GeorgeBMac

Marvin said:

GeorgeBMac said:

All the comments heaping accolades on the original iPhone seem to forget that the original was really kind of basic -- at least compared to today's phones.   Basic enough that, on a functional level, it was more or less on par with existing phones that (also) ran the the Palm OS.   In fact, in many ways, the Palm OS provided increased functionality and user friendliness...

The iPhone didn't spring from the womb into what it is today, it evolved into it...  While the foundation was there, the exploitation of that foundation took awhile...

I don't think so. One of the biggest improvements was the browser. No other device used a full desktop-class browser capable of rendering web pages in as usable a way as a desktop OS. This was enabled both by the Safari browser itself and the multi-touch interface. Being able to smoothly glide around large pages of information with momentum scrolling and fluid, sharp scaling, closely tracking the finger was a huge improvement compared to the stylus UIs and key based input moving pages with arrow keys. This made mobile maps and navigation usable on mobile devices too, avoiding the need for dedicated GPS boxes like TomTom. Who was listening to music on their phones? Navigating huge lists of music tracks was too slow. Who was taking photos with their phones? This is why some people sum up the iPhone impact with 'you had me at scrolling' because that interface alone made such a huge difference.

Nobody was making usable software keyboards and phones mostly avoided them, Android didn't get one until 2 years after the original iPhone. The full qwerty keyboard meant texting and email was finally usable and people could move away from the T9 abbreviations and use proper words (e.g 'to see you' instead of 2 c u). Although devices like Blackberry/Nokia/Palm had qwerty keyboards, they were often cramped and didn't gain widespread use. Using a software keyboard when everybody else pushed for hardware meant it worked better for video and games because you got the full large display without that hardware appendage in landscape. Hardware keyboards forced either landscape or portrait but didn't allow both.

The Palm smart devices weren't designed to be phones, they used styluses and the Palm phones had keypads with small screens. Windows CE was a horrible OS because these systems were all built like miniature desktop systems (start menu and all). Installing and uninstalling apps was just like desktops including downloading archives, connecting them to PCs, unzipping/installing packages with dependencies, this required a filesystem manager or it would break. This required styluses because they had menu systems, scroll bars and tiny UI elements.






Apps on the iPhone were part of the evolution of the device (and why I didn't buy the original, as well as the price) but this arrived only a year later and they didn't even follow OS X's way of doing it, which was already simpler than everybody else. They simplified it all the way to tap once and run, everything else was unnecessary. Uninstallation was just as simple.

Let's not forget the ringtones. This sound is so grating and it used to be everywhere:



Something so simple and yet you hear it every time someone calls so why it not make it sound nice:







They made the silent vibrate better than other devices, the old devices vibrated like electric shavers:



All of this functionality was wrapped up in an interface that was simple enough for a child to use immediately, that couldn't be said about any other product. Look at the UIs:





Just swipe and tap to directly access all of hundreds of apps and hit one home button to get back out, every UI element designed for touch.

All you have to do is imagine that Apple didn't make the iPhone. Who else would have made this? Most companies didn't make software and hardware together and the ones that did weren't good at either. The failure there lies in their lack of respect for design and how it affects the user experience. They just set out to make a profit from a target market and as long as the competition didn't do any better, the profits would keep rolling in. The iPhone could have been designed the same way with only some of its improvements and still beat them at their own game but it wouldn't have destroyed their companies. The monumental lack of respect for design in those products meant that the gap between where they were and where the iPhone arrived was insurmountable. Palm went under in 3 years, about 5 years for Nokia's mobile division and 6 years for Blackberry. There's no way that would have happened if their products had been anywhere near the original iPhone.

The evolution in size didn't change the way they worked nor how they were used, the original did all of that, the new models are refinements of an iconic design that changed phones once and for all:

lorin schultz said:

Does anyone actually upgrade RAM years after purchase? If so, why? If you're able to get by with less than the maximum for some period of time, why would you require more later? What's the advantage of starting with less and adding more over time? Why not just max it out off the bat and forget about it?

I could understand wanting to use third-party components that cost much less than Apple's BTO options, but it seems that particular argument should be about Apple's *pricing* and not whether or not the machine is user-upgradable. That doesn't seem to be what's driving the consternation, though. So if it's not the cost, what IS driving this perceived need to upgrade RAM down the road?

I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

"Battery technology has improved to a point where the battery will continue to operate in the machines foreseeable useful lifecycle."

And that's part of the trouble with the "Glued and soldered together" design:   Planned Obsolescence.
If the product's expected life is short enough (use it 3-5 years then discard and buy new), then yes, a battery can perform for the life of the unit.

Some of us expect and demand a longer life out of our electronics.   I am currently using a 10-12 year old IBM Thinkpad that, after a number of upgrades (including a battery), functions perfectly.  Why should I not expect the same performance out of a Mac?  

Because nobody cares about customers that replace computers once every decade.

chia said:

appex said:

What I like most of Mac is macOS. The problem with Apple is that it is a monopoly internally. All these problems would go if there were Mac clones.

I'm so glad you weren't running Apple during the nineties otherwise there wouldn't have been an Apple today to make the great products we use now.

You forget that Apple makes money from selling hardware.  Mac cloners won't have the same overhead R&D costs as Apple but will be chasing the same money in the same market as Apple.

Apple allowing Mac clones will be like carrying a competing runner for three quarters of a race only for them to leap off your back and cinch the gold medal.