So you're happy with Verizon where you live, and I am happy with my ATT (and the iPhone on it) where I live. What's not to like?
- How can you tell that the Pre has a better push system than the iPhone, no one has used either of them yet.
- You can assign short cuts to the Home Button, its likely Spotlight could be an option.
- What exactly is jaw dropping about the Pre OS? What does the Pre do that the iPhone needs a year to match?
- The iPhone does run background tasks.
-How do you know the Pre is a better phone, you've never used one?
Apple has a lot of things to do with os 3.0. The PNS system is horrible. It will like visiting a xxx website with all the popups that you will get. There also has to be a way that you can quickly access spotlight. Having to press the home button then scroll left is very sloppy. I hope it's something like a triple click.
The OS on the pre is certainly jaw dropping and something apple should take note of. My guess is that it will take another year for apple to catch up and move ahead. To say that nobody would like to run pandora in the background while using the gps is lying. Background tasks, whether apple wants it or not, is a neccesity.
At first blush, the pre is a better smartphone and the iphone is a better multimedia device. Apple had better catch up though, because many would choose a smartphone first
The iPhone sucks pure and simple and is being funded by idiots with non existent standards with a me too, narcissistic complex. A generation of media brainwashed zombies. 3 revisions before you get cut, copy & paste? Zombie generation with no standards! A fourth generation to get a video camera? No office apps? Things that i have on my ancient Treo 650 or even my prehistoric Treo 600.
I have a Treo 650 running Palm OS and it does so much for me as smartphone. Yes the browser is such a nightmare but it does a lot for example i can schedule a meeting and have all pertinent information at my finger tips like contact info, notes, etc all attached to one event. All i do is drag and drop or "clip" the items in Palm Desktop, sync and all that info is at my fingertips. Or when i call the roadside assistance folks, i'm able to talk and pull up all the vin number and info they need all from my address book and open up other apps for more information. Lots of useful applications for it even one to tether that does not get me charged by Sprint.
I've had no issue with background apps nor any battery problems. I love the use of the stylus, it makes data entry and selecting things easier for me. Video camera as well. Seriously who is Apple to dictate to me how i can and can not use my device? If there is a malware issue, then there will be companies to make anti-malware software. Apps run on my Treo 650 in background fine, i'm sure the mighty iPhone hardware and OS can handle it or can it? The only thing my Treo does not do well and is lacking is its browser. What BS from Apple, they just don't have the skill or engineering know how. All they do well is sell bright shiny, expensive, backward nonsense gobbled up by a genration of mindless, no standards zombies who are pitifully trying to act cool, self important and sophisticated.
Until they become a legitimate smartphone and start playing with the big boys (money has nothing to do with qualifying to play with the big boys of tech), i'm not buying one. I may just move to the PRE.
Do you do anything other than complain and call people zombies? Pretentious much? And do tell, how is Apple dictating your usage simply by not providing you with a video camera? You act as if it gave you one as a tease and refused to let you mess around with it. How dare several other vendors do the same thing. Also, please explain, in-depth, why a device aimed at entertainment needs office apps or, for that matter, how it's Apple's fault that a third party has yet to provide them.
Now, and here's the best part: if everything you say is so true, please explain why Palm hired the former iPhone project lead to relentlessly rip-off the iPhone's UI and why the company has not released any battery life estimates for background operations for what one might call modern apps that do more than show you what day it is. It only stands to reason that push notification with streaming media while surfing the HTML filled web will kill one's battery fast.
There's this wonderful thing about my generation: we're not pompous pricks who complain about artificial problems. iPhone is an entertainment device people like to use for business. A Treo is a business device that sucks complete ass at anything entertainment. And the Pre is what one calls patent and copyright infringement.
It's so funny, you think Apple can't compete with the "big boys" and yet Palm is the one on the verge of bankruptcy. Have fun with that irony.
It's not a hack. You just fail to see the bigger picture. With the notification server in place I can receive notifications from a hundred different sources without needing a single one of those clients/applications running in the background. On every other platform you would need to have all those clients running and maintaining their own connections and polling for incoming data and eating up CPU cycles.
Well, I don't fail to see the bigger picture as I've already noted that it pursues a certain architectural philosophy. I just don't agree with it. A well written app is not going to run in the background at full noise. It will know that it's in the background and should perform all the necessary things it needs to do to minimise usage. That's not an SDK issue, rather a programming practices issue. As Apple are in the enviable position to vet the quality (or lack thereof) of applications entering the App Store ecosystem, I don't see how that couldn't be a qualitative factor in determing the eligibility of a (background) app for consumption.
What Apple is first trying to accomplish is removing the need to have superfluous clients running in the background when all they're doing is monitoring ports for data, which can be handled by the OS.
There are some things that might work very well with this approach. I can think of a number which might not. All the while, Apple has introduced another failure mode in making applications work over the internet. It's obviously taken some time for them to get it right because the 'feature' has been in the works for a while now.
It is my belief that once Apple gets developers into this way of thinking, they will eventually open applications to run in the background that truly need to continue running, such as a music streaming client, etc.
One would hope so. But I still submit that the notification servier is a bit like using Opera for a mobile browser. You're depending on a third party to get it right for you.
The iPhone sucks pure and simple and is being funded by idiots with non existent standards with a me too, narcissistic complex. A generation of media brainwashed zombies. 3 revisions before you get cut, copy & paste? Zombie generation with no standards! A fourth generation to get a video camera? No office apps? Things that i have on my ancient Treo 650 or even my prehistoric Treo 600.
I have a Treo 650 running Palm OS and it does so much for me as smartphone. Yes the browser is such a nightmare but it does a lot for example i can schedule a meeting and have all pertinent information at my finger tips like contact info, notes, etc all attached to one event. All i do is drag and drop or "clip" the items in Palm Desktop, sync and all that info is at my fingertips. Or when i call the roadside assistance folks, i'm able to talk and pull up all the vin number and info they need all from my address book and open up other apps for more information. Lots of useful applications for it even one to tether that does not get me charged by Sprint.
I've had no issue with background apps nor any battery problems. I love the use of the stylus, it makes data entry and selecting things easier for me. Video camera as well. Seriously who is Apple to dictate to me how i can and can not use my device? If there is a malware issue, then there will be companies to make anti-malware software. Apps run on my Treo 650 in background fine, i'm sure the mighty iPhone hardware and OS can handle it or can it? The only thing my Treo does not do well and is lacking is its browser. What BS from Apple, they just don't have the skill or engineering know how. All they do well is sell bright shiny, expensive, backward nonsense gobbled up by a genration of mindless, no standards zombies who are pitifully trying to act cool, self important and sophisticated.
Until they become a legitimate smartphone and start playing with the big boys (money has nothing to do with qualifying to play with the big boys of tech), i'm not buying one. I may just move to the PRE.
Go and troll elsewhere.
Well, I don't fail to see the bigger picture as I've already noted that it pursues a certain architectural philosophy. I just don't agree with it. A well written app is not going to run in the background at full noise. It will know that it's in the background and should perform all the necessary things it needs to do to minimise usage. That's not an SDK issue, rather a programming practices issue. As Apple are in the enviable position to vet the quality (or lack thereof) of applications entering the App Store ecosystem, I don't see how that couldn't be a qualitative factor in determing the eligibility of a (background) app for consumption.
The problem isn't simply one app. The iPhone can contain 148 apps. How many of those apps can run in the background before it renders the phone useless? How is a customers supposed to decide which apps are important enough to be allowed to run in the background?
All the while, Apple has introduced another failure mode in making applications work over the internet. It's obviously taken some time for them to get it right because the 'feature' has been in the works for a while now.
The problems wasn't that notifications didn't work. Apple clearly said the problem was that developers were submitting apps that used notifications in ways and in volumes that Apple had not thought of. They had to reacrchitect the entire system to handle what the developers wanted to do.
One would hope so. But I still submit that the notification servier is a bit like using Opera for a mobile browser. You're depending on a third party to get it right for you.
For background tasks the developer has to properly write the app so that it doesn't hog resources. For that system to work Apple is completely dependent on the skills of the developer.
But for notifications to work, what exactly is Apple depending on the developer to do?
Seriously who is Apple to dictate to me how i can and can not use my device?
It is absolutely Apple's right to dictate how its devices are used, just as it is your right to boycott them on that basis.
If there is a malware issue, then there will be companies to make anti-malware software.
Classic Windows mentality - patching rather than prevention.
It is absolutely Apple's right to dictate how its devices are used
Ugh, this argument always sets me off, even if you are trying to slap down a troll like iLad.
Can you imagine if Microsoft dictated which apps could be installed on Windows systems? There would be a revolt. We would all be screaming about choice. You're saying Apple should have the right to ban Firefox from their laptops (it's THEIR device, Safari works better). ISPs should be able to say that you can't download any file over 50MB (it's THEIR service, there would be fewer slowdowns). Sony should be able to say you can't attach a non-Sony stereo up to your Sony TV (it's THEIR device, it creates a better end-user experieince). Car companies should be able to dictate that you can only replace your tires with a particular brand (it's THEIR car, you are safer if they make these decisions for you). That Microsoft should be able to ban Quicktime, because it duplicates the functionality of Windows Media Player.
There are so many things wrong with the argument that it's "X's right to dictate". You would be incredibly unhappy if every company actually dictated how their devices were used.
Back OT, I hope the Pre is better than the Storm. Competition is always good for the end-user.
Ugh, this argument always sets me off, even if you are trying to slap down a troll like iLad.
Can you imagine if Microsoft dictated which apps could be installed on Windows systems? There would be a revolt. We would all be screaming about choice. You're saying Apple should have the right to ban Firefox from their laptops (it's THEIR device, Safari works better). ISPs should be able to say that you can't download any file over 50MB (it's THEIR service, there would be fewer slowdowns). Sony should be able to say you can't attach a non-Sony stereo up to your Sony TV (it's THEIR device, it creates a better end-user experieince). Car companies should be able to dictate that you can only replace your tires with a particular brand (it's THEIR car, you are safer if they make these decisions for you). That Microsoft should be able to ban Quicktime, because it duplicates the functionality of Windows Media Player.
There are so many things wrong with the argument that it's "X's right to dictate". You would be incredibly unhappy if every company actually dictated how their devices were used.
Back OT, I hope the Pre is better than the Storm. Competition is always good for the end-user.
So far, despite all the yammering about it, the iPhone is still a phone with extra abilities.
As such, it is limited in its power and storage, as all other smartphones currently are.
Because of that, it surely is Apple's right to limit what they think should be done with it, just as it's your right to not buy it because it doesn't do what you think it should, and buy something else that does.
Back in the beginning of the personal computer, something I remember very well, software companies worked very hard to limit the footprint of their programs, and coded them very tightly to get as much performance as possible out of them.
It was later MS's philosophy, as stated by Gates, publicly, in response to a question as to why his software always ran so slow, that their purpose was to add as many features as possible, and to let the hardware companies worry about how fast they could get them to run. MS is basically responsible for the concept of "bloatware".
Now, with phones running over networks, a thing unimaginable way back in 1976, when this all started, manufacturers have to worry about things out of their direct control. Also, people these days are so used to the expectation that they can do anything on their computers because of the power and storage capacities, they also expect the same from their smartphones.
Well, smartphones can't deliver yet.
I have often seen over the past few years, people struggling with their phones. I had some problems like that with my Treo 700p which also didn't multitask, well, the iPhone does multitask, but the Treo didn't. Still there were problems. I see people tell me how well their phones work with background apps, only to see then barely function. The owners often seem happy, because they aren't expecting anything else. it seems normal to them, but I'm wincing.
Apple's customers are less forgiving. What someone else would forgive, an Apple customer will complain about.
Apple is about the experience of getting the features it does offer, to work as well as they can possibly get them to. We can see the complaints with AT&T's network. People, instead of thinking that such a huge increase in traffic would take AT&T a while to recover from, and then giving them the benefit of time, have been complaining.
I'd rather my phone worked well, which it does, than get bogged down by multiple apps competing for the limited program RAM, and cpu cycles, that would be the case otherwise.
What will happen, is that people will download all these free and $0.99 apps that require background use without realizing that they do, and then find that their phone is slow, and jerky in its response. Then they will complain. And complain. It won't occur to most of them that it's their fault. No, that won't happen, because it's never the fault of a stupid user, only the company that makes the possibility available.
I think that Apple understands this, and is walking a fine line right now.
Just as they've given way in a number of areas when the time, or network capacity was right, such as song downloads over 3G, for example, they will give way on this as well, once they feel the phone can handle it, but not before.
That's the way it should be.
Remember, there are other phones out there. When you find one that meets your expectations in ALL ways, then go buy it. If you like everything about the iPhone, say, except for not having all these background apps, then find that phone that matches the iPhone in all those ways, AND also allows third party background apps.
Let us know how you decide.
Ugh, this argument always sets me off, even if you are trying to slap down a troll like iLad.
Can you imagine if Microsoft dictated which apps could be installed on Windows systems? There would be a revolt. We would all be screaming about choice. You're saying Apple should have the right to ban Firefox from their laptops (it's THEIR device, Safari works better). ISPs should be able to say that you can't download any file over 50MB (it's THEIR service, there would be fewer slowdowns). Sony should be able to say you can't attach a non-Sony stereo up to your Sony TV (it's THEIR device, it creates a better end-user experieince). Car companies should be able to dictate that you can only replace your tires with a particular brand (it's THEIR car, you are safer if they make these decisions for you). That Microsoft should be able to ban Quicktime, because it duplicates the functionality of Windows Media Player.
There are so many things wrong with the argument that it's "X's right to dictate". You would be incredibly unhappy if every company actually dictated how their devices were used.
Back OT, I hope the Pre is better than the Storm. Competition is always good for the end-user.
However, you're skipping the second part of that idea, as stated, which is that anyone is free to not use a service or vendor if they make the restrictions too onerous.
In every one of the scenarios you list, the business actually does have the "right" to restrict what third party stuff works with their products. The only exception would be when a company with a monopoly position uses such restrictions as a strategy to stifle competition, as in the case of MS and browsers.
Otherwise, there's nothing stopping Ford from making a car that takes only one kind of specialized tire. Nothing, except sales. And even then, if such a car had sufficiently compelling advantages, there might be a sizable market of consumers willing to forgo tire choice in order to gain whatever benefits such a car would offer.
So it's not actually about whether a company has a "right", in some moral, abstract sense, to restrict how flexible or amenable to modification or easy to accessorize their products are, but rather a question of what people are willing to pay for.
Again, as long as we're not talking about a monopoly position, there's nothing wrong at all with building something that is entirely closed and unmodifiable, as long as that thing offers enough benefits to make it an attractive choice, even if there are competing offerings that are quite open.
It would appear, based on sales, that a lot of people prefer Apple's approach of locking things down in order to deliver a device that "just works." You could argue that they could do both-- be more open and still maintain ease of use and reliability-- but that's a difficult argument to make, since it requires speculation based on information we don't have.
At any rate, going forward, if iPhone sales appear to be being hurt by consumers seeking fewer restrictions, I'm sure Apple will respond. I don't think that will happen, though, because I don't think the average consumer finds the iPhone to be in any way constrained. Quite the opposite-- they look at the app store and the vast array of third party accessories, and see the phone with the most choices.
Because of that, it surely is Apple's right to limit what they think should be done with it, just as it's your right to not buy it because it doesn't do what you think it should, and buy something else that does.
It is not Apple's right. The rights of the consumer supersede the rights of any particular company in the US. The EFF is taking Apple to court over jailbreaking iPhones, and if they win, iPhone jailbreaking will be made completely legal. Nothing Apple can do about it. Apple has absolutely no power to dictate the rights of the consumer, that's for the judicial system to decide. Simple as that. Now, Apple can win by arguing that the consumer is best served by not allowing jailbroken iPhones, but, again, that is not for Apple to decide.
Check United States v. Microsoft.
In every one of the scenarios you list, the business actually does have the "right" to restrict what third party stuff works with their products.
No it doesn't. The rights of the consumer supersede the rights of any particular company. If any companies actions are found to be anti-competitive, monopolistic, or harmful the consumer, those practices can be shut down.
Check United States v. Microsoft.