Simplify, elegance, digital hub-->iApps-iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto.
The iPod is made to take your digital assets with you. Think with me here. iPod 2
If the integration with your iTunes playlist is so seamless, couldn't you do the same with movies and photos?
Put a 320x240 color screen on a la Sony Clie. A 10 gig iPod--are there really a lot of people carrying around 2000mp3's? Rumors floated about a 20GB iPod.
iPod on your desk, directory of pictures cycles while you listen to your favorite tunes. See a friend on the street and show your latest iMovie of junior.
Possibly a video out miniplug like the iBook. Hook it up to a monitor or projector for viewing.
Food for thought, simplify, elegance, digital hub.
How about this I didnt fully read this thread so im sorry if this idea was already brought up. What if apple into`s a whole new strategy or some what redefines what it has now. They bought out all those companies but its to early to release products for it yet. So to add to some of the rumors around here i guess here goes. Apple bundles all sortsa great software together with the perfect machine say the iMac and a very nice price point and it goes under the digital hub, Next apple bundles all sortsa great software for education for the emac and then finally when you by a pro machine MWSF you get the all new GwhatEver with massive power and massive products to go with it. Plus maybe bundle software with the xserve but i doubt that there is already good software with it. What do you think?
<strong>Ok, applying the Steve-Zen philosophy to one
</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, please
<strong> [quote]
aspect of the computing experience: the mouse.
Simple doesn't mean crippled, nor does it mean
</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, it DOES. you obviously have never used a good *nix window manager. i have a three button mouse, and i use all three. all your talk about context ignores the fact that in the same context (eg, the pointer on the desktop), there can be multiple actions. in this example, you could click the right button for a "context" menu, as mac os calls it, or left and drag a rectangle to select icons - that can't be added to a single action, unless you want to have to select menu->rectangle each time.
you seem to forget all the command-click and ctrl-clicks that mac os requires. that is not simpler than a two or three button mouse. the only leg your arugment stands on is initial learning curve. however, millions and millions of people use two button mice just fine. if it takes someone more than 1 second to figure out they if hit the right button, they've got a mental problem. maybe we should get rid of keyboards. i mean, look at all those confusing buttons!
<strong> [quote]
<insert anything here> for dummies. As Jonathan Ive put it, good design is when you have taken everything you can away from a product without sacrificing the essence of the product. Good design usually results in something incredibly simple, but it is nowhere near as simple to achieve it.
Why did Apple refine the original Xerox PARC mouse into a one-button device? Because they were introducing an entirely new way of computing, point-and-click. They could have kept 3 buttons on the mouse and made their own lives easier by off-loading complexity onto the user. However, the
</strong><hr></blockquote>
how does more buttons offload "complexity" to the user?
<strong> [quote]
system is such that the good design of the user interface obviates the need for extra mouse buttons. The result: the new user, the jaded user, and every user in between only has to click one button at any given point in time, regardless of context. It's a binary situation. On, off. Click, no click.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
how do you explain all the shift-click, ctrl-click, and cmd-clicks?
Apple has done this and been there. Printers such as the Stylewriter series from years ago greatly simplified the printing experience with features that PC printer companies today cannot grasp. The Stylewriter turned on automatically when a signal is sent from the Mac, and turned itself off after five minutes. Today, Lexmark gives you this crap where you have to press the green button to turn on the stupid printer or else get a man telling you in
<hr></blockquote>
actually, there are soft-power pc printers. years a go, when i was in high school, they had pc printers with two buttons. i HATE them. btw, NEITHER of the two buttons was the power button. i've even heard of newer printers that have ONE button. not only that, instead of saying "form feed" they have pictures you have to decode (if it's for internationalization, they could have both and it'd be fine).
soft power is more of a curse than a gift. to really turn off those printers, you had to pull the plug. that doesn't "simplify" things, it makes it a pain in the ass. soft power devices are never really off. i do like some aspects of it (eg, powering down a machine and not having to flip a switch), i don't like it printers that aren't used often always sapping power to poll the interface. even this dell i'm using down at work is a victim of this dumbing down. it doesn't have a reset button, so when windows blue screens (which, of course, is often - for the record, i prefer linux, on non-x86 machines) or locks up, i have to hold down the "on" button for 5 seconds. that turns it off, then i have to turn it back on (needlessly stressing components, especially the hd).
those are advanced functions, you can do all the actions on a Mac with a single button.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'd hardly call them advanced, and as we all know, you CAN'T do them with a single button. my point is, instead of hitting cmd-click, etc, the mouse should have two or three buttons.
after thinking about it for a while.... my iBook is my main audio source in my house via the A/V adaptor to my TV's front panel and then to my receiver. I have a DVD player for CD/DVD but hardly use it for music because I have to switch CD's all the time.
The disadvantage is that my ibook sits on the coffee table so I have a cord running to the TV from there.
I am now really thinking a 20GB iPod could hold all my CD's and just sit beside my component stereo every now and then being updated from the iBook. Maybe not using iPod to its full advantage but doing what I want it to do.
So, if apple were to make a thin profile but AV-component sized audio device with airport and a front panel firewire port and a real REMOTE CONTROL I would go nuts. Its barely anymore complicated than an iPod and will have ample case space for future enhancement. You could even use a quiet standard ATA drive (a la Seagate, IBM, etc) for great performance and massive storage capabilities (80GB+).
I know im dreaming so iyou can stick your "it will never happen" flames in your pipe and smoke it. Its just something that would be great for me and maybe a few others on this forum who are music nuts. think of this as a starting point and postulate where such a device may go from there.
peace
"I gave her my 2cents and she gave me change back"
after thinking about it for a while.... my iBook is my main audio source in my house via the A/V adaptor to my TV's front panel and then to my receiver. I have a DVD player for CD/DVD but hardly use it for music because I have to switch CD's all the time.
The disadvantage is that my ibook sits on the coffee table so I have a cord running to the TV from there.
I am now really thinking a 20GB iPod could hold all my CD's and just sit beside my component stereo every now and then being updated from the iBook. Maybe not using iPod to its full advantage but doing what I want it to do.
So, if apple were to make a thin profile but AV-component sized audio device with airport and a front panel firewire port and a real REMOTE CONTROL I would go nuts. Its barely anymore complicated than an iPod and will have ample case space for future enhancement. You could even use a quiet standard ATA drive (a la Seagate, IBM, etc) for great performance and massive storage capabilities (80GB+).
I know im dreaming so iyou can stick your "it will never happen" flames in your pipe and smoke it. Its just something that would be great for me and maybe a few others on this forum who are music nuts. think of this as a starting point and postulate where such a device may go from there.
peace
"I gave her my 2cents and she gave me change back"
if anything fits into the 'digital hub' concept more perfectly, it's the home server idea.
maybe not under that name...and maybe not as complicated as some have described.
i hardly ever listen to MP3s on my home stereo because i don't like tethering my iBook to it...and while i like having the option to watch video clips on the computer, video over IP is never going to take off in a real way untill you have a CONVENIENT option for watching it on a TV.
all it _needs_ to be is an Airport enabled file server with some A/V connections...well, Firewire too for iPods and DV cameras...and a remote control for using it when the main Mac is off or asleep.
the whole point would be to have a way to enjoy all that media (that the Mac is so good at creating and collecting) away from the computer itself.
i know geeks like us spend WAY too much time on our Macs, but most people like a little away time from their desk...or in my Airport friendly house, their bed : )
<strong>how does more buttons offload "complexity" to the user?</strong><hr></blockquote>
By shipping the Mac with a single button mouse, Apple has basically forced developers to make every single function of their apps available with only one mouse button. This is a good thing. With PCs shipping with multi-button mice, developers can cheat and stick things in contextual menus with no other way of getting to them, forcing users to use the second button.
Contextual menus and right click are available on the Mac as shortcuts for power users. They should NEVER be required. The one button mouse forces this.
Comments
The iPod is made to take your digital assets with you. Think with me here. iPod 2
If the integration with your iTunes playlist is so seamless, couldn't you do the same with movies and photos?
Put a 320x240 color screen on a la Sony Clie. A 10 gig iPod--are there really a lot of people carrying around 2000mp3's? Rumors floated about a 20GB iPod.
iPod on your desk, directory of pictures cycles while you listen to your favorite tunes. See a friend on the street and show your latest iMovie of junior.
Possibly a video out miniplug like the iBook. Hook it up to a monitor or projector for viewing.
Food for thought, simplify, elegance, digital hub.
The iPod isn't a hub, it's a spoke.
The "Spokes" are specilized devices. The Hub is a Mac, a general purpouse computer.
An iPod/Picture Viewer would distract from the iPods ability to play MP3s.
The only thing the iPod does other than play MP3s is act as a hard disk and a contancts list.
It can do both, without modifying the hardware IN ANY WAY.
There may be an iFrame in future, but I don't think there is the market for that.
A big color screen on the iPod would force the controls to the side, meaning it isn't as easy to use and impossible to fit in most pockets (to wide).
It would also add to the cost, which the contacts list/hard drive don't.
Barto
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>Ok, applying the Steve-Zen philosophy to one
</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, please
<strong> [quote]
aspect of the computing experience: the mouse.
Simple doesn't mean crippled, nor does it mean
</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, it DOES. you obviously have never used a good *nix window manager. i have a three button mouse, and i use all three. all your talk about context ignores the fact that in the same context (eg, the pointer on the desktop), there can be multiple actions. in this example, you could click the right button for a "context" menu, as mac os calls it, or left and drag a rectangle to select icons - that can't be added to a single action, unless you want to have to select menu->rectangle each time.
you seem to forget all the command-click and ctrl-clicks that mac os requires. that is not simpler than a two or three button mouse. the only leg your arugment stands on is initial learning curve. however, millions and millions of people use two button mice just fine. if it takes someone more than 1 second to figure out they if hit the right button, they've got a mental problem. maybe we should get rid of keyboards. i mean, look at all those confusing buttons!
<strong> [quote]
<insert anything here> for dummies. As Jonathan Ive put it, good design is when you have taken everything you can away from a product without sacrificing the essence of the product. Good design usually results in something incredibly simple, but it is nowhere near as simple to achieve it.
Why did Apple refine the original Xerox PARC mouse into a one-button device? Because they were introducing an entirely new way of computing, point-and-click. They could have kept 3 buttons on the mouse and made their own lives easier by off-loading complexity onto the user. However, the
</strong><hr></blockquote>
how does more buttons offload "complexity" to the user?
<strong> [quote]
system is such that the good design of the user interface obviates the need for extra mouse buttons. The result: the new user, the jaded user, and every user in between only has to click one button at any given point in time, regardless of context. It's a binary situation. On, off. Click, no click.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
how do you explain all the shift-click, ctrl-click, and cmd-clicks?
Originally posted by heh2k:
how do you explain all the shift-click, ctrl-click, and cmd-clicks?
<hr></blockquote>
those are advanced functions, you can do all the actions on a Mac with a single button.
Apple has done this and been there. Printers such as the Stylewriter series from years ago greatly simplified the printing experience with features that PC printer companies today cannot grasp. The Stylewriter turned on automatically when a signal is sent from the Mac, and turned itself off after five minutes. Today, Lexmark gives you this crap where you have to press the green button to turn on the stupid printer or else get a man telling you in
<hr></blockquote>
actually, there are soft-power pc printers. years a go, when i was in high school, they had pc printers with two buttons. i HATE them. btw, NEITHER of the two buttons was the power button. i've even heard of newer printers that have ONE button. not only that, instead of saying "form feed" they have pictures you have to decode (if it's for internationalization, they could have both and it'd be fine).
soft power is more of a curse than a gift. to really turn off those printers, you had to pull the plug. that doesn't "simplify" things, it makes it a pain in the ass. soft power devices are never really off. i do like some aspects of it (eg, powering down a machine and not having to flip a switch), i don't like it printers that aren't used often always sapping power to poll the interface. even this dell i'm using down at work is a victim of this dumbing down. it doesn't have a reset button, so when windows blue screens (which, of course, is often - for the record, i prefer linux, on non-x86 machines) or locks up, i have to hold down the "on" button for 5 seconds. that turns it off, then i have to turn it back on (needlessly stressing components, especially the hd).
<strong>
those are advanced functions, you can do all the actions on a Mac with a single button.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'd hardly call them advanced, and as we all know, you CAN'T do them with a single button. my point is, instead of hitting cmd-click, etc, the mouse should have two or three buttons.
Oh no... three buttons, which one should I choose.
And the middle button moves... Is it broked... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Personally I am tired of having to use two hands to do what only takes one on a PC.
OPT/CMND/FN/SHFT+click is really stupid.
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
Personally I am tired of having to use two hands to do what only takes one on a PC.
OPT/CMND/FN/SHFT+click is really stupid.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why on earth don't you buy a three-button wheel mouse then?
<strong>
Why on earth don't you buy a three-button wheel mouse then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What would be the Apple product number of thier three button scrollwheel mouse ?
If it doesn't have the Apple logo on it, I won't use it.
<strong>
What would be the Apple product number of thier three button scrollwheel mouse ?
If it doesn't have the Apple logo on it, I won't use it.
Will the thread get locked if I tell you to wait for the three button optical iCheese?
Sorry moderators...I'm still waiting for info about the possible convergence of the iPod and satellite radio!
The disadvantage is that my ibook sits on the coffee table so I have a cord running to the TV from there.
I am now really thinking a 20GB iPod could hold all my CD's and just sit beside my component stereo every now and then being updated from the iBook. Maybe not using iPod to its full advantage but doing what I want it to do.
<entering dream sequence, realists turn aside>
So, if apple were to make a thin profile but AV-component sized audio device with airport and a front panel firewire port and a real REMOTE CONTROL I would go nuts. Its barely anymore complicated than an iPod and will have ample case space for future enhancement. You could even use a quiet standard ATA drive (a la Seagate, IBM, etc) for great performance and massive storage capabilities (80GB+).
I know im dreaming so iyou can stick your "it will never happen" flames in your pipe and smoke it. Its just something that would be great for me and maybe a few others on this forum who are music nuts. think of this as a starting point and postulate where such a device may go from there.
peace
"I gave her my 2cents and she gave me change back"
The disadvantage is that my ibook sits on the coffee table so I have a cord running to the TV from there.
I am now really thinking a 20GB iPod could hold all my CD's and just sit beside my component stereo every now and then being updated from the iBook. Maybe not using iPod to its full advantage but doing what I want it to do.
<entering dream sequence, realists turn aside>
So, if apple were to make a thin profile but AV-component sized audio device with airport and a front panel firewire port and a real REMOTE CONTROL I would go nuts. Its barely anymore complicated than an iPod and will have ample case space for future enhancement. You could even use a quiet standard ATA drive (a la Seagate, IBM, etc) for great performance and massive storage capabilities (80GB+).
I know im dreaming so iyou can stick your "it will never happen" flames in your pipe and smoke it. Its just something that would be great for me and maybe a few others on this forum who are music nuts. think of this as a starting point and postulate where such a device may go from there.
peace
"I gave her my 2cents and she gave me change back"
maybe not under that name...and maybe not as complicated as some have described.
i hardly ever listen to MP3s on my home stereo because i don't like tethering my iBook to it...and while i like having the option to watch video clips on the computer, video over IP is never going to take off in a real way untill you have a CONVENIENT option for watching it on a TV.
all it _needs_ to be is an Airport enabled file server with some A/V connections...well, Firewire too for iPods and DV cameras...and a remote control for using it when the main Mac is off or asleep.
the whole point would be to have a way to enjoy all that media (that the Mac is so good at creating and collecting) away from the computer itself.
i know geeks like us spend WAY too much time on our Macs, but most people like a little away time from their desk...or in my Airport friendly house, their bed : )
-12
<strong>how does more buttons offload "complexity" to the user?</strong><hr></blockquote>
By shipping the Mac with a single button mouse, Apple has basically forced developers to make every single function of their apps available with only one mouse button. This is a good thing. With PCs shipping with multi-button mice, developers can cheat and stick things in contextual menus with no other way of getting to them, forcing users to use the second button.
Contextual menus and right click are available on the Mac as shortcuts for power users. They should NEVER be required. The one button mouse forces this.