Instead, the whole point of the iPhone was to make smartphone functionality readily usable by the stupidest among us. That is why, for example, there is only one hardware button on the front. That is why multi-taking is available only for a select subset of apps. That is why software additions are available only from one source.
The iPhone could be MUCH better if it were made for people of average intelligence, and without deferring to dolts who weren't able to stop their VCR from flashing"12:00" for 5 years straight. While not all iPhone users are stupid, all the stupid folks who want a smartphone have only one choice.
I'm hoping Android will be for the rest of us.
Exactly the attitude I'm describing in the body of my original post-- equating "easy to use" with "for stupid people." The things you describe as somehow being dumbed down are pretty logical examples of streamlining the experience of using a complex piece of hardware to take the hassle out of using it.
It's all too typical of the technically inclined to imagine that "smart" equals "wants to spend time dicking around with gear". It doesn't. In fact, I'd argue the opposite-- that in the average geek there is a kind of dull wittedness and failure of imagination, a reductive tendency that turns the world into a system of mechanical relationships to be solved.
VCRs go unprogrammed because their UIs are horrible, as are the UIs of most consumer electronics. The average consumer has been conned that the trouble lies with them, that they "just don't get" technology. The fact is, the people who make technology "just don't get" human beings.
If the proudly smug such as yourself come to define the Android platform, it will be bad for the platform, because, thank God, smug little shits aren't the majority of the buying public, and normal people only buy difficult to use gear if they've been convinced that they have no choice.
Certainly, this also applies to the many, varied devices running Android. You could engineer your app so that it ran on every flavor (pun intended) of Android OS, and every device (hardware set) that runs Android... and support (or, at least, tolerate) every manufacturer's custom UI.
...
What the iPhone/Touch platform does is assist you to make the the decision of which OS versions and which devices to target.
That's looking at the situation from a practical perspective.
*
What you describe s exactly what every developer of desktop software is confronted with. The description of iPhone OS vs. Android OS sounds exactly like the situation with OSX vs. Windows 7.
So what's the Mac's market penetration on the desktop again? Has it broken double-digits?
What you describe s exactly what every developer of desktop software is confronted with. The description of iPhone OS vs. Android OS sounds exactly like the situation with OSX vs. Windows 7.
So what's the Mac's market penetration on the desktop again? Has it broken double-digits?
You can’t look at the end result and then deem that the situations to get to that state are the same. There are very different forces at work here. MS’ WinMo model is exactly like Windows for the desktop. Android is free, WinMo and Windows are not. It’s much more inline with other Linux distro out there, the difference being that Android is finding a great of success where Linux on the desktop has failed.
What you describe s exactly what every developer of desktop software is confronted with. The description of iPhone OS vs. Android OS sounds exactly like the situation with OSX vs. Windows 7.
So what's the Mac's market penetration on the desktop again? Has it broken double-digits?
*
I guess I didn't explain it very well:
The iPhone Developer is faced with (at most):
1) 3 releases of the OS
2) 4 different devices/hardware sets (storage capacity aside)
3) A single UI
4) 40-50 million potential customers
To target the entire potential, each developer would need to address 3x4x1=12 versions of his app for 40 million customers.
Because the current iPhone OS runs on all devices, I estimate you could develop for 1 OS version and still target, say 20-30 million customers with 1x4x1=4 versions of your app.
Now, I haven't followed Android closely enough to know the current fanout of OS releases, Devices, and UIs (those significant enough to matter to the developer). I also don't know the current population of Android devices out there.
I suspect, though, that are quite a bit more app versions needed to target a much smaller number of potential customers.
This, certainly, will change in the near future for both Apple and Android as new devices and features emerge.
IMO, both will need to have clear and distinct delineation of what goes with what.
It is easier for Apple because they control the hardware, software, marketing and product goals within a single organization.
Google can make the job easier (for developers) if:
1) they release a "Google" phone
2) or publish the "minimum requirements" to be acceptable as an "Android" phone
3) limit the APIs and extensions that are acceptable
But, then, Google would be walling the garden (to some extent).
Undoubtably, this would not be popular to the open source purists.
I guess the question is: can company X (Apple, Google or anyone else) support a reasonable number of variations (fragments) while, not sacrificing future innovation for legacy compatibility issues.
I believe that the developers will provide the answer!
Instead, the whole point of the iPhone was to make smartphone functionality readily usable by the stupidest among us. That is why, for example, there is only one hardware button on the front. That is why multi-taking is available only for a select subset of apps. That is why software additions are available only from one source.
The iPhone could be MUCH better if it were made for people of average intelligence, and without deferring to dolts who weren't able to stop their VCR from flashing"12:00" for 5 years straight. While not all iPhone users are stupid, all the stupid folks who want a smartphone have only one choice.
I'm hoping Android will be for the rest of us.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
+++ QFT
Here is the ad that began my 31-year attraction to Apple:
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
While I agree with most of what you are saying, I still think people are dumb if they can't figure out how to turn on a computer with the power button, expect it to work during power outages, or other dumb stuff like that.
Of course, in those situations, Apple products won't really help them there either.
While I agree with most of what you are saying, I still think people are dumb if they can't figure out how to turn on a computer with the power button, expect it to work during power outages, or other dumb stuff like that.
Of course, in those situations, Apple products won't really help them there either.
Well, sure, there are actual dumb people, who probably have difficulty with a lot of aspects of life.
But a great many perfectly intelligent people have been trained to believe that it's their failing that they can't operate the devices they own, past a few basics.
It will be really interesting to see how this phone turns the wireless industry around in the United States. Hopefully it will end up much more like it is in Europe! There is already a community growing around discussing this phone. http://www.nexususers.com
A fairly standard HTC handset with an incremental Android update gets sold directly by Google and it's the second coming.
There have been almost 3 years now. We?ve run the gamut from ?the iPhone can?t possibly be a sucess? to ?the iPhone is going to fail in favour for this next phone.? Nothing seems primed to take the iPhone?s position as the alpha phone, yet. Nexus One seems to be no different.
There have been almost 3 years now. We?ve run the gamut from ?the iPhone can?t possibly be a sucess? to ?the iPhone is going to fail in favour for this next phone.? Nothing seems primed to take the iPhone?s position as the alpha phone, yet. Nexus One seems to be no different.
But there's always something-- a faster processor, a bigger screen, OLED, better camera, flashier animations in the UI.... because the iPhone's success was never more than a matter of specs, and whoever can make a touch screen phone with beefier hardware wins, I guess.
Now it's "sold directly by Google", apparently because if Google eats the subsidy instead of the carrier, and the carrier still gets to charge you the same monthly rate in a market that basically gives you no options, that's a revolution that changes everything.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
this is too good for just page 4 of some comments segment. so true and yet rarely so well articulated. applies to so much more than any iphone vs. android argument.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
I am not defending poor user interfaces. I am instead attacking the concept of reducing functionality in order to keep dolts from getting themselves into trouble, e.g., no multitasking.
Simplicity is a good thing. Limited functionality in order to acheive simplicity is not.
The trick is to make a full-featured device that is intuitive, with multiple, standard, obvious ways to accomplish every (!) task, able to be used and enjoyed by normal folks AND able to be customized as desired by the user.
I am not defending poor user interfaces. I am instead attacking the concept of reducing functionality in order to keep dolts from getting themselves into trouble, e.g., no multitasking.
Simplicity is a good thing. Limited functionality in order to acheive simplicity is not.
The trick is to make a full-featured device that is intuitive, with multiple, standard, obvious ways to accomplish every (!) task, able to be used and enjoyed by normal folks AND able to be customized as desired by the user.
I don't think the iPhone lacks multi-tasking because they think it will confuse people. Now they could, maybe, include a way to turn it on or off or allow only certain apps. Right now they don't so I don't spend much time worrying about it. I'm very happy with the iPhone and I think most people are. Perhaps having other ways to get apps might be nice but getting bad or infected apps would not be so nice. Everybody should use the phone they like.
I am not defending poor user interfaces. I am instead attacking the concept of reducing functionality in order to keep dolts from getting themselves into trouble, e.g., no multitasking.
Simplicity is a good thing. Limited functionality in order to acheive simplicity is not.
The trick is to make a full-featured device that is intuitive, with multiple, standard, obvious ways to accomplish every (!) task, able to be used and enjoyed by normal folks AND able to be customized as desired by the user.
Again, what you want is to be able to mess around with your phone-- looking at process managers, moving widgets, customizing work flows. That's fine, but, again, I think it's unreasonable to imagine that people who don't care to mess with their phone are "stupid." OK, it's more than unreasonable, it's arrogant and grossly off the mark.
As the iPhone has demonstrated, a pocketable general purpose computing device can put a great deal of functionality on your person while getting out of the way. Wanting one's devices to work transparently and with little hassle as possible is not a mark of stupidity, it's a mark of normalcy. Wanting multiple ways to do the same thing and the capacity for limitless customization is a mark of tech fetishism. It's like complaining that the Honda Civic is a car for "stupid people" because there's no convenient, user facing way to adjust the gear ratio on the transmission, or any way to swap around the instrument console. All you're actually saying is that most people don't share your particular enthusiasm for cars and their underpinnings.
It's simply untrue that the iPhone gives up much in the way of genuine functionality to achieve its ease of use; what you're talking about is more like the idea of functionality, as imagined by a technically inclined person. For such a person, it's satisfying to consider one's gadgets as being an open box of processes, available for scrutiny and modification. But most people don't have that hobby.
Computers are ubiquitous tools and appliances, now. Expecting everyone who uses one to be an enthusiast who wants to spend time communing with the nuts and bolts is a very dated idea. Claiming that people who don't care to become enthusiasts are dumb is just wrong, and a quick way to alienate customers.
Comments
So, to summarise, what fragmentation/differentiation really means is roughly 1% market share....
Why did you bother to quote me at all if you were going to misrepresent everything I said?
I disagree.
Instead, the whole point of the iPhone was to make smartphone functionality readily usable by the stupidest among us. That is why, for example, there is only one hardware button on the front. That is why multi-taking is available only for a select subset of apps. That is why software additions are available only from one source.
The iPhone could be MUCH better if it were made for people of average intelligence, and without deferring to dolts who weren't able to stop their VCR from flashing"12:00" for 5 years straight. While not all iPhone users are stupid, all the stupid folks who want a smartphone have only one choice.
I'm hoping Android will be for the rest of us.
Exactly the attitude I'm describing in the body of my original post-- equating "easy to use" with "for stupid people." The things you describe as somehow being dumbed down are pretty logical examples of streamlining the experience of using a complex piece of hardware to take the hassle out of using it.
It's all too typical of the technically inclined to imagine that "smart" equals "wants to spend time dicking around with gear". It doesn't. In fact, I'd argue the opposite-- that in the average geek there is a kind of dull wittedness and failure of imagination, a reductive tendency that turns the world into a system of mechanical relationships to be solved.
VCRs go unprogrammed because their UIs are horrible, as are the UIs of most consumer electronics. The average consumer has been conned that the trouble lies with them, that they "just don't get" technology. The fact is, the people who make technology "just don't get" human beings.
If the proudly smug such as yourself come to define the Android platform, it will be bad for the platform, because, thank God, smug little shits aren't the majority of the buying public, and normal people only buy difficult to use gear if they've been convinced that they have no choice.
*
Lets look at it from a different standpoint.
Certainly, this also applies to the many, varied devices running Android. You could engineer your app so that it ran on every flavor (pun intended) of Android OS, and every device (hardware set) that runs Android... and support (or, at least, tolerate) every manufacturer's custom UI.
...
What the iPhone/Touch platform does is assist you to make the the decision of which OS versions and which devices to target.
That's looking at the situation from a practical perspective.
*
What you describe s exactly what every developer of desktop software is confronted with. The description of iPhone OS vs. Android OS sounds exactly like the situation with OSX vs. Windows 7.
So what's the Mac's market penetration on the desktop again? Has it broken double-digits?
What you describe s exactly what every developer of desktop software is confronted with. The description of iPhone OS vs. Android OS sounds exactly like the situation with OSX vs. Windows 7.
So what's the Mac's market penetration on the desktop again? Has it broken double-digits?
You can’t look at the end result and then deem that the situations to get to that state are the same. There are very different forces at work here. MS’ WinMo model is exactly like Windows for the desktop. Android is free, WinMo and Windows are not. It’s much more inline with other Linux distro out there, the difference being that Android is finding a great of success where Linux on the desktop has failed.
What you describe s exactly what every developer of desktop software is confronted with. The description of iPhone OS vs. Android OS sounds exactly like the situation with OSX vs. Windows 7.
So what's the Mac's market penetration on the desktop again? Has it broken double-digits?
*
I guess I didn't explain it very well:
The iPhone Developer is faced with (at most):
1) 3 releases of the OS
2) 4 different devices/hardware sets (storage capacity aside)
3) A single UI
4) 40-50 million potential customers
To target the entire potential, each developer would need to address 3x4x1=12 versions of his app for 40 million customers.
Because the current iPhone OS runs on all devices, I estimate you could develop for 1 OS version and still target, say 20-30 million customers with 1x4x1=4 versions of your app.
Now, I haven't followed Android closely enough to know the current fanout of OS releases, Devices, and UIs (those significant enough to matter to the developer). I also don't know the current population of Android devices out there.
I suspect, though, that are quite a bit more app versions needed to target a much smaller number of potential customers.
This, certainly, will change in the near future for both Apple and Android as new devices and features emerge.
IMO, both will need to have clear and distinct delineation of what goes with what.
It is easier for Apple because they control the hardware, software, marketing and product goals within a single organization.
Google can make the job easier (for developers) if:
1) they release a "Google" phone
2) or publish the "minimum requirements" to be acceptable as an "Android" phone
3) limit the APIs and extensions that are acceptable
But, then, Google would be walling the garden (to some extent).
Undoubtably, this would not be popular to the open source purists.
I guess the question is: can company X (Apple, Google or anyone else) support a reasonable number of variations (fragments) while, not sacrificing future innovation for legacy compatibility issues.
I believe that the developers will provide the answer!
*
I disagree.
Instead, the whole point of the iPhone was to make smartphone functionality readily usable by the stupidest among us. That is why, for example, there is only one hardware button on the front. That is why multi-taking is available only for a select subset of apps. That is why software additions are available only from one source.
The iPhone could be MUCH better if it were made for people of average intelligence, and without deferring to dolts who weren't able to stop their VCR from flashing"12:00" for 5 years straight. While not all iPhone users are stupid, all the stupid folks who want a smartphone have only one choice.
I'm hoping Android will be for the rest of us.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
+++ QFT
Here is the ad that began my 31-year attraction to Apple:
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
While I agree with most of what you are saying, I still think people are dumb if they can't figure out how to turn on a computer with the power button, expect it to work during power outages, or other dumb stuff like that.
Of course, in those situations, Apple products won't really help them there either.
While I agree with most of what you are saying, I still think people are dumb if they can't figure out how to turn on a computer with the power button, expect it to work during power outages, or other dumb stuff like that.
Of course, in those situations, Apple products won't really help them there either.
Well, sure, there are actual dumb people, who probably have difficulty with a lot of aspects of life.
But a great many perfectly intelligent people have been trained to believe that it's their failing that they can't operate the devices they own, past a few basics.
How can there be a Nexus user's group when it doesn't exist yet? How is it supposed to "turn around the wireless industry in the United States"?
There are plenty of support groups for religions and well?
There are plenty of support groups for religions and well?
And they call the iPhone the "Jesus phone".........
A fairly standard HTC handset with an incremental Android update gets sold directly by Google and it's the second coming.
A fairly standard HTC handset with an incremental Android update gets sold directly by Google and it's the second coming.
There have been almost 3 years now. We?ve run the gamut from ?the iPhone can?t possibly be a sucess? to ?the iPhone is going to fail in favour for this next phone.? Nothing seems primed to take the iPhone?s position as the alpha phone, yet. Nexus One seems to be no different.
There have been almost 3 years now. We?ve run the gamut from ?the iPhone can?t possibly be a sucess? to ?the iPhone is going to fail in favour for this next phone.? Nothing seems primed to take the iPhone?s position as the alpha phone, yet. Nexus One seems to be no different.
But there's always something-- a faster processor, a bigger screen, OLED, better camera, flashier animations in the UI.... because the iPhone's success was never more than a matter of specs, and whoever can make a touch screen phone with beefier hardware wins, I guess.
Now it's "sold directly by Google", apparently because if Google eats the subsidy instead of the carrier, and the carrier still gets to charge you the same monthly rate in a market that basically gives you no options, that's a revolution that changes everything.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
There's an unfortunate tendency for the geek-ish to equate "likes to dick around with devices" with "smart", but that's completely untrue. In fact, I would go so far as to say the average geek suffers from a kind of dullwittedness, a failure of imagination that reduces the world to a system of parts and problems to be solved.
For instance, the average, smart, interesting, compassionate, well read, imaginative person doesn't give two fucks if the software all comes from the same place. Why would they? By what bizarre metric is an enthusiasm for wandering the internet in search of cool new builds of obscure apps a measure of intelligence?
Why is a single home button, with context specific buttons rendered in software, an indication that Apple thinks its users are stupid? Conversely, are we to imagine that the typical handset, pre-iPhone, bristling with hardware buttons that changed function depending on what you did last, were a testimate to their designer's faith in their user's cleverness? Because those UIs sucked, and anyone who isn't a petty platform bigot knows it.
VCRs don't get programmed because they have God-awful interfaces, as do most consumer electronics. They rely on tiny buttons and invisible menu structures and single line displays to manipulate a vast range of "features" that the engineering geeks thought were useful. The same engineering geeks that think that people who can't master their terrible interface are "stupid."
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
You go ahead and spread the word that iPhones are for stupid people, and that Android is where it's at. When you meet anyone that's frustrated that the app they downloaded doesn't work on the device they have, be sure to mock their asses for being nitwits who don't know how use their toys. Absolutely use the VCR line, everybody loves that. It's going to do wonders for the platform.
The iPhone has built its market share on jaw dropping revelation that normal people can actually make good use of most of its functionality. People like you are threatened by that, because it means your trivial skills at using poorly designed devices are exposed as the ridiculous con they are. Any wonder that Droid is being advertised as if it were a murderous robot? They know their demographic.
this is too good for just page 4 of some comments segment. so true and yet rarely so well articulated. applies to so much more than any iphone vs. android argument.
And that's an example of exactly the corrosive attitude that I was talking about.
Folks have been conned into believing that it's them-- that they "just don't get machines", but the fact is, the people that make those machines "just don't get people." Geeks with the inevitable IT desk attitude about stuff they know are only too happy to perpetuate this nonsense, because they like their priesthood.
I am not defending poor user interfaces. I am instead attacking the concept of reducing functionality in order to keep dolts from getting themselves into trouble, e.g., no multitasking.
Simplicity is a good thing. Limited functionality in order to acheive simplicity is not.
The trick is to make a full-featured device that is intuitive, with multiple, standard, obvious ways to accomplish every (!) task, able to be used and enjoyed by normal folks AND able to be customized as desired by the user.
I am not defending poor user interfaces. I am instead attacking the concept of reducing functionality in order to keep dolts from getting themselves into trouble, e.g., no multitasking.
Simplicity is a good thing. Limited functionality in order to acheive simplicity is not.
The trick is to make a full-featured device that is intuitive, with multiple, standard, obvious ways to accomplish every (!) task, able to be used and enjoyed by normal folks AND able to be customized as desired by the user.
I don't think the iPhone lacks multi-tasking because they think it will confuse people. Now they could, maybe, include a way to turn it on or off or allow only certain apps. Right now they don't so I don't spend much time worrying about it. I'm very happy with the iPhone and I think most people are. Perhaps having other ways to get apps might be nice but getting bad or infected apps would not be so nice. Everybody should use the phone they like.
I am not defending poor user interfaces. I am instead attacking the concept of reducing functionality in order to keep dolts from getting themselves into trouble, e.g., no multitasking.
Simplicity is a good thing. Limited functionality in order to acheive simplicity is not.
The trick is to make a full-featured device that is intuitive, with multiple, standard, obvious ways to accomplish every (!) task, able to be used and enjoyed by normal folks AND able to be customized as desired by the user.
Again, what you want is to be able to mess around with your phone-- looking at process managers, moving widgets, customizing work flows. That's fine, but, again, I think it's unreasonable to imagine that people who don't care to mess with their phone are "stupid." OK, it's more than unreasonable, it's arrogant and grossly off the mark.
As the iPhone has demonstrated, a pocketable general purpose computing device can put a great deal of functionality on your person while getting out of the way. Wanting one's devices to work transparently and with little hassle as possible is not a mark of stupidity, it's a mark of normalcy. Wanting multiple ways to do the same thing and the capacity for limitless customization is a mark of tech fetishism. It's like complaining that the Honda Civic is a car for "stupid people" because there's no convenient, user facing way to adjust the gear ratio on the transmission, or any way to swap around the instrument console. All you're actually saying is that most people don't share your particular enthusiasm for cars and their underpinnings.
It's simply untrue that the iPhone gives up much in the way of genuine functionality to achieve its ease of use; what you're talking about is more like the idea of functionality, as imagined by a technically inclined person. For such a person, it's satisfying to consider one's gadgets as being an open box of processes, available for scrutiny and modification. But most people don't have that hobby.
Computers are ubiquitous tools and appliances, now. Expecting everyone who uses one to be an enthusiast who wants to spend time communing with the nuts and bolts is a very dated idea. Claiming that people who don't care to become enthusiasts are dumb is just wrong, and a quick way to alienate customers.