teck - You say a lot of outrageous things around here, to be sure. I chalk most of up to light-hearted flaming. But to say Apple is taking their design cues from Dell is really just beyond the scope of sanity. Are you for real?
It's the most PCish iMac ever made- ugly beyond words. Like a Dell. It looks like it was meant to make folks comfortable to switch over from their Dells.
I know it's embarrassing for Apple - isn't it? The imac was once featured in the Museum of Modern Art; I highly doubt any museum is showcasing this high glossed, racconed Dell wannabe with its mismatched white mouse.
Dell reportedly began developing the gadget last year with the help of engineers that were once tasked with conceiving a direct rival to the iPod. That project was aborted...
Aborted? Dell sold the Jukebox for awhile before killing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What I'm saying is that Apples iPhone/iPod approach is hard to beat because it offers up choice to the purchaser. That is why if Apple comes out with a larger tablet / iPod, one of the best thing they could do is make the device with an expansion slot for the RF modem if the user wants it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Let see another device to add to your pocket, along with a phone and ipod/MP3, Camera and PSP or DS if you have not gone to an iphone of itouch.
So Dell solution is to make another device so you have to carry more with you. I am sorry am I missing something here or does Dell know something that the rest of us are missing.
Having an iPhone in the house is starting me to questions why a need a laptop around.... the iPhone is doing more and more of the things my laptop does for me and weighs less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
We're moving toward a place where everything is consolidated on one deivce, and that "one device" is getting better and better at all functions - phone, web, games, e-mail, online services, notifications, apps, games, music, etc.
To release a handheld that is supposed to be an "internet device" without phone functionality (when we already have an amazing "internet device" WITH phone functionality) is just silly.
A device that needs an RF card would imply that I have two accounts with my wireless carrier. One for my phone and one for my internet device. So I'm essentially carrying around two independent client machines. If I send a message from one, then I need to keep that with me all the time to get the reply. They could potentially be kept in sync in "the cloud", but that seems an overly complicated solution.
Also, putting more and more functionality into an iPhone-like device is less than optimal. For some (including me), the iPhone is at the same time too small and too big. For an internet device I'd want a bigger screen. And as a phone it's too big to carry around everywhere I go. Sometimes all you want/need with you is your phone and the small, the better.
My ideal solution would be to have both a small, basic functionality phone, like today's standard non-smart flip phones and then an iPod touch type of device. The phone provides the gateway to the carrier's network, and the touch tethers to the phone with Bluetooth (or uses wi-fi when available) for it's internet connection. One connection, one phone number, one account with your carrier.
The phone itself would perhaps offer iPod shuffle or nano media functionality for listening to music at the gym etc. You could start with that and then add to it. If the touch is a big enough screen, you get that. If/when Apple later releases a larger version, you can upgrade (without having to enter into a new contract with your carrier because you are still using the same phone). Or you could start with a touch and use it only on wi-fi like the current touch, but later get a phone to expand it's connectivity when your aren't near wi-fi.
The phone could stay in your pocket, backpack, purse, etc unless you are actually making a phone call. As long as it's within range for Bluetooth, you'll have a connection on your touch. And the Bluetooth connection should require less power than a cell phone connection, so the touch's battery should last longer and you can continue using it while the phone sits connected to a charger. And for the times you don't want to carry around the touch (or the larger version of it), you simply leave it at home and take your phone. And since all messages would come via the phone, you could send a message from the touch, leave it at home, but still view replies on the phone when they come in.
Sure, it's two devices, but would offer far more flexibility and options for users.
It's the most PCish iMac ever made- ugly beyond words. Like a Dell. It looks like it was meant to make folks comfortable to switch over from their Dells.
Once again, you're in the minority, and the increasingly marginalized niche of it.
Anyway, the iMac was designed by Jonathan Ive, so by default it's a winner.
If you're going to say ridiculous, deliberately inflammatory things (just to get attention and derail the conversation) then THINK before you post, and at least attempt to include more information than one or two sentences designed as bait.
Dunno but you perhaps should ask all the millions of corporations that use them.
You mean generic junk-boxes that are crammed into offices and IT departments around the world?
Not even that seems to be saving Dell.
Corporate equipment does not equal viable, desirable, compelling consumer hardware. This is Microsoft's problem as well: shoving lousy Windows on to every garbage-box out there and then wondering why Apple absolutely spanks them and the junk-box makers every year in terms of design, aesthetics, software, and customer satisfaction.
I don't see how the marketing executives of these companies think that they can make a better portable pocket-sized device than Apple. Look at the facts - they're starting years late, Android software still doesn't match OSX portable, apps/usability. In terms of engineering, It's true apple haven't always used the best components on the market, but the thing is the software always runs well on the components they use. Hardware assembled, and software written by Apple in unison has made it work.
Dell should stick to what they're good at (not much).
They don't have to make a better device than Apple. While I realize the situation is different outside of the US, in the US, fewer than 50% of cell phone users have access to the iPhone because they either can't or won't (or at least haven't yet) switched to ATT. So really, they only need to make a better device than is currently available from Verizon, Sprint, or Tmobile. That is a much lower bar than the iPhone, and more achievable. I'm not saying they'll be successful, just that they don't have to beat Apple to be successful. If they have the same penetration with those other carriers as Apple as with ATT, they'll actually sell more devices than Apple sells iPhones in the US (which I think is roughly half of Apple's sales?).
If Dell is a follower then why do iMacs nowadays look like Dells?
I tell you why Dell is a follower, Since the early 90's Dell has target hiring people away form Apple, in 93 they were successful at hire the top Portable Computer Engineering team away from apple and the next thing you know they are putting out laptops they looked like the old powerbooks.
I interview there at the same time and they were not interested in design, just how can they copy what others were doing and do it for less.
That is there business model, they are trying to change it to be more design focus but they keep failing. Yes they want to copy apple phone, so what do that do they hire a bunch of Motorola engineers to make it happen. They are trying to copy it, but they do not have an OS so it may look like what apple is doing but will not do what the iPhone does.
Dude - those links are all abpout the iPhone and iPods- send me something relevant. You are in the minority if you think that iMac is the best looking iMac ever produced.
Dude - those links are all abpout the iPhone and iPods- send me something relevant. You are in the minority if you think that iMac is the best looking iMac ever produced.
Dude . . . (LOL) . . they INCLUDE iMacs. READ. Again, you're not using the space between your ears properly, and you're just posting nonsense all over the place.
Dunno but you perhaps should ask all the millions of corporations that use them.
That answer is simple, it is the lowest cost solution to deploy lots of units around a company and companies do not care how it looks as longs as it meets basic functionality.
That answer is simple, it is the lowest cost solution to deploy lots of units around a company and companies do not care how it looks as longs as it meets basic functionality.
A device that needs an RF card would imply that I have two accounts with my wireless carrier. One for my phone and one for my internet device. So I'm essentially carrying around two independent client machines. If I send a message from one, then I need to keep that with me all the time to get the reply. They could potentially be kept in sync in "the cloud", but that seems an overly complicated solution.
Also, putting more and more functionality into an iPhone-like device is less than optimal. For some (including me), the iPhone is at the same time too small and too big. For an internet device I'd want a bigger screen. And as a phone it's too big to carry around everywhere I go. Sometimes all you want/need with you is your phone and the small, the better.
My ideal solution would be to have both a small, basic functionality phone, like today's standard non-smart flip phones and then an iPod touch type of device. The phone provides the gateway to the carrier's network, and the touch tethers to the phone with Bluetooth (or uses wi-fi when available) for it's internet connection. One connection, one phone number, one account with your carrier.
The phone itself would perhaps offer iPod shuffle or nano media functionality for listening to music at the gym etc. You could start with that and then add to it. If the touch is a big enough screen, you get that. If/when Apple later releases a larger version, you can upgrade (without having to enter into a new contract with your carrier because you are still using the same phone). Or you could start with a touch and use it only on wi-fi like the current touch, but later get a phone to expand it's connectivity when your aren't near wi-fi.
The phone could stay in your pocket, backpack, purse, etc unless you are actually making a phone call. As long as it's within range for Bluetooth, you'll have a connection on your touch. And the Bluetooth connection should require less power than a cell phone connection, so the touch's battery should last longer and you can continue using it while the phone sits connected to a charger. And for the times you don't want to carry around the touch (or the larger version of it), you simply leave it at home and take your phone. And since all messages would come via the phone, you could send a message from the touch, leave it at home, but still view replies on the phone when they come in.
Sure, it's two devices, but would offer far more flexibility and options for users.
This is the classic issue of converging technologies and the decision people have to make. It is no different than making a coffee maker and a toaster in one product, yes it can be done and it save counter space, but most likely it will do both poorly.
All I can say is I am getting tire of carry all these electronics around. I am trying to simplify what goes into may pocket each day, finally got my key ring down to 1 key.
That answer is simple, it is the lowest cost solution to deploy lots of units around a company and companies do not care how it looks as longs as it meets basic functionality.
There are cheaper PCs than Dell around- they must be doing something right. Don't just slam something just because it sells well and is not Apple.
Comments
AirTouch
9
Hey that sounds great brucie, I hope that add a triple triple mega mega extra high Glossy screen
and the uni alum back can be matte <O>
9
Soooo........ what does Dell bring to the table that others can't/don't?
A great guy running thru the streets holding a red box and being cheered by millions .
teck - You say a lot of outrageous things around here, to be sure. I chalk most of up to light-hearted flaming. But to say Apple is taking their design cues from Dell is really just beyond the scope of sanity. Are you for real?
It's the most PCish iMac ever made- ugly beyond words. Like a Dell. It looks like it was meant to make folks comfortable to switch over from their Dells.
Soooo........ what does Dell bring to the table that others can't/don't?
Dunno but you perhaps should ask all the millions of corporations that use them.
Oh God...
I know it's embarrassing for Apple - isn't it? The imac was once featured in the Museum of Modern Art; I highly doubt any museum is showcasing this high glossed, racconed Dell wannabe with its mismatched white mouse.
Dell reportedly began developing the gadget last year with the help of engineers that were once tasked with conceiving a direct rival to the iPod. That project was aborted...
Aborted? Dell sold the Jukebox for awhile before killing it.
What I'm saying is that Apples iPhone/iPod approach is hard to beat because it offers up choice to the purchaser. That is why if Apple comes out with a larger tablet / iPod, one of the best thing they could do is make the device with an expansion slot for the RF modem if the user wants it.
Let see another device to add to your pocket, along with a phone and ipod/MP3, Camera and PSP or DS if you have not gone to an iphone of itouch.
So Dell solution is to make another device so you have to carry more with you. I am sorry am I missing something here or does Dell know something that the rest of us are missing.
Having an iPhone in the house is starting me to questions why a need a laptop around.... the iPhone is doing more and more of the things my laptop does for me and weighs less.
We're moving toward a place where everything is consolidated on one deivce, and that "one device" is getting better and better at all functions - phone, web, games, e-mail, online services, notifications, apps, games, music, etc.
To release a handheld that is supposed to be an "internet device" without phone functionality (when we already have an amazing "internet device" WITH phone functionality) is just silly.
A device that needs an RF card would imply that I have two accounts with my wireless carrier. One for my phone and one for my internet device. So I'm essentially carrying around two independent client machines. If I send a message from one, then I need to keep that with me all the time to get the reply. They could potentially be kept in sync in "the cloud", but that seems an overly complicated solution.
Also, putting more and more functionality into an iPhone-like device is less than optimal. For some (including me), the iPhone is at the same time too small and too big. For an internet device I'd want a bigger screen. And as a phone it's too big to carry around everywhere I go. Sometimes all you want/need with you is your phone and the small, the better.
My ideal solution would be to have both a small, basic functionality phone, like today's standard non-smart flip phones and then an iPod touch type of device. The phone provides the gateway to the carrier's network, and the touch tethers to the phone with Bluetooth (or uses wi-fi when available) for it's internet connection. One connection, one phone number, one account with your carrier.
The phone itself would perhaps offer iPod shuffle or nano media functionality for listening to music at the gym etc. You could start with that and then add to it. If the touch is a big enough screen, you get that. If/when Apple later releases a larger version, you can upgrade (without having to enter into a new contract with your carrier because you are still using the same phone). Or you could start with a touch and use it only on wi-fi like the current touch, but later get a phone to expand it's connectivity when your aren't near wi-fi.
The phone could stay in your pocket, backpack, purse, etc unless you are actually making a phone call. As long as it's within range for Bluetooth, you'll have a connection on your touch. And the Bluetooth connection should require less power than a cell phone connection, so the touch's battery should last longer and you can continue using it while the phone sits connected to a charger. And for the times you don't want to carry around the touch (or the larger version of it), you simply leave it at home and take your phone. And since all messages would come via the phone, you could send a message from the touch, leave it at home, but still view replies on the phone when they come in.
Sure, it's two devices, but would offer far more flexibility and options for users.
It's the most PCish iMac ever made- ugly beyond words. Like a Dell. It looks like it was meant to make folks comfortable to switch over from their Dells.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...s-at-cebit.ars
http://mac.blorge.com/2008/05/17/d-a...-iphone-touch/
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/revi...new-imac.ars/6
And that's just a few examples out of many.
Once again, you're in the minority, and the increasingly marginalized niche of it.
Anyway, the iMac was designed by Jonathan Ive, so by default it's a winner.
If you're going to say ridiculous, deliberately inflammatory things (just to get attention and derail the conversation) then THINK before you post, and at least attempt to include more information than one or two sentences designed as bait.
Dunno but you perhaps should ask all the millions of corporations that use them.
You mean generic junk-boxes that are crammed into offices and IT departments around the world?
Not even that seems to be saving Dell.
Corporate equipment does not equal viable, desirable, compelling consumer hardware. This is Microsoft's problem as well: shoving lousy Windows on to every garbage-box out there and then wondering why Apple absolutely spanks them and the junk-box makers every year in terms of design, aesthetics, software, and customer satisfaction.
I don't see how the marketing executives of these companies think that they can make a better portable pocket-sized device than Apple. Look at the facts - they're starting years late, Android software still doesn't match OSX portable, apps/usability. In terms of engineering, It's true apple haven't always used the best components on the market, but the thing is the software always runs well on the components they use. Hardware assembled, and software written by Apple in unison has made it work.
Dell should stick to what they're good at (not much).
They don't have to make a better device than Apple. While I realize the situation is different outside of the US, in the US, fewer than 50% of cell phone users have access to the iPhone because they either can't or won't (or at least haven't yet) switched to ATT. So really, they only need to make a better device than is currently available from Verizon, Sprint, or Tmobile. That is a much lower bar than the iPhone, and more achievable. I'm not saying they'll be successful, just that they don't have to beat Apple to be successful. If they have the same penetration with those other carriers as Apple as with ATT, they'll actually sell more devices than Apple sells iPhones in the US (which I think is roughly half of Apple's sales?).
If Dell is a follower then why do iMacs nowadays look like Dells?
I tell you why Dell is a follower, Since the early 90's Dell has target hiring people away form Apple, in 93 they were successful at hire the top Portable Computer Engineering team away from apple and the next thing you know they are putting out laptops they looked like the old powerbooks.
I interview there at the same time and they were not interested in design, just how can they copy what others were doing and do it for less.
That is there business model, they are trying to change it to be more design focus but they keep failing. Yes they want to copy apple phone, so what do that do they hire a bunch of Motorola engineers to make it happen. They are trying to copy it, but they do not have an OS so it may look like what apple is doing but will not do what the iPhone does.
by default[/I] it's a winner.
.
I don't know- that kind of adoration sounds a little too creepy to me if you catch my drift.
I don't know- that kind of adoration sounds a little too creepy to me if you catch my drift.
No, it means that at face value, Apple is a safer bet. You've got a better starting point (Ive) than everyone else out there.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...s-at-cebit.ars
http://mac.blorge.com/2008/05/17/d-a...-iphone-touch/
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/revi...new-imac.ars/6
And that's just a few examples out of many.
.
Dude - those links are all abpout the iPhone and iPods- send me something relevant. You are in the minority if you think that iMac is the best looking iMac ever produced.
No, it means that at face value, Apple is a safer bet. You've got a better starting point (Ive) than everyone else out there.
Ive has designed some crap- dop you remember the toilet seat iBook- a woman's purse for god's sake!. Not every design has been a home run.
Dude - those links are all abpout the iPhone and iPods- send me something relevant. You are in the minority if you think that iMac is the best looking iMac ever produced.
Dude . . . (LOL) . . they INCLUDE iMacs. READ. Again, you're not using the space between your ears properly, and you're just posting nonsense all over the place.
Ok, Dude??
Dunno but you perhaps should ask all the millions of corporations that use them.
That answer is simple, it is the lowest cost solution to deploy lots of units around a company and companies do not care how it looks as longs as it meets basic functionality.
That answer is simple, it is the lowest cost solution to deploy lots of units around a company and companies do not care how it looks as longs as it meets basic functionality.
One would think he'd realize this.
A device that needs an RF card would imply that I have two accounts with my wireless carrier. One for my phone and one for my internet device. So I'm essentially carrying around two independent client machines. If I send a message from one, then I need to keep that with me all the time to get the reply. They could potentially be kept in sync in "the cloud", but that seems an overly complicated solution.
Also, putting more and more functionality into an iPhone-like device is less than optimal. For some (including me), the iPhone is at the same time too small and too big. For an internet device I'd want a bigger screen. And as a phone it's too big to carry around everywhere I go. Sometimes all you want/need with you is your phone and the small, the better.
My ideal solution would be to have both a small, basic functionality phone, like today's standard non-smart flip phones and then an iPod touch type of device. The phone provides the gateway to the carrier's network, and the touch tethers to the phone with Bluetooth (or uses wi-fi when available) for it's internet connection. One connection, one phone number, one account with your carrier.
The phone itself would perhaps offer iPod shuffle or nano media functionality for listening to music at the gym etc. You could start with that and then add to it. If the touch is a big enough screen, you get that. If/when Apple later releases a larger version, you can upgrade (without having to enter into a new contract with your carrier because you are still using the same phone). Or you could start with a touch and use it only on wi-fi like the current touch, but later get a phone to expand it's connectivity when your aren't near wi-fi.
The phone could stay in your pocket, backpack, purse, etc unless you are actually making a phone call. As long as it's within range for Bluetooth, you'll have a connection on your touch. And the Bluetooth connection should require less power than a cell phone connection, so the touch's battery should last longer and you can continue using it while the phone sits connected to a charger. And for the times you don't want to carry around the touch (or the larger version of it), you simply leave it at home and take your phone. And since all messages would come via the phone, you could send a message from the touch, leave it at home, but still view replies on the phone when they come in.
Sure, it's two devices, but would offer far more flexibility and options for users.
This is the classic issue of converging technologies and the decision people have to make. It is no different than making a coffee maker and a toaster in one product, yes it can be done and it save counter space, but most likely it will do both poorly.
All I can say is I am getting tire of carry all these electronics around. I am trying to simplify what goes into may pocket each day, finally got my key ring down to 1 key.
One would think he'd realize this.
Maybe you should send us all another irrelevant link about Gateway or something else. iPhones and iPod designs when we're talking iMacs? As if?
That answer is simple, it is the lowest cost solution to deploy lots of units around a company and companies do not care how it looks as longs as it meets basic functionality.
There are cheaper PCs than Dell around- they must be doing something right. Don't just slam something just because it sells well and is not Apple.