Not weird at all - you're just not getting the mentality.
There are 3 groups of users who are adamantly opposed to Apple's way of doing things:
1. People who just oppose everything Apple does on general principles. They may not have any logic or reasoning on their side, but they'll completely oppose ANYTHING that is done Apple's way.
2. People who have a vested interest in doing things the Windows (or Blackberry) way and can't accept anything different. They may be users who are scared to death to learn something new or IT people who make their livings because the complexity of other systems gives them a demi-God role. Either way, they are opposed to change.
3. A much smaller, but more vocal number of people who are pure geeks. They want 100% access to every item of the hardware and software so they can tweak away. Apple's system is designed for the average user and tweakability is a little more hidden. I don't have any problem with people in this group. The problem I DO have is their belief that their group is large enough to matter to Apple - and their belief that their wishes are more important than the millions of non-geeks.
I'm certainly not 1 or 2. I would point out that if you look at the iPhone OS 1.0 and what has been added to the iPhone OS since then, a lot of it has been available *first* to people who've jailbroken their iPhones.
Your last sentence is a generalization. Not all jailbreakers, or people who would identify with group 3 feel that way.
Here's the thing with SBSettings and why I don't believe it fits in with your definition of #3:
SBSettings provides an option for a graduated interface. It can be 100% turned off and hidden in settings. Even when on, it's unobtrusive. It requires a swipe gesture at the very top of the screen, almost impossible to do by accident. In other words, this has a negligible impact on people who wouldn't use this feature, but a huge impact on those who would find it beneficial.
In terms of use for SBSettings, it's all about having very quick access to common settings or functions. Where some settings require 5 or more interactions and screens, sometimes scrolling, the same thing can be done with just a swipe and a tap.
The original poster, in questioning the use for SBSettings actually makes the case for the need for it. They're asking why would someone want to mess with something that's managed automatically. But this supposes that there's effort in messing with it, and there is, unless you have something like SBSettings that makes it easier.
It's not that I want to impose what I want as a geek on everyone else. As a geek, I already have this. When I show it to people, then they want it.
It's a question of "Do you want to decide between an extra 25%+ battery life and a lot of interaction to make settings to get this; or an extra 25%+ battery life and a swipe and a couple of taps?"
That, and settings that are buried deep, but you might want to change often.
You are kidding ? The facilitator of some of the worst UI's in the computing world has no place on the iPhone/iPad.
Thing about both Java and Flash is that it does stuff that cannot be done with HTML5 at least not easily. HTML5 is GREAT for video, that is, as long as the browser you are serving to can understand it. Currently not IE, the most popular browser by a wide margin. People say that you should just use an App instead, but an App cannot be executed by a desktop browser.
Another reason Flash and Java have a legitimate use is that you can offer advanced features embedded within the web page which means your site retains whatever stickiness it has by not sending the viewer to an App outside of your web environment like YouTube for iPhone. Of course Flash sucks because of the prevalence of advertisements, but that will all change soon when the JS ads start making inroads into the web mainly because so many people block Flash.
Apple has a higher market share than Microsoft in several areas, the biggest of which would be MP3 players and phones. However, there are software areas where Apple leads despite have a lower market share for the platform (Final Cut).
However there's a difference between knowing what the average consumer wants and having market share as a goal.
A great example that people seem to forget is that it was Apple with a GUI OS versus Microsoft with a command-line OS, where Microsoft had much higher market share, but consumers *wanted* a GUI OS. Thus, Microsoft adopted a GUI approach.
PCs with Windows may sell more in volume than the Mac today, but is volume really the right measurement? Do consumers not want a BMW or other premium automobile? Take a look at Apple and its profit as a computer maker and compare that to others. Compare the satisfaction ratings. Read the surveys on why people have PCs instead of Macs...IT policy, price, software lock-in, are all higher on the list than personal preference of OS.
Also, it's funny you used the word "consumer". Microsoft does much better in enterprise markets than consumer markets. They've traditionally lost money in areas that are consumer only. Their record here is quite poor indeed. It's not a coincidence that they've been focusing so much on consumer products and services during this past decade while their market cap has fallen from $590 billion to a little over $250 billion.
Meanwhile, Apple, who has been focused on consumer products and services, has had their market cap go from $16 billion to over $215 billion during the same time period.
In the past decade, what has Microsoft produced that's been a hit or at least desirable by consumers (as opposed to enterprise) other than the Xbox? (and even the Xbox still has a net loss overall).
Looks to me like Apple knows MORE about what consumers want than Microsoft, as evidenced by the fact that people spend more money buying Apple stuff than they do Microsoft stuff.
As for phones: dude, open your eyes and look around. Everybody and their brother is chasing the iPhone in terms of look-and-feel, the App store, etc. Every new phone release is the new "iPhone killer" - except that the iPhone isn't dead yet. More people want the iPhone OS on their phones than any other smartphone OS ( http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic..._market_share/ ). To say that Apple doesn't know what consumers want in their phones is to ignore every single relevant fact about what phones actual consumers really buy.
Yes, there are more Windows computers sold than Macs, by a lot. But we all know why - Macs aren't cheap (interestingly, Microsoft's net and gross profit margins are both higher than Apple's). Of course, MS doesn't sell computers, just the OS. But Apple gets 91% of all sales of computers over $1,000 - dude, 91%! - which covers just about all of Apple's line. When you spend more than $1,000 on a computer, you are 10 times more likely to buy an Apple! That's too many sales to be brainwashing, that's recognition that value is different from price. That's people choosing to spend more money to get an Apple machine. And Apple has the highest customer satisfaction in the industry, which means people are not only spending more money but are happy with what they get for their money.
I was ready to answer the MS marketshare comment, but read these answers have covered the necessary reply to such comment that is the last line of defense for most people, who do like Apple or like follow the crowd with sam old comments and forget that envoirnment has changed in Apple's favor
Thing about both Java and Flash is that it does stuff that cannot be done with HTML5 at least not easily. HTML5 is GREAT for video, that is, as long as the browser you are serving to can understand it. Currently not IE, the most popular browser by a wide margin. People say that you should just use an App instead, but an App cannot be executed by a desktop browser.
Another reason Flash and Java have a legitimate use is that you can offer advanced features embedded within the web page which means your site retains whatever stickiness it has by not sending the viewer to an App outside of your web environment like YouTube for iPhone. Of course Flash sucks because of the prevalence of advertisements, but that will all change soon when the JS ads start making inroads into the web mainly because so many people block Flash.
I thought most people disabled Java within their browsers due to the security concerns - I certainly do.
Ignoring that startlingly bad UI design for a moment ... why exactly would you want such instant and direct access to Bluetooth/3G/WiFi/GPS settings?
I've never met or heard of anyone who wants this (which is why it will never be in the OS), but I'm curious why whatever tiny group of individuals that *do* want it, do so.
The wireless networking features are all automatic, as they are in most phones. Why does anyone want to take a feature that pretty much works flawlessly in an automatic way, and manage it themselves? Not only that, why would it be so damned important to manage these automatic services that you'd want to have it on your main screen like that with a system wide gesture to implement it?
The only possible reason I can see is paranoia or trying to save battery life, but given the battery of the iPhone is probably the best in the industry, I'm leaning towards the reason being simple paranoia (like turning off GPS so "Big Brother" can't track you or whatever).
It just seems incredibly weird to me that you want this feature so badly.
Wow, you've got me all figured out, don't you. You seem a bit judgemental and peeved that someone thinks differently from you
For your information, I value my battery life and I disable stuff I don't need. I rarely use the GPS, so I keep it disabled. No need for it sucking up battery life. If I do need to reenable it, I have easy access to it. Same for WiFi. I was at the beach this past weekend. Not a WiFi router in sight -- no need to have WiFi on. A quick swipe and it's off. Just because your iPhone isn't connected to a router doesn't mean it's not sucking up juice. I only enable Bluetooth when I'm in the car. I'm not always near a power outlet, so every little bit of power makes a difference.
But geez man, Im really shocked at how you have
me pigeonholed as some paranoid looney because I don't see eye to eye with you on how I want to use my phone.
I thought most people disabled Java within their browsers due to the security concerns - I certainly do.
I would guess most users have it on and with automatic updates. I have it disabled most of the time as well except for the occasional times when I need it. For example time.gov uses Java to display the official US government time. I use this to check our our internal systems. (no lecture on time servers please). But this is an isolated instance for sure. I believe Java used as an applet is mostly obsolete.
Wow, you've got me all figured out, don't you. You seem a bit judgemental and peeved that someone thinks differently from you
For your information, I value my battery life and I disable stuff I don't need. I rarely use the GPS, so I keep it disabled. No need for it sucking up battery life. If I do need to reenable it, I have easy access to it. Same for WiFi. I was at the beach this past weekend. Not a WiFi router in sight -- no need to have WiFi on. A quick swipe and it's off. Just because your iPhone isn't connected to a router doesn't mean it's not sucking up juice. I only enable Bluetooth when I'm in the car. I'm not always near a power outlet, so every little bit of power makes a difference.
But geez man, Im really shocked at how you have
me pigeonholed as some paranoid looney because I don't see eye to eye with you on how I want to use my phone.
I didn't mean to come across as angry or mean, I was genuinely incredulous and wondering why anyone needs this. So I apologise if that's the way I seemed.
To further argue the substance of the thing though, if you only need GPS "once in a while" and only turn WiFi off when you go to the beach, then the current ability to do it in the settings would arguably suffice. I still don't see any need to have this stuff right up front in the OS when one is only needing to access it once in a blue moon.
I guess the OS won't work for everyone, but it stands to reason they have to design it for the majority and the major use cases, rather than for what each individual may want.
Kid? I'm over the iPad name, but it would be disingenuous to say I was not disappointed. I expect every aspect of Apple's products to be well thought out, but recent naming decisions have been very sloppy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homsar
Yeah, the names are iMad. Although if we get multitasking, then I'll be iGlad. (These puns are getting a bit iSad... and that was an iBad one...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
First the mild disappointment with the name iPad, now the sheer embarassment of "iAd" (if this is indeed the name)... Oofah! There's something wrong in the 'naming department'.
I've disliked most of Apple's product names - or at least not been "wowed" by them for a long time - but over that time I've come to realize just how brilliant they are and how they've aided Apple's resurrection and amazing recent growth.
The most important thing about any product name is that it sticks in the public's mind.
The second most important thing is that it be referential to an image that evokes something about the product.
Which sticks in your mind (and brings the image of a particular product to mind): Compaq Presario CQ61Z series (which is a _____?? Maybe a small car?), HP G60t series, Toshiba Tecra, R10 (vs. the Toshiba Tecra A11) - or MacBook Pro 15?
Which is the higher end machine (from the name only): Inspiron or Adamo? R10 or A11? A little easier to tell if I say "Which is the higher end machine: MacBook or MacBook Pro?" Yes, no?
iPod = a module full of (digital) information. the info was music at first, but now so much more, and it also "i"nternets as well as "i"nfos these days.
iPod Touch = the above, operated by touch gestures.
iPod Nano = a tiny iPod
iMac = a Macintosh (name already established for decades) designed to be your information and internet appliance.
iPhone = a phone which also carries and gathers internet age information
iPad = a pad of paper sized device which also (see line above).
All generic enough to allow many, many new functions to be added over each line's life, but all evocative of function and size with the fewest number of words and characters.
Class A+ branding and marketing in every case!
MacBook = a longer derivation. IBM established the idea of a ThinkBook before the internet age defined computing - drawing on their famous motto going back many decades - "Think!" - and the ThinkBook was a book-size computer that helped and augmented your thinking.
Apple's early 2000's iBook (which I'm still using) adopted the convention of mobile computer as a book, but added the i (which can represent variously info or internet or self) - and in the relaunch added the shorter - well-established nickname for Macintoshes, Mac to sell the company as well as the machine. Fab! T-rif!
MacBook Pro = the yuppie lust version of the above (and the actual pro's choice)
MacMini = an itty-bitty Mac
Mac Pro = no "i" because primarily a data-massaging workhorse rather than an info/interwebs appliance, and the professional version of the Mac.
AppleTV = A relatively unsuccessful product made by Apple which has something to do with television. Would it have done better, everything else being equal, had it been the iTV?
OS X = OS became self-explanatory long ago. The "X" was tacked onto v10 during a period where anything with an X in its name just sounded cooler than the same thing with no X. And it worked, big time. Adding the cat code names as the actual shipping version names has also been a stroke of genius, tho' once we hit "OS X Tabby" we'll know we're out of hot feline names.
iPhone OS = one I still disagree with, especially since a huge portion of the devices running it aren't phones. I was hoping for Apple Mobile OS right out the gate, since it was clear the first iPhone was the foundation for a long-running family of mobile iDevices. But a) it stuck, b) it works and c) see the fate of Apple TV above. So whadda I know?!?
So anyway, we do get used to the coinages, and few brickbats from me for how dorky they tend to strike us at first with this track record. With one exception:
Worst Apple Product Name Ever: MobileMe (with Me.com). Notably not a big success compared to nearly everything else Apple. Bad enough it's referential to a character name in an old movie, which itself was a referential riff on product naming (holy iRony!), but sounds incredibly narcissistic. Memememememe. And still overpriced and underwhelming to use - unless you really need one or two of the services you can't get elsewhere for free, e.g., from Google or MS Live.
Oh well. Not even Custer won every battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
*
Shakespeare always says it better (and more concisely) than me!
Talking of people's different takes on nomenclature, out of curiosity, do the French still insist on all new French words for such things or are those days over?
I doubt the device will be called "la iGarniture" in France. However the French do still have a bit of a looong-standing stick up their butt on this whole issue:
Quote:
L'Académie française, or the French Academy, is the pre-eminent French learned body on matters pertaining to the French language. The Académie was officially established in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu, the chief minister to King Louis XIII.
The Académie is France's official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language, although its recommendations carry no legal power ? sometimes, even governmental authorities disregard the Académie's rulings.
As French culture has come under increasing pressure with the widespread availability of English media, the Académie has tried to prevent the Anglicization of the French language. For example, the Académie has recommended, with mixed success, that some loanwords from English (such as walkman, software and email) be avoided, in favour of words derived from French (baladeur, logiciel, and courriel respectively).
This analyst is useless! How many of his previous "predictions" have proven to be correct?!? He seems to take other rumors, claim that he checked with his "sources", and spits them back out in a report that's usually not born out! Laughable!
You seem reasonably articulate, so thought you might want to know (if you don't) it's "borne out" - where borne means "carried." "Born out" evokes more the image of a baby literally flying out of a womb to me!
New game engine or what? I will be very interested on what they pull out here.
Absolutely.
I believe one thing we'll see is increased support for pop up menus/buttons/controllers. Hit a "volume" icon and up pops an iPod scroll wheel 'controller' to spin.
(bad example, but you get the point).
Better handling of game controllers and selections will be the goal. Just as click on a list of options now pops up a scroll list over half the iPhone screen - but more elegant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I'm over the iPad name, but it would be disingenuous to say I was not disappointed. I expect every aspect of Apple's products to be well thought out, but recent naming decisions have been very sloppy.
I can defend it on only 2 points
1) it sounds like iPod
2) competitors and salespeople can't ride on the name. If it had been iSlate, then my Uncle might have entered a store and been told "sure, we have the latest slates right here, let me show you"... to be sold a HP or Dell slate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
The file system access you seek is one of the main aspects of computing that people find confusing and have problems with. The iPhone OS is at least in part, an attempt to abstract all that file management completely out of the picture.
...
People do need access to documents on the phone and they do need an easy way to do that. They *don't* however need a "robust file system" or access to same.
I agree people use filesystems really badly. Just try upgrading ANY computer user, and you find their files are all over the place. (To be honest, I judge this largely on XP upgrade experiences).
But putting every word file in one folder, every excel file in one folder, every pdf file in one folder ...etc... is not a better system.
isaidso has been given an infraction point for overstepping the line with his earlier post. The offending post has been edited to tone it down a bit. I've deleted various posts "debating" whether or not he is a "troll" (he isn't) and should be banned.
Please do not accuse people of being trolls in the middle of a thread. Report the post (small red exclamation mark at bottom-left of the post in question) if you think it's that bad, but please just stick to the subject of the thread in your posts.
I didn't mean to come across as angry or mean, I was genuinely incredulous and wondering why anyone needs this. So I apologise if that's the way I seemed.
To further argue the substance of the thing though, if you only need GPS "once in a while" and only turn WiFi off when you go to the beach, then the current ability to do it in the settings would arguably suffice. I still don't see any need to have this stuff right up front in the OS when one is only needing to access it once in a blue moon.
I guess the OS won't work for everyone, but it stands to reason they have to design it for the majority and the major use cases, rather than for what each individual may want.
Wifi is a huge battery drain and it takes at least 3 steps to toggle on/off. SBsettings is great.
As for IM / Music and other "Live" apps, I'm sure some API is designed to make it so they can run in a sandboxed, low processor cycling mode so its impact to the battery will be low.
I'm hoping for some form of "stub" application that can keep running in the background. The "stub" can be very low power, send push-like popups as required, and open the main app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Ignoring that startlingly bad UI design for a moment ... why exactly would you want such instant and direct access to Bluetooth/3G/WiFi/GPS settings?
I've never met or heard of anyone who wants this (which is why it will never be in the OS), but I'm curious why whatever tiny group of individuals that *do* want it, do so.
Personally - I have 3G problems. Mainly when in a depression or on hills (which covers work, and home!). Missed and dropped calls, but 2G works fine.
A quick option to switch 3G on or off would be welcome. Currently my wife defaults her iphone to 2G and occasionally turns on 3G when out and about. I default to 3G as I use it more and my 3G network offers slightly better coverage at home.
What I'd like is some sort of "location profile", that recognises where I am and changes my settings. For example at one of my workplaces it could notice some local bluetooth device (or closest cell tower?) to know where it is, and switch off wifi. At others it could recognise the wifi and know where it is (& in 2 of those places switch off 3G)
Talking of people's different takes on nomenclature, out of curiosity, do the French still insist on all new French words for such things or are those days over?
everyone need to protect his/her culture and to add upon it. The French law was all about to force company to sell product with french translation (for example, rules for a game)
never french "insists" everything are "french words". (it would be difficult, we use a gazillion english, italien, arabian and so on words, even some japanese one)
-
Quebec is a lot of more creative and insisting about french words for everything new and they are great.
Comments
RE: SBSettings on iPhone
Not weird at all - you're just not getting the mentality.
There are 3 groups of users who are adamantly opposed to Apple's way of doing things:
1. People who just oppose everything Apple does on general principles. They may not have any logic or reasoning on their side, but they'll completely oppose ANYTHING that is done Apple's way.
2. People who have a vested interest in doing things the Windows (or Blackberry) way and can't accept anything different. They may be users who are scared to death to learn something new or IT people who make their livings because the complexity of other systems gives them a demi-God role. Either way, they are opposed to change.
3. A much smaller, but more vocal number of people who are pure geeks. They want 100% access to every item of the hardware and software so they can tweak away. Apple's system is designed for the average user and tweakability is a little more hidden. I don't have any problem with people in this group. The problem I DO have is their belief that their group is large enough to matter to Apple - and their belief that their wishes are more important than the millions of non-geeks.
I'm certainly not 1 or 2. I would point out that if you look at the iPhone OS 1.0 and what has been added to the iPhone OS since then, a lot of it has been available *first* to people who've jailbroken their iPhones.
Your last sentence is a generalization. Not all jailbreakers, or people who would identify with group 3 feel that way.
Here's the thing with SBSettings and why I don't believe it fits in with your definition of #3:
SBSettings provides an option for a graduated interface. It can be 100% turned off and hidden in settings. Even when on, it's unobtrusive. It requires a swipe gesture at the very top of the screen, almost impossible to do by accident. In other words, this has a negligible impact on people who wouldn't use this feature, but a huge impact on those who would find it beneficial.
In terms of use for SBSettings, it's all about having very quick access to common settings or functions. Where some settings require 5 or more interactions and screens, sometimes scrolling, the same thing can be done with just a swipe and a tap.
The original poster, in questioning the use for SBSettings actually makes the case for the need for it. They're asking why would someone want to mess with something that's managed automatically. But this supposes that there's effort in messing with it, and there is, unless you have something like SBSettings that makes it easier.
It's not that I want to impose what I want as a geek on everyone else. As a geek, I already have this. When I show it to people, then they want it.
It's a question of "Do you want to decide between an extra 25%+ battery life and a lot of interaction to make settings to get this; or an extra 25%+ battery life and a swipe and a couple of taps?"
That, and settings that are buried deep, but you might want to change often.
Forget about Flash, I want Java!
The facilitator of some of the worst UI's in the computing world has no place on the iPhone/iPad.
Josh. B. is not behaving well at the moment, but let's not descend to his level shall we?
I'm just sick of threads being hijacked by ... I guess I'm not allowed to characterize those who do so.
Sorry if my irritation is showing through.
Originally Posted by awolfe_ii
Forget about Flash, I want Java!
You are kidding ? The facilitator of some of the worst UI's in the computing world has no place on the iPhone/iPad.
Thing about both Java and Flash is that it does stuff that cannot be done with HTML5 at least not easily. HTML5 is GREAT for video, that is, as long as the browser you are serving to can understand it. Currently not IE, the most popular browser by a wide margin. People say that you should just use an App instead, but an App cannot be executed by a desktop browser.
Another reason Flash and Java have a legitimate use is that you can offer advanced features embedded within the web page which means your site retains whatever stickiness it has by not sending the viewer to an App outside of your web environment like YouTube for iPhone. Of course Flash sucks because of the prevalence of advertisements, but that will all change soon when the JS ads start making inroads into the web mainly because so many people block Flash.
Apple has a higher market share than Microsoft in several areas, the biggest of which would be MP3 players and phones. However, there are software areas where Apple leads despite have a lower market share for the platform (Final Cut).
However there's a difference between knowing what the average consumer wants and having market share as a goal.
A great example that people seem to forget is that it was Apple with a GUI OS versus Microsoft with a command-line OS, where Microsoft had much higher market share, but consumers *wanted* a GUI OS. Thus, Microsoft adopted a GUI approach.
PCs with Windows may sell more in volume than the Mac today, but is volume really the right measurement? Do consumers not want a BMW or other premium automobile? Take a look at Apple and its profit as a computer maker and compare that to others. Compare the satisfaction ratings. Read the surveys on why people have PCs instead of Macs...IT policy, price, software lock-in, are all higher on the list than personal preference of OS.
Also, it's funny you used the word "consumer". Microsoft does much better in enterprise markets than consumer markets. They've traditionally lost money in areas that are consumer only. Their record here is quite poor indeed. It's not a coincidence that they've been focusing so much on consumer products and services during this past decade while their market cap has fallen from $590 billion to a little over $250 billion.
Meanwhile, Apple, who has been focused on consumer products and services, has had their market cap go from $16 billion to over $215 billion during the same time period.
In the past decade, what has Microsoft produced that's been a hit or at least desirable by consumers (as opposed to enterprise) other than the Xbox? (and even the Xbox still has a net loss overall).
http://247wallst.com/2010/04/06/appl...crosofts-soon/
Apple's market cap is $208B, one place behind Microsoft's $257B and Exxon Mobil's $322B.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/02/08/micro...ments-for-now/
Apple has $39.8B CASH in the bank; Microsoft has $40.4B.
http://ycharts.com/search?q=MSFT%20v...APL&c=revenues
and Apple appears to have more revenue.
Looks to me like Apple knows MORE about what consumers want than Microsoft, as evidenced by the fact that people spend more money buying Apple stuff than they do Microsoft stuff.
As for phones: dude, open your eyes and look around. Everybody and their brother is chasing the iPhone in terms of look-and-feel, the App store, etc. Every new phone release is the new "iPhone killer" - except that the iPhone isn't dead yet. More people want the iPhone OS on their phones than any other smartphone OS ( http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic..._market_share/ ). To say that Apple doesn't know what consumers want in their phones is to ignore every single relevant fact about what phones actual consumers really buy.
Yes, there are more Windows computers sold than Macs, by a lot. But we all know why - Macs aren't cheap (interestingly, Microsoft's net and gross profit margins are both higher than Apple's). Of course, MS doesn't sell computers, just the OS. But Apple gets 91% of all sales of computers over $1,000 - dude, 91%! - which covers just about all of Apple's line. When you spend more than $1,000 on a computer, you are 10 times more likely to buy an Apple! That's too many sales to be brainwashing, that's recognition that value is different from price. That's people choosing to spend more money to get an Apple machine. And Apple has the highest customer satisfaction in the industry, which means people are not only spending more money but are happy with what they get for their money.
I was ready to answer the MS marketshare comment, but read these answers have covered the necessary reply to such comment that is the last line of defense for most people, who do like Apple or like follow the crowd with sam old comments and forget that envoirnment has changed in Apple's favor
Thing about both Java and Flash is that it does stuff that cannot be done with HTML5 at least not easily. HTML5 is GREAT for video, that is, as long as the browser you are serving to can understand it. Currently not IE, the most popular browser by a wide margin. People say that you should just use an App instead, but an App cannot be executed by a desktop browser.
Another reason Flash and Java have a legitimate use is that you can offer advanced features embedded within the web page which means your site retains whatever stickiness it has by not sending the viewer to an App outside of your web environment like YouTube for iPhone. Of course Flash sucks because of the prevalence of advertisements, but that will all change soon when the JS ads start making inroads into the web mainly because so many people block Flash.
I thought most people disabled Java within their browsers due to the security concerns - I certainly do.
Ignoring that startlingly bad UI design for a moment ... why exactly would you want such instant and direct access to Bluetooth/3G/WiFi/GPS settings?
I've never met or heard of anyone who wants this (which is why it will never be in the OS), but I'm curious why whatever tiny group of individuals that *do* want it, do so.
The wireless networking features are all automatic, as they are in most phones. Why does anyone want to take a feature that pretty much works flawlessly in an automatic way, and manage it themselves? Not only that, why would it be so damned important to manage these automatic services that you'd want to have it on your main screen like that with a system wide gesture to implement it?
The only possible reason I can see is paranoia or trying to save battery life, but given the battery of the iPhone is probably the best in the industry, I'm leaning towards the reason being simple paranoia (like turning off GPS so "Big Brother" can't track you or whatever).
It just seems incredibly weird to me that you want this feature so badly.
Wow, you've got me all figured out, don't you. You seem a bit judgemental and peeved that someone thinks differently from you
For your information, I value my battery life and I disable stuff I don't need. I rarely use the GPS, so I keep it disabled. No need for it sucking up battery life. If I do need to reenable it, I have easy access to it. Same for WiFi. I was at the beach this past weekend. Not a WiFi router in sight -- no need to have WiFi on. A quick swipe and it's off. Just because your iPhone isn't connected to a router doesn't mean it's not sucking up juice. I only enable Bluetooth when I'm in the car. I'm not always near a power outlet, so every little bit of power makes a difference.
But geez man, Im really shocked at how you have
me pigeonholed as some paranoid looney because I don't see eye to eye with you on how I want to use my phone.
I thought most people disabled Java within their browsers due to the security concerns - I certainly do.
I would guess most users have it on and with automatic updates. I have it disabled most of the time as well except for the occasional times when I need it. For example time.gov uses Java to display the official US government time. I use this to check our our internal systems. (no lecture on time servers please). But this is an isolated instance for sure. I believe Java used as an applet is mostly obsolete.
Wow, you've got me all figured out, don't you. You seem a bit judgemental and peeved that someone thinks differently from you
For your information, I value my battery life and I disable stuff I don't need. I rarely use the GPS, so I keep it disabled. No need for it sucking up battery life. If I do need to reenable it, I have easy access to it. Same for WiFi. I was at the beach this past weekend. Not a WiFi router in sight -- no need to have WiFi on. A quick swipe and it's off. Just because your iPhone isn't connected to a router doesn't mean it's not sucking up juice. I only enable Bluetooth when I'm in the car. I'm not always near a power outlet, so every little bit of power makes a difference.
But geez man, Im really shocked at how you have
me pigeonholed as some paranoid looney because I don't see eye to eye with you on how I want to use my phone.
I didn't mean to come across as angry or mean, I was genuinely incredulous and wondering why anyone needs this. So I apologise if that's the way I seemed.
To further argue the substance of the thing though, if you only need GPS "once in a while" and only turn WiFi off when you go to the beach, then the current ability to do it in the settings would arguably suffice. I still don't see any need to have this stuff right up front in the OS when one is only needing to access it once in a blue moon.
I guess the OS won't work for everyone, but it stands to reason they have to design it for the majority and the major use cases, rather than for what each individual may want.
Kid?
Yeah, the names are iMad. Although if we get multitasking, then I'll be iGlad. (These puns are getting a bit iSad... and that was an iBad one...)
First the mild disappointment with the name iPad, now the sheer embarassment of "iAd" (if this is indeed the name)... Oofah! There's something wrong in the 'naming department'.
I've disliked most of Apple's product names - or at least not been "wowed" by them for a long time - but over that time I've come to realize just how brilliant they are and how they've aided Apple's resurrection and amazing recent growth.
The most important thing about any product name is that it sticks in the public's mind.
The second most important thing is that it be referential to an image that evokes something about the product.
Which sticks in your mind (and brings the image of a particular product to mind): Compaq Presario CQ61Z series (which is a _____?? Maybe a small car?), HP G60t series, Toshiba Tecra, R10 (vs. the Toshiba Tecra A11) - or MacBook Pro 15?
Which is the higher end machine (from the name only): Inspiron or Adamo? R10 or A11? A little easier to tell if I say "Which is the higher end machine: MacBook or MacBook Pro?" Yes, no?
iPod = a module full of (digital) information. the info was music at first, but now so much more, and it also "i"nternets as well as "i"nfos these days.
iPod Touch = the above, operated by touch gestures.
iPod Nano = a tiny iPod
iMac = a Macintosh (name already established for decades) designed to be your information and internet appliance.
iPhone = a phone which also carries and gathers internet age information
iPad = a pad of paper sized device which also (see line above).
All generic enough to allow many, many new functions to be added over each line's life, but all evocative of function and size with the fewest number of words and characters.
Class A+ branding and marketing in every case!
MacBook = a longer derivation. IBM established the idea of a ThinkBook before the internet age defined computing - drawing on their famous motto going back many decades - "Think!" - and the ThinkBook was a book-size computer that helped and augmented your thinking.
Apple's early 2000's iBook (which I'm still using) adopted the convention of mobile computer as a book, but added the i (which can represent variously info or internet or self) - and in the relaunch added the shorter - well-established nickname for Macintoshes, Mac to sell the company as well as the machine. Fab! T-rif!
MacBook Pro = the yuppie lust version of the above (and the actual pro's choice)
MacMini = an itty-bitty Mac
Mac Pro = no "i" because primarily a data-massaging workhorse rather than an info/interwebs appliance, and the professional version of the Mac.
AppleTV = A relatively unsuccessful product made by Apple which has something to do with television. Would it have done better, everything else being equal, had it been the iTV?
OS X = OS became self-explanatory long ago. The "X" was tacked onto v10 during a period where anything with an X in its name just sounded cooler than the same thing with no X. And it worked, big time. Adding the cat code names as the actual shipping version names has also been a stroke of genius, tho' once we hit "OS X Tabby" we'll know we're out of hot feline names.
iPhone OS = one I still disagree with, especially since a huge portion of the devices running it aren't phones. I was hoping for Apple Mobile OS right out the gate, since it was clear the first iPhone was the foundation for a long-running family of mobile iDevices. But a) it stuck, b) it works and c) see the fate of Apple TV above. So whadda I know?!?
So anyway, we do get used to the coinages, and few brickbats from me for how dorky they tend to strike us at first with this track record. With one exception:
Worst Apple Product Name Ever: MobileMe (with Me.com). Notably not a big success compared to nearly everything else Apple. Bad enough it's referential to a character name in an old movie, which itself was a referential riff on product naming (holy iRony!), but sounds incredibly narcissistic. Memememememe. And still overpriced and underwhelming to use - unless you really need one or two of the services you can't get elsewhere for free, e.g., from Google or MS Live.
Oh well. Not even Custer won every battle.
Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
*
Shakespeare always says it better (and more concisely) than me!
It just seems incredibly weird to me that you want this feature so badly.
You should get out of the house more
Talking of people's different takes on nomenclature, out of curiosity, do the French still insist on all new French words for such things or are those days over?
I doubt the device will be called "la iGarniture" in France. However the French do still have a bit of a looong-standing stick up their butt on this whole issue: More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3...fran%C3%A7aise
See you in "Les Movies"....
This analyst is useless! How many of his previous "predictions" have proven to be correct?!? He seems to take other rumors, claim that he checked with his "sources", and spits them back out in a report that's usually not born out! Laughable!
You seem reasonably articulate, so thought you might want to know (if you don't) it's "borne out" - where borne means "carried." "Born out" evokes more the image of a baby literally flying out of a womb to me!
Is it Thursday yet?
New game engine or what? I will be very interested on what they pull out here.
Absolutely.
I believe one thing we'll see is increased support for pop up menus/buttons/controllers. Hit a "volume" icon and up pops an iPod scroll wheel 'controller' to spin.
(bad example, but you get the point).
Better handling of game controllers and selections will be the goal. Just as click on a list of options now pops up a scroll list over half the iPhone screen - but more elegant.
I'm over the iPad name, but it would be disingenuous to say I was not disappointed. I expect every aspect of Apple's products to be well thought out, but recent naming decisions have been very sloppy.
I can defend it on only 2 points
1) it sounds like iPod
2) competitors and salespeople can't ride on the name. If it had been iSlate, then my Uncle might have entered a store and been told "sure, we have the latest slates right here, let me show you"... to be sold a HP or Dell slate
The file system access you seek is one of the main aspects of computing that people find confusing and have problems with. The iPhone OS is at least in part, an attempt to abstract all that file management completely out of the picture.
...
People do need access to documents on the phone and they do need an easy way to do that. They *don't* however need a "robust file system" or access to same.
I agree people use filesystems really badly. Just try upgrading ANY computer user, and you find their files are all over the place. (To be honest, I judge this largely on XP upgrade experiences).
But putting every word file in one folder, every excel file in one folder, every pdf file in one folder ...etc... is not a better system.
Bring on something BETTER.
isaidso has been given an infraction point for overstepping the line with his earlier post. The offending post has been edited to tone it down a bit. I've deleted various posts "debating" whether or not he is a "troll" (he isn't) and should be banned.
Please do not accuse people of being trolls in the middle of a thread. Report the post (small red exclamation mark at bottom-left of the post in question) if you think it's that bad, but please just stick to the subject of the thread in your posts.
Enjoy!
Call em like I see em.
I'll take my lumps.
I didn't mean to come across as angry or mean, I was genuinely incredulous and wondering why anyone needs this. So I apologise if that's the way I seemed.
To further argue the substance of the thing though, if you only need GPS "once in a while" and only turn WiFi off when you go to the beach, then the current ability to do it in the settings would arguably suffice. I still don't see any need to have this stuff right up front in the OS when one is only needing to access it once in a blue moon.
I guess the OS won't work for everyone, but it stands to reason they have to design it for the majority and the major use cases, rather than for what each individual may want.
Wifi is a huge battery drain and it takes at least 3 steps to toggle on/off. SBsettings is great.
As for IM / Music and other "Live" apps, I'm sure some API is designed to make it so they can run in a sandboxed, low processor cycling mode so its impact to the battery will be low.
I'm hoping for some form of "stub" application that can keep running in the background. The "stub" can be very low power, send push-like popups as required, and open the main app.
Ignoring that startlingly bad UI design for a moment ... why exactly would you want such instant and direct access to Bluetooth/3G/WiFi/GPS settings?
I've never met or heard of anyone who wants this (which is why it will never be in the OS), but I'm curious why whatever tiny group of individuals that *do* want it, do so.
Personally - I have 3G problems. Mainly when in a depression or on hills (which covers work, and home!). Missed and dropped calls, but 2G works fine.
A quick option to switch 3G on or off would be welcome. Currently my wife defaults her iphone to 2G and occasionally turns on 3G when out and about. I default to 3G as I use it more and my 3G network offers slightly better coverage at home.
What I'd like is some sort of "location profile", that recognises where I am and changes my settings. For example at one of my workplaces it could notice some local bluetooth device (or closest cell tower?) to know where it is, and switch off wifi. At others it could recognise the wifi and know where it is (& in 2 of those places switch off 3G)
Talking of people's different takes on nomenclature, out of curiosity, do the French still insist on all new French words for such things or are those days over?
everyone need to protect his/her culture and to add upon it. The French law was all about to force company to sell product with french translation (for example, rules for a game)
never french "insists" everything are "french words". (it would be difficult, we use a gazillion english, italien, arabian and so on words, even some japanese one)
-
Quebec is a lot of more creative and insisting about french words for everything new and they are great.