If the Home screen(s) represents an icon view, then why can't Apple offer a scrollable list view, sorted alphabetically?
And maybe have a list of Favorites and/or Recently Used at the top?
I have no idea. You'd have to ask Apple. But it seems to me that scrolling will still present a problem for those with more than a screen or three. Who knows, I may have ten screens of stuff come next year. Scrolling will still be a pain.
The folder metaphor is still a good one. Name up to 16 folders per screen, and put whatever stuff you want to in each folder. Then an app is one click away most of the time. Allow nested folders, and you could do games/card games, or games/racing games, etc. Each folder you open could have 16 apps open to view, or folders containing apps, or both.
Considering that iPhone users are by far, the most active on the web than all other phone users put together, I can't agree with that.
You're missing the point here. It was to pick your MOST wanted feature, as I've now said twice. Every person who clicked on that poll would have wanted the features in some order, so even if they did what you want, it could very well have come up with the same percentage.
really, i dont see what you are debating about. I was part of that poll, as you were probably. 16% of people wanted mms the most. After they said mms was coming, a pool asked how many of them would use it. It said 61%, so people are happy about it. End of the story.
Considering that iPhone users are by far, the most active on the web than all other phone users put together, I can't agree with that.
Agree, disagree, whatever you like. Most ppl, even many iPhone owners, have never even heard of Ars. It's just not representative, much as those of us who like that site would wish otherwise (I'm one). \
Quote:
You're missing the point here. It was to pick your MOST wanted feature, as I've now said twice. Every person who clicked on that poll would have wanted the features in some order, so even if they did what you want, it could very well have come up with the same percentage.
That doesn't really doesn't make any sense. But, believe what you will. I'm off to do fun things.
That doesn't change the fact that all the Apple defenders who kept dismissing these "minorities" now have to wipe the egg off their faces.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs third party iPhone applications. Web apps are really really SWEET.
Apple should not support copy and paste on the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste.
Apple should not support MMS on the iPhone. Nobody cares about MMS.
Apple should not support 3G on the iPhone. Nobody cares about 3G.
Apple should not put GPS in the iPhone. Nobody cares about GPS.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.
Apple should not make their laptops easier to service in any way whatsoever. Nobody cares about accessibility. Making a laptop easier to service in any way whatsoever automatically makes it the size of a truck. Never mind the fact that the new unibody MacBook Pros are thinner, stronger and easier to service than the original MacBook Pros.
System 7 menus are better because you have to hold down the mouse button to keep menus open.
Who cares about automatic memory management? Just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Who cares about preemptive multitasking or memory protection? Macs never crash.
Apple will never make a multibutton mouse.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors.
Well, Apple themselves said some of that.
But s I said, it's just a matter of business. In my own business, we had to determine what products or services we would offer depending upon how many wanted it, how likely it was that those who said wanted it would actually do something proactive if they got it, and whether it would cost us money, or make us money.
Sometimes you have to do something because customers want to "shop" everything in the same place. If that's so, then just one little thing can make them go somewhere else. How many are like that, as opposed to those who will grumble a little, but will stay? Most will grumble and stay.
This isn't a simple thing, as some want to make it seem. There are a lot of things to juggle.
For example. We've always had those who demand an FM tuner in iPods. But how many really want it, and how many like the idea of it, but won't actually use it? How many will buy something else because of the lack?
How much will it cost to add this tuner in hardware and software? If it costs Apple $5 for the tuner chip(s) and software development time, they could have to charge $10, or more.
If only 5% of people want the tuner, should everyone have to pay for it?
Where do you draw the line?
If a company thinks that current standards are going out, and better ones are here, should they support the old ones, and perpetuate them, or should they drop them, and get them to disappear sooner?
What if people are used to the old standards and are reluctant to move to the newer ones?
Not easy to answer.
I'm not speaking for or against any of them in this post, just trying to give an idea why companies move the way they do.
really, i dont see what you are debating about. I was part of that poll, as you were probably. 16% of people wanted mms the most. After they said mms was coming, a pool asked how many of them would use it. It said 61%, so people are happy about it. End of the story.
Agree, disagree, whatever you like. Most ppl, even many iPhone owners, have never even heard of Ars. It's just not representative, much as those of us who like that site would wish otherwise (I'm one). \
You don't know that. We only need 3,000 people to represent hundreds of millions, to an accuracy of +-3%.
If we took a poll here, I wouldn't be surprised if we had about the same numbers.
Quote:
That doesn't really doesn't make any sense. But, believe what you will. I'm off to do fun things.
What are you talking about? Ever see a messaging plan? I have one, 250 msgs/month for five bucks. As little as two pennies a msg. Oh noooo, I feel so 'anally-raped'... yeesh. Talk about drama-queening.
Face it, lots of ppl will use the MMS and are happy it's here. And it's another plus for the iPhone, so win-win for Apple and the user. What's to hate on?
.
Your messaging plan does not include MMS messages. Your messaging plan is for SMS. Read Apple's website on the 3.0 preview. Very clear, right at the bottom: * MMS messaging is available only on iPhone 3G; fees may apply. MMS may not be available in all areas.
Sending a pic through email is free, sending a pic through MMS is not. Enjoy.
You don't know that. We only need 3,000 people to represent hundreds of millions, to an accuracy of +-3%.
If we took a poll here, I wouldn't be surprised if we had about the same numbers.
It makes perfect sense.
If you don't understand it...
You could take a poll of 3,000 and represent millions of AppleInsider readers. The true metric would be taking a professionally administered poll to sample average iPhone users, not just the ones who flock to nerd sites on important days in the iPhone calendar.
You could take a poll of 3,000 and represent millions of AppleInsider readers. The true metric would be taking a professionally administered poll to sample average iPhone users, not just the ones who flock to nerd sites on important days in the iPhone calendar.
Abster, I want to have your manbabies. When did they change this??
I have an idea that it has been that way for quite a while. But like everything else, it is a lot easier to sell a lot more if your audience thinks they are getting it for nothing. So we don't ask.
It reminds me of an old Archie comic book strip when Jughead asked the waitress how much was the bacon and eggs breakfast without the toast. When she said it was the same price and that the toast was included for free, he ordered the toast.
Better yet, I love apple pie a la mode. My only problem is that usually the pie comes with insufficient ice cream. Well, one time I called the waitress back and informed here that the amount of ice cream was not proportionate to the size of the piece of pie. So she calmly picked up the desert and said, "No problem sir, I'll take care of that right away." She did. With the same amount of ice cream but a much smaller piece of pie.
While I am still with you as far as a replacement system goes and you are welcome not to use it...
MMS/SMS are not poor technologies. They actually work very well. They do exactly what they claim. They are reliable. They are simple. They work cross-carrier. In certain cases, even cross-continents.
They are limited to 140char, and a few kB. Email protocols are a much better technology, especially when you toss in IMAP IDLE and other proprietary push techniques. Email I can get on my phone, my computer, my friend's computer, check on the web, access from pretty much anywhere. Text messages I can get... on my phone. One device only. Furthermore, they're tied to that device. "Oh hey, I should forward this to Joe, who's at work, and... damn, I can't send it to his email, and don't have his phone number." This is a lame system, unless you intend to maintain phones as devices that are completely cut off from the rest of the networked devices out there. Which is silly. I mean really - phones as a second-class network? Who thinks this is a good idea? Oh, right - the carriers. Smartphones are highlighting just how dumb this approach is.
These are 1980s technologies, and given that even the most braindead phones these days have more processing power than the computers I started doing email on, it's time to let them go and replace them with the existing, much better solutions we have at our disposal. (The only piece I don't have a ready answer for is mapping from a phone number to their carrier automatically. Normally I just, y'know, *ask* the person who their carrier is. The rest is trivial to automate.)
The only reason that it *hasn't* happened is because the carriers make a freaking mint off of this, and because the consumers are ill-educated.
Quote:
They are PAY technologies, which you are more than welcome to not be interested in. Still, pay doesn't equal poor. There are plenty of things worth paying for. If there were not, why would anyone bother getting a job to make money to pay for things with?
Entirely different philosophical argument.
What I think is silly is paying for a technology that is decades out of sync with what is possible. I simply demand more from my tech than what messaging provides. I mean, I might as well be paying someone to rent floppies from them.
You could take a poll of 3,000 and represent millions of AppleInsider readers. The true metric would be taking a professionally administered poll to sample average iPhone users, not just the ones who flock to nerd sites on important days in the iPhone calendar.
Millions of AppleInsider readers? Damn, now that is funny. I think there are only a few hundred AppleInsider readers.
I'm questioning the claim that 3000 people polled on a nerd website can extrapolate millions of people. It extrapolates millions of nerd website readers. I doubt (though I readily admit I have to statistics to back me up) that there are millions of people reading nerd websites. Even if there are, polling them only samples 'people who read nerd websites'. There is certainly a couple orders of magnitude more people in the general population who would be perhaps a more useful demographic to sample?
I have no vested interest in your argument either way, in fact I haven't even been following it. I am commenting on what seems to me a faulty statistical assumption.
They are limited to 140char, and a few kB. Email protocols are a much better technology, especially when you toss in IMAP IDLE and other proprietary push techniques. Email I can get on my phone, my computer, my friend's computer, check on the web, access from pretty much anywhere. Text messages I can get... on my phone. One device only. Furthermore, they're tied to that device. "Oh hey, I should forward this to Joe, who's at work, and... damn, I can't send it to his email, and don't have his phone number." This is a lame system, unless you intend to maintain phones as devices that are completely cut off from the rest of the networked devices out there. Which is silly. I mean really - phones as a second-class network? Who thinks this is a good idea? Oh, right - the carriers. Smartphones are highlighting just how dumb this approach is.
These are 1980s technologies, and given that even the most braindead phones these days have more processing power than the computers I started doing email on, it's time to let them go and replace them with the existing, much better solutions we have at our disposal. (The only piece I don't have a ready answer for is mapping from a phone number to their carrier automatically. Normally I just, y'know, *ask* the person who their carrier is. The rest is trivial to automate.)
The only reason that it *hasn't* happened is because the carriers make a freaking mint off of this, and because the consumers are ill-educated.
Entirely different philosophical argument.
What I think is silly is paying for a technology that is decades out of sync with what is possible. I simply demand more from my tech than what messaging provides. I mean, I might as well be paying someone to rent floppies from them.
I still stand by my original point. MMS/SMS is simple and universal. IMAP IDLE is neither in its current incarnation. When people just want it to work (like when they are out having fun with their friends at the bar) they don't want to be bothered with the technical details. And, hey, I'm just as nerdy as the next AppleInsider, but I can understand times when simple and universal trump geeky and free. I am excited to get to the next standard for push messaging, but until then I'm happy paying a small fee to have the capability to still use it now with our admittedly flawed and outmoded (yet universal and reliable) system.
No one needs to configure a server, their mobile, learn a recipient's carrier, etc to use MMS/SMS. For $10 a month, I'm happy I (and perhaps more importantly my girlfriend, family, coworkers, friends) don't have to worry about those things either.
I still stand by my original point. MMS/SMS is simple and universal. IMAP IDLE is neither in its current incarnation. When people just want it to work (like when they are out having fun with their friends at the bar) they don't want to be bothered with the technical details. And, hey, I'm just as nerdy as the next AppleInsider, but I can understand times when simple and universal trump geeky and free. I am excited to get to the next standard for push messaging, but until then I'm happy paying a small fee to have the capability to still use it now with our admittedly flawed and outmoded (yet universal and reliable) system.
No one needs to configure a server, their mobile, learn a recipient's carrier, etc to use MMS/SMS. For $10 a month, I'm happy I (and perhaps more importantly my girlfriend, family, coworkers, friends) don't have to worry about those things either.
Your point is taken, but I think you miss my point.
When I send an email on my iPhone, I bring up their contact info, I tap their email address, I start typing the message, I hit send.
When I send an SMS on my iPhone (were I to do so ), I bring up their contact info, I tap Text Message, I start typing the message, I hit send.
From the use case POV, they're equivalent.
So, stay with me here... what if, when you put someone's number in, Address Book looked up their carrier, and added the correct email equivalent to the contact as well?
Now, to send an email to *their phone*, you'd perform the same steps as above. No worse than sending an SMS, and much MUCH more flexible.
Or, assume that they have an email address - I mean, who doesn't right? Now if they can access their email over their phone, you don't even have to use the SMS gateway. It's just another email client, like any other device on the internet. Much, much better.
The sooner phones support push mail, the sooner we can get away from this closed-wall network model.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!
Did I say it enough?
I welcome this but I think it is overrated. Most people can type faster on the portrait keyboard. You cannot very efficiently type with two fingers on the landscape keyboard and for typing with one finger the keys are naturally further apart, which means you have to move around more, resulting in a slower typing speed. On the portrait keyboard I can hold the phone and type on it with the same hand, ie, I only need one hand. with the landscape keyboard, I need both hands.
Comments
your comparison is a bit exagerated.
And if I had to learn some gestures, i'd want them to be universal, not just for 1 phone.
Judging by the way Apple is copied, I'd guess by learning the iPhone interface you WILL BE LEARNING the universal interface of all phones to come.
I feel I learned everything I need to operate a modern computer by knowing a kid down the block with a Mac in 1985.
If the Home screen(s) represents an icon view, then why can't Apple offer a scrollable list view, sorted alphabetically?
And maybe have a list of Favorites and/or Recently Used at the top?
I have no idea. You'd have to ask Apple. But it seems to me that scrolling will still present a problem for those with more than a screen or three. Who knows, I may have ten screens of stuff come next year. Scrolling will still be a pain.
The folder metaphor is still a good one. Name up to 16 folders per screen, and put whatever stuff you want to in each folder. Then an app is one click away most of the time. Allow nested folders, and you could do games/card games, or games/racing games, etc. Each folder you open could have 16 apps open to view, or folders containing apps, or both.
Considering that iPhone users are by far, the most active on the web than all other phone users put together, I can't agree with that.
You're missing the point here. It was to pick your MOST wanted feature, as I've now said twice. Every person who clicked on that poll would have wanted the features in some order, so even if they did what you want, it could very well have come up with the same percentage.
really, i dont see what you are debating about. I was part of that poll, as you were probably. 16% of people wanted mms the most. After they said mms was coming, a pool asked how many of them would use it. It said 61%, so people are happy about it. End of the story.
Considering that iPhone users are by far, the most active on the web than all other phone users put together, I can't agree with that.
Agree, disagree, whatever you like. Most ppl, even many iPhone owners, have never even heard of Ars. It's just not representative, much as those of us who like that site would wish otherwise (I'm one).
You're missing the point here. It was to pick your MOST wanted feature, as I've now said twice. Every person who clicked on that poll would have wanted the features in some order, so even if they did what you want, it could very well have come up with the same percentage.
That doesn't really doesn't make any sense. But, believe what you will. I'm off to do fun things.
.
That doesn't change the fact that all the Apple defenders who kept dismissing these "minorities" now have to wipe the egg off their faces.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs third party iPhone applications. Web apps are really really SWEET.
Apple should not support copy and paste on the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste.
Apple should not support MMS on the iPhone. Nobody cares about MMS.
Apple should not support 3G on the iPhone. Nobody cares about 3G.
Apple should not put GPS in the iPhone. Nobody cares about GPS.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.
Apple should not make their laptops easier to service in any way whatsoever. Nobody cares about accessibility. Making a laptop easier to service in any way whatsoever automatically makes it the size of a truck. Never mind the fact that the new unibody MacBook Pros are thinner, stronger and easier to service than the original MacBook Pros.
System 7 menus are better because you have to hold down the mouse button to keep menus open.
Who cares about automatic memory management? Just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Who cares about preemptive multitasking or memory protection? Macs never crash.
Apple will never make a multibutton mouse.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors.
Well, Apple themselves said some of that.
But s I said, it's just a matter of business. In my own business, we had to determine what products or services we would offer depending upon how many wanted it, how likely it was that those who said wanted it would actually do something proactive if they got it, and whether it would cost us money, or make us money.
Sometimes you have to do something because customers want to "shop" everything in the same place. If that's so, then just one little thing can make them go somewhere else. How many are like that, as opposed to those who will grumble a little, but will stay? Most will grumble and stay.
This isn't a simple thing, as some want to make it seem. There are a lot of things to juggle.
For example. We've always had those who demand an FM tuner in iPods. But how many really want it, and how many like the idea of it, but won't actually use it? How many will buy something else because of the lack?
How much will it cost to add this tuner in hardware and software? If it costs Apple $5 for the tuner chip(s) and software development time, they could have to charge $10, or more.
If only 5% of people want the tuner, should everyone have to pay for it?
Where do you draw the line?
If a company thinks that current standards are going out, and better ones are here, should they support the old ones, and perpetuate them, or should they drop them, and get them to disappear sooner?
What if people are used to the old standards and are reluctant to move to the newer ones?
Not easy to answer.
I'm not speaking for or against any of them in this post, just trying to give an idea why companies move the way they do.
really, i dont see what you are debating about. I was part of that poll, as you were probably. 16% of people wanted mms the most. After they said mms was coming, a pool asked how many of them would use it. It said 61%, so people are happy about it. End of the story.
I'm not debating anything. I told the numbers.
Last thing I'm gonna say...
You said that already.
Agree, disagree, whatever you like. Most ppl, even many iPhone owners, have never even heard of Ars. It's just not representative, much as those of us who like that site would wish otherwise (I'm one).
You don't know that. We only need 3,000 people to represent hundreds of millions, to an accuracy of +-3%.
If we took a poll here, I wouldn't be surprised if we had about the same numbers.
That doesn't really doesn't make any sense. But, believe what you will. I'm off to do fun things.
.
It makes perfect sense.
If you don't understand it...
Yet what Apple made of cut 'n' paste this time seems to be an early sign of what's gonna happen further without S. Jobs' ceaseless care...
This has become a pretty gross thread.
Several 'anal rape' comments, an STD reference, and now prolapsing. Gotta luv the AI community... always sweetness and light.
.
That's what happens when Apple benders realize that they been drinkin water all this time. Happy St Paddy's Day- Keep On Texting!!
Get those MMS photos now!!
Reminds me of the old song by the Who- We Won't Get Fooled Again!!
Apple does not appear to agree.
What are you talking about? Ever see a messaging plan? I have one, 250 msgs/month for five bucks. As little as two pennies a msg. Oh noooo, I feel so 'anally-raped'... yeesh. Talk about drama-queening.
Face it, lots of ppl will use the MMS and are happy it's here. And it's another plus for the iPhone, so win-win for Apple and the user. What's to hate on?
.
Your messaging plan does not include MMS messages. Your messaging plan is for SMS. Read Apple's website on the 3.0 preview. Very clear, right at the bottom: * MMS messaging is available only on iPhone 3G; fees may apply. MMS may not be available in all areas.
Sending a pic through email is free, sending a pic through MMS is not. Enjoy.
You said that already.
You don't know that. We only need 3,000 people to represent hundreds of millions, to an accuracy of +-3%.
If we took a poll here, I wouldn't be surprised if we had about the same numbers.
It makes perfect sense.
If you don't understand it...
You could take a poll of 3,000 and represent millions of AppleInsider readers. The true metric would be taking a professionally administered poll to sample average iPhone users, not just the ones who flock to nerd sites on important days in the iPhone calendar.
You could take a poll of 3,000 and represent millions of AppleInsider readers. The true metric would be taking a professionally administered poll to sample average iPhone users, not just the ones who flock to nerd sites on important days in the iPhone calendar.
You haven't said anything that negates the poll.
Abster, I want to have your manbabies. When did they change this??
I have an idea that it has been that way for quite a while. But like everything else, it is a lot easier to sell a lot more if your audience thinks they are getting it for nothing. So we don't ask.
It reminds me of an old Archie comic book strip when Jughead asked the waitress how much was the bacon and eggs breakfast without the toast. When she said it was the same price and that the toast was included for free, he ordered the toast.
Better yet, I love apple pie a la mode. My only problem is that usually the pie comes with insufficient ice cream. Well, one time I called the waitress back and informed here that the amount of ice cream was not proportionate to the size of the piece of pie. So she calmly picked up the desert and said, "No problem sir, I'll take care of that right away." She did. With the same amount of ice cream but a much smaller piece of pie.
While I am still with you as far as a replacement system goes and you are welcome not to use it...
MMS/SMS are not poor technologies. They actually work very well. They do exactly what they claim. They are reliable. They are simple. They work cross-carrier. In certain cases, even cross-continents.
They are limited to 140char, and a few kB. Email protocols are a much better technology, especially when you toss in IMAP IDLE and other proprietary push techniques. Email I can get on my phone, my computer, my friend's computer, check on the web, access from pretty much anywhere. Text messages I can get... on my phone. One device only. Furthermore, they're tied to that device. "Oh hey, I should forward this to Joe, who's at work, and... damn, I can't send it to his email, and don't have his phone number." This is a lame system, unless you intend to maintain phones as devices that are completely cut off from the rest of the networked devices out there. Which is silly. I mean really - phones as a second-class network? Who thinks this is a good idea? Oh, right - the carriers. Smartphones are highlighting just how dumb this approach is.
These are 1980s technologies, and given that even the most braindead phones these days have more processing power than the computers I started doing email on, it's time to let them go and replace them with the existing, much better solutions we have at our disposal. (The only piece I don't have a ready answer for is mapping from a phone number to their carrier automatically. Normally I just, y'know, *ask* the person who their carrier is. The rest is trivial to automate.)
The only reason that it *hasn't* happened is because the carriers make a freaking mint off of this, and because the consumers are ill-educated.
They are PAY technologies, which you are more than welcome to not be interested in. Still, pay doesn't equal poor. There are plenty of things worth paying for. If there were not, why would anyone bother getting a job to make money to pay for things with?
Entirely different philosophical argument.
What I think is silly is paying for a technology that is decades out of sync with what is possible. I simply demand more from my tech than what messaging provides. I mean, I might as well be paying someone to rent floppies from them.
You could take a poll of 3,000 and represent millions of AppleInsider readers. The true metric would be taking a professionally administered poll to sample average iPhone users, not just the ones who flock to nerd sites on important days in the iPhone calendar.
Millions of AppleInsider readers? Damn, now that is funny. I think there are only a few hundred AppleInsider readers.
You haven't said anything that negates the poll.
I'm questioning the claim that 3000 people polled on a nerd website can extrapolate millions of people. It extrapolates millions of nerd website readers. I doubt (though I readily admit I have to statistics to back me up) that there are millions of people reading nerd websites. Even if there are, polling them only samples 'people who read nerd websites'. There is certainly a couple orders of magnitude more people in the general population who would be perhaps a more useful demographic to sample?
I have no vested interest in your argument either way, in fact I haven't even been following it. I am commenting on what seems to me a faulty statistical assumption.
They are limited to 140char, and a few kB. Email protocols are a much better technology, especially when you toss in IMAP IDLE and other proprietary push techniques. Email I can get on my phone, my computer, my friend's computer, check on the web, access from pretty much anywhere. Text messages I can get... on my phone. One device only. Furthermore, they're tied to that device. "Oh hey, I should forward this to Joe, who's at work, and... damn, I can't send it to his email, and don't have his phone number." This is a lame system, unless you intend to maintain phones as devices that are completely cut off from the rest of the networked devices out there. Which is silly. I mean really - phones as a second-class network? Who thinks this is a good idea? Oh, right - the carriers. Smartphones are highlighting just how dumb this approach is.
These are 1980s technologies, and given that even the most braindead phones these days have more processing power than the computers I started doing email on, it's time to let them go and replace them with the existing, much better solutions we have at our disposal. (The only piece I don't have a ready answer for is mapping from a phone number to their carrier automatically. Normally I just, y'know, *ask* the person who their carrier is. The rest is trivial to automate.)
The only reason that it *hasn't* happened is because the carriers make a freaking mint off of this, and because the consumers are ill-educated.
Entirely different philosophical argument.
What I think is silly is paying for a technology that is decades out of sync with what is possible. I simply demand more from my tech than what messaging provides. I mean, I might as well be paying someone to rent floppies from them.
I still stand by my original point. MMS/SMS is simple and universal. IMAP IDLE is neither in its current incarnation. When people just want it to work (like when they are out having fun with their friends at the bar) they don't want to be bothered with the technical details. And, hey, I'm just as nerdy as the next AppleInsider, but I can understand times when simple and universal trump geeky and free. I am excited to get to the next standard for push messaging, but until then I'm happy paying a small fee to have the capability to still use it now with our admittedly flawed and outmoded (yet universal and reliable) system.
No one needs to configure a server, their mobile, learn a recipient's carrier, etc to use MMS/SMS. For $10 a month, I'm happy I (and perhaps more importantly my girlfriend, family, coworkers, friends) don't have to worry about those things either.
I still stand by my original point. MMS/SMS is simple and universal. IMAP IDLE is neither in its current incarnation. When people just want it to work (like when they are out having fun with their friends at the bar) they don't want to be bothered with the technical details. And, hey, I'm just as nerdy as the next AppleInsider, but I can understand times when simple and universal trump geeky and free. I am excited to get to the next standard for push messaging, but until then I'm happy paying a small fee to have the capability to still use it now with our admittedly flawed and outmoded (yet universal and reliable) system.
No one needs to configure a server, their mobile, learn a recipient's carrier, etc to use MMS/SMS. For $10 a month, I'm happy I (and perhaps more importantly my girlfriend, family, coworkers, friends) don't have to worry about those things either.
Your point is taken, but I think you miss my point.
When I send an email on my iPhone, I bring up their contact info, I tap their email address, I start typing the message, I hit send.
When I send an SMS on my iPhone (were I to do so
From the use case POV, they're equivalent.
So, stay with me here... what if, when you put someone's number in, Address Book looked up their carrier, and added the correct email equivalent to the contact as well?
Now, to send an email to *their phone*, you'd perform the same steps as above. No worse than sending an SMS, and much MUCH more flexible.
Or, assume that they have an email address - I mean, who doesn't right? Now if they can access their email over their phone, you don't even have to use the SMS gateway. It's just another email client, like any other device on the internet. Much, much better.
The sooner phones support push mail, the sooner we can get away from this closed-wall network model.
Landscape keyboard:
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!
Did I say it enough?
I welcome this but I think it is overrated. Most people can type faster on the portrait keyboard. You cannot very efficiently type with two fingers on the landscape keyboard and for typing with one finger the keys are naturally further apart, which means you have to move around more, resulting in a slower typing speed. On the portrait keyboard I can hold the phone and type on it with the same hand, ie, I only need one hand. with the landscape keyboard, I need both hands.