There's a difference between a "professional " poll, which is what we were doing, and an online poll like that, to be sure. I dodn't say that the accuracy would be the same. What I did say is that the accuracy is good enough to get a fairly accurate idea.
Really, if a professional poll of 3,000 people can get to +- 3%, and an online poll with 3,000 people responding can get to +-10%, for the purpose of getting an idea of needs, that s close enough.
That means the 16% who wanted MMS would be from 14.4% to 17.6%, more than close enough for the purpose.
I'm glad you agree that internet polling is not as accurate as professional polling. But, really, you're just assuming that the self-selected Ars poll is 'good enough'. You really don't know. And I continue to have very strong doubts that Ars represents anything other than the uber-nerd wing of the iPhone user base.
Now, that could be a fairly big wing, we can agree on that. But it's not the whole bird, not even close.
Quote:
Now, you're being silly.
Not half as silly as you were being in making that comment.
Quote:
Sure, that's an entirely different question. I may not care about something, and I may not refuse to buy a product without it, but I might use it if it were there.
If they did a poll about cut and paste, it may have 100% using it if it were there.
Fair enough, but let's realize the strong probability that, if you say you're going to use a feature, you might just want that feature IN there to use. Just logic, really.
Quote:
That doesn't change the fact that most people don't care, and don't miss it, and don't buy a product based on whether it's there, which is the whole point.
Pretty big negative assumption, there, really. And it expands beyond the scope of the first question of the Ars poll (which is what we were discussing) which was, "What feature do you want to see the most from iPhone 3.0 event?".
They didn't ask if said feature was a deal-breaker or not. That's an entirely separate question.
Quote:
No, it doesn't.
It's not ironclad, but I think you have to admit the strong possibility. Seems obvious that MMS is popular, not only in the broader mobile market, but also too among the iPhone user base... if we are to accept your assumption that Ars readers are representative of the iPhone user base.
Tech was just as prominent in 1970 as it is now. It's interesting that every generation somehow thinks that's it's "special" when it isn't.
The second sentence is definitely true. But I'm not buying the first one! I was involved in this stuff in the 70s as well (not quite as old as you, but I'm an old-timer as far as tech goes), and very, very few people had any knowledge - or even interest - in tech, gadgets, etc. Now, most people have at least a passing interest in as much as we all use cell phones, microwaves, VCRs, etc. All these things add up to a very different world, experientially, now.
Basically, "tech" meant something completely different back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Also computers have now been around for some time. Most people, even most of those over 65, have been using them for a while.
?! You must hang out with a very tech-savvy crowd! Few people I know over 65 even use computers on a regular basis, let alone other gadgets. And even those who do are pretty much email-only, with a sprinkle of web browsing. And lots of cussing about how stuff "doesn't work". There was an interesting discussion about the technological generation gap at a conference last year. It's big, and it's real. Face it, you're special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Don't forget that all of the pioneers in technology are now older. Those who are young are used to it. They deserve less credit for using it because of that.
Absolute agreement. But maybe that's just because I want more personal credit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm 59, and I have the same needs as any 20 year old.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but do you really send hundreds of text messages/month as your daughter does? Me, I have no interest, although I'm more technically inclined than 98% of the general public.
I'm glad you agree that internet polling is not as accurate as professional polling. But, really, you're just assuming that the self-selected Ars poll is 'good enough'. You really don't know. And I continue to have very strong doubts that Ars represents anything other than the uber-nerd wing of the iPhone user base.
Now, that could be a fairly big wing, we can agree on that. But it's not the whole bird, not even close.
We can agree to not agree.
Quote:
Not half as silly as you were being in making that comment.
Why? Do you know her personally?
Quote:
Fair enough, but let's realize the strong probability that, if you say you're going to use a feature, you might just want that feature IN there to use. Just logic, really.
There's the cart and the horse thing going on here.
If you ask someone if they want a feature, if they need a feature, if they will pay for a feature, and they say no, and you then ask if they would use the feature if it were there anyway, and they say maybe, what do you get from that response?
Quote:
Pretty big negative assumption, there, really. And it expands beyond the scope of the first question of the Ars poll (which is what we were discussing) which was, "What feature do you want to see the most from iPhone 3.0 event?".
They didn't ask if said feature was a deal-breaker or not. That's an entirely separate question.
You've been the one expanding what that poll means, not me.
All I've said is that the poll asked which feature people wanted most. You've taken that and run with it.
I've then been responding to you questions and statements.
I was willing to leave it as it stood.
Quote:
It's not ironclad, but I think you have to admit the strong possibility. Seems obvious that MMS is popular, not only in the broader mobile market, but also too among the iPhone user base... if we are to accept your assumption that Ars readers are representative of the iPhone user base.
.
You can't try to assume something out of that poll any more than you don't want to assume what I'm saying about that poll.
The second sentence is definitely true. But I'm not buying the first one! I was involved in this stuff in the 70s as well (not quite as old as you, but I'm an old-timer as far as tech goes), and very, very few people had any knowledge - or even interest - in tech, gadgets, etc. Now, most people have at least a passing interest in as much as we all use cell phones, microwaves, VCRs, etc. All these things add up to a very different world, experientially, now.
Basically, "tech" meant something completely different back then.
Tech is always new for the people of the time. Was it different from today? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that people adopted at the same rates as they do now. Color Tv, video recorders in the '70's, portable tape recorders, home fax machines, "feature" phones, and the like were just as complex, and alien, to the people of the time as any new tech is today.
The same can be said for the late '70's, '80' etc.
Quote:
?! You must hang out with a very tech-savvy crowd! Few people I know over 65 even use computers on a regular basis, let alone other gadgets. And even those who do are pretty much email-only, with a sprinkle of web browsing. And lots of cussing about how stuff "doesn't work". There was an interesting discussion about the technological generation gap at a conference last year. It's big, and it's real. Face it, you're special!
I don't know about that. I think these gaps are more perceptual from the high end looking down, then they really are.
As far as being special goes, we are all special, if we're here, I suppose. Technology was part of my life and career, but I like to observe, and ask people questions, so I find out what they do.
Quote:
Not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but do you really send hundreds of text messages/month as your daughter does? Me, I have no interest, although I'm more technically inclined than 98% of the general public.
The point isn't that I have to send hundreds. I send a few dozen, and receive a few dozen. That doesn't mean I'm any less savvy about using it.
No, but let's take stock... this is a women who flashes her vagina in public, is the star of publicly-released sex tapes, has been arrested and jailed for DUI, stars in the very worst movies, cut an album that can only be described as a painful joke, and in general behaves like a borderline-retarded teenager, despite being nearly 30 now.
If you wish to argue the "Paris Hilton is secretly a genius" position, feel free, but I don't think you'll get much company there.
Quote:
There's the cart and the horse thing going on here.
If you ask someone if they want a feature, if they need a feature, if they will pay for a feature, and they say no, and you then ask if they would use the feature if it were there anyway, and they say maybe, what do you get from that response?
You've been the one expanding what that poll means, not me.
All I've said is that the poll asked which feature people wanted most. You've taken that and run with it.
I've then been responding to you questions and statements.
I was willing to leave it as it stood.
I dunno Mel, methinks your protesting too much with regards to inconvenient bits of evidence. Not sure I care that much anymore. See below.
Quote:
You can't try to assume something out of that poll any more than you don't want to assume what I'm saying about that poll.
You can't have it both ways.
I wasn't having it both ways... I was hoisting you on your petard. Good-naturedly, of course.
In any case Mel, I think we're arguing among the trees while the forest burns down around us.
MMS on the iPhone is just a fact, going forward. Apple saw it as important enough to include it, they saw that there was a significant enough demand for it. And to debate endlessly how much ppl really wanted it after the fact is by its nature a thankless task. We'll know how popular MMS is on the iPhone by how many MMSes ppl end up sending. I have no doubt it'll be a huge number.
Far as your own past predictions of mobile email pre-eminence within two years go, I think it's fair to say, well... no, that doesn't seem terribly likely anymore, if ever it did. But if it's any consolation, you can moon me via MMS if you like.
At the end of the day, I think we have what politicians like to call a "fundamental disagreement on the nature of the universe." I'm very confident I'm right, and so are you. But that doesn't mean I don't respect you, even though it seems like I seldom agree with you.
Take care. And, as the Joker might say, "Why so serious?"
I think we can all agree her tactics are as cheap and low brow as it gets. It can be argued that for someone who has absolutely no talent to garner so much attention takes some degree intelligence. She knows what she's doing. She knows how to play to the lowest based denominator to continue her fame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
No, but let's take stock... this is a women who flashes her vagina in public, is the star of publicly-released sex tapes, has been arrested and jailed for DUI, stars in the very worst movies, cut an album that can only be described as a painful joke, and in general behaves like a borderline-retarded teenager, despite being nearly 30 now.
If you wish to argue the "Paris Hilton is secretly a genius" position, feel free, but I don't think you'll get much company there.
No, but let's take stock... this is a women who flashes her vagina in public, is the star of publicly-released sex tapes, has been arrested and jailed for DUI, stars in the very worst movies, cut an album that can only be described as a painful joke, and in general behaves like a borderline-retarded teenager, despite being nearly 30 now.
If you wish to argue the "Paris Hilton is secretly a genius" position, feel free, but I don't think you'll get much company there.
Have you ever heard of "publicity"?
Let's see, she's making about a million a year, according to reports, and you're making...?
Quote:
I dunno Mel, methinks your protesting too much with regards to inconvenient bits of evidence. Not sure I care that much anymore. See below.
I see no inconvenient evidence.
Quote:
I wasn't having it both ways... I was hoisting you on your petard. Good-naturedly, of course.
I don't own a petard, I'm on a horse.
Quote:
In any case Mel, I think we're arguing among the trees while the forest burns down around us.
Actually, it doesn't even matter. It's here.
Quote:
MMS on the iPhone is just a fact, going forward. Apple saw it as important enough to include it, they saw that there was a significant enough demand for it. And to debate endlessly how much ppl really wanted it after the fact is by its nature a thankless task. We'll know how popular MMS is on the iPhone by how many MMSes ppl end up sending. I have no doubt it'll be a huge number.
I said the same thing already. It doesn't have to be a majority, or even a large minority, just enough so that Apple thinks it's worth satisfying.
Quote:
Far as your own past predictions of mobile email pre-eminence within two years go, I think it's fair to say, well... no, that doesn't seem terribly likely anymore, if ever it did. But if it's any consolation, you can moon me via MMS if you like.
With the importance of e-mail still increasing, I'll stick to my prediction.
Quote:
At the end of the day, I think we have what politicians like to call a "fundamental disagreement on the nature of the universe." I'm very confident I'm right, and so are you. But that doesn't mean I don't respect you, even though it seems like I seldom agree with you.
Take care. And, as the Joker might say, "Why so serious?"
Sigh. I'm like Pacino in Godfather 3... "I want out, but they pull me back in..." (for a moment, anyway)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm confident that you're confident.
With good reason.
Quote:
Have you ever heard of "publicity"?
Let's see, she's making about a million a year, according to reports, and you're making...?
When Daddy's a billionaire, being a millionaire isn't very difficult.
And any fool can do outrageous things to get attention... doesn't take brains. To have it work, though, requires talented PR. She hires those ppl.
Finally, a lot of her actions seem more like out-of-control/spoiled behavior, than planned. I'm sure she didn't plan to go to jail, for example. She seemed quite upset by the experience. Nor would she last five minutes in any serious jail.
Quote:
I see no inconvenient evidence.
Of course not.
Quote:
I don't own a petard, I'm on a horse.
A high one? I've got one too.
Quote:
Actually, it doesn't even matter. It's here.
Like I said.
Quote:
I said the same thing already. It doesn't have to be a majority, or even a large minority, just enough so that Apple thinks it's worth satisfying.
The stats on MMS usage will be most interesting, eh?
Quote:
With the importance of e-mail still increasing, I'll stick to my prediction.
Sigh. I'm like Pacino in Godfather 3... "I want out, but they pull me back in..." (for a moment, anyway)
Nah, you can say "uncle" any time.
Quote:
With good reason.
Reason isn't part of it.
Quote:
When Daddy's a billionaire, being a millionaire isn't very difficult.
He's not nearly that rich. But it doesn't matter.
Quote:
And any fool can do outrageous things to get attention... doesn't take brains. To have it work, though, requires talented PR. She hires those ppl.
Finally, a lot of her actions seem more like out-of-control/spoiled behavior, than planned. I'm sure she didn't plan to go to jail, for example. She seemed quite upset by the experience.
I just think it's interesting that you want to believe that so much.
Quote:
Of course not.
?
Quote:
Like I said.
Like we both said.
Quote:
The stats on MMS usage will be most interesting, eh?
I work at a manufacturing company which has a cafeteria. Between the office workers ("carpet walkers") and the production personnel, the general population is fairly well represented. The cafeteria has me interacting with people I probably wouldn't come into contact with otherwise.
I eat breakfast everyday with a table of around 20 people from the production areas. They're all somewhat impressed by my iPhone but probably can't afford one. Yet ironically, its me, the iphone owner without MMS who feels like they're in the dark ages. I can't send a photo to any of their phones and none of them can send a photo to me. Yet they can effortlessly send photos to each other.
(Yes I know there are work-arounds that sort of work. But neither them nor I feel like bothering with that.)
MMS is hugely popular and I'm happy that Apple will be including this feature in the next release. (for 3g users at least)
Great, I wish you'd been the sales person who told me, when I bought the iPhones, that it was impossible.
Or the sales rep on the phone a week later who told me the same thing.
Or the customer rep on the phone later that month who repeated it.
I can't imagine why they'd tell me it wasn't possible...
Great, send me $5 or I keep whining at you. Awwwww, why you getting irate?
How am I irate? I just think it's ridiculous that you spend 30 a month on internet service for your cell phone (multiple iPhones apparently) and $200+ on each phone, yet want to complain about a specific part about it. If you are so desperate to save money, then why are you buying a top of the line cell phone? You could easily be setup on the lowest rate plan with a Nokia 2600 and disable internet and text messaging. You just want to have your cake and eat it too..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
I'm totally on board with Kickaha on this issue. I have no interest in MMS and frankly, virtually no interest in SMS either.
That's $60/year, year after year.
Even still, don't you see that it's an issue of principle? As Kickaha so nicely put it: it's the equivalent of extortion. So, you don't want to pay for crap coming into your phone that you never asked for? Just pay us $5/month forever and we'll take care of it for you! Hahahaaaa.
Other countries have it right. The sender of SMS/MMS should solely be responsible for payment. They are initiating the communication. End of story.
That's great that you have no interest, turns out millions (if not billions) of others do, so they're going to implement it. Companies are in the business of making money, so they'll please the masses before anyone else.
$60/ a year? You pay $360/year for your internet service! It blows my mind that both of you, while seemingly worried about spending your money, are paying top dollar for your cell phones and monthly service but want to complain about a $5 dollar, hell $60/year charge so you don't have to worry about paying PER text? It's obvious that the smarter decision, if you receive text messages sporatically, just to pay the $5 and have it done with instead of worrying about it. Call it extortion call it whatever you want - the simple fact is YOU CHOSE APPLE AND AT&T. In fact, you had 30 days to decide whether or not to keep the service and equipment with only paying a 10% restocking fee on the phone.
Vote with your dollar, both of you should learn that saying. If yall are so against AT&T for "extorting" your $5 then take your business elsewhere.
How am I irate? I just think it's ridiculous that you spend 30 a month on internet service for your cell phone (multiple iPhones apparently) and $200+ on each phone, yet want to complain about a specific part about it. If you are so desperate to save money, then why are you buying a top of the line cell phone? You could easily be setup on the lowest rate plan with a Nokia 2600 and disable internet and text messaging. You just want to have your cake and eat it too..
I simply want internet access without being pickpocketed for the other $5. You know, like every other device I own. A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one. That $5 is a holdover from a legacy technology. The rest of the money I spend gets me a *LOT* of value for that $30. That $5? Gets me *nothing*. That's the point. It's $5 *wasted*, as opposed to $30 spent for a very useful service.
Not at all the same.
And yes, if the iPhone were on any other carrier, you're damned right I'd take my business elsewhere, but we're locked in, and no other device offers what I want. The $5 is a bend-you-over-barrel tax that they can charge without offering functionality above and beyond what the $30 + a few functioning neurons gets me. It's a holdover from their legacy business model, much like the music industry. And it too, cannot die fast enough. A cell network is just a network. There's nothing special about it.
Imagine if you were charged by your ISP for every email that you got, regardless of if you wanted it. That's the way it used to be, but consumers demanded that they stop it, and move to a reasonable model. For some reason, that tipping point hasn't occurred in the cell industry, and I lay the blame directly at the feet of uneducated consumers who insist that SMS/MMS are 'necessary'. There are options. Use them, shut off your messaging, and dry up the funding source for the carriers.
That's taking your business elsewhere by simply not playing their silly little game.
I simply want internet access without being pickpocketed for the other $5. You know, like every other device I own. A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one. That $5 is a holdover from a legacy technology. The rest of the money I spend gets me a *LOT* of value for that $30. That $5? Gets me *nothing*. That's the point. It's $5 *wasted*, as opposed to $30 spent for a very useful service.
Not at all the same.
And yes, if the iPhone were on any other carrier, you're damned right I'd take my business elsewhere, but we're locked in, and no other device offers what I want. The $5 is a bend-you-over-barrel tax that they can charge without offering functionality above and beyond what the $30 + a few functioning neurons gets me. It's a holdover from their legacy business model, much like the music industry. And it too, cannot die fast enough. A cell network is just a network. There's nothing special about it.
Imagine if you were charged by your ISP for every email that you got, regardless of if you wanted it. That's the way it used to be, but consumers demanded that they stop it, and move to a reasonable model. For some reason, that tipping point hasn't occurred in the cell industry, and I lay the blame directly at the feet of uneducated consumers who insist that SMS/MMS are 'necessary'. There are options. Use them, shut off your messaging, and dry up the funding source for the carriers.
That's taking your business elsewhere by simply not playing their silly little game.
Once again, if you don't want it, you can disable it. You're complaining for the sake of complaining.
Call them, tell them to block text, and you're done. IF someone gives you trouble go to the store and tell them and worse case talk to management. It IS possible, we've told you this, so go block it. If it's such a useless technology to you it shouldn't matter if you're able to receive them at all.
AT&T is in the business of making money, they're going to charge you for whatever they can because that's what they're in it for. Every company does this and there is nothing you can do about it. If they provided a free service for everything new that came out they'd be wasting their time. I'm fully aware of the profit margin on wireless carriers but that's the nature of the beast, and you're not changing it.
If "A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one." then why did you say "no other device offers what I want."? They know that people want this phone and WILL PAY for it... just as you are.
Once again, if you don't want it, you can disable it. You're complaining for the sake of complaining.
Call them, tell them to block text, and you're done. IF someone gives you trouble go to the store and tell them and worse case talk to management. It IS possible, we've told you this, so go block it. If it's such a useless technology to you it shouldn't matter if you're able to receive them at all.
Yes, done, can you drop it? If you'll recall, most of this was based on the premise that you *couldn't* block it - which is what I was told repeatedly by AT&T.
Now if only the majority of people *would*...
Quote:
AT&T is in the business of making money, they're going to charge you for whatever they can because that's what they're in it for.
Well certainly. And it's obvious that there are legions of gullible people willing to fork over the bucks for them.
Quote:
Every company does this and there is nothing you can do about it. If they provided a free service for everything new that came out they'd be wasting their time. I'm fully aware of the profit margin on wireless carriers but that's the nature of the beast, and you're not changing it.
Funny - I could swear that you were saying consumers can change the market just a moment ago... I, alone, won't obviously, but if I can get the word out that folks are being bent over a barrel, and that there are cheaper options... maybe enough will. Simple as that.
Quote:
If "A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one." then why did you say "no other device offers what I want."? They know that people want this phone and WILL PAY for it... just as you are.
Because internet capable devices differ in their capabilities, obviously. This is the best one for my needs.
'Phones' as a device class, are no longer special. They're increasingly hooked into the larger internet, and breaking out of the closed garden of the cell network. As they continue to do so, the cell-centric business model will look simply more stupid and predatory as time goes on. Hopefully, the public will eventually catch on and demand actual service for their money. As it is, though, you're absolutely right - there are too many people feeding the carrier coffers because they simply don't know there are options.
Pardon me for trying to bring them to their attention.
But, let's be honest... we both know that whomever gets the last word in never has much correlation with whom presented the better argument. It only correlates with who had the larger amount of free time. That's probably not me.
Quote:
Reason isn't part of it.
In your opinion, sure. Again, "a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the universe."
Quote:
He's not nearly that rich. But it doesn't matter.
The Hilton family is a billionaire family, actually.
Her grandfather, Barron, made the Forbes 400 and had an estimated net worth of $2.3 billion in 2007. I'm sure it's gone down since then, but the guy's likely still a billionaire. From Wikipedia:
In the Forbes 400, which lists the 400 richest Americans, Barron Hilton's worth in 2007 is listed at $2.3 billion.[3]
Now, Rick Hilton, her father, is worth 'only' $300 million. While you're correct that he's not a billionaire, I think the point stands... the guy's damn rich. And her family is a billionaire one.
Quote:
I just think it's interesting that you want to believe that so much.
LOL. I find it interesting that you'd attribute genius to someone who has none, and who's actually been something of a net negative to the culture in general. C'mon Mel... you make it sound like Paris is your hero. Which is tragicomedy at its best.
But, hey, since you think so highly of her, here's where you can buy her CD:
I love the current Most Helpful review at Amazon, btw... it's titled: "A Sad Reflection of Declining IQ and Musical Taste."
While you're at it Mel, ya gotta run out and find a DVD of The Hottie and the Nottie, her magnum opus film of last year. The critical reception was... interesting. From Wikipedia:
As of April 3, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 5% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 61 reviews with the consensus being "The Hottie and the Nottie is a crass, predictable, and ineptly staged gross-out comedy that serves little purpose beyond existing as another monument to Paris Hilton's vanity".[3] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 7 out of 100, based on 17 reviews — indicating "extreme dislike or disgust."[4] In addition, it also scores a 0% among notable critics on Rotten Tomatoes, a 7% among Rotten Tomatoes "cream of the crop" and a 1.8 among metacritics users. IGN gave it a 0 star review, saying "Hottie and the Nottie presents a problem because there are just no words to adequately express how clumsy, trite and deeply offensive it is from start to finish."
Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers gave the film a half-star rating, saying that the half-star was because "it takes guts (or gross dim-wittedness) [for Hilton] to appear on screen again after House of Wax."[5] Film critic Scott Feinberg reported that a colleague muttered, "Shoot me in the f*cking face", during a Boston press screening of the film.[6] Online film critic James Berardinelli described the film's comedy as "about as funny as the anal rape scene in The War Zone".[7] In his review, Richard Roeper said, "It is excruciatingly, painfully, horribly, terribly awful," and that "nobody in this movie really should have a career in movies" and BBC reviewer Mark Kermode put it in his worst films of the year list calling it "a fascist eugenic tract" and saying "it's disgusting".[8]
Oh, and US Box Office? $27, 696, according to Yahoo Movies.
So, yay Mel. Paris rocks! She's a jet-fueled geeen-yus.
Quote:
Nope! We've got a ways to go.
Well yeah, there is that plus for you: you won't realize you're wrong 'til early 2011.
LOL. I find it interesting that you'd attribute genius to someone who has none, and who's actually been something of a net negative to the culture in general. C'mon Mel... you make it sound like Paris is your hero. Which is tragicomedy at its best.
By the way, I never said she was a genius. You've been using that word. So, unless you think YOU'RE a genius, in which case when I said she might be smarter than either of us, you felt you had to make that point?
Quote:
Well yeah, there is that plus for you: you won't realize you're wrong 'til early 2011.
.
Others have bet against me in the past here with statements like that, and were wrong too.
I got into a big argument, for example, with a few people about Flash and SSD size and pricing. That went on for days. They were willing to bet as well. They were also completely wrong. That's just one example. Good luck on this.
I can't wait to read how all the fanboys defend and explain this about face.
The typical Apple fanboy mentality is "If Apple currently doesn't have it, then it doesn't matter". And they go to great lengths rationalizing Apple's current policies and dismissing anybody who disagrees with Apple. But now Apple has made those fanboys look like total idiots, but those fanboys can't even admit that they were wrong. So the question is will these fanboys learn from this week's events and not be so dismissive in the future? Or will they continue dismissing people's requests, only to look stupid again later on? For example:
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about third party iPhone applications. Web apps are really really SWEET.
Apple should not implement copy and paste in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about copy and paste in the iPhone.
Apple should not implement MMS in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about MMS.
Apple should not support 3G in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about 3G.
Apple should not put GPS in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about GPS.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about watching video on an iPod.
Apple should not make laptops easier to service. Nobody needs, wants or cares about ease of service. If Apple makes a laptop the slightest bit easier to service in any way whatsoever, the laptop will be so intolerably large and heavy that it will collapse in on itself and create a black hole.
Apple should not implement preemptive multitasking or memory protection in Mac OS. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about preemptive multitasking and memory protection because Macs never crash.
Apple should not implement dynamic memory allocation in Mac OS. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about dynamic memory allocation. Just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Apple should not make menus stay open when you click the mouse button once. System 7 menus are better because you have to hold down the mouse button to keep menus open.
Apple will never make a multibutton mouse. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about a multibutton mouse.
Most of the time, I find people who obsess about "fanboys" (of any type) to be idiots. Or at least as emotionally and irrationally attached to a counterposed viewpoint as the "fanboys" they're whining about. Otherwise, why bother decrying the "fanboys". Its like winning an intellectual argument with a retarded person. What's the point?
Take heart. The internet reveals irrational advocates of every possible viewpoint you could possibly imagine. The Apple userbase is no different. But it still doesn't make "fanboy" obsession productive.
Either you're wound up because of a minority irrational viewpoint expressed on the internet. Or you're portraying all Apple users as "fanboys". Either way, color me not impressed.
Comments
There's a difference between a "professional " poll, which is what we were doing, and an online poll like that, to be sure. I dodn't say that the accuracy would be the same. What I did say is that the accuracy is good enough to get a fairly accurate idea.
Really, if a professional poll of 3,000 people can get to +- 3%, and an online poll with 3,000 people responding can get to +-10%, for the purpose of getting an idea of needs, that s close enough.
That means the 16% who wanted MMS would be from 14.4% to 17.6%, more than close enough for the purpose.
I'm glad you agree that internet polling is not as accurate as professional polling. But, really, you're just assuming that the self-selected Ars poll is 'good enough'. You really don't know. And I continue to have very strong doubts that Ars represents anything other than the uber-nerd wing of the iPhone user base.
Now, that could be a fairly big wing, we can agree on that. But it's not the whole bird, not even close.
Now, you're being silly.
Not half as silly as you were being in making that comment.
Sure, that's an entirely different question. I may not care about something, and I may not refuse to buy a product without it, but I might use it if it were there.
If they did a poll about cut and paste, it may have 100% using it if it were there.
Fair enough, but let's realize the strong probability that, if you say you're going to use a feature, you might just want that feature IN there to use. Just logic, really.
That doesn't change the fact that most people don't care, and don't miss it, and don't buy a product based on whether it's there, which is the whole point.
Pretty big negative assumption, there, really. And it expands beyond the scope of the first question of the Ars poll (which is what we were discussing) which was, "What feature do you want to see the most from iPhone 3.0 event?".
They didn't ask if said feature was a deal-breaker or not. That's an entirely separate question.
No, it doesn't.
It's not ironclad, but I think you have to admit the strong possibility. Seems obvious that MMS is popular, not only in the broader mobile market, but also too among the iPhone user base... if we are to accept your assumption that Ars readers are representative of the iPhone user base.
.
Tech was just as prominent in 1970 as it is now. It's interesting that every generation somehow thinks that's it's "special" when it isn't.
The second sentence is definitely true. But I'm not buying the first one! I was involved in this stuff in the 70s as well (not quite as old as you, but I'm an old-timer as far as tech goes), and very, very few people had any knowledge - or even interest - in tech, gadgets, etc. Now, most people have at least a passing interest in as much as we all use cell phones, microwaves, VCRs, etc. All these things add up to a very different world, experientially, now.
Basically, "tech" meant something completely different back then.
Also computers have now been around for some time. Most people, even most of those over 65, have been using them for a while.
?! You must hang out with a very tech-savvy crowd! Few people I know over 65 even use computers on a regular basis, let alone other gadgets. And even those who do are pretty much email-only, with a sprinkle of web browsing. And lots of cussing about how stuff "doesn't work". There was an interesting discussion about the technological generation gap at a conference last year. It's big, and it's real. Face it, you're special!
Don't forget that all of the pioneers in technology are now older. Those who are young are used to it. They deserve less credit for using it because of that.
Absolute agreement. But maybe that's just because I want more personal credit!
I'm 59, and I have the same needs as any 20 year old.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but do you really send hundreds of text messages/month as your daughter does? Me, I have no interest, although I'm more technically inclined than 98% of the general public.
I'm glad you agree that internet polling is not as accurate as professional polling. But, really, you're just assuming that the self-selected Ars poll is 'good enough'. You really don't know. And I continue to have very strong doubts that Ars represents anything other than the uber-nerd wing of the iPhone user base.
Now, that could be a fairly big wing, we can agree on that. But it's not the whole bird, not even close.
We can agree to not agree.
Not half as silly as you were being in making that comment.
Why? Do you know her personally?
Fair enough, but let's realize the strong probability that, if you say you're going to use a feature, you might just want that feature IN there to use. Just logic, really.
There's the cart and the horse thing going on here.
If you ask someone if they want a feature, if they need a feature, if they will pay for a feature, and they say no, and you then ask if they would use the feature if it were there anyway, and they say maybe, what do you get from that response?
Pretty big negative assumption, there, really. And it expands beyond the scope of the first question of the Ars poll (which is what we were discussing) which was, "What feature do you want to see the most from iPhone 3.0 event?".
They didn't ask if said feature was a deal-breaker or not. That's an entirely separate question.
You've been the one expanding what that poll means, not me.
All I've said is that the poll asked which feature people wanted most. You've taken that and run with it.
I've then been responding to you questions and statements.
I was willing to leave it as it stood.
It's not ironclad, but I think you have to admit the strong possibility. Seems obvious that MMS is popular, not only in the broader mobile market, but also too among the iPhone user base... if we are to accept your assumption that Ars readers are representative of the iPhone user base.
.
You can't try to assume something out of that poll any more than you don't want to assume what I'm saying about that poll.
You can't have it both ways.
The second sentence is definitely true. But I'm not buying the first one! I was involved in this stuff in the 70s as well (not quite as old as you, but I'm an old-timer as far as tech goes), and very, very few people had any knowledge - or even interest - in tech, gadgets, etc. Now, most people have at least a passing interest in as much as we all use cell phones, microwaves, VCRs, etc. All these things add up to a very different world, experientially, now.
Basically, "tech" meant something completely different back then.
Tech is always new for the people of the time. Was it different from today? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that people adopted at the same rates as they do now. Color Tv, video recorders in the '70's, portable tape recorders, home fax machines, "feature" phones, and the like were just as complex, and alien, to the people of the time as any new tech is today.
The same can be said for the late '70's, '80' etc.
?! You must hang out with a very tech-savvy crowd! Few people I know over 65 even use computers on a regular basis, let alone other gadgets. And even those who do are pretty much email-only, with a sprinkle of web browsing. And lots of cussing about how stuff "doesn't work". There was an interesting discussion about the technological generation gap at a conference last year. It's big, and it's real. Face it, you're special!
I don't know about that. I think these gaps are more perceptual from the high end looking down, then they really are.
As far as being special goes, we are all special, if we're here, I suppose. Technology was part of my life and career, but I like to observe, and ask people questions, so I find out what they do.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but do you really send hundreds of text messages/month as your daughter does? Me, I have no interest, although I'm more technically inclined than 98% of the general public.
The point isn't that I have to send hundreds. I send a few dozen, and receive a few dozen. That doesn't mean I'm any less savvy about using it.
We can agree to not agree.
Fair enough. I'm confident that I'm correct here.
Why? Do you know her personally?
No, but let's take stock... this is a women who flashes her vagina in public, is the star of publicly-released sex tapes, has been arrested and jailed for DUI, stars in the very worst movies, cut an album that can only be described as a painful joke, and in general behaves like a borderline-retarded teenager, despite being nearly 30 now.
If you wish to argue the "Paris Hilton is secretly a genius" position, feel free, but I don't think you'll get much company there.
There's the cart and the horse thing going on here.
If you ask someone if they want a feature, if they need a feature, if they will pay for a feature, and they say no, and you then ask if they would use the feature if it were there anyway, and they say maybe, what do you get from that response?
You've been the one expanding what that poll means, not me.
All I've said is that the poll asked which feature people wanted most. You've taken that and run with it.
I've then been responding to you questions and statements.
I was willing to leave it as it stood.
I dunno Mel, methinks your protesting too much with regards to inconvenient bits of evidence. Not sure I care that much anymore. See below.
You can't try to assume something out of that poll any more than you don't want to assume what I'm saying about that poll.
You can't have it both ways.
I wasn't having it both ways... I was hoisting you on your petard. Good-naturedly, of course.
In any case Mel, I think we're arguing among the trees while the forest burns down around us.
MMS on the iPhone is just a fact, going forward. Apple saw it as important enough to include it, they saw that there was a significant enough demand for it. And to debate endlessly how much ppl really wanted it after the fact is by its nature a thankless task. We'll know how popular MMS is on the iPhone by how many MMSes ppl end up sending. I have no doubt it'll be a huge number.
Far as your own past predictions of mobile email pre-eminence within two years go, I think it's fair to say, well... no, that doesn't seem terribly likely anymore, if ever it did. But if it's any consolation, you can moon me via MMS if you like.
At the end of the day, I think we have what politicians like to call a "fundamental disagreement on the nature of the universe." I'm very confident I'm right, and so are you. But that doesn't mean I don't respect you, even though it seems like I seldom agree with you.
Take care. And, as the Joker might say, "Why so serious?"
.
No, but let's take stock... this is a women who flashes her vagina in public, is the star of publicly-released sex tapes, has been arrested and jailed for DUI, stars in the very worst movies, cut an album that can only be described as a painful joke, and in general behaves like a borderline-retarded teenager, despite being nearly 30 now.
If you wish to argue the "Paris Hilton is secretly a genius" position, feel free, but I don't think you'll get much company there.
Fair enough. I'm confident that I'm correct here.
I'm confident that you're confident.
No, but let's take stock... this is a women who flashes her vagina in public, is the star of publicly-released sex tapes, has been arrested and jailed for DUI, stars in the very worst movies, cut an album that can only be described as a painful joke, and in general behaves like a borderline-retarded teenager, despite being nearly 30 now.
If you wish to argue the "Paris Hilton is secretly a genius" position, feel free, but I don't think you'll get much company there.
Have you ever heard of "publicity"?
Let's see, she's making about a million a year, according to reports, and you're making...?
I dunno Mel, methinks your protesting too much with regards to inconvenient bits of evidence. Not sure I care that much anymore. See below.
I see no inconvenient evidence.
I wasn't having it both ways... I was hoisting you on your petard. Good-naturedly, of course.
I don't own a petard, I'm on a horse.
In any case Mel, I think we're arguing among the trees while the forest burns down around us.
Actually, it doesn't even matter. It's here.
MMS on the iPhone is just a fact, going forward. Apple saw it as important enough to include it, they saw that there was a significant enough demand for it. And to debate endlessly how much ppl really wanted it after the fact is by its nature a thankless task. We'll know how popular MMS is on the iPhone by how many MMSes ppl end up sending. I have no doubt it'll be a huge number.
I said the same thing already. It doesn't have to be a majority, or even a large minority, just enough so that Apple thinks it's worth satisfying.
Far as your own past predictions of mobile email pre-eminence within two years go, I think it's fair to say, well... no, that doesn't seem terribly likely anymore, if ever it did. But if it's any consolation, you can moon me via MMS if you like.
With the importance of e-mail still increasing, I'll stick to my prediction.
At the end of the day, I think we have what politicians like to call a "fundamental disagreement on the nature of the universe." I'm very confident I'm right, and so are you. But that doesn't mean I don't respect you, even though it seems like I seldom agree with you.
Take care. And, as the Joker might say, "Why so serious?"
.
I agree with that.
I'm confident that you're confident.
With good reason.
Have you ever heard of "publicity"?
Let's see, she's making about a million a year, according to reports, and you're making...?
When Daddy's a billionaire, being a millionaire isn't very difficult.
And any fool can do outrageous things to get attention... doesn't take brains. To have it work, though, requires talented PR. She hires those ppl.
Finally, a lot of her actions seem more like out-of-control/spoiled behavior, than planned. I'm sure she didn't plan to go to jail, for example. She seemed quite upset by the experience. Nor would she last five minutes in any serious jail.
I see no inconvenient evidence.
Of course not.
I don't own a petard, I'm on a horse.
A high one? I've got one too.
Actually, it doesn't even matter. It's here.
Like I said.
I said the same thing already. It doesn't have to be a majority, or even a large minority, just enough so that Apple thinks it's worth satisfying.
The stats on MMS usage will be most interesting, eh?
With the importance of e-mail still increasing, I'll stick to my prediction.
Yeah, but you're going down.
I agree with that.
Thank you Mel, I appreciate that.
.
Sigh. I'm like Pacino in Godfather 3... "I want out, but they pull me back in..." (for a moment, anyway)
Nah, you can say "uncle" any time.
With good reason.
Reason isn't part of it.
When Daddy's a billionaire, being a millionaire isn't very difficult.
He's not nearly that rich. But it doesn't matter.
And any fool can do outrageous things to get attention... doesn't take brains. To have it work, though, requires talented PR. She hires those ppl.
Finally, a lot of her actions seem more like out-of-control/spoiled behavior, than planned. I'm sure she didn't plan to go to jail, for example. She seemed quite upset by the experience.
I just think it's interesting that you want to believe that so much.
Of course not.
?
Like I said.
Like we both said.
The stats on MMS usage will be most interesting, eh?
Of course.
Yeah, but you're going down.
Nope! We've got a ways to go.
Thank you Mel, I appreciate that.
.
My pleasure.
... 5 seconds later ...
Oh damn, not for my v1 iPhone owning ass.
I work at a manufacturing company which has a cafeteria. Between the office workers ("carpet walkers") and the production personnel, the general population is fairly well represented. The cafeteria has me interacting with people I probably wouldn't come into contact with otherwise.
I eat breakfast everyday with a table of around 20 people from the production areas. They're all somewhat impressed by my iPhone but probably can't afford one. Yet ironically, its me, the iphone owner without MMS who feels like they're in the dark ages. I can't send a photo to any of their phones and none of them can send a photo to me. Yet they can effortlessly send photos to each other.
(Yes I know there are work-arounds that sort of work. But neither them nor I feel like bothering with that.)
MMS is hugely popular and I'm happy that Apple will be including this feature in the next release. (for 3g users at least)
Great, I wish you'd been the sales person who told me, when I bought the iPhones, that it was impossible.
Or the sales rep on the phone a week later who told me the same thing.
Or the customer rep on the phone later that month who repeated it.
I can't imagine why they'd tell me it wasn't possible...
Great, send me $5 or I keep whining at you. Awwwww, why you getting irate?
How am I irate? I just think it's ridiculous that you spend 30 a month on internet service for your cell phone (multiple iPhones apparently) and $200+ on each phone, yet want to complain about a specific part about it. If you are so desperate to save money, then why are you buying a top of the line cell phone? You could easily be setup on the lowest rate plan with a Nokia 2600 and disable internet and text messaging. You just want to have your cake and eat it too..
I'm totally on board with Kickaha on this issue. I have no interest in MMS and frankly, virtually no interest in SMS either.
That's $60/year, year after year.
Even still, don't you see that it's an issue of principle? As Kickaha so nicely put it: it's the equivalent of extortion. So, you don't want to pay for crap coming into your phone that you never asked for? Just pay us $5/month forever and we'll take care of it for you! Hahahaaaa.
Other countries have it right. The sender of SMS/MMS should solely be responsible for payment. They are initiating the communication. End of story.
That's great that you have no interest, turns out millions (if not billions) of others do, so they're going to implement it. Companies are in the business of making money, so they'll please the masses before anyone else.
$60/ a year? You pay $360/year for your internet service! It blows my mind that both of you, while seemingly worried about spending your money, are paying top dollar for your cell phones and monthly service but want to complain about a $5 dollar, hell $60/year charge so you don't have to worry about paying PER text? It's obvious that the smarter decision, if you receive text messages sporatically, just to pay the $5 and have it done with instead of worrying about it. Call it extortion call it whatever you want - the simple fact is YOU CHOSE APPLE AND AT&T. In fact, you had 30 days to decide whether or not to keep the service and equipment with only paying a 10% restocking fee on the phone.
Vote with your dollar, both of you should learn that saying. If yall are so against AT&T for "extorting" your $5 then take your business elsewhere.
How am I irate? I just think it's ridiculous that you spend 30 a month on internet service for your cell phone (multiple iPhones apparently) and $200+ on each phone, yet want to complain about a specific part about it. If you are so desperate to save money, then why are you buying a top of the line cell phone? You could easily be setup on the lowest rate plan with a Nokia 2600 and disable internet and text messaging. You just want to have your cake and eat it too..
I simply want internet access without being pickpocketed for the other $5. You know, like every other device I own. A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one. That $5 is a holdover from a legacy technology. The rest of the money I spend gets me a *LOT* of value for that $30. That $5? Gets me *nothing*. That's the point. It's $5 *wasted*, as opposed to $30 spent for a very useful service.
Not at all the same.
And yes, if the iPhone were on any other carrier, you're damned right I'd take my business elsewhere, but we're locked in, and no other device offers what I want. The $5 is a bend-you-over-barrel tax that they can charge without offering functionality above and beyond what the $30 + a few functioning neurons gets me. It's a holdover from their legacy business model, much like the music industry. And it too, cannot die fast enough. A cell network is just a network. There's nothing special about it.
Imagine if you were charged by your ISP for every email that you got, regardless of if you wanted it. That's the way it used to be, but consumers demanded that they stop it, and move to a reasonable model. For some reason, that tipping point hasn't occurred in the cell industry, and I lay the blame directly at the feet of uneducated consumers who insist that SMS/MMS are 'necessary'. There are options. Use them, shut off your messaging, and dry up the funding source for the carriers.
That's taking your business elsewhere by simply not playing their silly little game.
I simply want internet access without being pickpocketed for the other $5. You know, like every other device I own. A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one. That $5 is a holdover from a legacy technology. The rest of the money I spend gets me a *LOT* of value for that $30. That $5? Gets me *nothing*. That's the point. It's $5 *wasted*, as opposed to $30 spent for a very useful service.
Not at all the same.
And yes, if the iPhone were on any other carrier, you're damned right I'd take my business elsewhere, but we're locked in, and no other device offers what I want. The $5 is a bend-you-over-barrel tax that they can charge without offering functionality above and beyond what the $30 + a few functioning neurons gets me. It's a holdover from their legacy business model, much like the music industry. And it too, cannot die fast enough. A cell network is just a network. There's nothing special about it.
Imagine if you were charged by your ISP for every email that you got, regardless of if you wanted it. That's the way it used to be, but consumers demanded that they stop it, and move to a reasonable model. For some reason, that tipping point hasn't occurred in the cell industry, and I lay the blame directly at the feet of uneducated consumers who insist that SMS/MMS are 'necessary'. There are options. Use them, shut off your messaging, and dry up the funding source for the carriers.
That's taking your business elsewhere by simply not playing their silly little game.
Once again, if you don't want it, you can disable it. You're complaining for the sake of complaining.
Call them, tell them to block text, and you're done. IF someone gives you trouble go to the store and tell them and worse case talk to management. It IS possible, we've told you this, so go block it. If it's such a useless technology to you it shouldn't matter if you're able to receive them at all.
AT&T is in the business of making money, they're going to charge you for whatever they can because that's what they're in it for. Every company does this and there is nothing you can do about it. If they provided a free service for everything new that came out they'd be wasting their time. I'm fully aware of the profit margin on wireless carriers but that's the nature of the beast, and you're not changing it.
If "A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one." then why did you say "no other device offers what I want."? They know that people want this phone and WILL PAY for it... just as you are.
Once again, if you don't want it, you can disable it. You're complaining for the sake of complaining.
Call them, tell them to block text, and you're done. IF someone gives you trouble go to the store and tell them and worse case talk to management. It IS possible, we've told you this, so go block it. If it's such a useless technology to you it shouldn't matter if you're able to receive them at all.
Yes, done, can you drop it? If you'll recall, most of this was based on the premise that you *couldn't* block it - which is what I was told repeatedly by AT&T.
Now if only the majority of people *would*...
AT&T is in the business of making money, they're going to charge you for whatever they can because that's what they're in it for.
Well certainly. And it's obvious that there are legions of gullible people willing to fork over the bucks for them.
Every company does this and there is nothing you can do about it. If they provided a free service for everything new that came out they'd be wasting their time. I'm fully aware of the profit margin on wireless carriers but that's the nature of the beast, and you're not changing it.
Funny - I could swear that you were saying consumers can change the market just a moment ago... I, alone, won't obviously, but if I can get the word out that folks are being bent over a barrel, and that there are cheaper options... maybe enough will. Simple as that.
If "A phone isn't special anymore, it's just another internet device. It should be priced like one." then why did you say "no other device offers what I want."? They know that people want this phone and WILL PAY for it... just as you are.
Because internet capable devices differ in their capabilities, obviously. This is the best one for my needs.
'Phones' as a device class, are no longer special. They're increasingly hooked into the larger internet, and breaking out of the closed garden of the cell network. As they continue to do so, the cell-centric business model will look simply more stupid and predatory as time goes on. Hopefully, the public will eventually catch on and demand actual service for their money. As it is, though, you're absolutely right - there are too many people feeding the carrier coffers because they simply don't know there are options.
Pardon me for trying to bring them to their attention.
Nah, you can say "uncle" any time.
LOL. Mel, you know me so much better than that.
But, let's be honest... we both know that whomever gets the last word in never has much correlation with whom presented the better argument. It only correlates with who had the larger amount of free time. That's probably not me.
Reason isn't part of it.
In your opinion, sure. Again, "a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the universe."
He's not nearly that rich. But it doesn't matter.
The Hilton family is a billionaire family, actually.
Her grandfather, Barron, made the Forbes 400 and had an estimated net worth of $2.3 billion in 2007. I'm sure it's gone down since then, but the guy's likely still a billionaire. From Wikipedia:
In the Forbes 400, which lists the 400 richest Americans, Barron Hilton's worth in 2007 is listed at $2.3 billion.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_Hilton
Now, Rick Hilton, her father, is worth 'only' $300 million. While you're correct that he's not a billionaire, I think the point stands... the guy's damn rich. And her family is a billionaire one.
I just think it's interesting that you want to believe that so much.
LOL. I find it interesting that you'd attribute genius to someone who has none, and who's actually been something of a net negative to the culture in general. C'mon Mel... you make it sound like Paris is your hero. Which is tragicomedy at its best.
But, hey, since you think so highly of her, here's where you can buy her CD:
http://www.amazon.com/Paris-Hilton/d...7487260&sr=8-2
I love the current Most Helpful review at Amazon, btw... it's titled: "A Sad Reflection of Declining IQ and Musical Taste."
While you're at it Mel, ya gotta run out and find a DVD of The Hottie and the Nottie, her magnum opus film of last year. The critical reception was... interesting. From Wikipedia:
As of April 3, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 5% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 61 reviews with the consensus being "The Hottie and the Nottie is a crass, predictable, and ineptly staged gross-out comedy that serves little purpose beyond existing as another monument to Paris Hilton's vanity".[3] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 7 out of 100, based on 17 reviews — indicating "extreme dislike or disgust."[4] In addition, it also scores a 0% among notable critics on Rotten Tomatoes, a 7% among Rotten Tomatoes "cream of the crop" and a 1.8 among metacritics users. IGN gave it a 0 star review, saying "Hottie and the Nottie presents a problem because there are just no words to adequately express how clumsy, trite and deeply offensive it is from start to finish."
Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers gave the film a half-star rating, saying that the half-star was because "it takes guts (or gross dim-wittedness) [for Hilton] to appear on screen again after House of Wax."[5] Film critic Scott Feinberg reported that a colleague muttered, "Shoot me in the f*cking face", during a Boston press screening of the film.[6] Online film critic James Berardinelli described the film's comedy as "about as funny as the anal rape scene in The War Zone".[7] In his review, Richard Roeper said, "It is excruciatingly, painfully, horribly, terribly awful," and that "nobody in this movie really should have a career in movies" and BBC reviewer Mark Kermode put it in his worst films of the year list calling it "a fascist eugenic tract" and saying "it's disgusting".[8]
Oh, and US Box Office? $27, 696, according to Yahoo Movies.
So, yay Mel. Paris rocks! She's a jet-fueled geeen-yus.
Nope! We've got a ways to go.
Well yeah, there is that plus for you: you won't realize you're wrong 'til early 2011.
.
LOL. I find it interesting that you'd attribute genius to someone who has none, and who's actually been something of a net negative to the culture in general. C'mon Mel... you make it sound like Paris is your hero. Which is tragicomedy at its best.
By the way, I never said she was a genius. You've been using that word. So, unless you think YOU'RE a genius, in which case when I said she might be smarter than either of us, you felt you had to make that point?
Well yeah, there is that plus for you: you won't realize you're wrong 'til early 2011.
.
Others have bet against me in the past here with statements like that, and were wrong too.
I got into a big argument, for example, with a few people about Flash and SSD size and pricing. That went on for days. They were willing to bet as well. They were also completely wrong. That's just one example. Good luck on this.
That's so not that's hot.
In other news:
I've been correct about something in the past too. Bow down before me.
Wait. What were we talking about?
All this talk of Paris Hilton and not one picture?
That's so not that's hot.
In other news:
I've been correct about something in the past too. Bow down before me.
Wait. What were we talking about?
We weren't.
I can't wait to read how all the fanboys defend and explain this about face.
The typical Apple fanboy mentality is "If Apple currently doesn't have it, then it doesn't matter". And they go to great lengths rationalizing Apple's current policies and dismissing anybody who disagrees with Apple. But now Apple has made those fanboys look like total idiots, but those fanboys can't even admit that they were wrong. So the question is will these fanboys learn from this week's events and not be so dismissive in the future? Or will they continue dismissing people's requests, only to look stupid again later on? For example:
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about third party iPhone applications. Web apps are really really SWEET.
Apple should not implement copy and paste in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about copy and paste in the iPhone.
Apple should not implement MMS in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about MMS.
Apple should not support 3G in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about 3G.
Apple should not put GPS in the iPhone. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about GPS.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about watching video on an iPod.
Apple should not make laptops easier to service. Nobody needs, wants or cares about ease of service. If Apple makes a laptop the slightest bit easier to service in any way whatsoever, the laptop will be so intolerably large and heavy that it will collapse in on itself and create a black hole.
Apple should not implement preemptive multitasking or memory protection in Mac OS. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about preemptive multitasking and memory protection because Macs never crash.
Apple should not implement dynamic memory allocation in Mac OS. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about dynamic memory allocation. Just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Apple should not make menus stay open when you click the mouse button once. System 7 menus are better because you have to hold down the mouse button to keep menus open.
Apple will never make a multibutton mouse. Nobody needs, wants, or cares about a multibutton mouse.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors.
Take heart. The internet reveals irrational advocates of every possible viewpoint you could possibly imagine. The Apple userbase is no different. But it still doesn't make "fanboy" obsession productive.
Either you're wound up because of a minority irrational viewpoint expressed on the internet. Or you're portraying all Apple users as "fanboys". Either way, color me not impressed.