Re-Imagining Apple

FirienFirien writes "Business 2.0 has put up a selection of ideas from Pentagram Design, featuring some interesting rumoured ipod innovations, as well as a look at what may be next for Apple. From the article: 'The project was led by Robert Brunner, who was Apple's chief designer from 1989 to 1996, and who oversaw the design of the PowerBook line, among many other hit products.'"

Comments

Well, for one thing...

[Pig Hogger]

For one thing, Apple could very well re-imagine itself by not suing students into oblivion...

Re:Well, for one thing...

[ceejayoz]

They probably shouldn't have been encouraging Apple employees to break their contracts, then.

Re:Well, for one thing...

[Trolling4Columbine]

Apple enforcing civil agreements (NDA) = good
RIAA enforcing civil agreements (copyright)= bad

Re:Well, for one thing...

[Kagato]

Apple settled, which is exactly what I predicted they would do. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, but you can create enough buzz to make other think twice before doing it again.

I know someone who was sued by microsoft. It was essentially the same thing. Rattle the saber a bit, get some media attention, and settle for peanuts after the story has disappeared from the pages.

Re:Well, for one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can miss out on the weekly laughter when an Apple user get sued. You're boring...

Re:Well, for one thing...

[ceejayoz]

Re:Well, for one thing..., posted to Re-Imagining Apple, has been moderated Insightful (+1).

It is currently scored Insightful (2).

Re:Well, for one thing..., posted to Re-Imagining Apple, has been moderated Insightful (+1).

It is currently scored Insightful (3).

Re:Well, for one thing..., posted to Re-Imagining Apple, has been moderated Overrated (-1).

It is currently scored Insightful (2).

Re:Well, for one thing..., posted to Re-Imagining Apple, has been moderated Offtopic (-1).

It is currently scored Insightful (1).

Re:Well, for one thing..., posted to Re-Imagining Apple, has been moderated Offtopic (-1).

It is currently scored Offtopic (0).

I sure would like a non reg version of the article

[Hurklefish]

reg is annoying.

wait a sec

[weavermatic]

Anyone with a Business 2.0 subscription want to re-post the article?(oh noes piracy)

Image 6 of 5

[Anonymous Coward]

iEarth.

An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting set of designs, but ones that show that non-steve-approved designers just don't get it.

Those products all look like any old generic electronics product. They entirely lack the current Apple design features of absolute minimalism.

If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would.

(and the button would be optional)

Re:An interesting set of designs

[poison_reverse]

i dont know about that - all the conceptual designs looked sleek and sexy, the usual apple aesthetic. I especially liked the iPhone. If apple really does follow through with some of these ideas, we're in for an exciting time to be a consumer.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[prockcore]

They entirely lack the current Apple design features of absolute minimalism.

You mean they don't look like boring bars of Ivory soap?

Re:An interesting set of designs

[izzo nizzo]

Well, 'entirely lacking' may be unfair. I like the look of the wireless ipod they drew. But after revisions gained these devices Jobs' approval, they could be a lot of fun even if they don't compare to the straightforward 'perfection' of the iPod and the iMac. I mean, few tasks are as straightforward as playing music. My point is just that I think Apple would do great by selling more electronics, even though they may not live up to the recent past, they'd still probably be better than almost any competitor.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[filenabber]

>a sphere with one single button on the outside,
>that glowed (and the button would be optional)
>

It's been done (just not by Apple): http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/5da2/

Brian - My Trivia Podcast

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a real opportunity out there for somebody to create a mock ad for the "iPhone shuffle." It's just got one button on it: "call."

Tagline: "Life is random."

Re:An interesting set of designs

[tehwebguy]

these are truly non-steve-approved and will never see the shelves of an apple store. i don't even like this article really, it seems like it is just b2.0 and brunner trying to get some attention.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Feh. These 'Apple designs' are just applying a thin layer of 'Apple style' onto already existing products. Part of Apple's success at design is identifying what people want before the people themselves recognize it. Why would Apple want to produce any of these? No. Because no one would buy them.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

Why does a cell phone NEED so many buttons though? I really think that mine has too many, and I rarely use them. For me, the ideal cellphone would have an answer button, and ignore button, a button to initiate voice-activated dialing, a button to toggle between ring, vibrate, and silent, and a power button. I should be able to enter contacts through a USB or BlueTooth interface, and since I'd like to use the phone with a BlueTooth headset instead of holding it to my head, it should have a small design.

I don't need a camera, I rarely use the digit keys (only for entering my voice mail password, which could use voice authentication), and I don't need a d-pad because I don't want to browse the web or play tetris on my phone.

On a side note, I also don't want my phone integerated with my digital music player. If a neat-o new technology comes out, I don't want to have to replace my music player just to upgrade my phone or vice versa.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Mikito]

I think one problem with these designs is that the designers seem to think a click wheel is the best interface for everything.

It's a good way to control a music player, and it might be a good control for some cell phone functions, but it would be awful for a camera. Imagine that you want to take a picture at the highest quality resolution, then you have to back up to the top menu to turn on the flash, and then you have to scroll to select red-eye reduction. The click wheel would slow you down, and you might very well miss the shot you wanted.

And that's just a simple picture! Imagine if you were trying to do something more advanced, such as a leading or trailing flash exposure.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[dchamp]

Check your voicemail, or your credit card balance, or anything else that you can do with a phone that requires you to enter a pin, zip code, or account number - without a numeric keypad. Go ahead. Try it.

There's also text messaging... which is a big deal for some people. I only use it for my one friend who works the night shift and can't answer the phone while at work.

Most people I know never use the voice activated dialing, mostly because it doesn't work, and they don't want to look like a moron saying "Bob! Bob! Bob!" at their phone in a public place. Of course, this assumes that they're not one of those folks who thinks it's OK to talk on a cell phone at any time and place (see: "Shaun of the Dead")

Re:An interesting set of designs

[hawk]

probably don't float, either . . .

hawk, dating himself

Re:An interesting set of designs

[SuperSanta]

Guy: "You're cute, can I get your number?" Girl: "Sure, got a cell phone?" Guy: "Better, an iPhone!" Girl: "My number is 596-6" Guy: "Woaaaah, hold on there missy....This is the latest and greatest new technology. You don't just start punching keys for the number, that so 2002! I'll just boot up my laptop so I can sync to my cell phone so I can add a new contact with your details. Girl: "Whatever. Later g44k!" Now, if they had voice-recognition for adding contacts along with dialing, that might be ok. But the cell phone background noice filtering in general does not seem to be where it is needed to have this work well...yet.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you got the first 4 digits of my phone number growing up right, want to guess the rest?

Re:An interesting set of designs

[bfizzle]

You're a slashdotter... you don't need to worry about getting a girl's #

Re:An interesting set of designs

[bfizzle]

eeehhhh.... The iPod was original? The minimac? Laptops? I think not.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[SuperSanta]

I'll hax0r the interweb to get for myself.
Geeks with confidence, substance and style.
God help us all.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[anakin876]

what about having just those buttons and a touch sensitive LCD that can display any sort of button you want? Set it up so the this screen is usually locked, but when unlocked the buttons can magically appear and dissapear. You would need a power button, an answer button, and if push the power and answer at the same time the LCD unlocks and you can access all your other buttons. You could make the phone practically any shape at that point (especially if it only used a bluetooth headset or something - then it could be a small little box or something). You could also add Functionality (including iPod) as long as you could reprogram the interface and add memory.

Personally I would still want one that looked like the last picture - a smooth black rectangle. The thing looks awesome!

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I'll rub that simple elegant infection-free Ivory soap on parts of my body that no Microsoft product will ever get near!

If Apple and MS did VR adult games which do you think would be the first to give you an STD?

I'm thankful they scrapped plans for their internet toilet project. Only Bill knows what it'd be forwarding to everyone in your address book...

Re:An interesting set of designs

[usernotfound]

Man, that would make drunk dialing people VERY easy.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[justin12345]

I think a designer could design a phone interface as good as or better then the current designs using nothing more than the button and click wheel on the newest model ipod.
br To be clear, I'm not suggesting an "iPod phone" or that the buttons would do anything like they do on the ipod, or would even be labled similarly. I'm just saying that the click wheel is a flexable and powerful input device cabable of supporting all the functions of a cell phone. If the designer was clever enough it could be beter then conventional setups; which if you think about it are kinda awkward.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[ultramk]

hawk, dating himself

...which is probably a good thing, as it's not likely anyone else would.

I keed, I keed. :-)

-m

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Leo McGarry]

Touch-sensitive panels don't usually work well because there's no tactile feedback.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[hawk]

Not a problem--Mrs. hawk would be quite unhappy were he to date anyone else :)

hawk

Re:An interesting set of designs

[stoney27]

Naw it will be more like, can I get your number, sure let me send it to you via bluetooth. Or better let my iPhone talk to your iPhone and they will call each other later...

Since anyone who is anyone will have an iPhone. If they don't you don't want to mingle with them anyhow :)

-S

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Cliff.Braun]

You are aware that wearing those headsets when not actively using them makes you look like an idiot though, right?

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

Before I start, let me point out that I prefixed the list of features that I want on a phone with "For me, the ideal cellphone would have...". This is MY ideal phone, which certainly wouldn't be for everyone. However, I have a feeling there are lots of people who would buy something similar.

Check your voicemail
In my post I stated that the only time I use the digits is to enter my voice mail PIN, which I then pointed out I would like to access through voice authentication.

or your credit card balance, or anything else that you can do with a phone that requires you to enter a pin, zip code, or account number
I don't do these things with my cell phone, and if I did, I think that it could be done with voice recognition.

There's also text messaging
I don't use text messaging; this is what email is for. If I don't answer your call and I'm not checking my email, then that means that I'm somewhere that I don't want to hear from you. Leave a voice mail and I'll get back to you. I understand that a lot of people are using text-messaging like instant messaging and enjoying it, but I'm not one of them. If I wanted to do that, perhaps I could send a text message from my PDA through my cell phone via BlueTooth.

Most people I know never use the voice activated dialing, mostly because it doesn't work
I haven't had problems with voice dialing on my phone. It's a LG 4500 series if you're interested.

those folks who thinks it's OK to talk on a cell phone at any time and place
I totally agree with you here, but this usually is a problem with the person, not the phone. ;-)

Again, I was describing the ideal phone for me, not everyone.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

Yes, I take off the headset when I'm not talking to someone.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

Ideally, we would exchange numbers via BlueTooth. Accepting that BlueTooth will not be that widespread anytime soon, I could also just write her number down on a piece of paper, bar napkin, or in my PDA.

Of course, the only woman I should be asking for her number is my wife, and I already know hers.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[myukew]

wait! there already is a device without buttons that actually has a use! As everything cool you can get it on thinkgeek

Re:An interesting set of designs

[dazedNconfuzed]

Why does a cell phone NEED so many buttons though?

A couple years ago there was a cell phone, billed as "disposable", which had only a couple buttons on it: one for on/voice-dial, one for hangup/off (maybe another for volume). Don't think it lasted long, and likely did voice dialing via automatic connection thru a 1-800 number, and was cheaply made, but did at least keep the buttons to a minimum.

Implementing the same functionality in a well-built phone would not be hard, allowing costs for really good numeric voice recognition. Press & hold one button for voice-to-DTMF, plus recognition of "hang up". Not unreasonable...

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, it didn't take long for some Apple zealot to come out and suck Jobs' cock. STFU.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[JohnsonWax]

Floating soap doesn't date you so much as your UID does.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Storlek]

I don't do these things with my cell phone, and if I did, I think that it could be done with voice recognition.

Are you saying you would be comfortable saying, for example, your bank account number and pin out loud? Or that you expect all these places that have services to check your accounts by phone to implement voice pattern recognition to identify the person speaking, and do so 100% reliably, so that you wouldn't be able to capture someone else's voice with a tape recorder and play it back to the voice recognition?

Neither option is feasible. What works for you won't work for a lot of people, and if your idea can't be used by people who actually use these features (which I would imagine is closer to the majority of 'heavy' cell phone users), no company in its right mind would want to produce it, at least not without some extremely slick marketing. I doubt even Apple has a clever enough staff to pull it off.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but... if a new technology came out why would you have to replace your cell phone? I have an MP3 player on my phone, I use it as my MP3 player... if a better music playing system came along I always could just buy it, and stop using the mp3 feature thats built into the phone.

Fine, you want a phone that only does phone stuff? thats cool, I can understand buying a phone and only wanting a phone... but for those of us that don't like having 4 gizmos on their belt (my Treo 600 replaced the gameboy, mp3 player, cell phone, and pda) whats wrong with that? And oh no your phone has a dpad... so what don't use it.. it's not like it's going to bite.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

I'm not trying to force my ideal, simple, small phone into everyone else's pocket, I'm just describing what I'd like to see in a cell phone. I shopped around before getting a new cell phone last year, and had a very hard time finding one that was JUST a phone (not a camera, PDA, or digital music player) and was also GOOD at being a phone.

I'm glad that there are option for people that want a phone to do lots for them, but I'd also like to see someone release a phone that just dials and lets me talk. The article in this story is about hypotethical Apple products, and one thing that I've found with recent Apple products is that they are designed to do one thing and do it very well.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

"If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would."

Doesn't that pretty much describe the Apple mouse? :)

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it so easy to use scanners to eavesdrop on conversations and numbers dialed on cell phones already that punching your pin is almost as bad as saying within the earshot of an interested party?

Anyway, I support the click wheel for text entry, seems like it would cause less stress injuries on the thumb to have a click wheel and trigger setup than the usual tap-tap-tap for 'f', etc. even better with T9.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

I wouldn't be comfortable giving out my bank account number or PIN via voice recognition, and I don't expect my bank to implement voice pattern recognition (yet). I'm mostly referring to the services that ask you for a zip code or some other piece of non-important information. I've used several automated service systems in the last few years that ask me for my zip code, phone number, or a part or serial number and use voice recognition to lead my through menus and these have worked quite well.

With voice mail, I wouldn't mind saying my PIN out loud. I know how to be polite when using my cell phone, so I try not to do that when there are others around. Sure, someone could bug my office or house to get my voice mail PIN, but they'd be going through an awful lot of trouble for not much reward.

I understand that such a phone isn't for everyone, but it is what I would like. Something that is just a phone and is good at being a phone.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[asreal]

Pfft. By entering digits on your phone, you just missed out. Get her to write on your hand with a pen, a 20th century device used to inscribe data on paper (or skin). It's much more intimate.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[misterpies]

What you want is a Nokia 7280. No keypad, just a clickwheel (very iPod).

Re:An interesting set of designs

[EccentricAnomaly]

If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would.

Ya know, that would be a pretty cool wireless mouse for presentations... just put an accelerometer inside to detect tilt like in that powerbook hack. :)

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

Thank you very much! I'd prefer if it didn't come with a camera, video playback, web browser, FM tuner, etc. for price reasons, but this looks great. It doesn't seem to be available in the US yet, but I may have to pick one up when it is.

I don't know how I feel about the click wheel on a phone, but I'll definately drop into a store to give it a try. Again, thanks for the heads up!

Re:An interesting set of designs

[smithmc]

Check your voicemail, or your credit card balance, or anything else that you can do with a phone that requires you to enter a pin, zip code, or account number - without a numeric keypad. Go ahead. Try it.

What, you mean you can't whistle the DTMF tones in to the mic? Loser. (My number is "Mary Had A Little Lamb".)

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Tim Browse]

It's even better when you wear two at once.

(joke for UK Channel 4 viewers)

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Krimszon]

It all looks a bit Sony...

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Leo McGarry]

Bluetooth is everywhere already, and has been for going on two years now.

But that aside, if you think you're going to haul out your Palm Pilot to write down a woman's telephone number, you're clearly missing out on the whole concept.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[calibanDNS]

I'll consider BlueTooth to be everywhere when

• You can expect a laptop to come with BT ala 802.11
• All major US cell phone service providers have a BT enabled phone in their lineup (Verizon currently doesn't)
• I can offer to send someone my contact info via BT and not get a confused stare like I currently do

Yes, I shouldn't be getting out my PDA to write down a girl's number. This is what bar napkins are for. Or ideally, like I said, BlueTooth. Both of these SHOULD be easier than storing a number into most current cell phones.

And last, I don't have to write her number in my PDA, I just have to remember her number until she walks away and then make a voice note on my PDA (only requires pressing one button). If I have to tell you why I need to wait until she walks away to do this, then you are a true Slashdotter.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[cgenman]

Exactly. A real apple product is usually something that people look at and go "why didn't I think of that." In reality they didn't think of it because there were already people selling such thing, but they were being held back by bad design or implementation.

Personally, I'm waiting for apple to revolutionize servers. I bet a series of stackable, sideways interconnectable hexagonal computing cubes which recieved power from eachother and sent data through eachother would not only make volume web hosting easier, but it would make it much more sturdy too. Server farming screams for a standard way to pass power, air, and data between a large group of machines that are self-contained and free standing. All you need is an elegant form factor and a company willing to try to revolutionize hosting.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

The T12 SpeechTool. It's well weapon.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[anakin876]

would you need tactile feed back if the display showed what you were pushing? In the case of dialing numbers the numbers could be displayed, in the case of menus and such the menu should change quickly enough that there won't be any confusion.

Re:An interesting set of designs

[jcr]

An interesting set of designs, but ones that show that non-steve-approved designers just don't get it.

Let's see. This guy worked on the Powerbooks, and the first PB model that Apple brought out after he left was the Titanium G4.

'nuff said.

-jcr

Re:An interesting set of designs

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it would look like this

How's that again?

[93 Escort Wagon]

'The project was led by Robert Brunner, who was Apple's chief designer from 1989 to 1996, and who oversaw the design of the PowerBook line, among many other hit products.'

Perhaps that should read "... chief designer from 1989 to 1996, a period where Apple saw its market share drop to near irrelevance".

Weren't these the same people Steve Jobs saved Apple from?

Re:How's that again?

[four2five]

I think it was more this man:
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/gil.shtml
Silly gil.....

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > Weren't these the same people Steve Jobs saved Apple from?
> Yeah when he opened up the architecture to clones and you
> started seeing Macs everywhere.

How did he manage to open the architecture up to clones at a time he didn't work for Apple?

Re:How's that again?

[rebeka thomas]

> Yeah when he opened up the architecture to clones and you
> started seeing Macs everywhere.

He did no such thing, And those clones were crap. They relied on better performance figures on paper with woeful hardware support & reliability.

I had the misfortune of supporting Macs during the 1990s. Apples were marginally better than most suppliers, but most clones were cheaper & more prone to failure than the worst PC brands.

Re:How's that again?

[Otter]

As a Performa 636CD owner, I must take exception to that! Could a computer that made me a plaintiff in three separate class-action suits be poorly designed?

Re:How's that again?

[n1ywb]

The PowerBook series set the standard for laptop computer design. They were terrific feats of industrial design. And the rest of Apple's products were usually pretty good that standpoint as well. The bad old days were not the result of poor industrial design. Poor price/performance, a crashy and rapidly deprecating OS, and crappy developer programs probably had a lot more to do with it.

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's industrial design team has always been among the best--no, scratch that, the best in the business, and one of the most well-respected among any company. Even during the "dark years", Apple's designers were producing very inventive, elegant and creative objèts. However, most of these projects were axed by upper management, who unfortunately appeared to share the sentiment (popular on Slashdot) that beauty has no place in the computer industry. You can find a sampling of what might have been in the so-so book Appledesign (published 1997, I believe--before the iMac).

Re:How's that again?

[Mononoke]

Sorry, you must have the PowerBook confused for the IBM Thinkpad.

Sorry, but you must not remember the PowerBook 100, the first laptop design to push the keyboard back toward the screen.

Re:How's that again?

[Gilmoure]

Oh yeah, the PowerMac 4400 (Introduction Date: November 15, 1996, Discontinued Date: October 11, 1997). What a babe!

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you don't think you've proven anything with that glib and frankly useless comment. Like I said, Apple's management at that time didn't allow very much to emerge from the company that was too creative or too forward in terms of industrial design, even though the design group kept prototyping stuff that would, in Steve Jobs' words, make you shit your pants. It's no surprise that what actually saw the light of day was often mediocre.

Re:How's that again?

[DaHat]

One must not also forget the Powerbook 500, sleek, round, very much unlike anything up until that pointing showing that even laptops could be sexy. Add to that the first true and successful touchpad and you have an amazing winner.

Re:How's that again?

[emc]

I also remember it with that atrocious trackball, a 9" screen, and terrible battery life.

The thinkpad had at 10.something inch COLOR screen, and the 'eraser tip' mouse control.

Re:How's that again?

[Simonetta]

Perhaps that should read "... chief designer from 1989 to 1996, a period where Apple saw its market share drop to near irrelevance".

Weren't these the same people Steve Jobs saved Apple from?

This is certainly a valid point, but it is essentially a 'red herring'. It's not the design of the machines that was responsible for Apple's fall in market share. On the contrary, the exempalry design kept the market share from falling further.

Apple's low market share is primarily due to its high price and relative lack of low-cost software. The lack of low-cost software is a direct result of Apple's refusal implement circuitry that runs 80x86 code in general and (to a lesser extent) Windows API calls. The fact that Apple's OS may or may not look, feel, and act better than Windows is irrelevant. The computer is too expensive and the peripherals are too expensive.

PC equipment is highly price sensitive. The only market for Apple equipment is in the fields where dollar value added to the work created by a personal computer greatly exceeds the higher cost of the computer equipment itself (including software). For everyone else, the Windows/Linux OS solution is good enough. The benefits of an Apple system are not worth the extra cost, either the lower cost of the CPU and peripheral and the cost of using the more expensive Apple application software.

For some reason known only to them, Apple chooses to have only a tiny market share of the PC industry. They are certainly smart enough to redefine the industry on their terms.

Re:How's that again?

[soft_guy]

Yes. It would be like reading an article in which Spindler, Sculley, and Amelio describe their ideas for managing Apple and new strategic ideas that they might pursue.

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Problem is that the Powerbook 100 isn't actually an Apple design.

After the Mac Portable failed (and how!), they went to Sony, said "Design us a portable computer that doesn't suck" (Not quite those words, I'm sure), and out came the Powerbook 100.

The Apple of new is a great design house. The Apple of old thought "Design" was that thing on the wall which tells you what to do (Ba dum, TISH!)

Re:How's that again?

[Mononoke]

I also remember it with that atrocious trackball, a 9" screen, and terrible battery life. The thinkpad had at 10.something inch COLOR screen, and the 'eraser tip' mouse control.

I remember the Powerbook 100 coming out a year before the thinkpad. I also remember that the 100 was the entry-level model, yet the 1992 thinkpad was the "flagship" of IBM's laptop models.

Oh, and that thinkpad clit-mouse is worse than any trackball.

Re:How's that again?

[Ohreally_factor]

Rather than focus on the points I disagree with, I'll address a point that I do, more or less, agree with. And I'd like to formulate it in a different way, so as to provide some insight for you. You said"

For some reason known only to them, Apple chooses to have only a tiny market share of the PC industry. They are certainly smart enough to redefine the industry on their terms.

The way I would put it makes the reason a bit more obvious:

Apple chooses not to compete with Dell and the other commodity box makers in the commodity box market. They've chosen to compete with Dell on their own terms, by redefining the industry more than once.

Maybe you meant to say that. The ideas are certainly there in your post.

Re:How's that again?

[TeamSPAM]

You are correct in the fact that the OS was getting long in the tooth and Windows was catching up pretty fast. I would say that the 7500 I owned from that period was great example of good engineering from Apple. While from the same time period, I would say that most of the Performa models were not worth the money.

Re:How's that again?

[Halfbaked Plan]

by redefining the industry more than once.

Redefine? I thought the mantra went that Apple did it first, right, and everybody else did the redefining.

Or is it that I'm not enough of a marketing wonk to understand this fancy new lingo?

Re:How's that again?

[grafikdude]

Sony designed the Powerbook for Apple.

Re:How's that again?

[ptomblin]

As a current owner of a 6360CD (ok, it's sitting unused in a closet, but I still own it), tell me more about these lawsuits.

Somebody once described it to me as an attempt to get M68000 levels of performance out of a PowerPC chip.

Re:How's that again?

[Ohreally_factor]

Sometimes I can't tell if people are just that ignorant, or trolling. I suspect that you're trolling.

Re:How's that again?

[Total_Wimp]

For some reason known only to them, Apple chooses to have only a tiny market share of the PC industry. They are certainly smart enough to redefine the industry on their terms.

Trust me, Apple is very happy to have the lions market share of digital music player market and they would be delighted to own the PC market too. The fact that they have a tiny market share has absolutely nothing to do with their aspirations.

The power of the Mac Faithful to believe that everything their beloved company does must be for a good reason is just astounding. This statement is the equivelant of noticing your mom is poor and saying "she always wanted to be poor". Only in this case the there are enough old lottery tickets laying around to plainly point out the her real desires.

TW

Re:How's that again?

[Otter]

That's a different model -- the 636CD was one of the last of the 68K's. In fact, the most sensible of the lawsuits had to do with the fact that Apple had advertised it as "upgradeable to PowerPC", which was only true in the sense that you could sell it and upgrade to a new computer.

If it's any consolation, you only missed out on some coupons. (The lawyers, of course, made out like bandits all three times.) And your Performa will happily run Linux if you stick some more RAM in there.

Re:How's that again?

[PriceIke]

Uh huh, that must be why we're all using those eraser-tip mouse controls.

The first touchpad for mouse control debuted on .. wait for it ... a Powerbook. Ditto the first active matrix LCD. Ditto the first backlit keyboard on a notebook. Ditto the first 17" screen on a notebook.

IBM had the first ... uh ... hmmmm ... hang on, I'll think of something I'm sure ..

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first touchpad for mouse control debuted on .. wait for it ... a Powerbook. Ditto the first active matrix LCD. Ditto the first backlit keyboard on a notebook. Ditto the first 17" screen on a notebook.

References, please.

IBM had the first ... uh ... hmmmm ... hang on, I'll think of something I'm sure ..

As you clearly know nothing about anything that isn't made by Apple, I doubt you will. How about that rather clever foldout butterfly keyboard that let them release a laptop 2/3 the size of the competition back in the late 90s? So it didn't catch on? Neither did the Apple Newton, but that doesn't mean it wasn't cool and innovative.

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've chosen to compete with Dell on their own terms, by redefining the industry more than once.

Can someone translate, please? I don't speak MarketRoid. The only possible interpretation of "redefining the industry" I can guess at is that it means "made pretty stuff that nobody wanted to buy".

Re:How's that again?

[PriceIke]

> References, please.

Sure thing.

The Regsiter

Apple has a history of mobile computing innovation quickly ripped off by other vendors. Its PowerBook 100 - manufactured by Sony - was the world's first notebook with a built-in trackball.

The first trackpad, the first integrated modem, the first integrated 802.11b WLAN, the first 15in widescreen LCD, and the first backlit keyboard (in the 17in PowerBook) are among Apple's other notebook firsts.

MobilePC Magazine: "Top 100 Gadgets of All Time"

22. APPLE POWERBOOK 500, 1994

The PowerBook 500 wowed the notebook market with a long string of firsts: The first touch pad; the first stereo speakers (with 16-bit sound); the first expansion bay -- and the first PC Card slot; the first "intelligent" nickel metal hydride battery, with a processor that communicated battery status to the operating system; and, last but not least, the first curvaceous case, with gratuitously swooped edges and corners instead of the boxy angles of previous notebooks. Make no mistake, this notebook set the agenda for the following 10 years of portable computer design.

MobilePC Magazine: "Top 100 Gadgets of All Time"

1. APPLE POWERBOOK 100, 1991

Never mind the Apple versus PC debate: Until Apple unveiled this 5.1-pound machine, most "portable" computers were curiosities for technophiles with superior upper-body strength. But the PowerBook 100's greatest and most lasting innovation was to move the keyboard toward the screen, leaving natural wrist rests up front, as well as providing an obvious place for a trackball. It seems like the natural layout now, but that's because the entire industry aped Apple within months. The first PowerBooks captured an astounding 40 percent of the market, but more important, they turned notebook computers into mainstream products and ushered in the era of mobile computing that we're still living in today.

I stand corrected on the first 17" screen claim, giving the Register article the benefit of the doubt.

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and that thinkpad clit-mouse is worse than any trackball???

try moving it with your tongue! :D

Re:How's that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately you can't really run Linux on a 68LC040. :(

Re:How's that again?

[SewersOfRivendell]

I'd say the fact that their desktop machines and 'servers' didn't have anywhere near the level of design that the PowerBooks had didn't help either.

Re:How's that again?

[jericho4.0]

I suspect you think you're really smart, and you recently read an artucle on Apple in a newspaper at Starucks.

Re:How's that again?

[Ohreally_factor]

I suspect you think you're Dick fucking Tracy. Any more brilliant deductions?

Why is it that total idiots say things like, "I suppose you think you're really smart"?

No, buster. I don't think I'm really smart. But I can tell you're stupid. Why did we have to upgrade to jericho4.0? jericho3.5 wasn't bloated and stupid. Hell, jericho2.0 had a functioning spell checker. Why'd they take that out? Is there a patch to make jericho4.0 less retarded that I didn't hear about?

Re:How's that again?

[rob_squared]

"Oh, and that thinkpad clit-mouse is worse than any trackball."

It's quite obvious that anyone would choose the IBM over the powerbook then. Unless you're into that kind of thing...

Re:How's that again?

[dangitman]

The only market for Apple equipment is in the fields where dollar value added to the work created by a personal computer greatly exceeds the higher cost of the computer equipment itself (including software). For everyone else, the Windows/Linux OS solution is good enough. The benefits of an Apple system are not worth the extra cost, either the lower cost of the CPU and peripheral and the cost of using the more expensive Apple application software. That may be true, if your statements were factually correct in any way. However, they aren't. Some Apple computers cost slightly more than the equivalent PC. However, much of Apple's current line is much better value than any PC equivalents. See the iBook, Mac mini, and iMac for examples of where you get better value for money on hardware. Also, the peripherals argument is nonsense. Macs can use most standard PC components and peripherals. they use industry standards like Firewire, USB, and PCI. Also, a lot of Mac software is far cheaper than Windows equivalents. Most major packages (Photoshop, etc.) cost the same for Mac or Windows. There is a lot of quality shareware and freeware. Not only that, but you get free software included with every Mac that surpasses a lot of Windows software that costs hundreds of dollars. You get iMovie, Garageband, iDVD and more - FOR FREE! it's hard to even find consumer software this good on Windows, for any price. And all of this software can be expanded with a huge array of third-party plug-ins and helper software. Most consumer users will have to buy very little or no additional software for their Macs, other than what Apple has provided with the iLife suite.

Re:How's that again?

[n1ywb]

The Powerbook 100 is functionally identical to the original Mac Portable. This is because Apple sent the designs to Sony who miniaturized them. The INDUSTRIAL design of the case, AFAIK, was done by Apple, or at least in cooperation with Apple. Thats why it LOOKS like an Apple product, not a Sony product.

Re:How's that again?

[SmittyTheBold]

He was talking about the Performa 6360, which is a PPC model on a 603 - it will run Linux.

Re:How's that again?

[SmittyTheBold]

It was upgradeable in the sense you could do a motherboard swap. All the machines with that style of case used a pin-compatible connector on the front of the motherboard for the SCSI (CD-ROM), power, front buttons, and IR sensor. You could take the aforementioned 6360 motherboard and put it into your 636CD chassis rather painlessly.

Sure, not the epitome of upgradeability, but I still think it fits the letter fo the claim fairly well.

By the way, as an owner of a 636CD myself, how was a person to find out about these class-action suits? We certainly were never notified, and I know we submitted all the registration materials. Was Apple required to contact us, or were we just supposed to know these things by magic?

Re:How's that again?

[Otter]

By the way, as an owner of a 636CD myself, how was a person to find out about these class-action suits? We certainly were never notified, and I know we submitted all the registration materials.

I got notifications in the mail -- don't remember if they were from Apple or the lawyers. Maybe you should sue!

Re:How's that again?

[jcr]

Let's be fair, please: Apple was a basket case when Gil took over. He pulled off a couple of financial miracles, he made the right choice between NeXT and Be, and he brought Steve Jobs back (albeit unintentionally).

Steve restored Apple to health, but Gil was like the guy in the ambulance who administers CPR until the surgeon can take over.

-jcr

Re:How's that again?

[DarkVader]

Stand corrected? The register article says it was first. Anyway, here's another reference on it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0 00 087BHX/102-9444083-7032167?v=glance

that's their 2003 review, where they state:

Product Description
Amazon.com Product Description
Early Adopters Pick: February 2003. The world's first laptop computer with a full 17-inch display and widescreen dimensions.

With the stunning PowerBook 17-inch G4, Apple merges incredible power, a 17-inch widescreen display (the largest display of any notebook and the same screen dimensions as a 19-inch CRT monitor), and an impressive array of conveniences into a state-of-the-art aluminum alloy enclosure. A true desktop replacement in every sense except in its remarkably space-efficient, 6.8-pound, 15.4-by-10.2-by-1-inch stature, the PowerBook 17-inch G4 is ready for anyone who appreciates and can afford the cutting edge of mobile computing technology.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[poison_reverse]

dropped prices on their ipods, and laptops and released the mac mini???

Become the next....

[thelastguardian]

MS? Then it would be world domination, of course.

Products

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope the products look better than what they imagined.

Re:Products

[quarkscat]

Unfortunately, most of the products (4 of 5)
involve "enhancements" to Apple's iPod. These
"enhancements" might (or might not) have a
market, but they certainly don't have the
simple elegance of Apple's iPod. Apple would
do well to pass on these designs.

Apple is rolling

[DoctoRoR]

Apple is the new Sony. Their iPod is this generation's walkman, and Apple is smart enough to leverage that success into other products. Apple has always been good at design. The unix-core of the Tiger OS extends that nice design into the innards.

More food for thought: Paul Graham's essay on Japan vs US design, which gives a nod to Apple as one of the few US companies that get it.

Re:Apple is rolling

[Anonymous Coward]

actually Apples industrial design team and art direction is currently British

Re:Apple is rolling

[Datrio]

Apple is the new Sony

And so you say, right after Newsweek proclaimed Sony's PlayStation Portable as "the killer of iPod and GameBoy". But you have a point, Apple's got something going. I don't think they'll ever grow as big as Sony did, but they're on the roll right now.

Re:Apple is rolling

[wankledot]

In case you're just joining the world of OS X, Tiger isn't the first version of it to have a unix-core.

Re:Apple is rolling

[timster]

Nearly all of your "superior to the iPod" products either have less capacity, take up more space, or are made entirely of plastic.

Don't try to tell me that I don't need as much space. Don't try to tell me that a device with a volume that's 20% greater than the iPod's is "almost as small". Don't try to tell me that a device with a plastic back is "durable enough".

The one who's never compared the products is you.

Re:Apple is rolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god someone finally called a spade a spade.
-J

Re:Apple is rolling

[JWW]

When your product needs to be marketed as the XXXX killer, you know you're not the top company in the marketplace. Yes, Apple is the new Sony.

Re:Apple is rolling

[Anonymous Coward]

You nit-pick about the volume in degrees of 20%?

What's the tolerance on your volume measurement? A 20% band of variation is pretty close to negligible in human factors measure.

Re:Apple is rolling

[timster]

20% matters to me. It may not be a great increase, but beyond a certain size the device doesn't fit right in the pockets I want it to fit in, and the iPod is about that maximum size.

Personally I think the higher-capacity models of the iPod are too thick. Then again if I did need that much storage there aren't exactly a lot of options that are thinner.

Maybe 20% is nit-picking but most serious iPod competitors are like twice the physical volume of the iPod. In some models the tradeoff is more battery life but I personally don't need more than four hours. Any longer than that and I'm likely to get bored of music anyway.

The point of my post is that it's dumb to say "you can get 5 more gigs for $50 less, ipod suxors!" It's hard to find a product that is just as good as the iPod in every way yet costs less. It's easy to find a product that is better than the iPod in about any *single* factor you could name, but so what?

Re:Apple is rolling

[cloudturtle]

I think you are right for the most part, but there is something you say -- that a lot of people say -- that I think misses the point. The iPod may be this generation's walkman, but it is so much bigger for Apple than a "walkman" would be. THe important thing about the iPod is that without a computer it is a big paper weight. The walkman could survive with tapes and radio transmissions, it had no need for an external interface. The iPod requires this external support and that's why it is having a such a great impact on Apple's bottom line -- with the increase in computer sales, iTunes MS, ect. The walkman couldn't have accomplished this, at least the same way, because it was independent and stand alone. The iPod has the ability to be much more than the new walkman, that to me is what makes it such an intersting device from a business standpoint.

What I want on my next iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Job's sexy face from a continuously playback of his latest keynote address!

Is it just me...

[jberkom]

...or are those designs really, really ugly? They bear hardly any resemblance to real Apple products. I'm guessing that's due to the fact that style-man Jobs became CEO in 1997, by which time this designer was gone.

Re:Is it just me...

[jdog1016]

No, it's not just you. They are ugly. And what's with there being an iPod clickwheel on devices that aren't iPods, or even music players. Somehow I don't think that the clickwheel is an appropriate interface for a phone... But Apple knows this and wouldn't design such uninspired products.

Re:Is it just me...

[kitzilla]

I'm not sure they're as ugly as they are un-Apple. They look like Sony products to me: lots of black and shiny, flat surfaces.

Then again, there's Dashboard. Its aesthetics represent a sharp departure from what I think of as Mac design.

This is from someone still puzzling Apple's fascination with brushed metal within OS X. Here's hoping for some modernized version of Aqua, applied everywhere it makes sense.

Re:Is it just me...

[n9uxu8]

I actually like the watch design...very slick...but not if it turns out to be a Dick Tracy-sized gizmo.

Re:Is it just me...

[BandwidthHog]

Somehow I don't think that the clickwheel is an appropriate interface for a phone...

I've been waiting to see someone hack an iPod into a cellphone with a rotary dial.

Re:Is it just me...

[shotfeel]

IMO neither the design or the features were very "Apple-like" or very compelling. They all look like something other companies (like Sony) might do.

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I don't think that the clickwheel is an appropriate interface for a phone

I think a clickwheel would be a marvelous addition to any cell phone, especially for scrolling contact lists.

Re:Is it just me...

[Ohreally_factor]

Brushed metal is a salve for Steve's wounded ego. He's still bitter that NeXT didn't take over the computing world (the first time).

Re:Is it just me...

[Ohreally_factor]

I think you mean, "Dick Fucking Tracy."

Re:Is it just me...

[eck011219]

Definitely. These are completely uninspired - I can't imagine Apple sinking so quickly as to come out with any of these.

I was hoping for something exciting - I'm pretty disappointed in the results of a bunch of ostensibly high-end designers (albeit non-Apple employees, and forecasters at that) working on these things.

Why not cram the iPod into a shoe instead? Or perhaps eyeglasses? Or perhaps a pack of gum? (No, wait ...)

So much of what's in the world now is a result of truly innovative and original design from Apple, going all the way back to windowing environments. I know they need to make a buck, too, but I worry that the iPod is becoming too much a part of their image - apparently that's about as far as these other designers could see, at any rate. It's a very nice mp3 player, but I would argue that it's not changing society the way other Apple innovations have. It's not the Walkman of our generation, as was said elsewhere in these posts. The Walkman made high-quality music genuinely portable and (relatively) polite for the first time - the transistor of its time. The iPod (or any mp3 player) is just a linear extension of the Walkman, now available thanks to new technology. (I'm purposely avoiding the word 'paradigm' here [as it drives me nuts and I can't use it without doing my Little Snob Dance and purposely mispronouncing it], but my point is that the iPod ain't a new one.)

The only reason people call the iPod innovative is not because it's an mp3 player or because it's a great new idea. It's because it's a solid product done right--minimal controls, good quality, solid design overall--which is sadly a pleasant surprise in consumer electronics these days. Doesn't hurt that's it's marketed so appealingly, too.

All that said, back to these short-sighted designs. There's nothing here that Sony couldn't do as well or better. Give me OS X on a watch, on the other hand (har har), and I'll be happy. Actually, I'd prefer a PDA - an OS X device the size of a Palm Pilot or Treo would be great.

'Course, brushed steel and perforated vents, as is the Mac look now, would put it back up over the weight of the Newton. And deafening case fans would be a must.

I do like Apple's recent switch toward low-cost computers - the Mac Mini is pretty cool and will bring Apple to a lot of homes that otherwise wouldn't have considered Macs. But they really need to keep the quality and innovation up while lowering costs, even if it takes longer to do that than it would to compromise one for the other.

And as I think about it now, the iPod will pay the bills while they do that. Okay, so maybe this Jobs guy knows what he's doing. I bet I can still eat more ice cream than him, though.

Re:Is it just me...

[Halfbaked Plan]

Yes. We're lucky that NeXT only took over Apple.

It could have been Compaq, or Sun, or any of the other interests that were rumored as being close to buying Apple at the firesale prices it was riding at before NeXT took it over.

Re:Is it just me...

[arloguthrie]

Slightly off-topic, but...

With Dashboard, the application *is* the icon. The widget does one thing, and the items are all over the screen. Therefore, by having each widget feature it's own distinctive design, the user can find what he needs more quickly. For example I need my stock prices.

BEFORE DASHBOARD: Find browser icon in dock, look for bookmark in row of bookmarks that all look exactly the same.

AFTER DASHBOARD: Press 12, look for big blue box.

But I agree, the Mac UI, while still pretty, is all over the place now. What's with the new Mail interface? That's nothing like anything else in the operating system.

Re:Is it just me...

[Ohreally_factor]

Are you going to follow me around all day?

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is how Apple is doing GUI innovation these days -- they do a major renovation on an important application (it was iTunes for brushed metal) to test out a new GUI idea, and eventually it takes over most of the OS. I don't know much about Apple's design process and I also don't like the proliferation of brushed metal, but they did get a lot of rave reviews for iTunes, iMovie and Final Cut to mention only three early brushed-metal adopters.

Re:Is it just me...

[Socket Scientist]

What's with the new Mail interface?

I really like it and hope it replaces regular Aqua ... or brushed metal ... or both. It looks smoove.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[XeRo_X4i]

This won't happen for a while. They basically have a monopoly on the iPods. There are some alternatives, but those are only available in Japan. So Apple's iPod will continue to stay at a high price as long as there is little competition.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Hurklefish]

hmm.. the mac mini, the iPod shuffle, price drops across the ipod line. and it's only march.

a music revolution..

[bizmark22]

i vote for a new ipod, that not only has no screen, and less storage space, but also no controls at all.. it holds 5 songs, just turns on and off at will, and plays whatever the hell it wants at random...

but damn it would be the same size as a chiclet and only cost $75...

Mines on preorder as we speak...

Re:a music revolution..

[3770]

You are almost talking about this invention called radio.

Re:a music revolution..

[Fear the Clam]

No, this would be better than radio. He said *five* songs.

Re:a music revolution..

[chrish]

Also the lack of 40+ minutes of ads every hour.

Re:a music revolution..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a frequest radio listener, and I say with confidence that there couldn't possibly be 5 songs in the world.

That's why the iPod, with it's 10,000 song capacity, is simply crazy. Are there really 10,000 versions of Britney's latest?

Re:a music revolution..

[snuf23]

I personally would opt for the cool iPanemaPod which is as the parent described except all five songs are versions of "The Girl from Ipanema".

Re:a music revolution..

[Anonymous Coward]

this little joke of yours is trying so, so hard... but still isn't that funny at all... a bit sad.

What will Apple do next?

[Dancin_Santa]

I don't know what Steve's got up his sleeve, but I know that Business 2.0 doesn't like giving out their stuff for free.

The page you requested is available only to magazine customers and AOL members. Subscribe now and you're in...

I guess that's kind of what Steve Jobs meant when he said they "just don't get it." Steve isn't the type of guy to go around giving stuff away for free willy nilly. In fact, he's built up Apple from relative obscurity to the powerhouse PC juggernaut it is today. But when he sees an opportunity, he goes for it. And sometimes that opportunity is to build a stronger brand through giving stuff away for free. He seems to be criticizing the RIAA's tactics of suing their customers, when they should be kissing their asses.

I'm not saying that Steve Jobs should be on his knees kissing anyone's ass, but it is quite obvious that he has a knack for reading the market and "knowing" what people instinctively want.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[787style]

"He seems to be criticizing the RIAA's tactics of suing their customers, when they should be kissing their asses."

Sounds like he should take his own advice. Lord knows his shift to be a music company has disillusioned many of the mac faithful of old.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[cowscows]

Well, those upset mac faithful should get over it. And I say that as mac user for the past 15 years.

Sure, so Apple's kicking some ass with the ipod/iTMS. They're also giving us constant updates to OSX, lots of fun to play with consumer software, a solid lineup of hardware, and with the mac mini, a cheapo machine that everyone's been clamoring for for years.

Part of being the mac faithful is a belief that the average person would be much better off with a mac than a windows machine. Apple's finally making some progress in reaching those average people, and providing them with a cheap computer. What more could we reasonably ask from them? They're not perfect, but I don't think their success in music is causing any big problems.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[Ohreally_factor]

Lord knows his shift to be a music company has disillusioned many of the mac faithful of old.

You mean there are still people pissing and moaning about OS 9?

Re:What will Apple do next?

[Sentry21]

I think there are a few key things that has made Steve Jobs' term at Apple a success:

1. He does whatever he wants - no one is willing to say no to him. Some people follow him out of respect, the rest give in because of fear, but the result is that he gets what he wants
2. He isn't in marketing - he's not sitting there asking twenty-person focus groups 'what would you want an MP3 player to do?' and then implement it all. He decides what HE wants, and makes everyone around him want it, which spreads swiftly.
3. Reality is no barrier - the famed Reality Distortion Field has been proven by reams of empirical data. Otherwise rational people will listen to, accept, and eventually evangelize things that have no basis in any real or imagined universe. Steve Jobs can tell you the sky is neon green, and you'll believe him. It won't be too long before you think, 'You know, I think the ocean should be neon green as well,' and eventually people will be selling $800 crystal bottles for you to put your neon green ocean water into.
4. He's eccentric - just because conventional wisdom says something doesn't mean that he'll listen. He's willing to abandon caution to the wind and go with what feels right - something that people are too afraid to do these days, especially with shareholders breathing down your neck.
5. He's arrogant - He's right. He knows he's right. You know he's arrogant, but you're too afraid to tell him he's wrong, so you just stay quiet and listen, and eventually, you too realize he's right. He's not afraid to tell you what he thinks, and he doesn't care what you think about it - in the end, you know it's not personal, that's just the way it is.

Generally speaking, all of this boils down to one simple summary: Steve Jobs does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and when he does, he makes you want it too, regardless of the reality of the situation.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[Howski]

The problem is that you also just described MICHAEL JACKSON.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you have a big hard-on for Stevie Boy.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[peasleer]

I don't know if he reads the market and "knows" what people instinctively want. I'd say Jobs has an incredible talent for making us want Apple products, though.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[GlassHeart]

0. He's often right.

Do you imagine for a second that a public company would tolerate a CEO who "does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and when he does, he makes you want it too, regardless of the reality of the situation" if he wasn't making them as much money as they've ever seen?

Now, leaving everything in the hands of such a person is inherently risky. They are capable of great success because they can brush aside all opposition, but they are also capable of spectacular failures for the same reason. But Steve Jobs is a success today mainly because he made Apple build and sell what people want to buy.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[Queer Boy]

Generally speaking, all of this boils down to one simple summary: Steve Jobs does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and when he does, he makes you want it too, regardless of the reality of the situation.

That's hot.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[larkost]

Notice that he builds what people want to buy... not what they might think or say they want to buy... but what they actually want. That is the trick here.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[Queer Boy]

But Steve Jobs is a success today mainly because he made Apple build and sell what people want to buy.

How did people know they wanted to buy products that didn't exist and were a radical departure from what was not only the current norm but historically hadn't existed?

You're saying Steve Jobs is a success because he knows what people want to buy. Like you're regurgitating a simple fact and that EVERYONE knows what people want to buy. I call malarky. He is now and has always been a visionary, that's beyond pure talent. Jonathan Ives is talented and has been talented but you never heard of him before he was part of Steve Jobs' vision.

Steve Jobs isn't alone, he's not supremely unique, Bill Gates had a vision of a computer on every desktop and it happened. He just had a crap way of implementing the vision.

These people aren't pulling some sleight of hand, they're not doing what everyone else is doing. Steve Jobs is the Coco Chanel of the computer industry. He has changed everything and now people want it so bad they can't stand it.

A friend of mine likened Macworld New York to Christmas for Mac users. Being Jewish I finally understood what Christmas is like.

Re:What will Apple do next?

[GlassHeart]

How did people know they wanted to buy products that didn't exist and were a radical departure from what was not only the current norm but historically hadn't existed?

A successful business either builds something that, upon announcement, everybody realizes they want to buy, or builds something that everybody clearly already wants to buy. In Apple's case, the original iMac and iPod are more of the former, while the Mac Mini, iPod Shuffle, and the yet-to-be-seen G5 PowerBook are more of the latter. Either way, Steve Jobs is successful mainly because he can identify both very well, not mainly because he's a dictatorial eccentric.

I never even hinted that knowing what people want to actually buy (either before or after they realize it) is easy in any way. Your fanaticism is blinding you to what is already a praise that simply hasn't reached the level of worship. Yes, Jobs is a visionary, but there are plenty of visionaries in this industry who make no money at all.

iPod Shuffle, Mac mini

[NeedleSurfer]

And what's to come...

PodWatch

[eric_brissette]

Man, that PodWatch looks badass. I'd love to have something like that.. except that I KNOW I'd lose the wireless earbuds in a matter of hours.

Re:PodWatch

[KillerDeathRobot]

Yeah, the PodWatch was about the only one I found interesting though.

Re:PodWatch

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with the watch, you could tell how long you held on to the ear pieces.

Thats a whole lot of pod

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually like quite a few of their designs, but I don't think a clicker wheel would be the best on a phone. Or honestly, a camera / video recorder. I really do like the whole computer in your hand that is stylish, not pdaish idea though. I want something that looks nice, works well, and I enjoy using..

Re:Thats a whole lot of pod

[HTH NE1]

I don't think a clicker wheel would be the best on a phone.

Are you kidding? I'd love to do some rotary dialing on one using wheel-gestures.

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[Stick_Fig]

To paraphrase a wise man, Steve Jobs, Why is it that the people who run the magazine companies just don't get it?

did he design the toilet seat?

[Anonymous Coward]

' 'The project was led by Robert Brunner, who was Apple's chief designer from 1989 to 1996, and who oversaw the design of the PowerBook line '

Did he happen to have anything to do with that awful orange toiletseat Powerbook? In retrospect, it is hard to imagine an uglier computer that anyone has ever built (all casemods aside!).

Re:did he design the toilet seat?

[renderfarmer]

The original "toilet seat" ibook was designed by Lunar (www.lunar.com), which Brunner founded. You'll have to do the timeline math yourself to figure out if he was still at Lunar when they unleashed that monstrosity.

Re:did he design the toilet seat?

[beattie]

Uhh... that was an iBook I believe, and IIRC that was around 1999-2000.

Pentagram wanting to get bought...?

[tquinlan]

This looks to me like Pentagram is trying to get themselves bought, by showing off that they are good designers and might be a worthwhile acquisition for Apple.

Re:Pentagram wanting to get bought...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, wrong. This is just PR to keep them in the public eye. They hardly devoted any resources to this project as it was unpaid.

Re:Pentagram wanting to get bought...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pentagram is a fairly prestigous design firm in their own right with several books written about them. I would say that is an inaccurate assumption.

Re:Pentagram wanting to get bought...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't have them design your website. You have no idea how much we threw away for a crap design.

Re:Pentagram wanting to get bought...?

[Queer Boy]

they are good designers and might be a worthwhile acquisition for Apple.

Apple designs everything in house with a team led by Jonathan Ive. All their products look more like a PSP than anything Apple is doing now or has ever done.

Re:Pentagram wanting to get bought...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do tell! I'm considering them for a page design. How much do they charge and how much did you pay? Use anonymous checkmark ;).

What Wonderful Credentials

[Witchblade]

'The project was led by Robert Brunner, who was Apple's chief designer from 1989 to 1996, and who oversaw the design of the PowerBook line, among many other hit products.'"

He must be a design genius- 89-96 were such wonderful years for Apple!

Re:What Wonderful Credentials

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob Brunner is an excellent designer, one of the top in the industry; so was his team. Many others in the field of industrial design would agree. The problem was that Sculley, Spindler, Amelio, and the horde of suits they gathered around them failed to appreciate good design, believing beauty had no place in computing (much like Slashdotters, I would point out). Apple's ID team, hobbled though it was by the fact that their best work never saw the light of day outside Apple, still managed to win numerous design awards from '89 to '96. I don't think you can blame the ID group for the shortsightedness of their management.

Re:What Wonderful Credentials

[Ohreally_factor]

It was management that nearly drove Apple under. It was products like the PB which helped keep Apple afloat.

Re:What Wonderful Credentials

[Anonymous Coward]

still managed to win numerous design awards from '89 to '96.

I think we're all well aware of the kind of thing the 'design awards' that afford colorful photo spreads in those 'designer' trade publications really represent.

The 'concept cars' that Ford/GM/etc. come out with every year are 'cool' too.

Get rid of the tasselated loafers, dood.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[2nd Post!]

Mac mini

iSatan

[Doc Ruby]

Pentagram, Apple... they really do like the "Devil's advocate" trappings over in Cupertino.

Re:iSatan

[justforaday]

Don't forget the $666 pricetag of the Apple I.

Re:iSatan

[AxB_teeth]

Neverminding the original price of the Apple I.

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[XeRo_X4i]

I agree. Its all a scheme to lure me into a trap of some kind...

Re-Imaging Apple?

[bbeebe]

Be sure to make a backup first...

Steve Jobs Photo?

[MudButt]

Is this supposed to be a photo of Steve Jobs in 10 years? If so, they did a pretty good job!

Well...

[mattmentecky]

Even though TFA is very lacking, and seems like a big push to make people subscribe to read more, I agree with the likelihood of where Apple/iPod is going to go, but then again, I think it is a no brainer.

The iPod has to reach a saturation point sometime, and sometime soon. At which point I think Apple will slap the iPod on everything. That sounds like I am putting a pathetic spin on it, but it really isnt. Apple will astound and inovate in all areas that they can integrate the iPod with. But really, out of all of these possibilities, I really see the iPod heading for an integrated phone/PDA/camera type thing, not a watch.

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed, I tried to find a bugmenot account that worked but no dice.

Apple a PC powerhouse? Not yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

' In fact, he's built up Apple from relative obscurity to the powerhouse PC juggernaut it is today'

They are as much of a PC juggernaut as Nabisco is: not at all. Apple has yet to build a PC. Don't fudge the def of PC to include Macs, either. Apple doesn't do that (their adverts compare Macintoshes to PCs, not to "other" PCs.).

To boldly go...

[writermike]

Wow!

Ipicture 4 of 5, it looks like the aged Steve Jobs is wearing a Science Division Starfleet uniform from Star Trek IV?

Ooh, this is gonna be GREAT!

There were some innovative ideas there.

[crovira]

I think that the iPod could be the spring board for a whole new kind of human factor design.

The mock-ups are just that, and some of the technology isn't there yet, but since Apple is a brand that people associate with 'expensive but insanely great' products in their niche, like B&O speakers, it might behove them to roll out a line of niche, low volume products like these (rather like, but in a smarter way, than they did the Mac Cube.)

1989-1996

[justforaday]

Ahhh, yes, the prime era of Apple. Is this guy responsible for the wonderful internal design of the 8500 and 9500? (note: you had to essentially dismantle the entire machine to add RAM)

Re:1989-1996

[geoffspear]

I for one appreciated the attention to detail given by Apple when they sharpened all of the edges of the metal casing inside my Powermac 6100 to razor sharpness. Everyone knows that NuBus cards work better when they're covered in human blood.

Re:1989-1996

[CarrionBird]

And that great AAUI ethernet connector that meant you had to dig up a transceiver to connect to the network. Thanks guys!

(to be fair, evil case design seemed to be popular at the time.)

Re:1989-1996

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Compaq designed the internals of the powermac!

Re:1989-1996

[spacefrog]

My 7300 makes for an even better situation.

Everybody knows how much faster a PCI card covered in blood is then a NuBus card covered in blood.

Re:1989-1996

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you didn't have to dismantle the entire machine to add RAM to an iMac.....

Re:1989-1996

[adam1101]

And today you have to dismantle the entire machine to install a hard disk in an iBook.

Re:1989-1996

[Fry a Lad Up]

Everyone knows that NuBus cards work better when they're covered in human blood.

The whole system would run faster if you painted a pentagram in your blood inside the cover of the system before you closed it up. This is the little known bloodrage technique for overclocking.

Re:1989-1996

[Herbmaster]

Ah, how far we've come. Steve Jobs has brought us the iPod, which you had to essentially trade in the unit to replace the battery. Not to mention the Mac mini, for which user-service of any of the internals is not recommended.

Here's the newest Apple hit

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget this website, take a look at what Apple really has up its sleeves:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.g if

You've heard it here first and the best thing is, Apple can't even sue me into oblivion as I'm posting anonymous.

Re:Here's the newest Apple hit

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair they are using the "Reality Distortion Method" which i believe the current USA administration who are currently using the pre-release after successful trials in 2000 and 2004

Re:Here's the newest Apple hit

[HeliumHigh]

But I'm already living in a small plastic box! Ohh, wait.. it's missing a wall and ceiling.

The 2006 Ipod

[willynate]

Now with tint-control . . .

In regards to Bloom County

Too Bad you Have to pay

[Kagato]

So is this a plant from Business 2.0? The pictures are free, but the article wants money.

Pentagram Design

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute here...
Apple using pentagram design -- the sign of the devil.
OSX built on BSD, whose mascot is --- the devil (or at least a daemon)
Use MS -- live in hell Use Apple -- go to hell I'll stick with my little penguin.

Let me try this and see if it really works -- Hey MODS Not a Troll!!!

Re:Pentagram Design

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont forget Darwin...

Re:Pentagram Design

[eboot]

Not to mention that the forbidden fruit that Eve and Adam ate is often called an apple. Or at least often portrayed as one.

Paid reg?

[PxM]

NYTimes is just annoying enough, but it would be nice for Slashdot to not link to paid registration articles. However, the 5 pics from the image gallery were pretty sweet. Personally, I like this idea. Not so much as an iPod, but as a multiGB HD system that I could easily use with my PDA, cellphone, or camera via Bluetooth rather than the limited 1GB/$99 flash sticks with their own fucking readers that no one else uses. Thus a photo on my camera is automatically dumped to my iPod if it's in range via BT and then sent to my PC via WiFi when I get home.

--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof

Re:Paid reg?

[Anonymous Coward]

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop pasting that free iPod crap into every post you make! If you want it in your sig, put it in your fucking sig, so those of us who have turned sigs off don't have to see it!

Your comments are usually interesting and insightful, but your intrusive spam is so irritating that I find it very difficult to read what you're saying. I _want_ to read what you're saying. But your spam is getting in the way. Please make it less obtrusive. Please.

Really out of the box thinking?

[techstar25]

I'm not so sure these are really all that creative...
We have the
iPod Wristwatch
iPod Wireless
iPod Camera
iPod Media Server
iPod Wireless home phone
How about something new guys? I don't mean to troll, but if this is the most creative you can be then this company is going downhill fast. Whatever happened to the Apple that had all those great new ideas?

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Whatever happened to the Apple that had all those great new ideas?"

They're still coming up with great new ideas. In the meantime, we have this article under discussion involving ideas from people who do NOT work at Apple, so why are you complaining about Apple?

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[Black Perl]

How about something new guys? I don't mean to troll, but if this is the most creative you can be then this company is going downhill fast. Whatever happened to the Apple that had all those great new ideas?

um... the design firm is not affiliated with Apple. It was hired by Business 2.0 magazine to present the "ideas".

Well, the firm was working for Apple from 89-96, when Apple did go downhill fast. Now we know why.

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[Nielsvdw]

the ideas are not related to apple, there just speculations by 3th parties

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[mmkkbb]

These guys don't work for Apple. Now you see why!

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[pdp0x14]

It seems these may be just as much what is NOT next for Apple as what may be next for Apple. These either exist (ipod phone -- Apple/Motorola) or they are things that Jobs actively claims to detest (e.g. a media player).

Since the guy probably isn't working from knowledge, not wanting to get his ass sued, these are just random musings of someone that once had inside knowledge and draws nicely.

Not a quality post at all.

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[TomSawyer]

I don't mean to troll, but if this is the most creative you can be then this company is going downhill fast. Whatever happened to the Apple that had all those great new ideas?

...and yet people wonder why Apple is so anal retentive about less elegant copycat products. These aren't even real products and Apple is already taking the blame for them!

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[Qzukk]

Given that this is what "some design studio" staffed with ex-Apple designers (the lead left Apple in 96, there wasn't even an iPod then!) THINKS apple will do, you don't need to worry about anyone going downhill just yet.

If any of these "happen", I would say it would be just the video conferencing iSight-phone shown in the "media server hub" concept. The rest of these scream hand-held convergence, which Apple has been avoiding (they want everything to converge on your shiny new powerbook, mac mini, or G5... not some cheap handheld toy!)

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only are they not particularly creative, they don't pay attention to the Big Picture the way Apple does. I mean, as you noted, they're all iPod derivatives. Most people these days have a phone, watch, camera, and iPod. So, why would they buy 3 products that all do the 1 thing they were looking for in that product, plus have the added expense and complexity of cramming an iPod into them. Sure, some people might buy the iPod Watch, and some people would buy an iPod Phone, but I think it'd deter most people from buying any of the other products. Can you imagine having 3 or 4 different iPods with different connection types and differing music collections necessitated by their different storage capacities, and then managing what's on them all? (and I don't mean having a Shuffle for jogging and a 40GB for travel - that's different as you don't keep them all on you at the same time.) Apple, of course, could figure out an elegant way to keep tabs on it all, but...

So no, Apple isn't going to make an iPod Watch. They're about convergence, not divergence. I think they might continue to make the iPod into a media device - people carry around their music in that form factor and don't mind, and now they can carry their photos with them. Eventually it'll be video as well, and then maybe they'll integrate a camera into it, sure. If they come out with a watch, though, I'd say it'd be about communication - it'll tell the time, it'll give get you RSS information wirelessly, and maybe it'll be a cell phone too.

They're good at making single devices that do a lot of (related) things well, but rightfully stay away from making a single device that's supposed to Do It All.

Re:Really out of the box thinking?

[anakin876]

[quote] 3th parties [/quote] How do you pronounce this? Threeth? Thirth?

Steve Jobs, great instincts

[Fox_1]

Steve Jobs meets Dean Kamen

Anybody remember this? Dood has a great natural feel for products.

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[rjung2k]

It's interesting to note, with hindsight, what Jobs' criticism of the Segway were, and how accurate he was with many of them.

"You'll only get one shot at this..."

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[Ohreally_factor]

Oops! I just shit my pants!

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[jfengel]

That is interesting, though I'm not sure he nailed the reason why Segway failed. He never mentioned the price. If it were free they'd be all over the place; they're at least as cool as an iPod even without more funky design. As far as I can tell it was too expensive for what it provided. I just can't imagine enough places to take it.

Who knows? Maybe if it had been designed more innovatively it would have caught more eyes than it did. Certainly if they'd taken his manufacturing suggestions it would have been cheaper, and that might have been sufficient (though I can't imagine knocking off the factor of 5 to 10 that would have been required).

Ultimately I've got to give him props for the crucial observation that it simply wasn't the right thing: "You don't have a great product yet!" Well, it would have been great for free, in the Jobs definition of "insanely great", even without more style. But he was clearly righter than everybody else in the room.

Thanks for the link.

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[Anonymous Coward]

The Segway hasn't failed - a company here in Austin just started Segway tours of historic parts of the city. Mail carriers and Meter Cops all over the country are starting to use them. They didn't immediately take off, but they are selling.

The only person I know of who has ridden one and fallen off was our Glorious Leader (no, not Steve, W).

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[Anonymous Coward]

By the original goals of the Segway, what you've described is an utter failure. The Segway wasn't supposed to be a speciality item for Meter Maids and park tours. Everyone was supposed to have one. That's not happening, and it doesn't look like it ever will.

(But boy, I wish large amusement parks would rent them so I could take my hates-to-walk wife...)

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[danila]

The Segway failed because Kamen is a moron. He's a great inventor, but a pathetic businessman. He was trying to micromanage his company, while being extremely niggardly about the cash. Because of this the company lost a CEO every year on average. There was practically no marketing done before the prodcut launch because of Kamen's paranoid fears that Honda would steal the idea if anyone knew what IT was.

Read "Code Name Ginger" for the straight dope on why Segway failed. It was a brilliant product with a poor business built around it. Jobs offered his services as a consultant for free, but Kamen didn't care. If only Kamen retired to inventing something else and left the company to someone more qualified, Segway would be selling tens of millions of its machines... :(

Re:Steve Jobs, great instincts

[jfengel]

I will definitely have to read the book. I wonder if it will be able to convince me that the product actually has a marketing niche. (Boo on Kamen for not trying to figure that out first.) It costs a lot of money, it doesn't replace a car, and there's a lot of places it can't go without more preparation (like taking it on the bus.) It can certainly help out people who walk for a living, like some postmen, but I'm not sure that's sufficient market. Honda hasn't stolen the idea, and I bet that's part of the reason.

Well, that's what the book is for. The idea is certainly damn cool, and I wouldn't turn one down.

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple has always been good at design.

They've actually been poor at design, except when it comes to trendy case colors (and the iPod, which is another story: maybe a new chapter for the company). Apple's history is full of design blunders, like "tiny pinhole to eject disk instead of easy-to-use eject button", the single-button mouse, machines that didnt have standard printer ports at a time when few printers ran on USB, furnacelike ventless Cubes, etc. The other companies, which serve their market better, rarely if ever copy these blunders.

If Apple really did "Get it", their designs would sell a lot more and get copied a lot more. This is not the case... outside of the iPod.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not supposed to eject the drives manually, that's the point, those are emergency ejects. You use the operating system to eject.

The rest of your comments are just trolling.

Re:Not really

[colmore]

The single button mouse is a GREAT design. Just try teaching someone who has never used a computer before to use a two button mouse. It also forces intelligent design on software developers. Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality, and multiple mouse buttons should rightly be viewed as an optional enhancement rather than an interface essential.

If you don't like it, do what I did, and get a $10 logitech wheelmouse. OS X supports it just fine.

Re:Not really

[jav1231]

You can always tell those who haven't used a Mac. Once you do, be a blessing or a curse, your eyes glaze over and you stare like a juvenile boy looking at his first Playboy spread.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

' You can always tell those who haven't used a Mac. Once you do, be a blessing or a curse '

I used one for a couple of years. The OS was a real kludge, lacking the friendliness of a command line. The freeware Risk game was great, however. When the hard drive threw away all its data inexplicably, it was not worth staying with the Mac. I moved on.

If the Mac was so great, 9 out of 10 users would have one. Instead, it is more like 1 out of 10.

Re:Not really

[Leo McGarry]

Seconded, wholeheartedly. I have a freelance client who, bless her little heart, has a hard enough time grasping the different between click and double-click. Throwing a wholly extraneous mouse button on there would just piss her off.

On that subject, does anybody out there remember "Mousin' around?" It was a tutorial that came with the original Mac, if I remember right. It taught basic mouse skills like pointing, clicking, double clicking, clicking and dragging ... that kind of stuff.

There are a lot of people out there who would benefit from such a tutorial.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

The single button mouse is a GREAT design. Just try teaching someone who has never used a computer before to use a two button mouse.

I would, but try as I might I can't actually find anyone who fits that description any more.

The best I can find are people who had never used a computer till two or three years ago. All of them use mice with two or more buttons, and none of them report having had any particular difficulty learning that one button is what you press most of the time and the other one is what you try if the first one didn't do what you wanted.

Oh, and my grandma, of course. She has a Windows PC at home. I let her check her email on the Mac I keep for compatibility testing when she was here last, because I thought she'd find it easier than my main box that runs Linux. It nearly drove her to tears - she couldn't figure out how to use the one-button mouse, she couldn't find the web browser, and none of the keys she pressed did what she expected. So much for "natural and intuitive".

Re:Not really

[smooth wombat]

It also forces intelligent design on software developers.

Well, since most software developers think they are god, this would make sense.

To see some of the stories you've been missing, see my Journal.

Re:Not really

[glesga_kiss]

Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality, and multiple mouse buttons should rightly be viewed as an optional enhancement rather than an interface essential.

You don't work in GUI design, do you? Context menus are essential in complex applications, e.g. IDEs, Tech Drawing, UML design. They present a small list of operations that are relevant to that object. To think that there is only one operation you'd want is absurd. Do you expect users to click on the object, then move the mouse to the menu bar and click, then work through each of the drop-downs, find the one you want, then select it? Or you could just right-click on the object...

The right-mouse button is a great indicator on how IT literate a person is. If they don't have a clue, they don't use it.

Re:Not really

[fracai]

"When the hard drive threw away all its data inexplicably, it was not worth staying with the Mac. I moved on."

holy crap it's neal stephenson!

Re:Not really

[fitten]

Yeah.... you can spend all your time moving a mouse around on a screen, or you can add context menus that are available by right button. It's essentially the same. You have to provide context menus in the menubar depending on what you have selected. With right click pop up menus, you don't even have to have the item selected.

Spending my time moving a mouse pointer around the screen to get to things that should be "at my right hand" is not my idea of good functionality or good design.

Re:Not really

[BandwidthHog]

Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality

Context menus are essential in complex applications, e.g. IDEs, Tech Drawing, UML design.

And those are, in the grand scheme of things, very few applications.

Some idea of what the average user (read: non-developer) does on a daily basis is an even greater indicator of how IT literate a person is.

Re:Not really

[OmniVector]

that's pretty rich. i'm sure if bmws were so much better, 9 out 10 people would use them instead of 1 out of 10. they're different markets assclown, get over yourself.

Re:Not really

[Ohreally_factor]

If you don't know how to access contextual menus in the Mac OSes (and didn't think it was possible), maybe you need to get a clue.

I've tried to teach my father the keyboard shortcut for quitting an app. CMD-Q. Bless his heart, he still uses the menu every freaking time. Do you think these clueless people, such as my father, should be subjected to your "clueful" idea of computing?

Re:Not really

[Ohreally_factor]

That reminds me, I've been meaning to ask.

How's that Yugo working out for you?

Re:Not really

[MoneyT]

That's why Apple chooses to support it but not force it. How many people do you know still use the menus for copy and paste? Personaly, I know more than those who use the keyboard or the context menu. Unfortunately, these days, so many softwares have features that are only accesable through the context menus, and that's wrong.

A good example, put a new folder on your desktop in windows without using the context menu and without using the keyboard shortcuts.

Re:Not really

[Halfbaked Plan]

The Mac isn't a 'BMW' class product.

It's a Schwinn. In a world full of Huffy, Hercules, and even lowly Sears bike riders.

Do you remember how we all treated the snobby kid with the Schwinn bike?

Re:Not really

[fitten]

Well... I'd do it like this:

Start->Run (cmd)

In cmd, I'd
] cd Desktop
] mkdir MyNewFolder
] exit

but that's me.

Re:Not really

[lighting]

No, shortcuts are essential. In Blender, for example, you select an object and press a key to get the function you want. As a matter of fact, almost every function can be chosen from a 1 or 2 key shortcut. In blender's case, it uses the right mouse button because the left button places the orgin, but... ~Nick

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sure if bmws were so much better, 9 out 10 people would use them instead of 1 out of 10.

People routinely choose inferior products do to ignorance and the cultural pressure to own things.

People buy expensive SUVs because they are big and impressive, not because they are well-designed vehicles. They spend as much, but favor appearances over actual quality.

Re:Not really

[dr.badass]

They've actually been poor at design

If you believe this, it's because you don't understand design.

Re:Not really

[AtariAmarok]

"People routinely choose inferior products do to ignorance and the cultural pressure to own things."

The real tendency is for people to choose products that serve their needs. This also goes for SUVs. Just because you do not need one does not mean that someone else does not. The "my product is unpopular because everyone is brainwashed" idea never pans out.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

'If you believe this, it's because you don't understand design. '

I believe this because I do understand design, and that "hard-to-use" and "quirky" contributed to Apple's diminished PC market share. A computer that looks like a jellyfish might be "cool": just don't try to use it. None of this applies to the iPod era.

Re:Not really

[Kiryat Malachi]

The thing is, the only applications that don't require/benefit from contextual menus are the ones that people use infrequently and shallowly.

The great majority of computer time is spent in situations where contextual menus are *great*. So, yes, for a given user, very few applications - but *most* applications (as opposed to utilities like media players) benefit from context.

Re:Not really

[default luser]

A good example, put a new folder on your desktop in windows without using the context menu and without using the keyboard shortcuts.

Sure thing.

Double click "My Computer". Click on Desktop (it is the top-most entry, VERY obvious and accesible). Click on the menu item File->New->Folder.

While you might argue that this is inconvenient, I would argue the opposite. The desktop was intended for program shortcuts, and fast access to useful OS features...like My Computer, for instance.

For non-power users, a cluttered desktop is less efficient. This is why programs usually ask you before creating an shortcut on the desktop, and remove them on uninstall, so users can easily manage the clutter without having to know how to edit it manually.

And what if you want to clean the desktop up without a keyboard shortcut or context menu? Just drag the shortcut or folder to the recycle bin, it's provided there for your convenience.

So, in summary, the tools to unclutter the desktop are painfully obvious, and the tools to clutter the desktop beyond program-installed shortcuts is only slightly less obvious. All this does is encourage people to use the user data folders already set aside for such purposes.

Ask yourself literally, why would non-power users need to put a folder on the desktop? These are the same people who are satisfied with the global accessibility of a few key user data directories (My Documents, My Music, etc.), and simplified installers.

I argue that if you find you need the capability and flexibility offered by a context menu, you can spare the brain cells to learn how to right-click, and experiment a little with the interface.

Re:Not really

[Bun]

"You don't work in GUI design, do you? Context menus are essential in complex applications, e.g. IDEs, Tech Drawing, UML design."

You quoted the parent, but perhaps you didn't read it first? Let's see it again:
"Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality..."
Your list represents an almost insignificantly small subset of the applications used by PC owners. Most applications used by people are nowhere near as complex as the ones you cite.

Re:Not really

[Pandora's Vox]

Now my question is... are any of those applications you expect your grandmother to use? When the parent says "very few", he/she i think means, "all but the most technical". you just cited 3 that (in my books anyway) fall under that "most technical" designation.

Re:Not really

[BitGeek]

Hmm... I can think of no company in the computer space that has had more designs copied from apple. Hell, every Linux and windows GUI is a copy of the old Mac UI (and not a very good one at that.)

I can understand why Microsoft did it- they have little creativity and their culture stifles it.

But why did Linux GUI developers just copy the really poor Windows UI (which is a poor copy of the Mac UI)?

Sidebar-- if you're going to mention xerox in your response, don't bother. Apple licensed some ideas from xerox, paid them in Apple stock, and then created a user interface from them that went far beyond what xerox had in the lab, etc.

Re:Not really

[toph42]

So, by your reasoning, Windows is great?

Re:Not really

[BandwidthHog]

I would separate out require and benefit. Just about everything benefits, but most things don't require. I'm generally a feature junkie, but I recently got a used iBook. Since I didn't immediately get around to putting my usual apps on it, I've gotten used to Safari instead of Firefox, iChat instead of Fire, etc. It's turned out that the limited feature sets of those apps don't feel nearly as limited as I expected them to once I started using them on a daily basis. I also considered the one button trackpad to be a serious liability until I actually started using one. On the Mac you use control-click to get a contextual menu if you don't have a right clicker. It'd be interesting to have something count control-clicks on this machine; it turns out I don't use it *nearly* as often as I anticipated.

I used to disagree pretty strongly with people who said that requiring lots of contextual menu usage was merely a symptom of poor interface design, but I suppose I've come around to their point of view, at least to some degree.

Re:Not really

[MoneyT]

The desktop was intended as a work environment, just like your current desktop is. It's an extention from the real world. If the desktop was ment as simply a launcher device, they would have made it a launcher.

Why would non-power users want a new folder on the desktop? Maybe to put some files in. Maybe they want to clean up their desktop. Maybe it's so full of shortcuts to other places on their computer they decided organizing it a bit would be useful.

Re:Not really

[justin12345]

I remember Mousin' Around, it could have been something else though, I had an Apple II GS. The version I remember had a simple drawing program in it, and there was a part where you had to point and click a man thru a cave (it was kinda a very short plateform game). Is that the same thing?

I know what you are talking about as far as clients and one button mice. I used to make extra money in college by tutoring people in the use of the Adobe suit, mostly Photoshop. I spent so much time just going over simple "this is how to use your computer" stuff that I wasn't even sure they are absorbing the software I was actually being paid to teach. The Mac people generally had less difficulty even though they were using OS9 (OS X had just come out and I didn't use it, I was a late adopter). Maybe it was the mouse.

Re:Not really

[Changa_MC]

You're misunderstanding the argument. The public isn't brainwashed, simply ignorant. I just bought a canon printer, because they're really good printers. It took 2 days of research to talk myself out of just buying an HP, because everyone else has one. I almost bought one anyway, because everyone else has one.

And... 99% of SUV owners are such because they are assholes. Not because they "need" 4x4 for city streets.

Re:Not really

[d34thm0nk3y]

The single button mouse is a GREAT design.
...[snip]...
If you don't like it, do what I did, and get a $10 logitech wheelmouse.

Apparently not great enough to remain attached to your computer.

Re:Not really

[default luser]

I told you my opinion, but I also made the facts quite clear: users can customize the layout of the desktop as easily as any other folder on their machine. In fact, it's even easier than an arbitrary folder because it has a direct top-level link in the file explorer.

If you're asking for anything more than that, then you're asking MS to create an inconsistent design. If people are bright enough to realize that their desktop can have file and folders on it, not just OS widgets and shortcuts, then they're smart enough to know how to use the file explorer just like they do for every other file and folder they own.

My opinion is that if users feel this consistent interface is TOO SLOW or TOO TEDIOUS, then it's on them to find a way to do better. This is the whole reason for the existence of shortcut keys and context menus.

Re:Not really

[Kiryat Malachi]

I don't know; I don't really consider IM to be an application (I consider it a utility - utilities generally don't benefit, applications generally do.) If you wanted a definition for the difference (beyond "I know it when I see it"), I think it has to be that one is designed to do a single thing well (utility), while the other is designed to do many things in a single way (application). IM is designed to talk to other people. When you start to get into doing conferencing, desktop sharing, etc, etc., you're pushing IM beyond utility into application, and you start to require more context.

I do agree - *requiring* contextual menu usage is poor design. Requiring contextual menu usage for efficient use of an application at a high level is not. I think that applications should be designed such that a novice doesn't need contextual menus, but such that an expert can be more efficient through their use.

(And personally, having gotten used to gestures and context in my web browser, I can't use a browser without those features for anything more than a quick check of the weather. I find myself doing right-clickhold drag left whenever I want to go back, and then I swear at the computer when IE pops up a stupid contextual menu, and it's all downhill from there.)

Re:Not really

[glesga_kiss]

Most applications used by people are nowhere near as complex as the ones you cite.

So therefore all computer mice should be crippled just to remove a button that some users don't use? Good argument...

Having the button there does no harm whatsoever.

Re:Not really

[glesga_kiss]

I've tried to teach my father the keyboard shortcut for quitting an app. CMD-Q. Bless his heart, he still uses the menu every freaking time. Do you think these clueless people, such as my father, should be subjected to your "clueful" idea of computing?

I don't get you. The argument was that most users don't need the second button, therefore it should not be there. That is a bullshit argument. And what is "my clueful idea of computing"? The argument that removing the second button would be silly? Please re-read my post and let me know what you meant; I'm still trying to figure it out! "subjected"?

I agree on your point about some folk not using extra features. That's just the way it is. Keyboard shortcuts are hard for most people to remember. Some people have trouble pressing two buttons at once!!

If you don't know how to access contextual menus in the Mac OSes (and didn't think it was possible)

You need two hands. Nice design!! I regularly use by mouse in bed as the TV in my bedroom is actually a TV tuner card. So, I should now buy a cordless keyboard just in case I want to enqueue in Winamp rather than play imediately? With a contextual menu, I can do just about anything from the mouse.

Re:Not really

[Ohreally_factor]

Dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum,
He hummed.

Re:Not really

[jschottm]

Just try teaching someone who has never used a computer before to use a two button mouse.

Those people are becoming pretty rare in .us. Most kids are using two button mice without a problem, it's the older generations that tend to have issues with computer interfaces. My grandmother refuses to use a microwave also, saying it's too complicated. Does that mean that none of us should use them either? My grandmother would be just as confused by explaining that you have to hold down the botton for X seconds or hold down a key on the keyboard while clicking as she would be by the right button.

Very few applications have (or should have) the level of feature complexity that would require contextual menus for basic functionality

It's not necessarily about complexity, it's about ease of use. One of the reasons I can't stand Safari is that you can't go forward or back using the right button. I generally surf without my hand on the keyboard and I use high resolution monitors the vast majority of the time. Traveling to the upper left hand corner to get to the navigation buttons is a waste of time and energy compared to the right-click, slight movement down, left click that I can use in IE or Mozilla. I *like* being able to do that, or correct mispelled words, etc. with the bare minimum of movement.

multiple mouse buttons should rightly be viewed as an optional enhancement rather than an interface essential.

If you don't like it, do what I did, and get a $10 logitech wheelmouse. OS X supports it just fine.

Given that 95% of the Mac users I know (quite a few - I work for a university) have multibutton mice, wouldn't it be nice for Apple to either not bundle a mouse at all or include a mouse that caters to the majority and let the tiny minority who can't handle two buttons buy a single button mouse, saving money and landfill space for the majority?

P.S. A laptop should be useable in and of itself. If Apple split the button in two, you could always map both buttons to act as the main button. There's no way to do the reverse.

Re:Not really

[Bun]

So therefore all computer mice should be crippled just to remove a button that some users don't use? Good argument...

This is a strawman. What I'm saying (and I think the parent was saying as well) is that Apple is fully justified in shipping single buttoned mice with its computers. This simplifies the use of the computer for those who wish to use it as an information appliance, and forces developers to make the basic apps easy to use. 'Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them. "Having the button there" confuses them needlesly, especially when the apps are so simple in the first place. Power users who want a mouse with a second or third button are fully capable of getting one at minimal cost and effort.

Re:Not really

[glesga_kiss]

"Having the button there" confuses them needlesly, especially when the apps are so simple in the first place.

I hear what you are saying on application design, but I've NEVER met anyone confused by two mouse buttons. If that's a problem for them, maybe Apple OS's are the helping hand they need!!

'Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them.

That was not the case when the decission to go with one button was made. You can't go back and change your reasoning/justification to suit the current climate! Unless you are the US Gov. re. Iraq!! ;-)

Re:Not really

[Bun]

I hear what you are saying on application design, but I've NEVER met anyone confused by two mouse buttons.

You should see my 77 yeard old father in front of a computer, then. And you'd be even more surprised how many Windows users don't even know about the right-click.

"Unsophisticated' users represent 99.9% of all computer owners, so it makes sense to cater to them."

That was not the case when the decission to go with one button was made. You can't go back and change your reasoning/justification to suit the current climate! Unless you are the US Gov. re. Iraq!! ;-)

I remember when first the Lisa and then the first Mac came out. There was much talk about why they went with one button, and Apple's explanation was ease of use for novice computer users. Maybe most users at the time were relatively 'sophisticated', but those weren't the people Apple was trying to sell computers to. They wanted the other 99.9% of the population to want and buy a computer. To quote the man himself:
"Working on the Apple I at the time, they weren't interested in human factors. While I was the first PARC-savvy person at Apple, Larry Tesler was the first PARC employee to join the company. At first he was strongly opposed to the Mac's easier-to-use mouse methods, and I eventually wrote a memo that showed, point by point, that the one-button mouse could do everything that PARCs three-button mouse could do and with the same number or fewer user actions. It was faster and more efficient, and much easier to learn and remember how to use."

Re:Not really

[jav1231]

But not all SUV's are 4x4's. The rest of your point is nice, though

Re:Not really

[glesga_kiss]

And you'd be even more surprised how many Windows users don't even know about the right-click.

That's what I was refering to in my original post. Once someone I know new to computers has gotten to a certain point, I show them it and most never look back. :-)

Personally, I like them from a design standpoint. I like Windows style of "default" action in bold, with other relevant options next to it. When I right click on a message in my inbox, I want to see "move", "delete", "properties" etc. Maybe not all that useful for one, but when you multiselect you can tidy the inbox very quickly. If you are running over VNC/X11 as I often do, dragging can be a bit flakey.

From Larry Tesler's quote you provide: "I eventually wrote a memo that showed, point by point, that the one-button mouse could do everything that PARCs three-button mouse could do and with the same number or fewer user actions."

I'd quite like to see that memo (is it public?), because that's one of the things I believe that a two button mouse does better. I take it he meant that you could just use the full menu? To be honest, I'd argue that having a context menu was more user friendly, due to it having less but more relevant options. File/Quit is not relevant when I select a message. If you told new users that the right brings up a menu and the left selects, I reckon they'd all pick it up quite easilly. It's more a case of them not being shown the basics when they start.

Besides, in a FPS, the more buttons the better! :-)

Re:Not really

[Changa_MC]

Even worse. What business does an SUV have existing if it's not even got 4x4? I mean, good grief, that's the only good thing any SUV has! That's the only reason I'd ever use one, anyway. Ah well. I did know that. I just try to block the really painful stupidities of this world out. And my employer owns compaqs because "everyone says" they're good computers, even though we've never had much luck with them. So maybe it is brainwashing afterall, but it's self inflicted in any case.

A list of possibilities for the product name

[product byproduct]

sed s/^/i/ /usr/share/dict/words

Re:A list of possibilities for the product name

[EvilTwinSkippy]

iDont Think that was very funny.

Re:A list of possibilities for the product name

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking about product name...
"What's NeXT for Apple ?"

The next big thing...

[bsdparasite]

I'll tell you why these are not even close to what may come out of Apple.

Simplicity. I don't think Apple is in the game of mixing functionalities (I think Sony is a better contender for that). That is why there is no FM tuner in iPods.

Watch that plays music? No one wants to do anything except keep time using their watch. I mean no one sensible.

Re:The next big thing...

[prockcore]

Simplicity. I don't think Apple is in the game of mixing functionalities

But they are. iTunes now does photos for the iPod Photo, and the whole shuffle autofill thing they *wedged* into iTunes.

Apple starts at simple, and then starts adding features. Just look how OSX is cannibalizing more and more F-keys with each new version. Pretty soon Apple is going to have to start adding new keys to their keyboard.

Re:The next big thing...

[colmore]

Yeah and what idiot would want to look at their photos on their portable media player?

Re:The next big thing...

[sharkey]

No one wants to do anything except keep time using their watch. I mean no one sensible.

Well, I want a frickin' laser in my watch. If that makes me NOT sensible, then I don't want to be sensible.

Re:The next big thing...

[nine-times]

Yeah, I don't want to play music on my watch... However, a very small wrist-mounted iPod would be cool. And, as we know iPods have clocks in them...

Re:The next big thing...

[radish]

I don't think Apple is in the game of mixing functionalities (I think Sony is a better contender for that). That is why there is no FM tuner in iPods.


So an iPod (a music player) can't have an FM tuner (for listening to music) but can have an address book, calender, games and (now) a photo viewer & TV output? Riiiight...

Re:The next big thing...

[evoltap]

I personally would welcome a watch that housed all my mobile tech needs. Come on, all those old movies about the future? Every new tech I invest in brings me more function with a smaller footprint. When I was a kid (80's)....I NEVER would have imagined a would look down at the cupholders in my car and see something with 9 DAYS worth of high fidelity music in it and another thing that was a phone that worked anywhere.....and both were about the size of a cassette tape!
Really, I think we're moving toward technology integrating with our biological bodies. So of course it will get smaller and do more. Voice commands, then thought commands.......Apple is on the right track in my opinion: simple, tastefull, functional, and WELL MADE. (but why no dimable backlight on ipod??)

Re:The next big thing...

[Megane]

That is why there is no FM tuner in iPods.

That's okay, I only listen to AM radio anyhow.

<rant>So why isn't there an AM tuner in iPods?!?!?!! I'm not going to ever buy one until they include an AM tuner!!!!1!!1!!@@!!one!!!</rant>

Re:The next big thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you why these are not even close to what may come out of Apple.

No, I'll tell you why: Apple hasn't sued them yet. Basically all we need to do is publish every possible thing Apple might do, and see who Apple sues first. Then we'll know!

Re:The next big thing...

[Mage Inq.]

All we hear is radio ga ga anyway. Podcasting's the way to go.

Re:The next big thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a photographer who uses a digital SLR in the field and doesn't want to eat up camera batteries by looking at their pictures on the camera's LCD screen? Assuming, of course, one had a way of transferring pictures over to the PDMP in a way that could be viewed immediately.

Re:The next big thing...

[ediron2]

Watch that plays music? No one wants to do anything except keep time using their watch. I mean no one sensible.

I haven't *owned* a wristwatch in years. I stopped wearing one the day I realized that I always had a cellphone with me that (drum roll) displayed the time.

Likewise, since leaving college I almost never need a calculator. The one in my nokia sucks ass, but in a pinch I'll use it. For tougher stuff, I've got one in my Palm that has engineering functions and does compound TVM/interest calcs. And an optimal single-function device I once called my 2nd brain gathers dust at home.

As for whether this mixing-of-functionalities just an apple/sony question, I was under the impression that ipods acted as a craptabulous address-book, macs gave a slick *integrated* user experience, and so on. I agree Apple's all about obsessing over making things simple and user-friendly, but they're also about transcending old habits when the replacement is elegant and simple.

Simplicity isn't a contradiction to mixed-function. It's just tough to honor both goals at once.

Re:The next big thing...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I thought iPod didn't get FM because everything on the FM band is utter crap.

No, I don't miss FM at all.

Re:The next big thing...

[Arcady13]

iPod camera connector

Re:The next big thing...

[Queer Boy]

I'll tell you why these are not even close to what may come out of Apple.

I think it will be a video game machine. That is an area that entertainment is heading at a dizzying pace and something Apple has no footing in whatsoever.

The trick is how it will interface with a Mac. Who knows, maybe it will be the media center doomahickey everyone wants but I think a video game machine would be an excellent parallel to when Apple entered the MP3 player market.

Re:The next big thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch that plays music? No one wants to do anything except keep time using their watch. I mean no one sensible.

"Sensible" people don't post to Slashdot.

Really, when was the last time you used a wristwatch that did nothing except keep time?

Even cheap $10-$20 watches have alarms, calender functions, stop watch functionality/chronometer, alternate time zones, etc.

If it's "digital" it's going to do much more than just keep time, because it doesn't hurt to add the extra functionality. Watches that only kept the time went the way of windup analog watches, which only kept time because that's all that was practical given the limitations of the technology.

Then there's the 20-somethings always posting here who never wear a watch because their cell phones keep time - although they don't seem to realize that they are not always on their cell network and if something happens to their phone, they are screwed. A simple wristwatch always has the time and never gets lost, because it is on your wrist. It's also a lot faster to tell the time by looking at your wrist.

Why anyone would begrudge themselves $10 or $20 for a cheap wristwatch is beyond me.

Nowadays of course, with pager watches and SPOT watches and Atomic Clock watches, you don't even have to set the time on your wristwatch anymore. It always has the correct time thanks to wireless singals.

Come on; geeks love geeky watches. USB data watches, USB flash memory storage watches, calculator watches, PDA watches, pager watches, SPOT watches, Atomic Clock watches, mp3 watches.....you name it, we want it.

Why be limited to just telling time, if more functions can be added cheaply without detracting from the primary time keeping function?

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[nine-times]

This won't happen for a while.

I think you missed the point of the post. All the things he mentioned *did* happen already. The reason iPods costs so much, BTW, isn't that the prices are artificially or unreasonably inflated due to a monopoly. Component costs certainly have a lot to do with it, since the retail prices of the storage media alone often cost more than the iPods they're included in.

I guess Apple has a "monopoly" on iPods, but they don't have a monopoly on MP3 players.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

iPwned!

The clones were better than Apple's machines

[Anonymous Coward]

"He did no such thing, And those clones were crap. They relied on better performance figures on paper with woeful hardware support & reliability.
"

The opposite is true. The clones ended up being better machines at a lower price point, so clone sales started to eat into Apple mac sales. Especially on the high end. Apple wanted the clone program to increase profits by selling more of the OS, but did not want it to cut into the lucractive high-end hardware line.

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[Anonymous Coward]

Many clones were better in performance, but were manufactured with cheap crud components that failed more often than Apple's own, and users paid for it in downtime.

It was a relief when the clone era was finished.

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[justforaday]

Having supported some of the Power Computing machines, I'll vouch for Rebeka. Many of those machines were absolute crap.

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[DrinkDr.Pepper]

My Motorola Starmax is still running.

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[jht]

I was a big user of Power Computing clones back in the day - they had features I couldn't get in Apple kit, had good prices, and you could do BTO without a problem. The reliability was only so-so, but their support was always good and they were quick about getting me parts if I needed them.

Apple's reliability was also crap during that era, too - and their prices were a lot higher.

When it became obvious that MacOS 8 was really just being targeted at shutting down the cloners (at the time, most of the clone companies only had license rights up through 7.x, because 8 was originally supposed to be Copland) and that Apple was going to refuse all the license renewals, I wrote Steve Jobs a snippy e-mail complaining about it and telling him I expected to see their lunch eaten by NT.

A day later, he sent me an e-mail back explaining his rationale in what he was doing, and we agreed to disagree. You know, I'd say he was probably right after all...

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[zonx lebaam]

Yeah, my Starmax is hanging in there too.

In fact it is not just capable of running, but it is still a primary machine and does real work everyday. It's still booting off of the original hard disk. The only thing I've replaced in fact, is the mouse.

A nice solid stout reliable computer.

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's reliability in its low end consumer-grade machines and PowerBook 5300 & 190 series was crap. It's higher end PowerMac products were very well built.

The early PowerPC Performas were some of the most dismally bad computers I've ever encountered. Agonozingly slow, shoddily built, poorly engineered, and running an increasingly outmoded pre-release quality operating system on insufficient hardware resources made it almost a relief to have the computer die. Which they did frequently due to crappy power supplies and several known hardware issues that resulted in frequent freezes.

The only worse computers I've ever encountered were those of the PowerBook 5300 and 190 series. Besides almost all the performance issues of the Performas (for example, video performance on these computers was scarcely noticeably better than that of the IIci, a 25MHz 68030 based machine that was the first Mac with integrated color video circuitry -- released in 1989), and an even more astonishing slew of electrical problems (the list is too long to get in to here...), they were also mechanically defective. It was routine to have people bring their computers, in many tiny pieces, in to the repair shop in a plastic garbage bag with stories like "I opened the screen and the computer just broke apart." Most of these computers were replaced outright by Apple and were probably recycled as asphalt.

Ugh. And the system software at that time -- the latter days of System 7...Wow! Talk about crap. It just didn't work. System 7.5.2 was easily the buggiest "release" version of an operating system I've ever encountered. (Although I've also never personally used Window ME.)

BUT the professional PowerMacs: 7500, 7600, 7300, 8500, 8600, 9500, and 9600 were great. They were fast, highly expandable, very stable (at least as stable as the OS permitted), and durably built. The desktop models, and later 8600 & 9600 towers, had very easy access to all the internals and were very cleanly designed.

Of course, prices were indeed higher than the clones.

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[Anonymous Coward]

Well designed?!?!??

How - exactly - do you get the ethernet cable out of a desktop Mac??

Re:The clones were better than Apple's machines

[commodoresloat]

My Power Tower Pro 225 still runs great. I don't boot it much but when I do I have my choice of OS 8.5.1, Linux, or BeOS. And I don't know what you mean by absolute crap - it runs great, had no hardware problems, and plenty of expandability (I had it full of hard drives and PCI cards back in the day).

The iPod will disappear into the cell phone

[Animats]

People are going to carry around only one thing, once that's possible. The challenge is to to make the user interface of that one thing tolerable.

Then again, the consumer electronics industry can't get the TV and the DVD remote to work together.

Re:The iPod will disappear into the cell phone

[shotfeel]

People are going to carry around only one thing, once that's possible. The challenge is to to make the user interface of that one thing tolerable.

I disagree, and your second sentence is part of the reason. Once you combine devices with different types of controls, the UI suffers terribly.

The other part is getting the right features. When I look at "convergence" devices I can't find one device that has all the right features. Take a camera phone as an example. Can you find a single one that has all the features you want in a good phone, and has all the features you want in a good, general purpose digital camera?

Heck, my wife and I just bought a new washer and dryer. When looking I soon found that I liked the washer from one company, but the dryer from another company. I couldn't find a "matched" washer and dryer where both had the feature set we wanted unless we spent a lot more. Which of course led to a discussion about wether the washer and dryer really need to match. My wife won that argument so (surprise) the new, very expensive, but matching, washer and dryer arrived just yesterday.

Re:The iPod will disappear into the cell phone

[Animats]

You don't have to carry the washer and dryer around with you all day.

Missing the point

[legLess]

These folks have done some cool work, but they're totally missing the point. Steve Jobs would rather shave with a cheese grater than let these things out into the wild with an Apple logo on them. Take one look at any of these gadgets and my first reaction is, "Huh, I bet that does a lot of cool stuff." But I'm a geek, and these designs are by geeks for geeks, and that's exactly what Apple is trying to avoid.

That silly-looking wirless iPod necklace thing -- what's with the bevelled see-through skeleton around it? How does that make it work better? The skeleton around the iPodWatch -- what does it add?

Apple succeeds because they hide the complexity, not because they call attention to it. Flashy complicated designs advertise internal complexity. While a geek sees power in complexity, most people see added cognitive burden. "Oh, shit, I bet that thing has a million features that I'll never figure out."

Re:Missing the point

[omicronish]

Apple succeeds because they hide the complexity, not because they call attention to it. Flashy complicated designs advertise internal complexity. While a geek sees power in complexity, most people see added cognitive burden. "Oh, shit, I bet that thing has a million features that I'll never figure out."

You've hit the point exactly. I'm a PC user for various reasons, but I drool everytime I see a nice, simple, and clean design from Apple. It's pleasing on the eyes and pleasing on the mind, and I wish a PC manufacturer would realize this and just make a laptop or PC without all these little edges, buttons, and colors.

Re:Missing the point

[nine-times]

Take one look at any of these gadgets and my first reaction is, "Huh, I bet that does a lot of cool stuff."

Funny, my first reaction is, "Yeah, right..." (sarcastically)

I mean, there designs are fine, I guess-- at least ok. But the idea of putting an iPod into a watch like that? That's not innovative. Figuring out how to make one that's light and easy to wear, has a reasonable amount of memory, bluetooth, a nice color screen, a convenient interface to your computer, and a price tag under $500-- that would be innovative.

I mean, I could imagine a whole computer built into a watch, thousands of times faster than any super-computer around today, with a neural interface that removes the need for an input interface, and bla bla bla... My imaginings might be interesting, but without any better insight into how it will be accomplished, my imaginings aren't much of an accomplishment.

Re:Missing the point

[argent]

Figuring out how to make one that's light and easy to wear, has a reasonable amount of memory, bluetooth, a nice color screen, a convenient interface to your computer, and a price tag under $500-- that would be innovative.

For a watch?

Nah, the iPod Watch would be more like the iPod Shuffle then the iPod Photo. Take the existing shuffle chipset, which already has LCD support, and add a clock (the Shuffle doesn't have a clock, which is why you can't get your iPod Shuffle use logged with Audioscrobbler), and put the ring of controls around the bezel. To pause, gently squeeze the crystal. The on/off/shuffle/mode control would be at the crown position.

Re:Missing the point

[nine-times]

The design posted says a watch with bluetooth, and the picture shows a color screen. The convenient interface with the computer, I'd assume that'd be a given, and the price tag under $500 because that's about the most I'd consider paying for it.

So if we take you example of using the iPod shuffle, then you take a device the size of a shuffle, add a screen and bluetooth, and you have a device too big to be worn comfortably as a watch. The shuffle already is too big to be worn as a watch.

Sure, we'll get there. Give it a few years, and everything will shrink. Still, I'd say neither the idea of an iPod in a watch nor the proposed design is particularly spectacular. The innovation here would be in the engineering that allowed you to fit all that in a small watch.

Re:Missing the point

[Mr. No Skills]

It's a silly article. It's not about the future of Apple, but about the future of "Pentagram" design projects. They're latching on to Apple through an old relationship to show their design take on somewhat obvious extensions of existing products.

It would be obviously more interesting to see an article from Apple sources on future products...

Re:Missing the point

[argent]

The design posted says a watch with bluetooth, and the picture shows a color screen.

I wasn't talking about the silly designs posted, but about what you'd actually do to make an iPod watch.

you take a device the size of a shuffle,

No, you take a device the size of the shuffle's internal components, and build up from there. You use a mini-USB jack instead of the full-size USB plug that with the cap takes up about 1/5th of the Shuffle's volume all by itself. The shuffle isn't spectacularly small for a flash device, it's got plenty of room to shrink.

Fossil sells a full-on Palm III-compatible device that fits in a watch, including a higher-res LCD than you'd need with a touch screen!

Re:Missing the point

[nine-times]

I wasn't talking about the silly designs posted

Well silly me for trying to make my post on-topic.

Digital Country Club?

[MisterSquid]

Someone should string FirienFirien and Zonk up by their editorial tonsils. We can't RTFA unless we shell out money. There is no option to register for free or view advertising in exchange for a subscription. Since when did Slashdot becaome a digital country club where one has no option but to pay to play? Oh, I forgot. 90% of Slashdot doesn't ever bother to RTFA.

That said, I think the most interesting element about this article (of which I could read two paragraphs in addition to its headline) is that a major business news publication is engaging in rumor-mongering just like the fan-based Apple sites. It looks like even the mainstream media has begun imbibing Jobs' Purple Kool-Aid.

Not that I'm complaining. (Just check out mistersquid's profile on http://discussions.info.apple.com/ if you don't believe me). I just find it interesting that mood of Apple's fan-base is starting to be reflected in major media channels.

Re:Digital Country Club?

[JMUChrisF]

for some strange nuclear reason i could read it while on my throne of power.

In related news

[9gezegen]

Apple sues Business 2.0 for spreading rumours about Apple products.

Somebody post the freakin article so I can comment

[Danathar]

thnks!

Imagine...

[CrazyTalk]

If Apple actually sold computers again. Seriously, they are rapidly turning into a consumer electronics companies and selling computers are becoming more and more of an afterthought.

Re:Imagine...

[Queer Boy]

An electronics store will sell a dual link DVI cable for $100. A computer sells the exact same item for $12. I had the guy at Best Buy trying to convince my friend that the $100 one was the one he needed and that fool wasn't even on commission.

Somehow the plastic and copper is spectacularly different in the $100 version according to the guy, although he couldn't tell me how. I could tell my friend how they were the same but the guy couldn't tell him how they were different. My friend now connects his dish to his HD Mitsubishi with a $12 cable.

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[KillerDeathRobot]

It might help if the blurb linked to the right part of the story (which is reg free).

Link

Imagine there's no macintosh. Its easy if you try.

[Anonymous Coward]

' Seriously, they are rapidly turning into a consumer electronics companies and selling computers are becoming more and more of an afterthought. '

Selling computers always was an afterthought. Why else did they cost twice as much and run slower? iMacs at first sold because of how they looked (don't turn them on you will be in trouble) The Apple computer plan was never viable in the long run, so the company flirted with bankruptcy except when Microsoft bailed it out, which kept it going long enough so they could come up with something they were actually good at: mp3 players.

Watch what you say

[stratjakt]

Because if you're right, Apple will sue you.

Re:Watch what you say

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you have a fairly weak understanding of the law.

Re:Watch what you say

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand fine: when it's a corporations word against some kids word, all of a sudden we get a new precedent that says that what you write online isn't protected the same way as what you write in the local pennysaver.

Fuck apple, fuck ipods, and fuck sycophants and apologists like you.

Re:Watch what you say

[Anonymous Coward]

but a keen appreciation of history...

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

' You're not supposed to eject the drives manually, that's the point, those are emergency ejects. You use the operating system to eject. '

What ever happened to ease of use? A disk eject button is friendlier than a pinhole or obscure key or menu command.

' The rest of your comments are just trolling '

They would be, if the comments did not point out actual design flaws. Do you seriously think that it was a GOOD thing for the first iMac to require you to buy a dongle to run your Centronics printer with it...when ever the lowliest e/machine to this day provides both USB and Centronics printer ports?

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

A disk eject button is friendlier than a pinhole or obscure key or menu command.

Any modern OS that uses caching locks the drive when it's mounted anyway, so what's the point of having a button?

If you've ever worked tech support you'd quickly notice how many windows users came in with lost data on their floppies, and how few Mac users had the same problem... ...even in an educational setting where most computers were Macs.

Do you seriously think that it was a GOOD thing for the first iMac to require you to buy a dongle to run your Centronics printer with it...

Since Apple branded printers never used that interface, why should they coutinue to support it? Plus, so what if you have to buy a $10 adapter. Better to make the few users that need it pay the extra $10 than to waste money putting a port on a machine that most people will never use.

Re:Why not?

[rokzy]

>What ever happened to ease of use? A disk eject button is friendlier than a pinhole or obscure key or menu command.

why is a button on the disk drive any less obscure than a labelled button on my keyboard (F12) where THE REST OF MY F*CKING BUTTONS ARE ALREADY LOCATED!?

plus, in order to make things are lots simpler and convenient my iBook drive is slot loading so there's nothing to put the button "on" anyway.

go home, troll.

Re:Why not?

[Fallingcow]

why is a button on the disk drive any less obscure than a labelled button on my keyboard (F12) where THE REST OF MY F*CKING BUTTONS ARE ALREADY LOCATED!?

Because most other appliances have an "eject" button on the device itself, so people are used to that.

Re:Why not?

[MoneyT]

Ease of use indeed. And when the user removes their disk while it's being written to? I can't tell you how many times I saw that happen while I was in highschool, and still see it happen with USB drives today. Someone grabs a bunch of files, drags them to the disc, and without even waiting for it to finish copying, hits the eject button or pulls the drive out.

Re:Why not?

[Halfbaked Plan]

Since Apple branded printers never used that interface,

Indeed. And hell has no fury worse than the fate reserved for an Apple customer who wants to attach a non-Apple printer to his Mac.

Can you imagine the screaming, fuming, pissing match that would have commenced if IBM has designed their PC to only function with IBM Brand printers??

Re:Why not?

[Halfbaked Plan]

So how come when I drag the Hard Drive icon to the 'trash can' the machine doesn't conveniently spit out the Hard Drive?

Isn't the User Interface supposed to be consistent?

Re:Why not?

[AtariAmarok]

"Since Apple branded printers never used that interface, why should they coutinue to support it?"

Because most of the printers that the users want are non-Apple brand printers.

"Plus, so what if you have to buy a $10 adapter. Better to make the few users that need it pay the extra $10"

It probably costs a tiny fraction of that to just build in the port. Typical PC makers still build in these ports. It serve the needs of the users. Are you actually arguing that it is a good thing that Apple makes it harder for users to use other printers?

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

Can you imagine the screaming, fuming, pissing match that would have commenced if IBM has designed their PC to only function with IBM Brand printers??

Oh please.

Apple didn't design their computers to function only with Apple branded printers. You're stretching things more than just a bit. All they did was choose not to build in an obsolete port. Apple printers used ADB ports, and they didn't put one of those on the iMac either.

Do you think that computer makers should continue to support every port they ever had on their machines? After a few decades we would end up with hundreds of ports on the back.

The fact of the matter is that your complaint that you had to buy a USB to parallel adapter to use an old printer on your iMac is a stupid complaint.

Re:Why not?

[AtariAmarok]

"Do you think that computer makers should continue to support every port they ever had on their machines? After a few decades we would end up with hundreds of ports on the back."

Not every port: just the popular ones that are still used. Most PCs still have 9 pin serial and Centronics printer port, along with a bunch of USB ports. Most PC companies tend to be more responsive to the customers. No way would Dell or Gateway get away with Apple's "We are forcing you to use only USB for your own good"... like Apple was on some sort of moral crusade, rather than trying to make it easier for iMac users to use their machines. With Apple sometimes, and especially with the iMac, Apple's attitude was "we crippled it. So go ahead and buy extra drives and dongles. Tough.". Also, based on the prices of the units, you end up paying a lot less to have more.

"The fact of the matter is that your complaint that you had to buy a USB to parallel adapter to use an old printer on your iMac is a stupid complaint."

The guy appeared to be complaining that the iMac was a step backwards in that you had to buy a dongle to do what the previous Macs did without extra hardware and hassle. If anything is stupid, it is insisting that this dongle situation was a good thing.

Re:Why not?

[MoneyT]

It is. Dragging to the trash unmounts the disk and ejects removable media. Since a hard drive is not removeable media, all it will do is unmount the media.

Re:Why not?

[Halfbaked Plan]

How do you remount the hard drive? There must be some 'user friendly' trick that I have yet to discern, eh?

Re:Why not?

[Halfbaked Plan]

Even I'm not foolish enough to think Apple hung their printers off the ADB port in the classic Mac era.

There was a printer port. It used a mini-DIN connector. I sure HOPE you didn't plug your keyboard in there. I sure HOPE you didn't plug your printer into the connector on the side of the keyboard (and bend some of the pins).

After a few decades we would end up with hundreds of ports on the back.

Only if every vendor spun out their own proprietary connector/port scheme. And not too many did (except in the early days before an 'industry standard' was established)

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

Are you actually arguing that it is a good thing that Apple makes it harder for users to use other printers?

Yes.

If they make a million computers and have to pay a buck a port... It's unlikely that many users would ever use the port. New printers use the port they included.

Typical PC makers still build in these ports.

So what?

Plus, I think you'd be surprised how many PCs are legacy port free these days.

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

The guy appeared to be complaining that the iMac was a step backwards in that you had to buy a dongle to do what the previous Macs did without extra hardware and hassle.

That is absolutely untrue. You could still hook up a printer with no dongle. It just had to be a modern printer.

What do you think the utilization percentage of parallel ports is these days? There are over 400 computers in the building I'm in right now, and not a single one of them has something connected to the parallel port. Considering apple printers didn't use the parallel port before this, the percentage would be even less on macs. Not putting a parallel port on the iMac was a good thing. If only PC manufacturers would figure it out...

No way would Dell or Gateway get away with Apple's "We are forcing you to use only USB for your own good"...

Oh really?

Re:Why not?

[AtariAmarok]

"If they make a million computers and have to pay a buck a port... It's unlikely that many users would ever use the port. New printers use the port they included."

This is true now, but not when the iMac came out. Back then, it was missing something that was needed.

"Plus, I think you'd be surprised how many PCs are legacy port free these days."

I know. I use one, and have a Belkin dongle for it. It is not so bad now, as these ports are starting to fade away. At the time that other ports were removed from the iMac, they were in common usage. Taking the ports away a few years down the road when few miss them is not a bad idea. Shipping computers without ports or devices that most users need (and have had up to that point) and somehow saying that this loss is a good thing is a bad idea.

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

This is true now, but not when the iMac came out. Back then, it was missing something that was needed.

Taking the ports away a few years down the road when few miss them is not a bad idea. Shipping computers without ports or devices that most users need (and have had up to that point) and somehow saying that this loss is a good thing is a bad idea.

Something has to drive the technology forward. What Apple did spurred the creation of the USB device market; a market that was invented by intel, but was failing to catch on because it wasn't "better enough" compared to the legacy ports. Had they not done it, perhaps the parallel port would still be "needed".

Apple also ditched the floppy drive with the iMac and replaced it with a recordable CD drive. You don't hear anybody complaining about that anymore. (Come to think of it, other than in this one thread you don't hear anybody complaining about the lack of a parallel port except in this one thread either...)

Re:Why not?

[AtariAmarok]

"Something has to drive the technology forward."

That is the philosophy I strongly disagree with. What is the real point of it? Perhaps it is just to sell new machines?. Shouldn't the new technology be driven forward instead by the needs of the users? Shipping a machine without a feature in order to "force" them to use another feature is an example of high-handed "morality" being handed down from on high.

"What Apple did spurred the creation of the USB device market; a market that was invented by intel, but was failing to catch on because it wasn't "better enough" compared to the legacy ports."

How is this good? It is not even true: at the time the iMac came out, many Intel PCs had USB ports built in, and more were adding them all the time. The PC adoption of USB was not affected by the Macintosh "forcing", and it ended up being easier on the users.

"Had they not done it, perhaps the parallel port would still be "needed".

And the problem is...?

"Apple also ditched the floppy drive with the iMac and replaced it with a recordable CD drive. You don't hear anybody complaining about that anymore"

You sure did hear howls at the beginning. For one thing, you are remembering the history differently from what occured. Those floppy-less iMacs first came with non-recordable CD drives, you forget. You had to log on, or buy extra hardware just to remove data from them. This was another bad idea, and a step backwards. This was another "Bad thing". Only later did iMacs add the CD-R. Floppy drives have only recently started to fade in the PC world because the PC makers, are, again, more responsive to the needs of the users.

A CD is a poor replacement for a floppy because of the slow speed of burning. Only in the past year or two has the floppy become obsolete due to the increase in cheap thumb drivers. The recordable CD dented the floppy, but only the thumb drive is killing it.

The design should serve the users. Not some department head who somehow thinks it is immoral to use a floppy drive or a Centronic printer port. Or perhaps someone who has a motive of forcing people to buy new printers and peripherals when their old ones work fine. Either way, these design decisions are not in the interests of the users.

Shouldn't the decision to replace a printer be made because the old one is broken, or the new one has a nice photo feature you want? Not because some design-nazi in Cupertino determined that the port of the old printer was immoral and had to be stamped out?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something has to drive the technology forward. What Apple did spurred the creation of the USB device market; a market that was invented by intel, but was failing to catch on because it wasn't "better enough" compared to the legacy ports. Had they not done it, perhaps the parallel port would still be "needed".

I hate to rain on your parade, but the iMac was not the only thing that appeared just before the USB market took off. The other thing that appeared at roughly the same time was Windows 98, which supported USB much better than Windows 95 had.

The USB-supporting iMac had about 1-2% market share after a year. The USB-supporting Windows 98 PC had about 60-70% market share after a year. Do you seriously believe that the minuscule Apple market was a more significant factor in boosting the popularity of USB than the massive Windows market? Because it really, truly does not sound very likely. Sorry about that.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

in order to make things are lots simpler and convenient my iBook drive is slot loading so there's nothing to put the button "on" anyway.

Huh? What's wrong with, oh, how about on the case right next to the fucking slot? Where people look for it?

Re:Why not?

[AtariAmarok]

"Huh? What's wrong with, oh, how about on the case right next to the fucking slot? Where people look for it?"

Don't argue with him. I bet he drives a car where the door handles are inside the trunk instead of on the doors. And he loves it too.

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

Shipping a machine without a feature in order to "force" them to use another feature is an example of high-handed "morality" being handed down from on high.

Except that's not what happened. Users of the older technology were supported through an inexpensive adapter. It wasn't the users who were forced to upgrade, it was the makers of perhipherals that were forced to upgrade.

It is not even true: at the time the iMac came out, many Intel PCs had USB ports built in, and more were adding them all the time.

While this is true, devices that used these ports weren't being developed. While USB was a potential boon to customers, manufacturers had no incentive to upgrade their existing products.

[...] some department head who somehow thinks it is immoral to [...]

Immoral? Give me a break. There are only two possible reasons that Apple would have made the decision that they did: It saved money, and/or they thought it would improve the user experience. Apple has never cut corners in the manufacture of their products just to save a few bucks, so you'd have a hard time convincing me that the first of those reasons was the only one. Looking at what USB turned into after the iMac came out makes it a hard sell that their decision didn't ultimately lead to a better user experience than what would have been otherwise. Most of all, however, I'm sure morality didn't have anything to do with it.

A CD is a poor replacement for a floppy because of the slow speed of burning.

A 2X CD-R drive burns at 300kB/s. That's a full floppy disk worth in 4 seconds. Good luck finding a (non-USB) floppy drive that can fill a disk in under 30 seconds. CD-R drives have *always* been faster than floppies. Since you can boot off of them too, the moment blanks became cheaper than floppies, CD-Rs were a superior solution. The only thing anybody has needed a floppy disk for in the last 5 years is to read data off of pre-existing disks.

[...] Either way, these design decisions are not in the interests of the users. [...] Shouldn't the decision to replace a printer be made because the old one is broken, or the new one has a nice photo feature you want?

Once again, it's not the *users* who were forced to upgrade. It was the *manufacturers*. Users needed only to buy an adapter. The design decisions *were* in the interests of the users becuase it forced manufactures to make products using the newer, better technology available instead of continuing to pump out the older technology. Hell, Microsoft didn't even bother to properly support USB in Windows until the explosion of USB devices caused by the release of the iMac occured. Sure the ports were there, but did you ever try plugging something into one of them under Windows 95, or Windows 98 before the USB patch was released?

Re:Why not?

[AtariAmarok]

You have some good points, but one I disagree with is where you said the user experience was improved by leaving off a feature, and there was no "explosion of USB devices caused by the iMac". The explosion in the number of PCs being sold with USB ports did this. They way outnumbered iMacs being sold. USB adoption and creation of devices in general would have grown the same if there never was an iMac.

"A 2X CD-R drive burns at 300kB/s. That's a full floppy disk worth in 4 seconds"

You have some good points. However, CD burning takes a lot longer. You put in the disk and the drive chugs along a while recognizing the CD. Chances are, you can insert the floppy, copy the file to it, and eject the floppy in the time it takes the machine to "figure out" the CD in this very first stage. Then it has to be formatted. More time.

Copying the file is, yes, pretty quick.

However, after you copy it, you have the lengthy finalization and ejection stage. It is what happens before and after you copy that makes copying a little 80k file a lot quicker on floppy than CD. It is not the copying itself. For the past several years, prior to the recent triumph of the thumb drive, a floppy was much quicker and more convenient for moving such small files around.

For small files, CD-R's have always been a lot slower than floppies.

Re:Why not?

[TheLink]

"Any modern OS that uses caching locks the drive when it's mounted anyway, so what's the point of having a button?"

To request the modern O/S to dismount the drive and eject the media, if possible?

Doh. I actually like those old CDROM drives with play, stop, FF buttons and volume controls on the front panel. You can actually select and play different tracks without having to wait for the O/S to launch the darn CD player app.

Also find it annoying to have to dismount USB drives before pulling them out. But I suppose that can't be helped given the design. (OK I know you don't always have to - it just depends on the situation, but it's still annoying).

Re:Why not?

[ivan256]

To request the modern O/S to dismount the drive and eject the media, if possible?

There are already buttons for that on the screen. Why do you need another one? There also aren't any OSs I can think of that work that way. (Windows doesn't).

I actually like those old CDROM drives...

CD-ROM drives are read only. They don't count. There's no data loss penalty from ejecting whenever. There are also plenty of macs with normal sized eject button on the CD drive. Every mac I own has one.

Also find it annoying to have to dismount USB drives before pulling them out.

You would also probably find it annoying if your flash drive was as slow as it would be if your OS didn't use the write caching that makes the unmount required. If not, just turn it off (mount in sync mode, or whatever your OS of choice calls it) and you won't have to worry about pulling the drive unless you care about a particular write that happens to be in progress. You'll wear out your flash more quickly from the redundant writes though.

Mirror of pentagram design

[Winckle]

/.ed so here is a mirror http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/968128bf1c0820154 cd579120492e1e8/index.html

Daemon

[Mr. Underbridge]

Pentagram, Apple... they really do like the "Devil's advocate" trappings over in Cupertino.

Good God, man, you forgot the most obvious one of all - Apple is based on BSD now! It's mascot carries a pitchfork and sports horns!

Re:boingboing rehash

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but boingdot has 'em earlier. And even those are rehashes of stuff posted on slashboing.

payment required

[colmore]

Could someone please find a mirror, or just log in through their grandmother's AOL account and post the text?

Yawn

[eno2001]

I am reminded of Libermann Computers (the scammers who sold rebranded PC hardware as their own with faked designs on their website). Plenty of promises and mockups of what could be, but probably won't. It's nice to dream because that is one place that "great things (tm)" come from. But it's also important to have your head firmly grounded in what is possible with today's technology. Many of these things aren't possible in a cost effective way yet. Maybe in two to five years, but not yet. Just as a sidenote, when I first saw L Computers, I was very excited about the possibilities. But after seeing them disintegrate, I am not too keen on vapor.

F TEH MODS. I RESPECT YOUR OPINION

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:iPod innovations???

[fracai]

oh c'mon, that's funny. one of the few times I've found one of these jokes to be so.

You forgot Darwin

[PxM]

It's been known for a while that Apple is full of atheistic-Satan-worshiping-anarchy-loving-communis ts for a while now
Register Article:
The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof

Re:Re-imagining Apple?

[DesiVideoGamer]

Are they going to start selling Beowulf clusters iPods?

Somebody has already done something similar.

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[Anonymous Coward]

2 words for you: firefox + bugmenot

Instincts?

[DesScorp]

He's got a great instinct for being a natural asshole...

Dean Kamen wanted a practical solution to a practical transportation problem. Steve Jobs wanted style. An iPod on wheels. This is why, despite being the best personal computers money can buy, Apple has a market share of 3 percent. It's only a matter of time before the various competing MP3 players out there do the same thing to the iPod.

Re:Instincts?

[Ohreally_factor]

He's got a great instinct for being a natural asshole...

He wasn't asked for input because they thought he was a nice guy. They weren't fishing for an angel. They (or at least Doehr) wanted some hard asses with the stature to command the respect of Dean's team.

In hindsight, who was right and who was wrong?

Re:Instincts?

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Steve Jobs wanted style. An iPod on wheels. This is why, despite being the best personal computers money can buy, Apple has a market share of 3 percent."

The market share is a reflection of the Windows lock-in that occurs in corporate America, and for which Microsoft has been taken to court and lost. It has little to do with Apple having computers that work and look good.

"It's only a matter of time before the various competing MP3 players out there do the same thing to the iPod."

I don't think so. This is no longer the computer market. Now we're in the home electronics market and in that one style matters. That's why people care about having a cool flatscreen TV, and a stereo system that looks good on the rack, and cool features in their cell phone. This is no longer the "oh who cares if it's a big, beige boxy machine, I'll just stick it out of sight on the floor" market. This is the market where you look at the thing all the time, and you personalize it "It's my cell phone" and "It's my iPod."

In this market, style and extra performance is king, or else everyone would have Daewoo TVs instead of Sonys. This is the market for iPods, and it helps explain why as more competitors enter the market, the iPod percentage of the market keeps climbing. The knockoff Japanese manufacturers haven't caught on to the shift in thinking that differentiates the iPod market from the computer market. They think they are still shipping big beige boxes, but the market is saying "Nope, I'll pay more for a cooler machine." Precisely the opposite approach most people took to buying computers, which should tell you right there this is a different market.

Re:Instincts?

[jcr]

Dean Kamen wanted a practical solution to a practical transportation problem. Steve Jobs wanted style.

These are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Kamen didn't think that style was important, and the sales of the Segway have been disappointing, to say the least.

Kind of reminds me of Henry Ford.

-jcr

Dr. Evil says...

[name_already_taken]

Well, I want a frickin' laser in my watch.

Wouldn't you rather have one mounted on your head?

Re:Dr. Evil says...

[NeoSkandranon]

I'd rather be james bond (laser watch) than Dr Evil any day

Get a clue

[Locke2005]

they are rapidly turning into a consumer electronics company And so are Dell and Gateway... hmm, I wonder why? Could it be that computers are now commodities with razor-thin profit margins, while consumer electronics can still be sold for several times their actual worth? Business is all about margins, and you don't get good margins by competing directly with Asian manufacturers. Someday even HP might figure that out...

Re:F TEH MODS.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's an idiot. But still, F TEH MODS.

Re:Imagine there's no macintosh. Its easy if you t

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you telling me MS was shit stupid enough to save a competitor from bankruptcy and now that company is kicking their ass in a market they desperately want to own?

I hope they got a cut of ipod sales as part of the deal.

You PC users just don't get it!

[aftk2]

If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would.

The Sphere is perfectly capable of handling my Logitech MX700, which has multiple buttons and a scroll wheel!

Oh wait...this isn't a real product? Crap...

What passes for news

[sjonke]

A pay-for internet magazine posts an article featuring designs known not to be by Apple and which any shmuck can see will never be used by Apple because they are pretty stupid. This is Apple slashdot worthy news? Usually I don't complain about this kind of thing, but that the article is subscription-only just puts it way over the top.

The only thing I liked

[Dark Paladin]

Was the iPhone and maybe the video iPod, though I think the flap idea is just bad.

For a movie iPod, take the current device, make the screen longer for 16x9. Now if you want to watch a movie, turn it on its side and use the wheel to move forward or back.

For the iPhone, let you side the top half sideways so you could hold the phone while revealing a keypad - great for finding/entering contact information, notes, text messaging, etc.

But I'm not sold that Apple will go this route. I think they see the iPod as a hub to the computer - insert music into computer, get music onto iPod. Insert movies onto computer, get DVD's or (in time) movies onto the iPod. Record messages to the iPod, and back to the computer.

So most - if not all - of what they do is still geared towards the computer. And I think most people in this generation can live with that.

Extend the idea further. Apple is using the iPod as a hub of its own - recording messages, storing contacts, etc. I can see a time when you buy a digital iCamera, and instead of accepting tapes it just uses an iPod for storage. Plug it into the digital camera or camcorder, take your pictures (with 4,000 picture storage space at incredibly high quality, or with 40 GB of storage space, that's what - around 40 hours of video at MPEG-4 for normal TV rates, different for HDTV? I'm just guessing, so I'm sure someone who knows more about video compression will know).

Cars, like GM, are making "iPod plugs" so you can charge up. Look at the third party iPod market - at least 3 manufacturers are creating car stereos to let you view and select playlists from your iPod.

Expect to see the iPod become more of a "hub" in this fashion - and, of course, still come back to the PC. Maybe it will get Bluetooth in the future so can "walk into the house, sync and go". But several of the ideas (such as the "Wireless iPod you hang around your neck") won't happen because doesn't use the computer as a hub - but as a streamer. Apple knows people want to sync and go.

One last thought - the one thing that I'd like to see in future versions of iTunes is a group/family system. I have music, my wife has music, my kids have music, all shared on a Mac Mini. I have a family user just for that reason, but I can see the first time my daughter does a User Switch to herself and doesn't unplug Daddy's iPod, then starts putting *her* music onto just her user - now duplicating storage.

I'd like to see a version of iTunes which takes this into account, and lets you say "I'm a member of an iTunes share - point me here". Granted, there is the DRM angle where you'll have to have a "family user" to play Audible/iTunes store purchased songs (fine by me, since I just either buy CD's or JHymn the music once I buy it online) instead of every person using their own - but an iTunes family system would be a great. Only 4 more years until my daughter turns 10, and I think the system should be in place by then when she *really* starts getting into her own music.

Re:The only thing I liked

[SPYvSPY]

Just point iTunes to a directory outside any of your user account directories. You can do this in iTunes' preferences. Make sure you set the permissions on that directory to read/write/execute for your 'family' group, and you're done, AFAIK.

Re:The only thing I liked

[the_2nd_coming]

no... for a movie iPod, just ass composite out or mini vga/dvi for dongles.... then just display them on an actual tv screen!!!...

watching movies on a portable player that small is stupid, that is why things that have movie capabilities are huge devices.

I do see though that music videos or sports clips being usable on the iPod photo. I mean, a music video is something you want to share with friends, so you can say "hey check it out" and show them on the iPod... same with home movies of your kid's play... but a 2 hour long movie? heck no.

Re:The only thing I liked

[Dark Paladin]

I do that, but remember that iTunes stores individual account information in the ~/Music/iTunes directory, so if one person makes a rating change, it won't be reflected. If I add music under my user account, my wife won't see those new songs unless she manually adds them into hers as well.

Re:The only thing I liked

[Sometimes_Rational]

One last thought - the one thing that I'd like to see in future versions of iTunes is a group/family system.

You can already get the functionality you want by changing the iTunes preferences (under the advanced tab) so that the music storage location is in a folder in /Users/Shared instead of the default /Users/username/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music . If you do this, everything you rip will be available to all the other users, except that in order to update their library list to see music added by some other user, they will have to use the menu item File>Add to Library... and navigate to the shared music folder, in which case they need either to have the same folder as their default storage location or else they should uncheck the Advanced Option "Copy files to iTunes Music folder when adding to Library", so that the music doesn't get moved out of /Users/Shared. This way, everyone who uses the computer has access to the entire music collection, but can keep their own playlists separate in their own accounts. I believe that DRM is linked to the machine, not the user account, so music purchased by one user is available to all without having to De-DRM it first.

Re:The only thing I liked

[Queer Boy]

I can see a time when you buy a digital iCamera, and instead of accepting tapes it just uses an iPod for storage.

Not sure why no one has talked about this yet but at Macworld NY Apple said there was going to be a digital camera add-on coming for the iPod in the first half of the year. Who knows if it's from Apple or a third party.

Let them out with an apple logo?

[way2trivial]

Ever hear of the "Made for ipod" Logo?
http://news.com.com/Apple+seeks+tax+on+iPod+access ories/2100-1041_3-5620959.html

It's an APPLE logo

Re-imaging apple, secret info

[Winckle]

Don't tell anyone I told you this, but I think Apple is working on a ... two-button mouse.

Forget about THIS website...

[mattyohe]

I was hoping you were talking about slashdot... because gizmodo has recently ALWAYS had the leg-up on all technology gadgets like this while slashdot posts about it DAYS later.

Single mouse button idea has no strength.

[Anonymous Coward]

' The single button mouse is a GREAT design" '

It is a bad design. A kludge that does not work the best with the OS. They make up for it by having a key on the keyboard take the place of the right mouse button. Apple keeps it because 1) they have done this all along 2) someone thinks it is a good idea whether or not it makes sense.

Outside of Mac, the PC world was much better able to respond to the needs of the user. They tried one button mouse (too few) and three button mouse (too many).... it turns out that two buttons makes the most sense.

If the single button was better, everyone else would have copied it years ago. Especially the grassroots Linux community. but no.

' It also forces intelligent design on software developers '

That is a very bad idea: Why not give the developers freedom to serve thier users instead of serving the crippling ideas of "OS moralists" in Cupertino? One person's "Intelligent design" is another person's bad design. Regardless, you are wrong. Apple software designers still design for the right-mouse. They just have you hit a keyboard key to do the same thing.

Re:Single mouse button idea has no strength.

[CaptainPinko]

If the single button was better, everyone else would have copied it years ago. Especially the grassroots Linux community. but no.

"Everyone else" != Linux users. Linux is made by geeks for geeks. True it can be modded into something that can be passed off as user-friendly operating system but really that's not it's goal. You might be able to simplify Vi but it'll never be designed for Joe & Joanna Average. Basically all Linux use of the multi-button paradigm prove is "Power users perfer complicated interfaces since they often allow them to be more powerful when working with them." Hardly ground breaking.

Re:Single mouse button idea has no strength.

[allanc]

Go download a 1.x version of Gimp (thankfully, they fixed this in 2.x).

Notice that when you right-click on something, you get the entire menu bar.

This sort of thing is what we're talking about when we say having a one-button mouse leads to better software design. The context menu should be for context. If a user's smart enough to know about it, then the features are available to them. If the user's not smart enough to know about the context menu, then the commands should be available in traditional menus.

Defaulting to two-button mice leads to lazy developers ruining the utility of the context menu by putting every damn thing that comes to mind into them instead of keeping it short and simple.

Simplicity doesn't mean lack of functionality

[cfalcon]

I think we may reasonably see FM tuners on iPods. My iRiver has one, but of course, like everything else on my iRiver, I have to use this multidirectional tiny button to browse around to get to it (I bought it for the open standards it supports).

I think if Apple could keep a straight, uncluttered interface they would support an FM (or XM, or Sirius) tuner.

I'd like my watch to do a ton of other things- but the "it has to be a watch" comes first. So a calculator would distract from that terribly (bunch of tiny buttons, my watch is digital with analog face, etc.). I agree that Apple hasn't been big into hybridization, and for this we have much more useable items out of them. A watch that plays music would presumably have a cable going to my ears: no thanks, guys. If it broadcast a tiny signal that independant headphones / headband recieved, then maybe. Maybe.

I think before we get truly multifunctional small slabs of plastic and metal, we will need better dynamic controls. Example: my Kyocera 7135 Phone/PDA combo works real nice, but mostly that's because of a touch screen that makes the MP3 player have MP3 player controls, the address book have address book controls, etc. But it's still a pain to use when moving at all, even walking, because of the stylus / difficulty of hitting the screen correctly. Dynamic buttons (LCD screen on each button) would go in this direction, but I think we are still far away from good general purpose items for this reason.

Re:Simplicity doesn't mean lack of functionality

[hawaiian717]

Here's my idea for an FM interface for iPod.

Model it on an analog car radio control. Now, it's suddenly essentially the same as the volume control. Scroll clockwise to go up the band, and counter-clockwise to go down. Add a numeric display of the current frequency as well, so you know exactly where you are. Middle button to save the frequency to a playlist, just like with On-The-Go Playlists, to mirror the functionality of the preset buttons.

Re:Simplicity doesn't mean lack of functionality

[Salvo]

All Broadcast radio is all about listening to what someone else wants you to listen too. Even Public Subscriber Radio is about listening to what the DJ's want to play for you.
A Portable Music Player, like an iPod is all about what *you* want to listen to. Playing Broadcast Radio on an iPod defeats the purposed of having *your* music collections with *you*.
Most people don't have the Artistic Skill to be a DJ. (Doesn't stop them from being Playlisters on Commercial Radio Though)

Revealing Quote

[BandwidthHog]

"I've never had a living, breathing music executive come to Apple."

Kinda makes ya wonder what's hidden in that closet in the corner of Steve's office, doesn't it?

Re:Revealing Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've never had a living, breathing music executive come to Apple."

Well, duh. Everyone knows music execs are secretly soul-devouring zombies.

Popularizing existing technologies

[Alaska Jack]

Apple has a history of taking existing but fringe technologies and making them mainstream. I thought, in keeping with this, that the next revision of the iMac would keep the swing-arm structure, but add the ability to rotate the screen to portrait mode.

Don't get me wrong, the new iMacs are cool, but I would have liked to see the rotating monitor become mainstream.

- AJ

Re:Popularizing existing technologies

[flashinglights]

Anybody else remember the Radius Pivot monitors? 15 years ago, Radius had full-page Mac displays that would rotate 90 degrees while keeping everything right-side up... hooked up to a box with a 33Mhz 68030 more likely than not.

You could get NuBus interface cards for them, or even PDS (anyone even remember that format? toaster mac stuff.)

Re:Popularizing existing technologies

[Queer Boy]

Don't get me wrong, the new iMacs are cool, but I would have liked to see the rotating monitor become mainstream.

Yes, the irony is that the printed page is at odds with any sort of screen. Apple used to have portrait displays and even had a HUUUUUUUGE grayscale display they called the two page display or something. Radius used to have a display that would rotate and had very clever software that would reposition your desktop.

The problem is that ii throws off people's spatial orientation (Mac OS X spatial properties, what are those?). Because window managers remember window placement, what happens when you size the window for landscape then change to portrait? No consistency.

He Wanted it, but did not deliver

[Anonymous Coward]

' Dean Kamen wanted a practical solution to a practical transportation problem '

Then why did he instead deliver us a tipsy overpriced sidewheeled motor scooter?

Re:He Wanted it, but did not deliver

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did he instead deliver us a tipsy overpriced sidewheeled motor scooter?

You've not ridden one, I see.

In other news...

[SmokeHalo]

Apple today announced a lawsuit against Business 2.0 for engaging in speculation of rumoured innovations, as well as all Business 2.0 subscribers, on the basis of "receiving stolen property" by reading the article. Mr. Robert Brunner has been singled out by Apple for breaking a non-disclosure agreement that stipulated he was not allowed to speculate, imagine, desire, or dream anything that Apple may or may not do. Apple is now attempting to track down anyone who may have read the article online, in order to append their names to the suit. Asked for comment, Apple CEO Steve Jobs did so but then had reporters sign NDA's and forbade them to print his comment.

free labour?

[radarsat1]

wait, so explain to me.. why are people doing free design work for Apple now??

I'm confused... isn't it up to Apple to say what the next Apple designs are going to look like?

Re:free labour?

[radarsat1]

wicked, my first flamebait mod! but seriously, i think what i wrote was legitimate. i wasn't trying to troll. i find it odd that people are doing designs and pre-assigning them the Apple logo. Why not sell the designs to a competing company or something? Why would they default to selling them to Apple? And why would apple buy, when they have their own design teams?

Re:free labour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me be the first to apologize for the abuse of the moderator.

FWIW, I was recently given the opportunity to meta-moderate, and rated the moderator's attack [on you] as 'unfair'.

I'm not sure what else to say, except that I was recently struck by a retarded moderator in a similar fashion.

P.S. I've posted anonymously to prevent 'retribution' on me.

Re:free labour?

[radarsat1]

heh, thanks.. ;-)
i don't really care THAT much though.. :)
but its always good to have people on your side..!

I'm giving you a

[ThatsNotFunny]

sexy face? are smoking crack? put down the pipe, AC!

Those ideas are not from Apple.

[SageMadHatter]

They are from Business 2.0. Now you know, why they suck.

In related news, attorneys...

[IronChefMorimoto]

...for Pentagram Design, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Pacino, had no additional comment regarding the future plans of collaboration between Apple and Pentagram.

IronChefMorimoto

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[calibanDNS]

The link that you provided takes you to the galary of pictures and then onto the first page of the artile. After the first page, you're still expected to register to continue reading.

iPhone

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Why would the iPhone have a slide-out keypad? Wouldn't they just make you rotary-dial?

Apple computer shipments are actually on the rise

[chia_monkey]

"If Apple actually sold computers again. Seriously, they are rapidly turning into a consumer electronics companies and selling computers are becoming more and more of an afterthought."

Turning into a consumer electronics company? If you recall, way back when Steve introduced iTunes to the masses, his plan was to make people want the iPod, which would make people want Macs. His plan is working perfectly. While other PC companies are predicted to have slowdowns in units shipped, Apple is actually expected to sell MORE computers in the near future. Not only is Apple selling computers...they are selling MORE computers than before. Making a nice chunk of profit from the product that is helping the computer-base grow is simply gravy.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[superpulpsicle]

That is the saddest way to defend Apple's overpricing. The iPod is overpriced with expensive components, yes... maybe acceptable.

But you mean to tell me a car adapter, a firewire cable and other iPod accessories need to be orverpriced too. Apple is clearly jacking prices up, cause they are in the monopoly seat.

Note to posters on this thread:

[Ohreally_factor]

YHBT

Re:Note to posters on this thread:

[Halfbaked Plan]

Nope.

It's not enough to simply classify somebody who embodies the old spirit of Slashdot and the hacker community as a troll.

Until the last several years it was extremely uncommon to find ANYBODY in the alternative/Free Software community who saw Apple products as anything but joke/boutique hardware/software products.

There were regular PC drones, there were hackers/freaks/enthusiasts, and there was the short bus with the Mac Users on it (granted there were many cultured idiot savants on said bus).

Some of us hate Steve Jobs because we remember his smug, triumphant pronouncement of the sealed-box 'get all you dev. tools from us' original Mac as 'hacker proof'. He used those very words to describe it at an early National Press Club speech broadcast on NPR in the mid 80's.

Re:Note to posters on this thread:

[Ohreally_factor]

The only thing worse than an Apple zealot is an anti-Apple zealot zealot. You're the mean spirited type that can't stand anyone else having fun or achieving any sort of success, especially if the way they are doing it doesn't meet your approval or threatens your high priest status.

I know, your type is as old as the hills, and not likely going away. But you don't have to follow me around, either.

Re:Note to posters on this thread:

[AtariAmarok]

" The only thing worse than an Apple zealot is an anti-Apple zealot zealot. In Soviet Slashdot, the means of production own YOU!!

What about the anti-anti-Apple zealot zealot zealots? Remember, in Soviet Microsoft, developers say "Ballmer Ballmer Ballmer!".

Re:Note to posters on this thread:

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I like about you, Atari?

No seriously, do you, because I haven't the foggiest.

Oh, it must be a sense of humor at least as weird as mine, possibly weirder. =)

Or_f

Re:Note to posters on this thread:

[glesga_kiss]

What about the anti-anti-Apple zealot zealot zealots?

What, the ones that systematically modded down all my posts ont he subject. Apple is a strange one for that; if you say something bad about them, someone here will look at your posting history and try to "punish" you. I've had unrelated posts modded down for no reason, not long after I've pointed out that the iPod ain't all that...

Re:Note to posters on this thread:

[glesga_kiss]

I wasn't trolling mate. Technically speaking, the iPod isn't all that great. You have a multi-gig USB harddrive in your pocket that Apple decided that you weren't trusted enough to use and they locked it down. You can't get the music off it legally. You can't carry your own data on it. I tend to buy from manufacturers that don't treat me a child. iPod: wasted potential.

Full article text

[Anonymous Coward]

(Expand browser window to view ungarbled.)

What's Next for Apple?

Steve Jobs won't ever tell you -- but we will. Here's what a trail of intriguing evidence reveals about
where the world's hottest company is going.

By Paul Sloan, Paul Kaihla, April 2005 Issue

Steve Jobs was rocking back and forth in his chair at the head of his conference room table -- and venting. It was January 2002, and the target of his
ire was the music business. The industry was reeling from Internet piracy and, as Jobs saw it, doing nothing about it. Even Jobs himself, a man
accustomed to commanding people's attention, had been largely ignored by music execs. Jobs railed to his audience, a few Apple (AAPL)
lieutenants and Paul Vidich, then a senior exec at Warner Music, about the industry's total lack of imagination. "Until now," Jobs said, "I've never had
a living, breathing music executive come to Apple."
Vidich sat quietly.

"Why is it," Jobs continued, "that the people who run the music industry just don't get it?"
Vidich could have taken this the way Jobs certainly meant it -- as an insult. But as Vidich listened, he couldn't help thinking that he agreed. Finally,
he spoke up.

"Steve," he said, "that's why we're here. We need some help."

It's amazing to consider what has happened since that encounter at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. In three years Apple has utterly changed
the way people listen to music, and Jobs has become the hero of the very people he was lambasting. Top acts are eager to sell their music via the
iTunes music store. The iPod music player has become totemic; it's selling at a rate of about 40 per minute. White buds sprout from so many ears
that a sudden human evolutionary adaptation seems to have taken place.

Apple's lead in digital music is growing even as an army of corporate powerhouses -- Dell (DELL), Microsoft (MSFT), Samsung, and Sony (SNE)
among them -- spends hundreds of millions of dollars to grab a slice of the business. And the financial transformation driven by Apple's storming of
the music stage has been profound: On its knees when Jobs retook control in 1997, Apple is coming off a year in which revenue rose 33 percent and
profits quadrupled. Its stock, not surprisingly, has been on a tear, up more than sixfold in the past two years and now hovering around $42 a share.

So, Mr. Jobs, what do you do for an encore?

It has become a parlor game in some quarters to try to divine where Apple is going and how it intends to get there -- and not just at the dozens of
blogs that traffic in Apple rumors. Recently, Microsoft quietly hired a former Apple design executive whose mission is to help Bill Gates's baby
behave more like Steve Jobs's. Apple doesn't make the game easy; Jobs is famously secretive and detests leaks -- just ask the kid from Harvard
whom Apple recently sued after he posted details of the Mac Mini before the stripped-down computer was unveiled at Macworld (see "The Secrecy of
Success"). But there are ways to draw a bead on what's brewing in Jobs's fantasy factory. And we're here to tell you, it goes way beyond what he has
discussed at Macworld.

Jobs wouldn't talk to Business 2.0, but in various public forums, he has stressed how the $499 Mac Mini, the low-cost iPod Shuffle, and an advanced
operating system called Tiger, due out this spring, are meant to build on the digital-music momentum. In truth, they are but the tip of a very long spear.

Discussions with past and present company officials, Apple partners, and longtime acquaintances of Jobs, as well as clues in patent applications
and other evidence, point to a gargantuan effort to leverage the iPod's success by creating an entire line of breakout consumer electronics devices.
Dozens of gadgets -- from an iPod phone to wireless iPods that talk to one another to the ultimate all-in-one home-cum-car media hub -- appear to be
on the drawing board or, in some cases, already in prototy

Re:Full article text

[mogabog]

thanks

1989 to 1996?

[HotButteredHampster]

In other words, they talked to a guy who was a designer during Apple's "dark ages", when they couldn't pull a decent design out of their @$$, were bleeding money, and were on their way out of business. How much do you want to bet that this guy was fired for incompetence even *before* Steve came back? If he'd still been around after the Second Coming of Steve, this is what I would have sounded like during his performance review:

Steve - Hi Frank. I understand you have designed many of Apple's products, including the Powerbook 5200.

Frank - Yes, that's right.

Steve - You are *so* fired.

HBH

Apple: Bring Back Guy Kawasaki!

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the revolution will be complete.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[nine-times]

Most of the accessories aren't produced by Apple. So you might want to complain about Belkin instead.

Forget about the seat...

[jberkom]

He designed the whole toilet. http://www.electric-chicken.co.uk/toilet_06.jpg

iPhone anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple would be smart to integrate a cell phone and an iPod. It doesn't need to be a PDA, but a lightweight device that you could listen to music or make calls from. For the most part, PDAs are impractical and have features that your laptop would do better and with less hassle. I don't know if they want to venture into that market, but today mobile phone technology is complete garbage.

Right now phone companies want more money for poor phones and the only innovations they offer are fake innovations not driven by consumer demand. Heck, before 2001 who would have said, "this phone needs a crappy little camera"?

But by using Apple's minimalistic paradigm and integrating the iPod interface and your music library, the iPod could become are real "replace all your other crap" device. I'd rather have one bulge in my pocket that was slick and did everything I needed simply (data swap, music, phone, some email) than several devices that do it badly (I have a Smartphone, which sucks) and have features that are not needed.

Apple does bide its time though, but when they succeed (recently anyway), they really succeed. I think of all the crappy MP3 players I had before my iPod and now you can't sit on the subway counting white ear buds before you run out of fingers (or toes).

What about single-purpose devices

[TheLittleJetson]

Every single one of those was a combination of two devices. In most cases, this turns out to be a really lousy idea. Usually quality of both devices must be compramised to include in a single device. Camera phones, printer/scanner/fax, calculator watch, all of these suck.

I really would like Apple to make a cell phone and I'm not alone in this. NOBODY makes a bluetooth flip-phone for the low-to-mid-range market. I want a flip-phone, made out of iBook material, with a simple interface, and bluetooth sync with my OSX contacts. No camera, no stun-gun, no music player, just a phone. Some day...

Re:What about single-purpose devices

[the_2nd_coming]

yeah... sort of like an MP3 player with a mic and an FM tuner and 5 other things it can do but all must be accessed via 10 different button combinations.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Trurl's Machine]

Name one good thing they've done in 2005.

iPod Shuffle.

It gets really spooky

[Ohreally_factor]

OK, you better sit down. It's even scarier than that.

Darwin's mascot has a pitchfork, horns, and a . . . .

BILL!

Proof that MS is the Devil, if you were ever in any doubt.

Re:It gets really spooky

[Halfbaked Plan]

The first Linux mascot was a Platypus.

Yet another example of Apple stealing someone else's idea.

Re:It gets really spooky

[Ohreally_factor]

Are you going to follow me around all day?

Gee, I always wanted a troll of my very own! My prayers have been answered!

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Golias]

If you think iPod accessories (mostly sold by Belkin, Monster, and Labtech, not by Apple) are overpriced, make competing accessories and chop those guys off at the knees.

The pin-out diagrams for the iPod are easy enough to harvest from hacker sites.

Seriously. Do it. If you can make a reliable $20 car adapter which uses the cigarette lighter for power and FM for radio connectivity, I would rather buy yours than the $80 one from Belkin.

MOD PARENT UP - so you can RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet, find me a link where I don't have to register.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[AtariAmarok]

"Seriously. Do it. If you can make a reliable $20 car adapter which uses the cigarette lighter for power and FM for radio connectivity"

Yeah, I can even do it for $10 if you don't mind haywires and big globs of duct tape. There is a piece of uncooked maceroni that got into the tape somehow, so you will have to accept that. The cigarette lighter plug smells like Uncle Leonard's cigars, but hey, I saved money by swiping it from his 1973 LeMans.

What does this have to do with anything?

[Quila]

They show a bunch of designs by the guy who did the uninspiring early 90s Apple systems.

Apple now has Jonathan Ive, probably the best industrial designer on the planet. Does anyone think any Apple products will look anything like this?

DUMB DUMB DUMB

[coyote4til7]

Uhm, hello. How about a warning that you have to be a _paid_ subscriber to read this article?!? Nothing like following a link, reading the first page, hitting 'continue' and getting asked for a login. I'm sure Biz 2.0 liked the nice little boost in readership this engendered, though. Maybe you guys should ask for an ad or something. Seems like they now owe you one. Sheesh.

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posted AC to avoid losing karma)

FEATURES Talk Back
E-Mail This Article
Subscribe to B2

What's Next for Apple?

Steve Jobs won't ever tell you -- but we will. Here's what a trail of intriguing evidence reveals about where the world's hottest company is going.

By Paul Sloan, Paul Kaihla, March 23, 2005

Steve Jobs was rocking back and forth in his chair at the head of his conference room table -- and venting. It was January 2002, and the target of his ire was the music business. The industry was reeling from Internet piracy and, as Jobs saw it, doing nothing about it. Even Jobs himself, a man accustomed to commanding people's attention, had been largely ignored by music execs. Jobs railed to his audience, a few Apple (AAPL) lieutenants and Paul Vidich, then a senior exec at Warner Music, about the industry's total lack of imagination. "Until now," Jobs said, "I've never had a living, breathing music executive come to Apple."

Vidich sat quietly.

"Why is it," Jobs continued, "that the people who run the music industry just don't get it?"

"Get what?" Vidich asked.

"The MP3 thing." Jobs continued. "There are millions of MP3s on the Internet, and people are downloading them for free, and the music industry is suing them. If the music industry were to sell MP3s instead, maybe people would buy them."

"But", said Vidich, "Why? I mean, if people can get them for free, then why pay to download MP3s? Isn't that the way the music industry is thinking?"

"Why buy music at all then? People bought vinyl when there were blank tapes. People buy CDs when they can get friends to copy them onto CD-Rs. People want to be honest. They want to do the right thing. If you price MP3s low enough, people will buy them instead of downloading them for free."

"No they will not", said Vidich. "They can buy CDs. But they chose to download MP3s instead. Doesn't that tell you, all by itself, that the vast majority of these people are cheapskates, who want music, but aren't prepared to buy it?"

"No", said Jobs, getting frustraited. "They download because it's convenient."

"Sure, it's convenient" said Vidich sarcastically. "I mean, the "inconvenient" way is a matter of finding what you want on Amazon, clicking "Buy with one-click", and then opening a package a few days later. The other involves making some flakey internet connection, downloading some illegal software, trying to find an MP3 you want knowing that half of the MP3s you're looking at are probably not as labeled, or badly encoded, or 384kbps stuff with some corruption that'll mean it will not work on your PC, then waiting for the damned thing to download, which would be quick on your supposedly whizzy cable modem connection, but you're actually downloading it from a "peer" who's DSL outgoing bandwidth is capped at 128kbps, or maybe even some nerd in the middle of nowhere with a V.32bis modem, and what you get then plays exclusively on your PC or MP3 player, unless you're willing to burn it to a CD. And do you know, Steve, how hard it is on most platforms to burn a CD? The tools are getting better, but man. My band tried to make a few CDs a few months ago, and Nero sucks."

"Ok, point taken" said Jobs.

The big idea

It was several months later that Steve Jobs hit upon a way to solve everyone's problems. Jobs saw that the problem with filesharing wasn't just that it was illegal, it was that it was user hostile to the vast majority of users. But how to fix it? This meant making a new filesharing client supporting technologies that would fix the problems. "Official" versions of each song. A friendly, web-like, user interface for picking and chosing music to download. But if Apple was going to go into the filesharing business, Apple also needed to ensure it wouldn't be sued.

Jobs called Nancy Heinen, Apple's legal chief, into his office one May morning and asked her. "If we were to make it easy for our users to download music, but harder for music publisher

Apple Design Award

[Anonymous Coward]

If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would.

You must be thinking of the Apple Design Award. It's a "beautiful metal cube ... that glows when you touch it." Unfortunately they're generally not for sale.

http://www.mekentosj.com/goodies/cubism/

PIctures, including x-rays:
http://www.mekentosj.com/goodies/cubism/gallery.ht ml

already been done

[k2enemy]

nokia makes a very small, no button cameraphone aimed at clubbers that just accepts your SIM card then uses voice dialing.

http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,62371,00.html

Re:Here's what I want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Only 2% of the posts are complaining about the required subscription because only 4% of the posters have tried to read the article. Everybody else is just B.S.-ing (including me too, now).

Pointless acts of stochastic titilation

[crovira]

from a point of view directly in front of and below an elephant's tail.

The concepts are cute but 'so what!'

We'll see what Apple delivers when they deliver it. RendezVous is one prime example of zero-config that just works. Expect more of THAT from Apple.

The Sony PSP is the worst example of this

[abandonment]

not only does it have WAAAAY too many buttons, but to enter any kind of information like numbers or text, you have to not only use the stupid 4 button keypad for navigation, but they've also thrown in the cel-phone style 'cycling through numbers & letters' interface as well...

it's an abstraction of an abstraction - just ridiculous...

if you are going to provide a 'mock' interface for people to enter information, why not provide a whole keyboard instead of the cel-phone letter/number game...

so stupid...but there's a lot about the PSP that makes it seem half-baked and incomplete...

Re:The Sony PSP is the worst example of this

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a retard.

Re:The Sony PSP is the worst example of this

[abandonment]

eat shit - real intelligent you are, posting as an AC

This is what I want!

[Bodhammer]

Newton + IPod (>=10Gb) + lightweight BSD/OSX on modern hardware (i.e. Zaurus SL-3000 size and form factor) with WiFi,USB 2.0, Outlook sync (for work), PalmOS emulation, Sony PSP screen resolution, and no shit 8 hours of battery life for less than $600.

Steve, let me know when I can place my pre-order!

Don't we all hate Rob Enderle?

[GPLDAN]

He's quoted at length in this article. He was just on NPR talking about computing. How has this cretin who has an absolutely abysmal record of pontificating about anything always the go to source for so many media outlets? He must be a master marketer of Enderle Group.

He's lousy copy, and I usually tune out of anything he says. Which is usually something bad about Linux or about open source is evil.

Re:Don't we all hate Rob Enderle?

[GPLDAN]

To follow up to myself, I just love this quote from Dave Winer. If a journalist is quoting Enderle, it means he's cutting corners on his research by DEFINITION. http://daringfireball.net/2003/12/enderle That should be the Slashdot ethos. Similar to how if Hitler is invoked, a Usenet thread automatically ends. If Rob Enderle is quoted, the article BY DEFINITION is not worth reading.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Your uncle had a power adapter plug in the lighter of his 73 LeMans? Sounds like a fire hazard.

It has to do with the computers.

[Anonymous Coward]

' The market share is a reflection of the Windows lock-in that occurs in corporate America, and for which Microsoft has been taken to court and lost. It has little to do with Apple having computers that work and look good. '

It has everything to do with the computers themselves: how well they do what the users want them to do? The small Apple share of the market is true when it comes to individual consumers as well. The Apple computers look good, but they don't work good for most of the users.

Re:It has to do with the computers.

[FunWithHeadlines]

Totally untrue. They work great for the vast majority of typical computer users. For the moms and pops of the world, they work better. I've seen that myself in several cases. I've yet to have anyone I recommended a Mac to later say they missed Windows. Everything worked as expected, there were no compatibility issues, it was easier. Only a small subset of users will find that Macs don't work well for them.

Re:It has to do with the computers.

[Anonymous Coward]

' They work great for the vast majority of typical computer users. For the moms and pops of the world, they work better '

If this was actually true, the vast majority and the mom and pops would have them.

Re:It has to do with the computers.

[FunWithHeadlines]

I'm afraid your statement does not follow. There are all sorts of examples of people doing things that are not good for them.

Re:Apple computer shipments are actually on the ri

[CrazyTalk]

If the plan was to sell iPods to sell Macs, they why make iTunes available for the PC? My understanding was iTunes was given away to sell iPods - but the computer didn't figure into the equation at all.

Coattails.

[dr.badass]

So, let me get this straight...

A designer that was with Apple during it's greatest period of decline and hasn't been with the company in nearly a decade is getting press for his bewilderingly lame knock-offs of the iPod -- a product that he (thankfully) didn't have anything to do with the design of.

Shame on Pentagram. They're better than this. This stuff is crap.

iVaio?

[htmlboy]

all the designs in the article look like they'd fit into the current sony line. they're much to complicated and black to be apple products.

subscription

[Robocoastie]

subscription site news articles shouldn't be news on /.

Please remember that...

[Anonymous Coward]

the years 1989 to 1996 were Apple's dark years, where M$ cam in an ovetook the entire PC market, and Apple was headed for deep financial trouble.
So his ideas might not be that great, remember the Newton ?
It was designed at that time...

Touch sensitive is tactile

[AtariAmarok]

" Touch-sensitive panels don't usually work well because there's no tactile feedback."

There is definitely tactile feedback on touch sensitive panels. you have to touch them in order for them to register anything. This fits in with the definition of tactile: "Perceptible to the sense of touch; tangible". Perhaps what you are really missing is the bounce of a keyclick. Not sure what that is called: kinetic feedback?

If you want an example of a user interface that has no tactile interface, look at the virtual reality helmet-based GUI that the Keanu Reeve character used in (I think) "Jonny Mnemonic". While it looked like he was pressing buttons when he saw it through the goggles, outside his fingers were just whooshing through the air.

Re:Apple computer shipments are actually on the ri

[chia_monkey]

"If the plan was to sell iPods to sell Macs, they why make iTunes available for the PC? My understanding was iTunes was given away to sell iPods - but the computer didn't figure into the equation at all."

That's a good queestion. Here's one of the more popular views on why they did what they did. Apple got tired of being labeled as dumbasses by targeting only their niche audiences. Remember when the iPod first came out...it was available only for Macs. They realized they could sell many more (and thus make a load more money) by making it compatible with PC users. Now we have the connectivity issue. The iPod integrates just great with iTunes so then they had to make iTunes for the PCs. While all this is going on, Steve Jobs was talking about the "digital hub". He wanted the Mac to be the centerpiece of the consumer-level digital experience (cameras, video cameras, mp3 players, etc). iTMS was not expected to make any money, but rather have the largest catalog to draw users to it. iTMS works with the iPod. Millions of PC users see the wonderful interface on the iPod and the great user experience with iTunes. It was also a great consumer awareness issue. Everyone now recognizes the Apple logo as the dominant player...

So...tie all this together and that's what you've got. Evidently Apple learned from their mistakes and went about selling more Macs based on the halo effect.

Microsoft's pentagram

[chia_monkey]

I believe Microsoft already purchased the rights to use the pentagram exclusively on all their products from the Dark Forces. Why do you think they named their next OS "Longhorn"?

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[ad0gg]

There's tons of competition, Dell, creative labs, arcos all have ipod, and ipod mini competitors. Apple has patent on ipod interface, and the supplier of the dial wheel has patent on the click wheel design and exlusive agreement with apple. Apple also has millions of purchased itunes songs that can't play on any other digital music players, and apple won't license their DRM to be used on these other players. Patents + DRM, is a very effective way of holding onto a market and locking out your competitors.

Not only that...

[Barlo_Mung_42]

but ideally the mouse should be perfectly round.
It's the perfect yin/yang of design. So simple yet so complex.

That is amazing. Microsoft learned the same lesson

[AtariAmarok]

"Evidently Apple learned from their mistakes and went about selling more Macs based on the halo effect."

That is amazing. At the exact same time, Microsoft is selling X-Boxes based on the halo effect.

Seriously, though, I think there is a good chance that the iTMS/Pod stuff might swamp and entirely redefine Apple. They could evolve into a huge music company while the computer part fades away.

How many remember that the toy/game company Coleco started out as Connecticut Leather Company? Commodore started out importing typewriters. Is that what they are known for?

It's already been invented

[Anonymous Coward]

i vote for a new ipod, that not only has no screen, and less storage space, but also no controls at all.. it holds 5 songs, just turns on and off at will, and plays whatever the hell it wants at random...

This forms a three-dimensional object known as a "cube", or a "Frinkahedron" in honor of its discoverer, ngu-hey, ng-hey.

One of those isn't good

[AtariAmarok]

"The first touchpad for mouse control debuted on .. wait for it ... a Powerbook"

One of those isn't something to be very proud of. The reason the IBM eraser tip is not a lot more common is that IBM charges a lot to license their patent. At times, Toshiba has chosen to bite the bullet and include it The eraser nipple thing is far easier to use than one of those mushy touchpads. Especially when so many touchpads have the horrendous "feature" where if you bump the surface, it acts as a mouse click. This makes absolutely no sense: how many real mice register a click when you touch the mouse without clicking it? I've seen some where you could not even turn it off, making "a Drag is often a Click and Drag even though you never clicked any button" a common situation.

Re:One of those isn't good

[PriceIke]

Hey AtariAmarok, you're a funny guy .. I copied and saved one of your posts the other day about swedish pirates .. "I veell seenk yuoor sheep und ploonder yuoor buuty, hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!" .. cracked me up ...

I agree with you about the "clickable" touch-pad "feature". I keep this turned off on my Powerbook G4. I have never liked it and am always surprised that other people, using my computer, are so surprised when tapping the pad does not result in a click .. apparently they use it so much on their laptops that they're used to it. I dunno, it's never grown on me.

It's undisputed however that the first touchpad on a laptop was on an Apple Powerbook, and today all laptops have touchpads.

Re:One of those isn't good

[marhar]

The reason the IBM eraser tip is not a lot more common...

I had a Toshiba with an eraser tip and liked it, until:

1. I started having RSI pains in my mousing finger.

2. I needed to replace the tip (I liked the one that had the sandpaper stuff on top) and had a very difficult time finding one.

Re:One of those isn't good

[allanc]

> how many real mice register a click when you touch the mouse without clicking it?

Um. A trackpad is not a mouse. It seems like you're applying a UI design "bad metaphor" argument to hardware. A trackpad isn't a metaphorical mouse--It's a trackpad.

For those of us who use tap to click, we wouldn't have it any other way. I realize that some people don't like it (my father, for instance, can't stand it), but for those of us who do, it's indespensible. The only time I use the actual buttons on my laptops is for right-clicking (and on one of my laptops, I don't even do that--right and middle clicks are handled by different styles of taps).

Input device preferences are a very personal thing. I've used trackballs, trackpads, and eraser-tip pointers. I've had no problems with any of them, but the trackpad has been my favorite.

Wow,

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure showed him.

Idiot.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Bah, Apple is doing it too. Check their store.
$29 for the Shuffle base which is just a USB cable with a fancy stand?
Ouch.
Do they still charge $99 to replace a worn out battery? That hurts.

Must be law school

[AtariAmarok]

" I used to make extra money in college by tutoring people in the use of the Adobe suit, mostly Photoshop"

So, did you end up making a career out of Photoshop-related litigation?

Re:Must be law school

[justin12345]

No, but hey... why not? You know of any pending class action suites?

Re:Apple computer shipments are actually on the ri

[FuturePastNow]

You and I may see Apply as a computer company...but these designers didn't. Not one computer among the pictures I was able to see.

It's all about perception, and Apple is not longer a computer company in the eyes of most people.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[robertjw]

Your uncle had a power adapter plug in the lighter of his 73 LeMans? Sounds like a fire hazard.

Hey, I had a power adapter in the plug of my 65 LeSabre when we went on vacation to New Mexico. Had a laptop plugged into it and watched movies as we cruised down the Interstate at 90.

Went to New Mexico, eh?

[AtariAmarok]

"Hey, I had a power adapter in the plug of my 65 LeSabre when we went on vacation to New Mexico. Had a laptop plugged into it and watched movies as we cruised down the Interstate at 90." Did the customs agents attempt to confiscate your movies when you came back into the United States?

At least NYTimes.com is free...

[Omega]

I notice the story summary didn't have the "soul-sucking-registration" disclaimer. Is that kind of joking reserved only for the NYTimes.com site? At least NYTimes.com is still free (and you can always skip the registration by redirecting through Google). Also, I noticed no one here has posted the plain text of the article like they do for the NY Times stories. What gives?

Steve Jobs' one button spheres

[bayvult]

If steve could create a sphere with one single button on the outside, that glowed, and had any realistic expectation that it might sell, he would.

Yes, he probably would.

(and the button would be optional)

No, it would be mandatory. It would also be placed round the back near the bottom of the sphere, making it as hard as possible to reach.

Within two weeks first generation spheres would develop discoloration and hairline cracks. Apple fanatics would flood Slashdot telling users "to quit whining." Two months later Apple would acknowledge the problem and recall the early, faulty spheres.

Are they serious?!

[Caiwyn]

This article claims some rather outlandish things I'd never heard:

1. That iTunes was created as an attempt to mimic P2P software.
2. That the makers of Kazaa sued Apple, and settled out of court for a rather large amount of money.
3. That ESR did much of the programming on iTMS.
4. That ESR is the one who suggested putting DRM on the files, a prospect that hadn't occurred to Jobs or the music industry.
5. That the music industry had to convince Apple to loosen the DRM restrictions because they were afraid people wouldn't buy otherwise.

I almost want to say this sounds like an early April Fool's joke. Are they serious? Does anybody buy this?

wow, they're good

[briancnorton]

They've got the apple philospohy down cold. Take existing technology, clean up the interface, make it a fashion statement, and call yourself an innovator.

That's just the next step.

[AtariAmarok]

Followed by the sphere, he would sell the vMac, which would basically be invisible, intangible, and without mass. Basically, order one, and you get an empty box. Base price would be $700. He would roll it out with such popular upgrades as CPU, case, power supply, keyboard, memory, and motherboard made available for those who want to sully their sublime vMac experience with such crass legacy hardware.

Apple fanatics would flood Slashdot in praises of the incredibly simple design of the base vMac unit, its zero heat radiation, superb energy efficiency and environmental friendliness, and its perfect invulnerability to malware.

Don't thank me...

[AtariAmarok]

"Hey AtariAmarok, you're a funny guy .. I copied and saved one of your posts the other day about swedish pirates .. "I veell seenk yuoor sheep und ploonder yuoor buuty, hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!" .. cracked me up ..."

Don't thank me, thank the web site I found that converted entered text into Swedish Chef talk. I typed in a few pirate words, and pasted the result back to slashdot.

If you want to dare the lameness of my more original efforts, check out this one.

Re:Don't thank me...

[PriceIke]

> Don't thank me, thank the web site I found that converted entered text into Swedish Chef talk. I typed in a few pirate words, and pasted the result back to slashdot.

Yeah but you had the idea to go get the translation in the first place. I liked it.

nice shill for biz2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

now how about we get back to news and move away from the Free Advertising?

there's a nice article on memory masters on a news/software site (emessennbeecee) that is actually interesting and informative.

Better ERGONOMICS too.

[tentimestwenty]

I'm so sick of people bashing Apple's one button mouse. Next to the PowerMac beige mouse that was standard through the 90s, the new clear optical mouse is the most ergonomic design ever made. You can hold it just about however YOU want, there's no craning to reach the button because the WHOLE THING is a button. All you people who love scroll wheels, and buttons on the side, top and front are going to wake up one day and not be able to move your hand because of carpal tunnel. Take it from me - 10 years as a graphic design power user.

Sure, I can get 10% more productivity with a scroll wheel or multi-button mouse, but I wouldn't be working today PERIOD if I'd used one all along.

Re:Better ERGONOMICS too.

[jschottm]

You can hold it just about however YOU want, there's no craning to reach the button because the WHOLE THING is a button.

Right. Which is part of why it's terrible, as most people I know rest part of their hand on the lower part of the mouse. Nothing like inadvertantly clicking every couple seconds.

P.S. The only RSI I get is if I have the mouse too high. By keeping both my keyboard and mouse just above my knees I've avoided nastyness, despite 15 years of very high computer use.

Forget Apple ... How about Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody ever reimagined Slashdot?
This site is well-due for a re-vamp.

Music execs

[sgt101]

"I've never had a real life music exec in here" said Steve "apart from those Beatles fellas wanting their cash..."

Excellent post

[bayvult]

Technology is often driven by producer-push not consumer demand, and lots of companies go out of business and their products deservedly fail.

Apple defies this trend because demand is inelastic, or in other words, it's a cult whose members will buy anything. Then justify it post-facto with crap like "Something has to drive the technology forward."

mods miss joke ?

[ray-auch]

In desperation, the authors turned to hot-shot programmer Eric Raymond, author of an unused Linux configuration tool. [...] Eric suggested using an "encryption" system to prevent music from being used in ways the music publishers wouldn't like.

and this gets +1 informative ?!

Well, either I've drunk too much to read properly or someone's seriously missed the satire.

Re:mods miss joke ?

[jericho4.0]

Well, it's still informative if you get the joke....

Re:Apple computer shipments are actually on the ri

[stevejobsjr]

If only iTunes weren't introduced 8 months before the iPod.

Really Ordinary work from an ordinary design shop

[Anonymous Coward]

Pentagram stands out in the professional design world (of which I am a part) in one profound way: They believe they are supreme.

The belief can't really be more mistaken, as these very ordinary "Sanyo-looking" product renders illustrate so vividly.

Pentagram is obsessed with their own history, because its what they have. (Or more precisely - its what they 'believe' they have). What's funny is how often, and how vividly they like to remind us all of their incredible ordinariness.

Redefinitions

[Anonymous Coward]

- The PC market is a business market and the command line serves it.
Redefinition (via Mac): The PC is a consumer market and the user interface matters.
Result: GUIs and usability all over the place.

- Users want total control over their computers.
Redefinition (via Mac): Users want ease of use and accomplishment.
Result: goodbye CLI

- Computers are stand-alone devices. Networking is a complex business need.
Redefinition (via AppleTalk): Networking is an inherent attribute of computing.
Result: built-in, universal networking

- Computers sit on a desk and run applications.
Redefinition (via Newton): Computers can portably support everyday tasks.
Result: PDAs

- Computers are for computing.
Redefinition (via iMac, iLife, iTunes, iPod): Computers are for entertainment.
Result: iPods, media centers, etc. Still evolving.

- Computer companies make computing equipment.
Redefinition (via iMac, iPod): Computer companies make consumer electronics.
Result: Dell and Gateway sells TVs. Still evolving.

Arrggg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave this rubbish to spymac to be gazed at.

The next guy who would make a 3d model of a futuristic fusion reactor with the subscript "99% efficient" would make it on the slot on /. like this.

Why not just post new BOFH stories here ? That should get ppl to RTFA.

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's forcing you to let Apple replace your battery. You can get iPod batteries for under €30.

wireless mouse

[Anonymous Coward]

translate in x/z for motion on the screen, y motion can be a click (like punching the screen). twisiting it can be scroll wheel

MOD PARENT UP

[SewersOfRivendell]

"funny" if you want, but realize that he's not kidding. Somewhere there are still probably several 7100's 8100's with my blood on their motherboards...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the "Vlad" line of Apples-the 8500. The one I owned had a taste for my corpuscles!

Mike

Re:That is amazing. Microsoft learned the same les

[Locke2005]

Sharp started out selling mechanical pencils, Logitech started out selling Modula-2 compilers, and Microsoft started out selling BASIC interpreters... yes, if you "See a need and fill it" you could quite possible wind up positioning your company in a completely different direction then was originally intended.

vMac praise from press, analysts

[bayvult]

Financial analysts, previously anxious about profit margins declining to 20 per cent, praise Apple's move. With a profit margin of 6000 per cent, the vMac looks "set to restore Apple's fortunes," says one.

Walt Mossberg publishes a glowing review in the Wall Street Journal. "Apple has made the computer invisible!" he writes, excitedly.

"Arthur C Clarke once said that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'," writes Mossberg. "Apple has gone one step further - and made it indistinguishable from the air around it. It's the most beautiful computer I have ever used - since the last one they sent me."

Yeah that Steve Jobs has no idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterexample: what is the market share of the iPod?

Redefinitions properly defined.

[AtariAmarok]

"- The PC market is a business market and the command line serves it. Redefinition (via Mac): The PC is a consumer market and the user interface matters. Result: GUIs and usability all over the place."

Except there were still many things that were easier on the command line than the GUI. The command line serves the users, period. Apple crippled thier OS by not having it. No one else copied this mistake, and eventually Apple rectified it with OS-X (which is their first serious OS).

"Users want total control over their computers. Redefinition (via Mac): "

Apple was way behind on this at the start. Jobs was openly hostile to "hackers" playing around in the guts of the machine and the OS to make it work better. The CLI went away only on the Mac. No one copied this mistake, and Apple was forced to bring it back. Besides, you never increase user control by getting rid of a feature. That only makes it harder to use.

"- Computers sit on a desk and run applications. Redefinition (via Newton): Computers can portably support everyday tasks. Result: PDAs"

Now it seems like you are making stuff up. The Newton was a false start, a failure. It was Palm who gave us the PDA for others to copy. Newton's only legacy is "flvvbr writte on nVVt0n!" handwriting recognition jokes.

" Computers are for computing. Redefinition (via iMac, iLife, iTunes, iPod): Computers are for entertainment."

Again, you have it backwards. Look at Jobs again, often outright hostile to the idea computers being used for games. Computers were also making music and playing games long before, as well. Original Napster on PC was hugely popular long before iTMS. Yes, the iPod is hugely popular now.

" Computer companies make computing equipment. Redefinition (via iMac, iPod): Computer companies make consumer electronics."

Do you think history began in 1984? Of course not. Commodore sold calculators before, during, and after its computer run. It took mere seconds to think of them. There are probably many other examples.

What we really have here is instances of Apple doing something so badly it never mattered (the Newton), Apple doing stuff others already did before (consumer electronics, computers as a way to listen to your personal music), Apple doing something the wrong way and eventually catching up to everyone else (sophisticated command line only in the 10th "X" version of the OS), or Apple just doing what everyone has done since the late 1970s (making computers for entertainment). On the network part alone, you are pretty close to the mark.

There is no redefinition going on here, except when it comes to colors. The iMac color scheme had a profound impact throughout industry, resulting in staplers and George Foreman grills.

Now for the good part:
You forgot to mention an actual Apple innovation that they DID start and was copied by others: firewire. Wifi (Airport) probably should have been mentioned: Apple was a true leader in this. You also under-emphasized the iPod. While not 100% a "computer" thing, it is having a huge influence.

No, sorry, that's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The margins on the Mac lines are actually higher than on the iPod line. Mac mini might be an exception, haven't looked into it. But for the most part Apple really hopes that the halo effect actually manifests itself, because ultimately they make most of their money from computers. Not iPods, not song sales.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that Apple is the only company that has managed to position their computers as consumer electronics. They are desirable in a CE way, the same way a Bang and Olufson stereo is or a Sony Wega TV is. That is why they are able to maintain high margins on their computers. No other company has been able to do that, not even Sony, king of the CE companies.

More vMac reports

[AtariAmarok]

Mom: "Ever since I dumped my Dell and got one of these things, I've gotten no viagra spam!"

Jr: "I get to take this thing to school in my backpack and still have room to fill the backpack with books!"

Bruce the interior designer: "I recommend this to all my clients, dear. It fits with any decor.

Samuel Buckbanks, Busy Business Executive: "The vMac is so durable that I can send it through checked luggage on plane trips, and be 100% certain that nothing will change when I get it back."

Grandma: "Now, at last, a computer I am not afraid to use!"

John Dvorak: "I'll do a review of this thing as soon as I can find it. I could have sworn I set it next to that Amiga 8000. I will say, however, that it is the quietest machine I have ever worked with."

Do you have one of those 1970s Mavicas?

[AtariAmarok]

" I can see a time when you buy a digital iCamera, and instead of accepting tapes it just uses an iPod for storage."

The only thing I can figure is that you have one of Sony's 1973 model "Mavica" 0.3 kilopixel digital cameras that stores the pictures on an 8-track tape you insert in the side of the camera.

Re:Do you have one of those 1970s Mavicas?

[ICECommander]

Well in 1980, Sony marketed the world's first commercial color video camera to utilize a completely solid state image sensor called a charge-coupled-device (CCD). It was also the smallest camera (weighing only 2.8 pounds) on the market.

My idea

[Nailer]

An arse, with a clickwheel!

Reads article.

Damnit, they've already got that one...

Re:Apple is SO 2004

[Barlo_Mung_42]

You just made my point. If 3rd parties can do it for so much less why can't Apple?
Because they know that the many people will go to them to do it no matter what they change because their marketing machine has done such a great job at instilling brand loyalty.

Screw 1989-1996

[felicity4711]

I want to know more about the Frog Design era, when they went from the chunky dark beige Apple IIe look to the sleek grey Apple IIc and IIgs, and Mac Plus and SE! I'll go as far forward as 1990 and say that the Mac Classic and LC were physically gorgeous.

No

[AtariAmarok]

"I suspect you think you're really smart, and you recently read an artucle on Apple in a newspaper at Starucks"

If you are instead reading a web article about Starbucks while logged in on your Mac, does this come close at all?

article is free now, but utter crap

[EccentricAnomaly]

They've changed the requirement for registration... it's free now

but the article is pretty bad... the lead makes it seem like they have inside information about the meeting, but they don't. They just take quotes from other people's articles and make it appear as if they got all of these great interviews with Wozniak and others. ...but all of the quotes are familiar to me as from older articles (and none of the other articles they use for their information are cited)

and they have this gem:

"But above all, some argue, Jobs must avoid repeating the mistake that cost Apple its massive early lead in the computer market. That happened largely because Jobs would not open up the Mac. He kept its operating system proprietary, and Microsoft and its ally Intel(INTC) clobbered him"

This isn't even remotely true... Steve Jobs was no longer at Apple during this period. He was forced out shortly after the introduction of the Mac. I think they meant "Apple" rather than Jobs.

recipe for iUvvy

[otis wildflower]

(with apologies to Rudy Rucker)

* beef out the ipod mini case style so...
* .. it can handle a 4" 16x9 screen, 720x480 resolution.
* make it a touchscreen
* emulate the ipod interface with the touchscreen
* select a video and hold the unit sideways to watch the video.. Home videos, PVR recordings, iMovies, ripped DVDs, etc.
* incorporate a 3G phone, bluetooth and wifi
* Newton/Inkwell HWR and full PDA functionality
* drop in a 60g drive, with firewire 800 and usb2
* nice to have: GPS (probably part of the 3G phone chipset
* Super cool: put in support for Dashboard apps!!

Applele

[Stormwatch]

Applele has been making mock-up Apple products for a long time - and some of them look pretty good!

Apple's battlebots venture

[AtariAmarok]

"Not to mention the "Vlad" line of Apples-the 8500. The one I owned had a taste for my corpuscles!"

Thanks. I always wondered about Apple's brief involvement with Battlebots.

A different way of thinking.

[AtariAmarok]

"What, the ones that systematically modded down all my posts ont he subject. Apple is a strange one for that; if you say something bad about them, someone here will look at your posting history and try to "punish" you."

You have to learn to look at it differently. Approach it from the standpoint of a religious discussion, instead of an emotionless technical discussion. Or, imagine if the old Hatfields and McCoys were around today carrying on their feud on "Slashdot". If you are a McCoy, the Hatfields will always remember what you said.

Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the total installed base by volume and answer the question: Who uses the CLI on Windows or OSX?

Answer: Geeks and IT support staff. That's it. The vast, vast majority of computer users the world over never access the command line of their computers unless directed to by some support person.

You are old school. Do you expect a command line on your DVD player or your microwave? Of course not. And that is how consumers feel about computers. The computer is now a piece of consumer electronics and the interface matters. That began with the Macintosh.

Apple was then the first computer maker to succeed in the high-volume mass market with a CE device that is NOT a computer. Commodore and their calculators is a terrible example...calculators are not high-volume CE devices. Music players are. TVs are. Consoles are getting there now, but were not when Microsoft introduced the X-Box.

As for the Newton--redefinitions are not always based on sales numbers. Apple was first to market with a product that worked well. Heck John Sculley, CEO of Apple at that time, even coined the term Personal Digital Assistant (PDA)!It did not sell well because they did not properly manage expectations with respect to handwriting recognition.

The only important innovation of the Palm was their special alphabet Graffiti. It is a built-in expectation manager because it puts the onus on the user rather than the machine. If something is not interpretted well, the user will think "I must not have written that right" rather than "this thing can't recognize my handwriting! Ripoff!" Note that no other handwriting-recognition device has succeeded in the marketplace, including the much-heralded Windows Tablet.

Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek

[AtariAmarok]

" Do you expect a command line on your DVD player or your microwave? Of course not"

They don't have anything like a full keyboard, so it doesn't make sense there. But if they did, they would need it.

"The computer is now a piece of consumer electronics and the interface matters. That began with the Macintosh."

It began long before the Macintosh. Besides, in the mid 1980s Apple was one of a few companies with the GUI. The "piece of consumer electronics" started with the C= Pet, TRS-80, and Apple ][. The Macintosh came, what was it, 6 or so years later when things were well underway, and it was a Apple was a minor player by then. Apple then, as now, even tried to avoid being a major player of consumer electronics by intentionally making its machines hard to buy with the idiotic dealer situation. The iPod is their first serious attempt: you can get them at Target, and don't have to put up with dealers at Official Apple Stores who are only open from 10 to 5.

In an alternate reality, Macs might possiby have dominated things if Apple had early on made the decision to have them sold at as many places as possible. But this did not happen: the company still shoots itself in the foot with the "official Apple store" problem.

Let's say it is 6:00 at night, and I want to see the latest Toshiba laptop. No problem, just go to Best Buy. But wait, there is something called a Powerbook that might be better? Go over to the Apple store. The lazy bums don't even want to sell them: the store closed over an hour ago.

As for your mention about insulated geeks, the mom and pop non-geeks during the Mac's early years still prefered PCs. The mom and pop non-geeks still do.

"calculators are not high-volume CE devices"

Commodore is an excellent example. Back when Commodore was in it, calculators were a big deal, and not something you get for $2 on a keychain without thinking about it.

"The only important innovation of the Palm was their special alphabet Graffiti."

The other important innovation was that they made a well-designed machine that gained wide acceptance. The previous makers (of which Apple with its Newton was only one) never had succeeded at that. The Willard (oops, too much Seinfeld)... I mean Sharp Wizard never had mass acceptance.

")!It did not sell well because they did not properly manage expectations with respect to handwriting recognition."

That was just one of many problems. Apple, like usual, also made the Newton hard to get by limiting the distribution stream. It was also a mess compared to the Palm.

"Consoles are getting there now, but were not when Microsoft introduced the X-Box."

Do you think that history began in 1999? The Atari 2600 was one of many high-volume game consoles that preceeded the X Box. Intellivision, Coleco, others...

Re:I sure would like a non reg version of the arti

[KillerDeathRobot]

The photo-essay is what was titled "Re-imagining Apple," as the Slashdot Entry was. Notice it says, "[b]Plus:[/b] What's next for Apple?" which is the companion story.

Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek

[David Rolfe]

Sorry for jumping into your flame war with Mr. Anonymous...

First... http://www.apple.com/retail/stjohnstowncenter/week /20050313.html My Apple store is open much later than 6. Second, Macs are sold at CompUSA for example. At said stores you could easily walk between a Toshiba and a Powerbook at 10pm. Apple does sell with "big box" stores, just not Wal-mart and Best Buy I guess.

Second... The Newton is the most elegant PDA ever. Period. The first Message Pad was horrible, that's true enough, the recognition was poor unless you carefully and excruciatingly wrote in seperate letters with one or two strokes (ironically, just like using Graffiti, which this thread holds up as superior). The last generation (MP2200) is so great I still use mine today, even though it's 4 times the size of my various Palm and Palm-based devices (I've also owned Pilots Pro through 3, Visors through deluxe and Clies for what they are good for: being small).

And finally... Holding up the Atari 2600 as a "high-volume console"? A 2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore or an Apple. Contrast: the NES, sold in the tens of millions, the Playstation, sold in the hundreds of millions. Consoles didn't start being in every home until the Playstation in the 90s. Intellevision and Colecovision?? How many of those were every sold -- 100 thousand(s)? I would hardly call Pong a console while we're at it.

My evidence is anecdotal at best, but just like the title of this thread, you and I are biased. I'm sure we've both built with bread-boards, wrote guis with shell scripts, owned every console worth owning, owned one or more Commodores, Apples, TIs, or God forbid Tandys.

The point that is being lost here is the population that intersects at all of these purchases is exceedingly small. It's easy for us all to aggregate at forums like this, where the subject matter appeals to and reinforces our biases. But we, and our trite opinions and purchasing demands, are very meager in the greater industries. How man people buy a computer with XP-home for its great command line? Even supposing Xp's command line was worth a shit, of all the PCs sold today I'll bet only one was sold because the end user needed it for its CLI.

I don't meant to rant, and don't intend any kind of insult.

Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek

[AtariAmarok]

"And finally... Holding up the Atari 2600 as a "high-volume console"? A 2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore or an Apple."

Are you confusing the 2600 with the Atari 400/800 computer? This is the Atari VCS, and it was a runaway success. From the AtariAge web site: "The Atari 2600, originally called the Atari VCS, is the godfather of modern videogame systems, and helped spawn a multi-billion dollar industry. Atari sold over thirty million of the consoles, and together with other companies sold hundreds of millions of games. "

You mentioned the NES, another huge success, as selling "tens of millions", as a high volume console. If the NES is, then the Atari 2600 with tens of millions is also.

"My evidence is anecdotal at best, but just like the title of this thread, you and I are biased"

heh...:)

Maybe

[AtariAmarok]

"P.S. A laptop should be useable in and of itself. If Apple split the button in two, you could always map both buttons to act as the main button. There's no way to do the reverse."

If they had a wide single-button, perhaps, that would left-click if you clicked on the left side, and right-click if you clicked on the right side. Would be somewhat inexact, however.

Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek

[David Rolfe]

You're right, I didn't look up sales for the 2600. But grant me this -- if the sales of the 2600 topped 30 million, then I MUST have the sales of the NES and Playstation under by a similar order. :-D But yeah, I was just shooting off my [flawed] memory. (oh and to be fair, each 2600 owner would only need to have on average 5 games to sell "hundreds of millions of games". I'll bet the actual average was higher. I know I, and my buddies each, had more than five games. Compare the Playstation again, if each PS owner has 5 games that would be a billion games. (today's guesstimate based on May-2004 sales numbers, world-wide). Maybe the argument gets even weirder with the backward compatibility of the Atari 4800 and the PS2, the mind reels.)

My point was that a [the?] "high-volume console" was the Playstation. Prior to that, video-gaming was cool for dorks and nerds like me. I.e., Tecmo Bowl wasn't getting the jocks and ballers off the fields and down in front of the TVs (maybe it was getting skinny, pastey nerds into football though?). But, games like Adventure and Zork, (and their later offspring like Zelda or Ultima) was getting the kids who liked to read sci-fi, fantasy, 321-Contact, and play with basic and assembly on the family computer.

I think it would be an interesting project to plot the sales of genre specific titles (space, swords and dragons, modern mystery, puzzle, board game sim, sports, etc) against a timeline starting in the late 70s. Next to that chart you could plot the same data as percentage of entire market vs. time. I think these visualizations might clarify my assumptions about the main-streaming of video games as the popularity of bedrock genres started drifting as new audiences were tapped.

Now I'm just rambling. Anyway, thanks for checking up on my numbers :). Cheers.

Oh, and incidentally...

[David Rolfe]

I was correct in saying the Atari "2600 was as rare in the home as a Commodore...". The Commodore 64 alone sold in excess of 30 million. :-D Add the Vic-20 in the mix and a Commodore may have been in more homes than the 2600. :-) Woot!

Badly designed Apple disk system

[AtariAmarok]

I had an Apple user explain to me that Apple made it hard for the user to eject disks because the Apple disk system tended to scramble the disks unless you ejected them at the perfect time. This was not a problem with better-designed systems, including PCs and Amigas, which could take this in stride. I think Apple should have fixed their disks systems rather than try to make up for it by making a basic task difficult for the user.

Re:Badly designed Apple disk system

[TheLink]

I had an Apple IIGS, and the 3.5 inch disk drive had an eject button, as far as I know, the eject button worked (unless the drive was plugged in to a Mac, I guess ;) ).

So not all Apple systems were like that :).

That said, I'm not sure if the eject button worked when in GS/OS, can't really remember - it was a long time ago. Anyone remember?

Anyway it really is silly to not have it at least tell the O/S you want to eject the media, so it can help you do what you want.

Personally the one button mouse sucks too. Most people can figure out their index finger from their middle finger, but double-clicking is hard.

Without double clicking and keyboard keys, how are you going to allow selection and activation?

yeah....

[AtariAmarok]

"I had an Apple IIGS, and the 3.5 inch disk drive had an eject button, as far as I know, the eject button worked (unless the drive was plugged in to a Mac, I guess ;) )."

Yeah.... it worked fine on the Apple ][, // etc line, but I guess Apple forgot how to make it work later. Maybe it was when that Pepsi guy took over the company. He confused eject buttons with pop-can pull tabs, and wanted to minimize the risk of pop spraying all over the user's face when they pressed the eject button any time they wanted.

"Personally the one button mouse sucks too. Most people can figure out their index finger from their middle finger, but double-clicking is hard."

Maybe it was the Pepsi guy again. Due to an unfortunate experience riding a cab in New York, he did not want the middle finger used in any respect, even if it meant using it to control a mouse button.

voicemail

[circusboy]

only requires one button on my phone... or any of the three that I've had so far...

it's only when I access it elsewhere that I need to key in other numbers...