Concerning the original post. "Love me, love me, say that you love me, tell me what I want to hear". Otherwise it was rather pathetic. AI has informative posts, posts like this one (Blah!), and troll baiting posts often posted by Daniel Eran Dilger. I like the troll baiting posts because they often bring forth my favorite troll, DaHarder, who often manages to hijack a post. But not in this case, in this case the hijacking and troll baiting started with a post by:
nvidia2008
Registered User
*
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,868
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Those crazy 15%!
One of them was DaHarder...
DaHarder ignored this but responded to a post by RayInHou
DaHarder
Registered User
*
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,124
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayInHou
Exactly.... 65!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's no statistal poll by a long shot... it's just for headlines... shame on AppleInsider for posting such crap...
shame shame shame!!!!
Shit, we all love Apple.... but this is just stupid.
Well Posted... Enough Said!
I agree with both of them. The attack was then continued by:
newbee
Registered User
*
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
One of them was DaHarder...
Yea, and his family "bought 3 each" .....
and
iStud
Registered User
*
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
One of them was DaHarder...
I bet he forged his IP address 9 times.
Finally, DaHarder took the bait.
DaHarder
Registered User
*
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,124
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Yea, and his family "bought 3 each" .....
Along with a couple of iPads and NOOKcolors...
Picture omitted to protect the peanut gallery
Note: Try Not To Be Envious - Hater!
I left out the picture DaHarder posted since it traumatized so many people and will only note that it was a 1024x768 photo taken with a Sony DSC-H55 and was photohopped yesterday at 21:57 twelve minutes after it was taken. Then it was posted on mobileread.com and linked from there to AI at 07:25 today. The troll baiting continued and there were complaints about the font he used for his name as well as complaints about the size of the photo. I'll admit that the size bothered me since I had to reach all the way down to the lower right corner to resize my Safari window. I have read that it is easier to do this if your are using another operating system. At 08:57 DaHarder modified his post replacing the photo with a 640x480 photo linked from imageshack.com. I thought the photo was well done and I liked the font so I grabbed a copy of the 1024x768 photo from post #46. I would like to thank nvidia2008, Da Harder, and others for their contributions.
Well considering Adobe couldn't produce a full, working version of Flash until this past summer for mobile devices and even this version eats batteries, I don't blame Apple for not having it. The iPad has been figured for awhile to have 2 cameras coming w/the iPad 2 early next year. Remember that the Tab is reacting to the iPad and it isn't surprising that it has features the iPad doesn't. Apple doesn't refresh their product lines as often as other companies, but they have only been selling the iPad since April and it took till November to get a real competitor out.
Welcome to AI BTW. And I think you meant "I'd get the Galaxy Tab over this current iteration of the iPad"
Apple makes a great product, but they always purposely are behind in features that are already out on other devices. Starting with first Iphone....no 3G, no copy n paste, no multitasking, no custom ringtones. All of these features were available with other leading devices..BEFORE the IPhone was released. It took over a year to decide to add video recording, copy n paste, etc. Multitasking was just recently added. And now, because Steve Jobs said no to Adobe Flash, we cannot have a full browsing experience on an Ipad or IPhone. You say Flash eats up battery, but I know if we occasionally use it on certain websites, it shouldn't effect the battery too much. And quite frankly, obviously its better to have that option....as an option, than to not have that ability at all.
Apple makes a great product, but they always purposely are behind in features that are already out on other devices. Starting with first Iphone....no 3G, no copy n paste, no multitasking, no custom ringtones. All of these features were available with other leading devices..BEFORE the IPhone was released. It took over a year to decide to add video recording, copy n paste, etc. Multitasking was just recently added. And now, because Steve Jobs said no to Adobe Flash, we cannot have a full browsing experience on an Ipad or IPhone. You say Flash eats up battery, but I know if we occasionally use it on certain websites, it shouldn't effect the battery too much. And quite frankly, obviously its better to have that option....as an option, than to not have that ability at all.
And yet somehow all those modestly selling smartphones with more "features", which were poorly implemented and difficult to use, somehow morphed into copies of the iPhone, and now smartphone sales are exploding.
I think it's sort of bizarre to talk about Apple being "behind" with the original iPhone. It was huge revolution that we haven't seen the end of, and it blew away everything else on the market. Of course, people at the time did talk about the cool things their Windows or Palm or Nokia phones could do that the iPhone couldn't, but we've seen how that worked out.
And yet somehow all those modestly selling smartphones with more "features", which were poorly implemented and difficult to use, somehow morphed into copies of the iPhone, and now smartphone sales are exploding.
I think it's sort of bizarre to talk about Apple being "behind" with the original iPhone. It was huge revolution that we haven't seen the end of, and it blew away everything else on the market. Of course, people at the time did talk about the cool things their Windows or Palm or Nokia phones could do that the iPhone couldn't, but we've seen how that worked out.
Nice comments, but how about addressing the points that I said. The original Iphone was definitely revolutionary in some ways, buy way behind in features that it didn't have, that other phones already had, like 3G, custom ringtones, multi tasking, video recording, and copy n paste, just to name a few. You can sense fan boys by their comments. They usually do their best to avoid addressing specifically stated points that prove anything negative about their product, instead of being objective and admitting both the pros and cons. IOS products have both impressed me, and irritated me by putting out a high quality product with an excellently, smooth and simplistic os/ui .......yet each device...as great as it is...was and is lacking in some features that the competitors have.
Nice comments, but how about addressing the points that I said. The original Iphone was definitely revolutionary in some ways, buy way behind in features that it didn't have, that other phones already had, like 3G, custom ringtones, multi tasking, video recording, and copy n paste, just to name a few. You can sense fan boys by their comments. They usually do their best to avoid addressing specifically stated points that prove anything negative about their product, instead of being objective and admitting both the pros and cons. IOS products have both impressed me, and irritated me by putting out a high quality product with an excellently, smooth and simplistic os/ui .......yet each device...as great as it is...was and is lacking in some features that the competitors have.
My point being that talking about "features" misses the point if those features are poorly implemented and hard to use, and are moreover are irrelevant when a product completely changes the terms of competition.
Windows phones had pretty much all the features you could want, and now that iteration of phone has been completely abandoned, replaced by a phone that actually lacks some of the very same features as the iPhone did on release (cut and paste, multitasking). Nokia is a feature king, and now their hemorrhaging market share and floundering around to figure out a way forward. Google radically changed up Android once they got a look at the iPhone. The iPhone wasn't revolutionary "in some ways", it was revolutionary in every way that mattered-- which is why all those button encrusted, hard to use, poorly selling feature laden "smart phones" are done and buried.
By the way, you can usually sense an insipid little douchebag without a very strong argument to make by their reliance on yelling "fanboy."
My point being that talking about "features" misses the point if those features are poorly implemented and hard to use, and are moreover are irrelevant when a product completely changes the terms of competition.
Windows phones had pretty much all the features you could want, and now that iteration of phone has been completely abandoned, replaced by a phone that actually lacks some of the very same features as the iPhone did on release (cut and paste, multitasking). Nokia is a feature king, and now their hemorrhaging market share and floundering around to figure out a way forward. Google radically changed up Android once they got a look at the iPhone. The iPhone wasn't revolutionary "in some ways", it was revolutionary in every way that mattered-- which is why all those button encrusted, hard to use, poorly selling feature laden "smart phones" are done and buried.
By the way, you can usually sense an insipid little douchebag without a very strong argument to make by their reliance on yelling "fanboy."
Ok, so let me say this again, my only point was that the Iphone, and every iteration of it, lacked various features. Are you saying that it is ok because the Iphone itself was and is such a great device? It was ok not to have 3G, multitasking, copy n paste, custom ringtones, video recording on the first Iphone and no multitasking, etc on the second one? That doesn't make sense. It was only ok in that people still liked the phone, but the question is, why is it always lacking? Did you see how with each generation of Iphone, they added those features? Features again, that were already industry standards? Why did it always take them so long to add these features? Are you saying that it is ok? Obviously, Apple added them, so even they felt the need for these features, but they just always seem late to the game. And by the way, I have a strong argument, and I made it, by putting out clear specifics, but you seem to avoid them.
Again, I think Apple puts out great products, but my question is WHY do they wait so long to add the features? And is that not a negative thing? In my book, it's not a great thing to be behind the curve in anything. However, again, they obviously did something right, and that's the higher quality of their products, and the almost perfect os/ui.
If these features were so "irrelevant" as you stated above, why does Apple always choose to add these features, even if a year later, then tout these same features that you call "irrelvant"????
Ok, so let me say this again, my only point was that the Iphone, and every iteration of it, lacked various features. Are you saying that it is ok because the Iphone itself was and is such a great device? It was ok not to have 3G, multitasking, copy n paste, custom ringtones, video recording on the first Iphone and no multitasking, etc on the second one? That doesn't make sense. It was only ok in that people still liked the phone, but the question is, why is it always lacking? Did you see how with each generation of Iphone, they added those features? Features again, that were already industry standards? Why did it always take them so long to add these features? Are you saying that it is ok? Obviously, Apple added them, so even they felt the need for these features, but they just always seem late to the game. And by the way, I have a strong argument, and I made it, by putting out clear specifics, but you seem to avoid them.
Again, I think Apple puts out great products, but my question is WHY do they wait so long to add the features? And is that not a negative thing? In my book, it's not a great thing to be behind the curve in anything. However, again, they obviously did something right, and that's the higher quality of their products, and the almost perfect os/ui.
If these features were so "irrelevant" as you stated above, why does Apple always choose to add these features, even if a year later, then tout these same features that you call "irrelvant"????
Because Apple is interested in getting getting it right-- they'll include functionality if it's genuinely useful and if the implementation is pretty seamless and it doesn't negatively impact another area that Apple deems important. Sometimes, that means waiting until the supporting tech is mature enough to make the trade-offs worth it, as in the case of 3G and battery life.
That doesn't mean I agree with their every choice; it does mean that I can be pretty certain that when Apple does offer a particular feature it will be well thought out and easy to use. I can also be pretty confident that Apple won't lard their devices with "features" that do little more than add a bullet-point to the box copy.
Who gives a shit, at this point, if a given Windows phone had video recording? It apparently sucked, since nobody used it. Why worry about RIM multitasking, if there were no tasks worth doing beyond email? What use is a Nokia phone with copy and paste, if it's too hard to use, or the functionality is lost in a sea of terrible design decisions?
You want to claim that Apple was somehow "behind the curve" on these things while blithely ignoring just how poorly they performed on competing platforms at the time of the iPhone's release. A feature isn't a feature just because you can describe it or it exists, it has to be genuinely useful, function well, be reasonably easy to access, and not have undue negative consequences. "Smart phones" prior to the iPhone, were such a swamp of engineer driven "features", unencumbered by basic standards of usability, as to render these types of comparison meaningless. They were that way because there was no competition with a better idea, and because it was simply accepted that these devices were the provenance of über-geeks, with a steep learning curve and absurd UI conventions the price of admission. Or have you forgotten? It's easy to forget, in that the inexplicably feature starved iPhone has completely swept that model aside.
Let me turn this around, since you seem to think this is an Apple specific issue: why did everyone else wait so long to make a touch based phone with a dead simple app delivery system, an excellent web browser and fun, easy to use UI? Those are the features that strike me as pertinent, why did every other phone manufacturer withhold those features for so long?
MS and RIM and Nokia and Palm had many, many years to add the features people apparently really wanted (given the explosion in smart phone use once everyone signed onto the Apple model). Why no iPhone equivalent? Why so far behind the curve? Doesn't it frustrate you, how all those other manufacturers do that?
Because Apple is interested in getting getting it right-- they'll include functionality if it's genuinely useful and if the implementation is pretty seamless and it doesn't negatively impact another area that Apple deems important. Sometimes, that means waiting until the supporting tech is mature enough to make the trade-offs worth it, as in the case of 3G and battery life.
That doesn't mean I agree with their every choice; it does mean that I can be pretty certain that when Apple does offer a particular feature it will be well thought out and easy to use. I can also be pretty confident that Apple won't lard their devices with "features" that do little more than add a bullet-point to the box copy.
Who gives a shit, at this point, if a given Windows phone had video recording? It apparently sucked, since nobody used it. Why worry about RIM multitasking, if there were no tasks worth doing beyond email? What use is a Nokia phone with copy and paste, if it's too hard to use, or the functionality is lost in a sea of terrible design decisions?
You want to claim that Apple was somehow "behind the curve" on these things while blithely ignoring just how poorly they performed on competing platforms at the time of the iPhone's release. A feature isn't a feature just because you can describe it or it exists, it has to be genuinely useful, function well, be reasonably easy to access, and not have undue negative consequences. "Smart phones" prior to the iPhone, were such a swamp of engineer driven "features", unencumbered by basic standards of usability, as to render these types of comparison meaningless. They were that way because there was no competition with a better idea, and because it was simply accepted that these devices were the provenance of über-geeks, with a steep learning curve and absurd UI conventions the price of admission. Or have you forgotten? It's easy to forget, in that the inexplicably feature starved iPhone has completely swept that model aside.
Let me turn this around, since you seem to think this is an Apple specific issue: why did everyone else wait so long to make a touch based phone with a dead simple app delivery system, an excellent web browser and fun, easy to use UI? Those are the features that strike me as pertinent, why did every other phone manufacturer withhold those features for so long?
MS and RIM and Nokia and Palm had many, many years to add the features people apparently really wanted (given the explosion in smart phone use once everyone signed onto the Apple model). Why no iPhone equivalent? Why so far behind the curve? Doesn't it frustrate you, how all those other manufacturers do that?
What I see in your argument, is that you seem to feel that the features that I mentioned that were lacking on the Iphone, just didn't work well on the other smartphones. Well, first and foremost, to me, Windows Mobile sucked badly, so I won't even argue about them. However, Palm and RIM didn't suck. And they offered the video recording, picture messaging, copy n paste, custom ringtones, that Apple didn't offer in 3G, and those features didn't suck at all. RIM also offered multitasking, and 3G, and those didn't suck either, infact, RIM was the number one smartphone maker in America. So, I don't get your point at all.
Regarding the point you made that it took others soo long to make such an excellent touch, and easy to use os/ui, simplistic os, and great browser? Well, it seems that Apple was more innovative and just did it better than everyone else, and before everyone else. And I agree with that, but that doesn't have anything to do with the features that I mentioned that they do lack, and the fact that they always lack certain features that are standard on other leading smartphones. I will tell you, I own an Iphone and and android, and I like things about both. Iphone has the smoothest touchscreen, the smoothest os, and the easiest os to use. However, Android, offers all of the features that I want, and contrary to your argument, android has done a pretty good job with all of the features that they have. So, I am actually saying that I like the Iphone, but pointing out obvious negative things that are factual, such as the lack of features compared to the competitor's feature set. And yes, a feature set is nothing to brag about, unless it works properly, but from my experiences with RIM and Android, their feature sets do work very well, as noted in their reviews and in the success that they've had. It's not to say that they are without their issues as well, but my complaint here, was with Apple, because to me, if they only kept up with the competition's fully featured options, there probably would be NO competition.
Why do people that own an iPhone *and* Android come here to say how much they are frustrated by this or that of the iPhone? Why tell us this? I'm starting to not see the point. Just use your Android, no one is going to be offended.
If you want a reason, it is because Apple operates like this. Use it or don't. Buy it or don't. They will accept feedback and adjust, but always at their pace. Their philosophy is that there are essentially no competitors. It's blue ocean thinking. Yes, it can be extremely frustrating, and they add features only incrementally but also take away features incrementally. For example, why is Bluetooth file transfer still not done on iPhone? Nobody knows.
Apologies for my tone but I get confused by people that go to Android and then say, oh, but why is Apple etc etc.
There are definitely features that are not on any Apple products. For example, why no full video mirroring on iPhone and iPad? I absolutely need that for demos and presentations, that's why I jailbreak.
It is also about compromise. It is actually something Apple does not do. No removable batteries. Killer to some, but for others, it's a sleeker product with better performance. Makes all other phones seem so clunky.
No Flash. Only once this issue is raised do we start to realise how horrible Flash is for playback and the performance and security issues it causes. Sure, it could still be implemented even though it is not *that* good... But no, that's a compromise Apple will not make.
This is why it is healthy to have and use non-Apple products and services. How can we expect one company to do everything right by us, and everything that we want? I know it is sometimes so close, yet so far. That's why technology and people and services, it's about what's best for you. Apple is there to blaze the trail. But others are also needed to build the roads and towns and railway lines and so on.
This is actually why the iPad and iPhone has been so successful. All shortcomings are given a chance at least to be addressed through a managed third-party application system. Safari is lousy compared now to AtomicWeb on iPad. iOS has a nice balance of control and flexibility. It still does not do everything you want, that's why there's Android, Macs, PCs, etc.
Why do people that own an iPhone *and* Android come here to say how much they are frustrated by this or that of the iPhone? Why tell us this? I'm starting to not see the point. Just use your Android, no one is going to be offended.
If you want a reason, it is because Apple operates like this. Use it or don't. Buy it or don't. They will accept feedback and adjust, but always at their pace. Their philosophy is that there are essentially no competitors. It's blue ocean thinking. Yes, it can be extremely frustrating, and they add features only incrementally but also take away features incrementally. For example, why is Bluetooth file transfer still not done on iPhone? Nobody knows.
Apologies for my tone but I get confused by people that go to Android and then say, oh, but why is Apple etc etc.
There are definitely features that are not on any Apple products. For example, why no full video mirroring on iPhone and iPad? I absolutely need that for demos and presentations, that's why I jailbreak.
I came here just to voice my opinion, and point out some of the negative things about an otherwise, exceptional product. Much came out of my little post because someone came on here to defend Apple, and deny all of the obvious negative things that I brought out. As for me, I will continue to use both, as both have things about them I like. My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
The iPhone is arguably already currently the best but by no means perfect.
Android or someone would always be real competition simply because 1 phone can't cover all bases.
Apple provides features in increments because features don't instantaneously happen or there are trade offs in providing these features that Apple prefers not to make. What you are asking for is impossible for any vendor. By the time they are feature complete the market has moved forward and they are no longer feature complete. The features you liked in RIM or whatever that were/are not in the iPhone aren't there isn't because it was not possible to implement in a polished manner but instead were/are not there because APPLE couldn't implement them in a polished manner in the time frame.
Deliberately not providing feature X until it is more polished is the trade off between when it reaches the consumer and whether or not it is polished. Complaining about Apple strategy vs Google seems to miss the point. You can have features sooner with less polish (Android) or you can have features later but more polished (Apple). Throwing more developers on a specific feature beyond a certain point doesn't provide better time to market or more polish.
Do you really think that MS wanted to leave off cut and past in the first iteration of WP7 any more than Apple did? No. Even super rich large companies have to pick and choose which feature sets they can reasonably deliver in any time frame. They don't have an infinite supply of developers to maximize coverage on every feature and EVEN if they did the integration time is exponential.
Are they being "purposeful" in not releasing these features? Yes, because the feature would SUCK if they released them half-baked and by taking resources away from another feature make that SUCK as well.
Did they do it to purposely screw the customer as you seem to insinuate? No.
Why does Google do it? Mostly because Google has been able to get away with beta level capability because it's been free. Google and lack of polish is accepted with the brand and they have a nice halo all their own. Stuff they get away with would get MS or Apple crucified in the tech press. That said 2.2 is pretty good and gingerbread should be better.
Tablet support will likely not be nearly as polished as the iPad but it'll be chock full of features and hardware.
Good points. I concur with most of what you've said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The iPhone is arguably already currently the best but by no means perfect.
Android or someone would always be real competition simply because 1 phone can't cover all bases.
Apple provides features in increments because features don't instantaneously happen or there are trade offs in providing these features that Apple prefers not to make. What you are asking for is impossible for any vendor. By the time they are feature complete the market has moved forward and they are no longer feature complete. The features you liked in RIM or whatever that were/are not in the iPhone aren't there isn't because it was not possible to implement in a polished manner but instead were/are not there because APPLE couldn't implement them in a polished manner in the time frame.
Deliberately not providing feature X until it is more polished is the trade off between when it reaches the consumer and whether or not it is polished. Complaining about Apple strategy vs Google seems to miss the point. You can have features sooner with less polish (Android) or you can have features later but more polished (Apple). Throwing more developers on a specific feature beyond a certain point doesn't provide better time to market or more polish.
Do you really think that MS wanted to leave off cut and past in the first iteration of WP7 any more than Apple did? No. Even super rich large companies have to pick and choose which feature sets they can reasonably deliver in any time frame. They don't have an infinite supply of developers to maximize coverage on every feature and EVEN if they did the integration time is exponential.
Are they being "purposeful" in not releasing these features? Yes, because the feature would SUCK if they released them half-baked and by taking resources away from another feature make that SUCK as well.
Did they do it to purposely screw the customer as you seem to insinuate? No.
Why does Google do it? Mostly because Google has been able to get away with beta level capability because it's been free. Google and lack of polish is accepted with the brand and they have a nice halo all their own. Stuff they get away with would get MS or Apple crucified in the tech press. That said 2.2 is pretty good and gingerbread should be better.
Tablet support will likely not be nearly as polished as the iPad but it'll be chock full of features and hardware.
I came here just to voice my opinion, and point out some of the negative things about an otherwise, exceptional product. Much came out of my little post because someone came on here to defend Apple, and deny all of the obvious negative things that I brought out. As for me, I will continue to use both, as both have things about them I like. My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
We were in a similar situation, with a software product.
While we were adding the features the beta testers wanted, a competitor brought out a similar product with half the features. Then they added features and it was version 2. Then version 3 came out with more features. The income earned allowed them hire more staff and develop quicker.
Spending all our time creating the "perfect" product hurt us and our customers. A mistake we won't make again.
We were in a similar situation, with a software product.
While we were adding the features the beta testers wanted, a competitor brought out a similar product with half the features. Then they added features and it was version 2. Then version 3 came out with more features. The income earned allowed them hire more staff and develop quicker.
Spending all our time creating the "perfect" product hurt us and our customers. A mistake we won't make again.
Time to market is often key. Unless you're Blizzard.
I might opine that if your competitor had all your features but with half of them semi-broken that probably wouldn't have ended well for them. Unless they was Google.
I came here just to voice my opinion, and point out some of the negative things about an otherwise, exceptional product. Much came out of my little post because someone came on here to defend Apple, and deny all of the obvious negative things that I brought out. As for me, I will continue to use both, as both have things about them I like. My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
Fair enough. I am starting to see some people have 2 phones and like certain aspects of both of them.
In any case I think the part highlighted in bold red is where yours and most peoples frustration with Apple is.
What they perceive to be Apple able to, but not wanting to do certain things. But nht's post sums things up. In Apple's case, they prefer to not have something than to have it "just isn't as polished".
On a side note, have you considered that Google not having Android more polished is something deliberate in and of itself? They are known to develop to a certain point and then "release often, release early".
As nht mentions it is actually pretty amazing what they get away with being in perpetual Beta mode for all their "products".
Time to market is often key. Unless you're Blizzard.
I might opine that if your competitor had all your features but with half of them semi-broken that probably wouldn't have ended well for them. Unless they was Google.
That's the frustrating part. What they released was crap, but people wanted the results the software gave. It wasn't until version 3 that the software
Comments
Are you sure he isn't from an alternate dimension where the his side's Galaxy Tab is much better than our Galaxy Tab?
Tabnormal! The preferred gadget of Walternate!
Concerning the original post. "Love me, love me, say that you love me, tell me what I want to hear". Otherwise it was rather pathetic. AI has informative posts, posts like this one (Blah!), and troll baiting posts often posted by Daniel Eran Dilger. I like the troll baiting posts because they often bring forth my favorite troll, DaHarder, who often manages to hijack a post. But not in this case, in this case the hijacking and troll baiting started with a post by:
nvidia2008
Registered User
*
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,868
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Those crazy 15%!
One of them was DaHarder...
DaHarder ignored this but responded to a post by RayInHou
DaHarder
Registered User
*
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,124
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayInHou
Exactly.... 65!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's no statistal poll by a long shot... it's just for headlines... shame on AppleInsider for posting such crap...
shame shame shame!!!!
Shit, we all love Apple.... but this is just stupid.
Well Posted... Enough Said!
I agree with both of them. The attack was then continued by:
newbee
Registered User
*
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
One of them was DaHarder...
Yea, and his family "bought 3 each" .....
and
iStud
Registered User
*
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
One of them was DaHarder...
I bet he forged his IP address 9 times.
Finally, DaHarder took the bait.
DaHarder
Registered User
*
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,124
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Yea, and his family "bought 3 each" .....
Along with a couple of iPads and NOOKcolors...
Picture omitted to protect the peanut gallery
Note: Try Not To Be Envious - Hater!
I left out the picture DaHarder posted since it traumatized so many people and will only note that it was a 1024x768 photo taken with a Sony DSC-H55 and was photohopped yesterday at 21:57 twelve minutes after it was taken. Then it was posted on mobileread.com and linked from there to AI at 07:25 today. The troll baiting continued and there were complaints about the font he used for his name as well as complaints about the size of the photo. I'll admit that the size bothered me since I had to reach all the way down to the lower right corner to resize my Safari window. I have read that it is easier to do this if your are using another operating system. At 08:57 DaHarder modified his post replacing the photo with a 640x480 photo linked from imageshack.com. I thought the photo was well done and I liked the font so I grabbed a copy of the 1024x768 photo from post #46. I would like to thank nvidia2008, Da Harder, and others for their contributions.
Great post. +1
Great post. +1
Hmm -1
Well considering Adobe couldn't produce a full, working version of Flash until this past summer for mobile devices and even this version eats batteries, I don't blame Apple for not having it. The iPad has been figured for awhile to have 2 cameras coming w/the iPad 2 early next year. Remember that the Tab is reacting to the iPad and it isn't surprising that it has features the iPad doesn't. Apple doesn't refresh their product lines as often as other companies, but they have only been selling the iPad since April and it took till November to get a real competitor out.
Welcome to AI BTW. And I think you meant "I'd get the Galaxy Tab over this current iteration of the iPad"
Apple makes a great product, but they always purposely are behind in features that are already out on other devices. Starting with first Iphone....no 3G, no copy n paste, no multitasking, no custom ringtones. All of these features were available with other leading devices..BEFORE the IPhone was released. It took over a year to decide to add video recording, copy n paste, etc. Multitasking was just recently added. And now, because Steve Jobs said no to Adobe Flash, we cannot have a full browsing experience on an Ipad or IPhone. You say Flash eats up battery, but I know if we occasionally use it on certain websites, it shouldn't effect the battery too much. And quite frankly, obviously its better to have that option....as an option, than to not have that ability at all.
Apple makes a great product, but they always purposely are behind in features that are already out on other devices. Starting with first Iphone....no 3G, no copy n paste, no multitasking, no custom ringtones. All of these features were available with other leading devices..BEFORE the IPhone was released. It took over a year to decide to add video recording, copy n paste, etc. Multitasking was just recently added. And now, because Steve Jobs said no to Adobe Flash, we cannot have a full browsing experience on an Ipad or IPhone. You say Flash eats up battery, but I know if we occasionally use it on certain websites, it shouldn't effect the battery too much. And quite frankly, obviously its better to have that option....as an option, than to not have that ability at all.
And yet somehow all those modestly selling smartphones with more "features", which were poorly implemented and difficult to use, somehow morphed into copies of the iPhone, and now smartphone sales are exploding.
I think it's sort of bizarre to talk about Apple being "behind" with the original iPhone. It was huge revolution that we haven't seen the end of, and it blew away everything else on the market. Of course, people at the time did talk about the cool things their Windows or Palm or Nokia phones could do that the iPhone couldn't, but we've seen how that worked out.
And yet somehow all those modestly selling smartphones with more "features", which were poorly implemented and difficult to use, somehow morphed into copies of the iPhone, and now smartphone sales are exploding.
I think it's sort of bizarre to talk about Apple being "behind" with the original iPhone. It was huge revolution that we haven't seen the end of, and it blew away everything else on the market. Of course, people at the time did talk about the cool things their Windows or Palm or Nokia phones could do that the iPhone couldn't, but we've seen how that worked out.
Nice comments, but how about addressing the points that I said. The original Iphone was definitely revolutionary in some ways, buy way behind in features that it didn't have, that other phones already had, like 3G, custom ringtones, multi tasking, video recording, and copy n paste, just to name a few. You can sense fan boys by their comments. They usually do their best to avoid addressing specifically stated points that prove anything negative about their product, instead of being objective and admitting both the pros and cons. IOS products have both impressed me, and irritated me by putting out a high quality product with an excellently, smooth and simplistic os/ui .......yet each device...as great as it is...was and is lacking in some features that the competitors have.
Nice comments, but how about addressing the points that I said. The original Iphone was definitely revolutionary in some ways, buy way behind in features that it didn't have, that other phones already had, like 3G, custom ringtones, multi tasking, video recording, and copy n paste, just to name a few. You can sense fan boys by their comments. They usually do their best to avoid addressing specifically stated points that prove anything negative about their product, instead of being objective and admitting both the pros and cons. IOS products have both impressed me, and irritated me by putting out a high quality product with an excellently, smooth and simplistic os/ui .......yet each device...as great as it is...was and is lacking in some features that the competitors have.
My point being that talking about "features" misses the point if those features are poorly implemented and hard to use, and are moreover are irrelevant when a product completely changes the terms of competition.
Windows phones had pretty much all the features you could want, and now that iteration of phone has been completely abandoned, replaced by a phone that actually lacks some of the very same features as the iPhone did on release (cut and paste, multitasking). Nokia is a feature king, and now their hemorrhaging market share and floundering around to figure out a way forward. Google radically changed up Android once they got a look at the iPhone. The iPhone wasn't revolutionary "in some ways", it was revolutionary in every way that mattered-- which is why all those button encrusted, hard to use, poorly selling feature laden "smart phones" are done and buried.
By the way, you can usually sense an insipid little douchebag without a very strong argument to make by their reliance on yelling "fanboy."
My point being that talking about "features" misses the point if those features are poorly implemented and hard to use, and are moreover are irrelevant when a product completely changes the terms of competition.
Windows phones had pretty much all the features you could want, and now that iteration of phone has been completely abandoned, replaced by a phone that actually lacks some of the very same features as the iPhone did on release (cut and paste, multitasking). Nokia is a feature king, and now their hemorrhaging market share and floundering around to figure out a way forward. Google radically changed up Android once they got a look at the iPhone. The iPhone wasn't revolutionary "in some ways", it was revolutionary in every way that mattered-- which is why all those button encrusted, hard to use, poorly selling feature laden "smart phones" are done and buried.
By the way, you can usually sense an insipid little douchebag without a very strong argument to make by their reliance on yelling "fanboy."
Ok, so let me say this again, my only point was that the Iphone, and every iteration of it, lacked various features. Are you saying that it is ok because the Iphone itself was and is such a great device? It was ok not to have 3G, multitasking, copy n paste, custom ringtones, video recording on the first Iphone and no multitasking, etc on the second one? That doesn't make sense. It was only ok in that people still liked the phone, but the question is, why is it always lacking? Did you see how with each generation of Iphone, they added those features? Features again, that were already industry standards? Why did it always take them so long to add these features? Are you saying that it is ok? Obviously, Apple added them, so even they felt the need for these features, but they just always seem late to the game. And by the way, I have a strong argument, and I made it, by putting out clear specifics, but you seem to avoid them.
Again, I think Apple puts out great products, but my question is WHY do they wait so long to add the features? And is that not a negative thing? In my book, it's not a great thing to be behind the curve in anything. However, again, they obviously did something right, and that's the higher quality of their products, and the almost perfect os/ui.
If these features were so "irrelevant" as you stated above, why does Apple always choose to add these features, even if a year later, then tout these same features that you call "irrelvant"????
Ok, so let me say this again, my only point was that the Iphone, and every iteration of it, lacked various features. Are you saying that it is ok because the Iphone itself was and is such a great device? It was ok not to have 3G, multitasking, copy n paste, custom ringtones, video recording on the first Iphone and no multitasking, etc on the second one? That doesn't make sense. It was only ok in that people still liked the phone, but the question is, why is it always lacking? Did you see how with each generation of Iphone, they added those features? Features again, that were already industry standards? Why did it always take them so long to add these features? Are you saying that it is ok? Obviously, Apple added them, so even they felt the need for these features, but they just always seem late to the game. And by the way, I have a strong argument, and I made it, by putting out clear specifics, but you seem to avoid them.
Again, I think Apple puts out great products, but my question is WHY do they wait so long to add the features? And is that not a negative thing? In my book, it's not a great thing to be behind the curve in anything. However, again, they obviously did something right, and that's the higher quality of their products, and the almost perfect os/ui.
If these features were so "irrelevant" as you stated above, why does Apple always choose to add these features, even if a year later, then tout these same features that you call "irrelvant"????
Because Apple is interested in getting getting it right-- they'll include functionality if it's genuinely useful and if the implementation is pretty seamless and it doesn't negatively impact another area that Apple deems important. Sometimes, that means waiting until the supporting tech is mature enough to make the trade-offs worth it, as in the case of 3G and battery life.
That doesn't mean I agree with their every choice; it does mean that I can be pretty certain that when Apple does offer a particular feature it will be well thought out and easy to use. I can also be pretty confident that Apple won't lard their devices with "features" that do little more than add a bullet-point to the box copy.
Who gives a shit, at this point, if a given Windows phone had video recording? It apparently sucked, since nobody used it. Why worry about RIM multitasking, if there were no tasks worth doing beyond email? What use is a Nokia phone with copy and paste, if it's too hard to use, or the functionality is lost in a sea of terrible design decisions?
You want to claim that Apple was somehow "behind the curve" on these things while blithely ignoring just how poorly they performed on competing platforms at the time of the iPhone's release. A feature isn't a feature just because you can describe it or it exists, it has to be genuinely useful, function well, be reasonably easy to access, and not have undue negative consequences. "Smart phones" prior to the iPhone, were such a swamp of engineer driven "features", unencumbered by basic standards of usability, as to render these types of comparison meaningless. They were that way because there was no competition with a better idea, and because it was simply accepted that these devices were the provenance of über-geeks, with a steep learning curve and absurd UI conventions the price of admission. Or have you forgotten? It's easy to forget, in that the inexplicably feature starved iPhone has completely swept that model aside.
Let me turn this around, since you seem to think this is an Apple specific issue: why did everyone else wait so long to make a touch based phone with a dead simple app delivery system, an excellent web browser and fun, easy to use UI? Those are the features that strike me as pertinent, why did every other phone manufacturer withhold those features for so long?
MS and RIM and Nokia and Palm had many, many years to add the features people apparently really wanted (given the explosion in smart phone use once everyone signed onto the Apple model). Why no iPhone equivalent? Why so far behind the curve? Doesn't it frustrate you, how all those other manufacturers do that?
Because Apple is interested in getting getting it right-- they'll include functionality if it's genuinely useful and if the implementation is pretty seamless and it doesn't negatively impact another area that Apple deems important. Sometimes, that means waiting until the supporting tech is mature enough to make the trade-offs worth it, as in the case of 3G and battery life.
That doesn't mean I agree with their every choice; it does mean that I can be pretty certain that when Apple does offer a particular feature it will be well thought out and easy to use. I can also be pretty confident that Apple won't lard their devices with "features" that do little more than add a bullet-point to the box copy.
Who gives a shit, at this point, if a given Windows phone had video recording? It apparently sucked, since nobody used it. Why worry about RIM multitasking, if there were no tasks worth doing beyond email? What use is a Nokia phone with copy and paste, if it's too hard to use, or the functionality is lost in a sea of terrible design decisions?
You want to claim that Apple was somehow "behind the curve" on these things while blithely ignoring just how poorly they performed on competing platforms at the time of the iPhone's release. A feature isn't a feature just because you can describe it or it exists, it has to be genuinely useful, function well, be reasonably easy to access, and not have undue negative consequences. "Smart phones" prior to the iPhone, were such a swamp of engineer driven "features", unencumbered by basic standards of usability, as to render these types of comparison meaningless. They were that way because there was no competition with a better idea, and because it was simply accepted that these devices were the provenance of über-geeks, with a steep learning curve and absurd UI conventions the price of admission. Or have you forgotten? It's easy to forget, in that the inexplicably feature starved iPhone has completely swept that model aside.
Let me turn this around, since you seem to think this is an Apple specific issue: why did everyone else wait so long to make a touch based phone with a dead simple app delivery system, an excellent web browser and fun, easy to use UI? Those are the features that strike me as pertinent, why did every other phone manufacturer withhold those features for so long?
MS and RIM and Nokia and Palm had many, many years to add the features people apparently really wanted (given the explosion in smart phone use once everyone signed onto the Apple model). Why no iPhone equivalent? Why so far behind the curve? Doesn't it frustrate you, how all those other manufacturers do that?
What I see in your argument, is that you seem to feel that the features that I mentioned that were lacking on the Iphone, just didn't work well on the other smartphones. Well, first and foremost, to me, Windows Mobile sucked badly, so I won't even argue about them. However, Palm and RIM didn't suck. And they offered the video recording, picture messaging, copy n paste, custom ringtones, that Apple didn't offer in 3G, and those features didn't suck at all. RIM also offered multitasking, and 3G, and those didn't suck either, infact, RIM was the number one smartphone maker in America. So, I don't get your point at all.
Regarding the point you made that it took others soo long to make such an excellent touch, and easy to use os/ui, simplistic os, and great browser? Well, it seems that Apple was more innovative and just did it better than everyone else, and before everyone else. And I agree with that, but that doesn't have anything to do with the features that I mentioned that they do lack, and the fact that they always lack certain features that are standard on other leading smartphones. I will tell you, I own an Iphone and and android, and I like things about both. Iphone has the smoothest touchscreen, the smoothest os, and the easiest os to use. However, Android, offers all of the features that I want, and contrary to your argument, android has done a pretty good job with all of the features that they have. So, I am actually saying that I like the Iphone, but pointing out obvious negative things that are factual, such as the lack of features compared to the competitor's feature set. And yes, a feature set is nothing to brag about, unless it works properly, but from my experiences with RIM and Android, their feature sets do work very well, as noted in their reviews and in the success that they've had. It's not to say that they are without their issues as well, but my complaint here, was with Apple, because to me, if they only kept up with the competition's fully featured options, there probably would be NO competition.
If you want a reason, it is because Apple operates like this. Use it or don't. Buy it or don't. They will accept feedback and adjust, but always at their pace. Their philosophy is that there are essentially no competitors. It's blue ocean thinking. Yes, it can be extremely frustrating, and they add features only incrementally but also take away features incrementally. For example, why is Bluetooth file transfer still not done on iPhone? Nobody knows.
Apologies for my tone but I get confused by people that go to Android and then say, oh, but why is Apple etc etc.
There are definitely features that are not on any Apple products. For example, why no full video mirroring on iPhone and iPad? I absolutely need that for demos and presentations, that's why I jailbreak.
No Flash. Only once this issue is raised do we start to realise how horrible Flash is for playback and the performance and security issues it causes. Sure, it could still be implemented even though it is not *that* good... But no, that's a compromise Apple will not make.
This is why it is healthy to have and use non-Apple products and services. How can we expect one company to do everything right by us, and everything that we want? I know it is sometimes so close, yet so far. That's why technology and people and services, it's about what's best for you. Apple is there to blaze the trail. But others are also needed to build the roads and towns and railway lines and so on.
This is actually why the iPad and iPhone has been so successful. All shortcomings are given a chance at least to be addressed through a managed third-party application system. Safari is lousy compared now to AtomicWeb on iPad. iOS has a nice balance of control and flexibility. It still does not do everything you want, that's why there's Android, Macs, PCs, etc.
Why do people that own an iPhone *and* Android come here to say how much they are frustrated by this or that of the iPhone? Why tell us this? I'm starting to not see the point. Just use your Android, no one is going to be offended.
If you want a reason, it is because Apple operates like this. Use it or don't. Buy it or don't. They will accept feedback and adjust, but always at their pace. Their philosophy is that there are essentially no competitors. It's blue ocean thinking. Yes, it can be extremely frustrating, and they add features only incrementally but also take away features incrementally. For example, why is Bluetooth file transfer still not done on iPhone? Nobody knows.
Apologies for my tone but I get confused by people that go to Android and then say, oh, but why is Apple etc etc.
There are definitely features that are not on any Apple products. For example, why no full video mirroring on iPhone and iPad? I absolutely need that for demos and presentations, that's why I jailbreak.
I came here just to voice my opinion, and point out some of the negative things about an otherwise, exceptional product. Much came out of my little post because someone came on here to defend Apple, and deny all of the obvious negative things that I brought out. As for me, I will continue to use both, as both have things about them I like. My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
Are you sure he isn't from an alternate dimension where the his side's Galaxy Tab is much better than our Galaxy Tab?
Careful or Broyles and Dunham will be coming for you to encase you in amber
My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
The iPhone is arguably already currently the best but by no means perfect.
Android or someone would always be real competition simply because 1 phone can't cover all bases.
Apple provides features in increments because features don't instantaneously happen or there are trade offs in providing these features that Apple prefers not to make. What you are asking for is impossible for any vendor. By the time they are feature complete the market has moved forward and they are no longer feature complete. The features you liked in RIM or whatever that were/are not in the iPhone aren't there isn't because it was not possible to implement in a polished manner but instead were/are not there because APPLE couldn't implement them in a polished manner in the time frame.
Deliberately not providing feature X until it is more polished is the trade off between when it reaches the consumer and whether or not it is polished. Complaining about Apple strategy vs Google seems to miss the point. You can have features sooner with less polish (Android) or you can have features later but more polished (Apple). Throwing more developers on a specific feature beyond a certain point doesn't provide better time to market or more polish.
Do you really think that MS wanted to leave off cut and past in the first iteration of WP7 any more than Apple did? No. Even super rich large companies have to pick and choose which feature sets they can reasonably deliver in any time frame. They don't have an infinite supply of developers to maximize coverage on every feature and EVEN if they did the integration time is exponential.
Are they being "purposeful" in not releasing these features? Yes, because the feature would SUCK if they released them half-baked and by taking resources away from another feature make that SUCK as well.
Did they do it to purposely screw the customer as you seem to insinuate? No.
Why does Google do it? Mostly because Google has been able to get away with beta level capability because it's been free. Google and lack of polish is accepted with the brand and they have a nice halo all their own. Stuff they get away with would get MS or Apple crucified in the tech press. That said 2.2 is pretty good and gingerbread should be better.
Tablet support will likely not be nearly as polished as the iPad but it'll be chock full of features and hardware.
The iPhone is arguably already currently the best but by no means perfect.
Android or someone would always be real competition simply because 1 phone can't cover all bases.
Apple provides features in increments because features don't instantaneously happen or there are trade offs in providing these features that Apple prefers not to make. What you are asking for is impossible for any vendor. By the time they are feature complete the market has moved forward and they are no longer feature complete. The features you liked in RIM or whatever that were/are not in the iPhone aren't there isn't because it was not possible to implement in a polished manner but instead were/are not there because APPLE couldn't implement them in a polished manner in the time frame.
Deliberately not providing feature X until it is more polished is the trade off between when it reaches the consumer and whether or not it is polished. Complaining about Apple strategy vs Google seems to miss the point. You can have features sooner with less polish (Android) or you can have features later but more polished (Apple). Throwing more developers on a specific feature beyond a certain point doesn't provide better time to market or more polish.
Do you really think that MS wanted to leave off cut and past in the first iteration of WP7 any more than Apple did? No. Even super rich large companies have to pick and choose which feature sets they can reasonably deliver in any time frame. They don't have an infinite supply of developers to maximize coverage on every feature and EVEN if they did the integration time is exponential.
Are they being "purposeful" in not releasing these features? Yes, because the feature would SUCK if they released them half-baked and by taking resources away from another feature make that SUCK as well.
Did they do it to purposely screw the customer as you seem to insinuate? No.
Why does Google do it? Mostly because Google has been able to get away with beta level capability because it's been free. Google and lack of polish is accepted with the brand and they have a nice halo all their own. Stuff they get away with would get MS or Apple crucified in the tech press. That said 2.2 is pretty good and gingerbread should be better.
Tablet support will likely not be nearly as polished as the iPad but it'll be chock full of features and hardware.
I came here just to voice my opinion, and point out some of the negative things about an otherwise, exceptional product. Much came out of my little post because someone came on here to defend Apple, and deny all of the obvious negative things that I brought out. As for me, I will continue to use both, as both have things about them I like. My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
We were in a similar situation, with a software product.
While we were adding the features the beta testers wanted, a competitor brought out a similar product with half the features. Then they added features and it was version 2. Then version 3 came out with more features. The income earned allowed them hire more staff and develop quicker.
Spending all our time creating the "perfect" product hurt us and our customers. A mistake we won't make again.
We were in a similar situation, with a software product.
While we were adding the features the beta testers wanted, a competitor brought out a similar product with half the features. Then they added features and it was version 2. Then version 3 came out with more features. The income earned allowed them hire more staff and develop quicker.
Spending all our time creating the "perfect" product hurt us and our customers. A mistake we won't make again.
Time to market is often key. Unless you're Blizzard.
I might opine that if your competitor had all your features but with half of them semi-broken that probably wouldn't have ended well for them. Unless they was Google.
I came here just to voice my opinion, and point out some of the negative things about an otherwise, exceptional product. Much came out of my little post because someone came on here to defend Apple, and deny all of the obvious negative things that I brought out. As for me, I will continue to use both, as both have things about them I like. My point is in a nutshell, that Apple could easily be the best, without real competition from Android, if they'd give us all of the features without waiting to give it to us in "increments", as you mentioned. I got an Android and said "oh but why is Apple etc etc", because their faults, are more deliberate, whereas, Android just isn't as polished.
Fair enough. I am starting to see some people have 2 phones and like certain aspects of both of them.
In any case I think the part highlighted in bold red is where yours and most peoples frustration with Apple is.
What they perceive to be Apple able to, but not wanting to do certain things. But nht's post sums things up. In Apple's case, they prefer to not have something than to have it "just isn't as polished".
On a side note, have you considered that Google not having Android more polished is something deliberate in and of itself? They are known to develop to a certain point and then "release often, release early".
As nht mentions it is actually pretty amazing what they get away with being in perpetual Beta mode for all their "products".
Time to market is often key. Unless you're Blizzard.
I might opine that if your competitor had all your features but with half of them semi-broken that probably wouldn't have ended well for them. Unless they was Google.
That's the frustrating part. What they released was crap, but people wanted the results the software gave. It wasn't until version 3 that the software
wasn't bug infested.