If Cringely is to be believed, and I have no reason not to, Burst is in the right here, having filed the patents long before Apple's infringing technology came along.
Note that I am an Apple fan, and have been using MacOS for 20 years. In this case they're pretty clearly in the wrong.
> I never understood why the iPod became so immensely popular compared to other personal players in the first place.
You're falling into the classic geek (well, human) trap: you assume other people have the same values and priorities as you do. (This is why geeks don't make good salespeople.)
Looking at just the specs doesn't capture it. It's the experience. You can buy other cars that are as fast as a Porsche, for example, but subtleties of handling, fit and finish, and the ergonomic experience separate the well designed products from the ones that merely bolt the pieces together.
The iPod provides a superior experience to those people who just want to listen to music, and don't care or don't want to think about formatting, music organizational structure, alternative software managers, etc. And no matter how many times that's said, there will still be a camp of people who don't get it. That's fine. Go play with linux.;-)
Given that the US is responsible for a full 48% of military spending worldwide, I suspect that some of that money could be spend on other things (education to keep good jobs in the US, rebuilding the gulf coast, etc.) and we'd still be plenty safe.
Currently, we're spending ~$100,000 per minute in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, it's not making me feel safer.
According to google finance, last year IBM had less than 1/4 the revenues of ExxonMobil. Not sure if ExxonMobil is the largest, but I suspect it's in the top 3.
The notion that one person can collect (useful) end-user information and then implement it technically is analogous to asking the same person to design and then build your house. It's possible, but unlikely to be successful for larger projects.
You need someone who is trained in collecting the user behavior data, understanding what that means, and using that to guide the design (from a user standpoint) of the end product. They will gather information by interviewing and observing the users. This may include asking them what they want, asking them why they want it (what are the actual goals, not just features), observing the work they do, and understanding the greater context in which they do their work. Once they have an understanding of the needs, they will probably create many generations of cheap (perhaps on paper) prototypes that they can use to quickly acquire and integrate user feedback. Once that process has mostly defined the product (or aspects of a product) it can be turned over to you to figure out the technical implementation. (Of course the earlier on in the process that you are involved the more input you'll have on the final design.)
People who fill that role (or subsets of it) are commonly referred to as interaction designers, user experience architects, information architects, usability specialists, etc. They should be trained in accurate data collection, cognitive psychology, interface design, and a number of related skills. "Web Designers" frequently have a background in graphic design and don't have the rest of the training to make them the right person for this role. Accept no substitutes.
Just about any high-profile agency or scientist that questions global warming has funding that can be traced to Exxon. Kinda makes you wonder, when one entity is behind all of one side of the argument, and pretty much every other voice is funded by a huge variety of sources.
Looks to me like Exxon is either a misunderstood victim, just trying to get the truth out, or is paying a hell of a lot to convince the rest of us that the ship isn't really sinking while raking in record profits. What do you think?
David Pogue said it best in a NYTimes article (free, no reg required for Pogue's articles) about a(nother, ho hum) Samsung MP3 player.
He points out that Apple didn't get just one thing right, they got a bunch of things right AND made them work well together.
== Quote: The iPod's competitors have wasted years of opportunity by assuming that they can beat the iPod on features and price alone. They're wrong.
In fact, at least six factors make the iPod such a hit: cool-looking hardware; a fun-to-use, variable-speed scroll wheel; an ultrasimple software menu; effortless song synchronization with Mac or Windows; seamless, rock-solid integration with an online music store (iTunes); and a universe of accessories.
Mess up any aspect of the formula, and your iPod killer is doomed to market-share crumbs. == Endquote.
I'd argue that they also got the ITMS business model right, in addition to the superb integration of the above six.
You'll note there's no mention of marketing anywhere there.
Well, the iPod has a 30 minute skip buffer, so that's not an issue.
Durability may be a concern, but I imagine the aluminum sleeve on the mini is pretty protective. They only differ in weight by about 0.7 ounces, so the iPod won't hit much harder.
Actually, cities can be much more environmentally friendly than distributed residences.
Apartment buildings are much more efficient to heat and cool than single family houses. Density in cities means people have significantly shorter commutes and are much more likely to take public transportation, yielding huge benefits in engergy consumed and pollution generated. While cities are point sources for pollution, the overall pollution output of cities is less than if the same population was distributed, e.g. living in the suburbs.
There was a great story about this in The New Yorker last fall, maybe the october issue? Finding the reference is left as an excercise to the karma whore.
If you read the actual press release you'll see that one of the features listed is "* Full Enhanced 911 (E-911) calling coverage in all of the markets targeted for the initial rollout of the AOL Internet Phone Service. E-911 helps deliver a user's address-specific information in the event of an emergency."
The parent comment is just more FUD, move along...
Given their subject pool, this is not surprising. Men at that age are not going to be confident in themselves as older, more accomplished men.
I expect as the sample pool becomes more accomplished and confident themselves, they'll be more inclined to choose peers as mates. Not necessarily the majority of men, but certainly at a higher rate than 20 year olds who still feel the need to prove themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up!
Short version: the voting patterns follow the traditional NH regional variations, and considering that, there are no real anomalies.
Additionally, the machines did leave a paper trial which can be hand-counted.
If Cringely is to be believed, and I have no reason not to, Burst is in the right here, having filed the patents long before Apple's infringing technology came along.
Note that I am an Apple fan, and have been using MacOS for 20 years. In this case they're pretty clearly in the wrong.
> I never understood why the iPod became so immensely popular compared to other personal players in the first place.
;-)
You're falling into the classic geek (well, human) trap: you assume other people have the same values and priorities as you do. (This is why geeks don't make good salespeople.)
Writing in the NYT, David Pogue summed it up thusly:
In fact, at least six factors make the iPod such a hit: cool-looking hardware; a fun-to-use, variable-speed scroll wheel; an ultrasimple software menu; effortless song synchronization with Mac or Windows; seamless, rock-solid integration with an online music store (iTunes); and a universe of accessories. Mess up any aspect of the formula, and your iPod killer is doomed to market-share crumbs.
Looking at just the specs doesn't capture it. It's the experience. You can buy other cars that are as fast as a Porsche, for example, but subtleties of handling, fit and finish, and the ergonomic experience separate the well designed products from the ones that merely bolt the pieces together.
The iPod provides a superior experience to those people who just want to listen to music, and don't care or don't want to think about formatting, music organizational structure, alternative software managers, etc. And no matter how many times that's said, there will still be a camp of people who don't get it. That's fine. Go play with linux.
Because full sized cars are larger, heavier, power hungry, often overkill for short trips, and won't fit in your pocket.
This isn't news. MS has already (unofficially) said they'd rather India and China used their software illegally than use the competition.
j html?articleID=198000211
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.
Given that the US is responsible for a full 48% of military spending worldwide, I suspect that some of that money could be spend on other things (education to keep good jobs in the US, rebuilding the gulf coast, etc.) and we'd still be plenty safe.
Currently, we're spending ~$100,000 per minute in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, it's not making me feel safer.
No trunk. Less space than a Prius. Lame.
No kidding? Wow. Apple really was ahead of things with the widescreen aspect ratios.
Traditional TV, etc:
640 x 480, 800 x 600, etc, = 1.33:1 = 4 x 3 aspect ratio.
Modern widescreens:
1680 x 1050, 1920 x 1200, etc, = 1.6:1 aspect ratio.
Intermediate widescreen (Ti Powerbook, and original Mac 9")
1280 x 854(?), 512 x 342 ~= 1.5:1 aspect ratio.
The original 9" Mac screens were 512 x 384, or 1/4 the pixels of a 1024 x 768 screen.
Looks like IBM is down at #23, with Wal-Mart, Exxon, Shell, BP, and Chevron comprising the top 5.
According to google finance, last year IBM had less than 1/4 the revenues of ExxonMobil. Not sure if ExxonMobil is the largest, but I suspect it's in the top 3.
The notion that one person can collect (useful) end-user information and then implement it technically is analogous to asking the same person to design and then build your house. It's possible, but unlikely to be successful for larger projects.
You need someone who is trained in collecting the user behavior data, understanding what that means, and using that to guide the design (from a user standpoint) of the end product. They will gather information by interviewing and observing the users. This may include asking them what they want, asking them why they want it (what are the actual goals, not just features), observing the work they do, and understanding the greater context in which they do their work. Once they have an understanding of the needs, they will probably create many generations of cheap (perhaps on paper) prototypes that they can use to quickly acquire and integrate user feedback. Once that process has mostly defined the product (or aspects of a product) it can be turned over to you to figure out the technical implementation. (Of course the earlier on in the process that you are involved the more input you'll have on the final design.)
People who fill that role (or subsets of it) are commonly referred to as interaction designers, user experience architects, information architects, usability specialists, etc. They should be trained in accurate data collection, cognitive psychology, interface design, and a number of related skills. "Web Designers" frequently have a background in graphic design and don't have the rest of the training to make them the right person for this role. Accept no substitutes.
For more information on what this role is about, check out sites like Cooper, Boxes and Arrows, and OK-Cancel.
Good luck!
One of the best sources to track that funding is http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
Just about any high-profile agency or scientist that questions global warming has funding that can be traced to Exxon. Kinda makes you wonder, when one entity is behind all of one side of the argument, and pretty much every other voice is funded by a huge variety of sources.
Looks to me like Exxon is either a misunderstood victim, just trying to get the truth out, or is paying a hell of a lot to convince the rest of us that the ship isn't really sinking while raking in record profits. What do you think?
David Pogue said it best in a NYTimes article (free, no reg required for Pogue's articles) about a(nother, ho hum) Samsung MP3 player.
He points out that Apple didn't get just one thing right, they got a bunch of things right AND made them work well together.
== Quote:
The iPod's competitors have wasted years of opportunity by assuming that they can beat the iPod on features and price alone. They're wrong.
In fact, at least six factors make the iPod such a hit:
cool-looking hardware;
a fun-to-use, variable-speed scroll wheel;
an ultrasimple software menu;
effortless song synchronization with Mac or Windows;
seamless, rock-solid integration with an online music store (iTunes);
and a universe of accessories.
Mess up any aspect of the formula, and your iPod killer is doomed to market-share crumbs.
== Endquote.
I'd argue that they also got the ITMS business model right, in addition to the superb integration of the above six.
You'll note there's no mention of marketing anywhere there.
Ah, but there are many alternative biofuels with much higher yield per surface area than soy. Palm, coconut, and algae, just to name a few.
This article
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003999.html
suggests that algae is up to 300x more efficient per acre than soy. At that point it becomes a much more competitive option.
Luckily, other major industries, such as fashion, automobiles, and software, would never dream of such underhanded tactics!
A friend of mine recently described ms as a company where they drink the kool-aid, yet don't realize it exists.
Well, the iPod has a 30 minute skip buffer, so that's not an issue.
Durability may be a concern, but I imagine the aluminum sleeve on the mini is pretty protective. They only differ in weight by about 0.7 ounces, so the iPod won't hit much harder.
I guess I don't see a problem.
1/4 the space of an iPod mini for $20 less (and no wireless)? Lame.
Actually, cities can be much more environmentally friendly than distributed residences.
Apartment buildings are much more efficient to heat and cool than single family houses. Density in cities means people have significantly shorter commutes and are much more likely to take public transportation, yielding huge benefits in engergy consumed and pollution generated. While cities are point sources for pollution, the overall pollution output of cities is less than if the same population was distributed, e.g. living in the suburbs.
There was a great story about this in The New Yorker last fall, maybe the october issue? Finding the reference is left as an excercise to the karma whore.
Looks like the submitter has an email address at hexus. Free PR!
I, for one, welcome our new benevolent information-providing overlords.
Straight from AOL/TW, not just a summary from a newspaper: AOL introduces internet phone service
If you read the actual press release you'll see that one of the features listed is "* Full Enhanced 911 (E-911) calling coverage in all of the markets targeted for the initial rollout of the AOL Internet Phone Service. E-911 helps deliver a user's address-specific information in the event of an emergency."
The parent comment is just more FUD, move along...
Given their subject pool, this is not surprising. Men at that age are not going to be confident in themselves as older, more accomplished men.
I expect as the sample pool becomes more accomplished and confident themselves, they'll be more inclined to choose peers as mates. Not necessarily the majority of men, but certainly at a higher rate than 20 year olds who still feel the need to prove themselves.