Thank god for a well-stated post. I get so sick of "teh shiny!" posts. Even worse are the posts that call anybody that is remotely praising Apple as some sort of kool-aide drinking "fanboy".
For the record, there is no "magic" in Apple's design. What it takes is a no-compromise corporate culture to be dedicated to putting user interface and design at the top of the requirements docs. It costs a lot of money to make good UI, so it is hard to convince PMs and SEs to make UI the priority. Apple has made this their corporate priority since 1984.
We're not talking about iTunes here, we're talking about the iPod. iTunes' innovation does not make the iPod innovative or special in the least.
More proof some people just don't get it... For those of us who like them, it is BECAUSE of the one-stop integration. Let me run you through a typical use-thread: Average Joe (not a geek) buys an iPod, brings it home, plugs in the USB cable or the cradle and puts it on his/her Mac. iTunes opens, recognizes the iPod then you start buying shit and/or moving stuff around. Unplug iPod, go to gym, listen to iPod in the car on the way and then rock some tunes while lifting weights. Notice at no time did I dork around with settings and configuration. That is VERY important to most people in the world.
The experience is even more integrated if you use a Mac. I've never understood the love of iPods by PC users, since iTunes is kinda clunky in XP/Vista, which kind of ruins the entire point of owning an iPod versus any other random brand.
I'm guilty of buying them when I don't need them. The secret is in the price. $150 is nothing. You can't go to dinner with a party of 6 friends for $150. It's a month's worth of gas. It's my cell phone bill for the month, or my cable. It's half my monthly electric bill. Those are things I pay EVERY month, but I might drop $150 on an iPod every 15 months or so...big deal.
I just don't think it deserves the love and devotion it gets.
Then why do so many people go out of their way to rain on other people's parade? Seriously, what is the value in that? Also, it usually diminishes one's argument against, in that it demonstrates an overt bias when you go out of your way to complain about something of no consequence (smacks of jealousy or inferiority, for instance).
I think you are on to it. Just hire somebody that will just tell engineers to "make it work" (and hopefully back them in their efforts to do so). That mantra gets lost in so many business processes now days--it's no wonder we get so much junk out there. Less feature check boxes and more stuff that actually works, please.
When manufacturing costs find a way to make the same item cheaper, do you really think that cost savings is passed on to retail or the consumer? Absolutely not. Consumer's don't even know, for the most part.
Yes I do think that cheaper manufacturing brings lower prices. When one company figures out a cheaper way to manufacture something, they can sell it for less but keep the same profit margin. Since it costs less, they'll sell more, and thus, get more profit. That's ONE way to do business. Of course another way is to keep the price fixed as production costs go down and make a greater profit on each item sold, but sell less items. I think more companies lower their prices in order to sell more units though. Luxury brands don't, but most others do.
I couldn't find a link, but I remember them not even being able to do it at all when asked by a judge to demonstrate who it would be done. They came back weeks later with an uninstall procedure, but then that broke lots of stuff in the process.
Actually, I think the TOS served it's intended purpose--it effectively shifted liability from MySpace to the parent. Also, since there apparently is no way to convict this moron mom other than the computer fraud angle, they nailed her for that. Kind of like nabbing mobsters for mail fraud.
I was talking more about people's inability to accept the fact that you _don't_ have to use the crappy mouse that comes with your Mac. Logitech makes real nice ones for about $20.
I'm still waiting for a browser extension that either bypasses password requirements altogether, or just fills some bogus combo in and keeps it in memory and uses it every time I revisit. Passwords are getting ridiculous. I would say probably less than 5% of all my required passwords really need a password. PayPal and my bank are the only two things I give a rats ass about (and maybe my kids' WoW account). Frankly, I don't think a password should be required to pay my stupid electric bill online. As far as I care, let somebody else log in and pay it for me. Since that's the only thing you can do at the site, I fail to see why a password is necessary, other than CYA by the City.
Because people think it's clever and feel smarter when the make fun of Apple for only having one mouse-button, even though it hasn't been true for over a decade (at least available with OS7.6 in 1997, if not earlier). You can also click on the right half of the trackpad on the new MacBooks to register a right click.
Solution? Touch screen without touching the screen...like the gesture features of the Mac track pads. I want one for my desktop now. Just make a usb trackpad with all the gesture features of the laptops and I'd retire my mouse, yesterday.
By the time you see it and brake/swerve, you're traveling 35-40 at the most
Unless, of course, you don't see the deer at all because you are yakking away on your phone, or you can't avoid it because you only have one hand on the wheel. Replace deer with kid on a bike, debris in the road, whatever...
I'll take your word that you aren't as distracted on a phone as most. I too can drive and talk without being distracted. It probably does have more to do with your ability to drive, but most people simply are bad drivers to start with AND become even bigger liabilities when on the phone. It's the other 98% of idiots you see out there that are completely oblivious to their surroundings once the have a phone stuck to their ear. However, I'm willing to sacrifice the luxury of talking on a cell phone because the overwhelming majority of drivers out there put the cell phone at the top of their priorities, instead of driving.
Thanks for lecturing me. I am a writer, albeit a Tech Writer. Irrespective (err, irregardless) of what you think, "Irregardless" is listed in pretty much every reference source as meaning "regardless". You can argue stylistically against its use, but saying it is not a word or is a mistake is elitist.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they were doing poorly because a guy who ran Coca-Cola was trying to sell Macs the way you sell soft drinks.
Thank god for a well-stated post. I get so sick of "teh shiny!" posts. Even worse are the posts that call anybody that is remotely praising Apple as some sort of kool-aide drinking "fanboy".
For the record, there is no "magic" in Apple's design. What it takes is a no-compromise corporate culture to be dedicated to putting user interface and design at the top of the requirements docs. It costs a lot of money to make good UI, so it is hard to convince PMs and SEs to make UI the priority. Apple has made this their corporate priority since 1984.
We're not talking about iTunes here, we're talking about the iPod. iTunes' innovation does not make the iPod innovative or special in the least.
More proof some people just don't get it... For those of us who like them, it is BECAUSE of the one-stop integration. Let me run you through a typical use-thread: Average Joe (not a geek) buys an iPod, brings it home, plugs in the USB cable or the cradle and puts it on his/her Mac. iTunes opens, recognizes the iPod then you start buying shit and/or moving stuff around. Unplug iPod, go to gym, listen to iPod in the car on the way and then rock some tunes while lifting weights. Notice at no time did I dork around with settings and configuration. That is VERY important to most people in the world.
The experience is even more integrated if you use a Mac. I've never understood the love of iPods by PC users, since iTunes is kinda clunky in XP/Vista, which kind of ruins the entire point of owning an iPod versus any other random brand.
I'm guilty of buying them when I don't need them. The secret is in the price. $150 is nothing. You can't go to dinner with a party of 6 friends for $150. It's a month's worth of gas. It's my cell phone bill for the month, or my cable. It's half my monthly electric bill. Those are things I pay EVERY month, but I might drop $150 on an iPod every 15 months or so...big deal.
I just don't think it deserves the love and devotion it gets.
Then why do so many people go out of their way to rain on other people's parade? Seriously, what is the value in that? Also, it usually diminishes one's argument against, in that it demonstrates an overt bias when you go out of your way to complain about something of no consequence (smacks of jealousy or inferiority, for instance).
I think you are on to it. Just hire somebody that will just tell engineers to "make it work" (and hopefully back them in their efforts to do so). That mantra gets lost in so many business processes now days--it's no wonder we get so much junk out there. Less feature check boxes and more stuff that actually works, please.
When manufacturing costs find a way to make the same item cheaper, do you really think that cost savings is passed on to retail or the consumer? Absolutely not. Consumer's don't even know, for the most part.
Yes I do think that cheaper manufacturing brings lower prices. When one company figures out a cheaper way to manufacture something, they can sell it for less but keep the same profit margin. Since it costs less, they'll sell more, and thus, get more profit. That's ONE way to do business. Of course another way is to keep the price fixed as production costs go down and make a greater profit on each item sold, but sell less items. I think more companies lower their prices in order to sell more units though. Luxury brands don't, but most others do.
I couldn't find a link, but I remember them not even being able to do it at all when asked by a judge to demonstrate who it would be done. They came back weeks later with an uninstall procedure, but then that broke lots of stuff in the process.
If it has always been possible, then why couldn't a team of Microsoft engineers do it the anti-trust case?
(frantically looking up "glib"...) Hmm, can't find anything that means "funny" under "glib". Ahh, here it is: "agile, spry", archaic ...dammit!
Actually, I think the TOS served it's intended purpose--it effectively shifted liability from MySpace to the parent. Also, since there apparently is no way to convict this moron mom other than the computer fraud angle, they nailed her for that. Kind of like nabbing mobsters for mail fraud.
Don't blame the parents or doctors for putting the girl on dangerous SSRI and anti-psychotic drugs.
Is that you, Tom Cruise?
I was talking more about people's inability to accept the fact that you _don't_ have to use the crappy mouse that comes with your Mac. Logitech makes real nice ones for about $20.
You missed the obvious 22 clicks of ad revenue. I want my wasted time back, and I stopped on slide 4.
That's dumb. If illegal stuff were posted, they'd track it to the isp, not the guy's password.
Hmm... could someone use your /. account to commit a crime in your name?
* "Inciting racial hatred"
Yeah, because that is so obviously enforced here on slashdot.
I'm still waiting for a browser extension that either bypasses password requirements altogether, or just fills some bogus combo in and keeps it in memory and uses it every time I revisit. Passwords are getting ridiculous. I would say probably less than 5% of all my required passwords really need a password. PayPal and my bank are the only two things I give a rats ass about (and maybe my kids' WoW account). Frankly, I don't think a password should be required to pay my stupid electric bill online. As far as I care, let somebody else log in and pay it for me. Since that's the only thing you can do at the site, I fail to see why a password is necessary, other than CYA by the City.
... maybe a grid of raised dots?
You mean like, a keyboard?
Because people think it's clever and feel smarter when the make fun of Apple for only having one mouse-button, even though it hasn't been true for over a decade (at least available with OS7.6 in 1997, if not earlier). You can also click on the right half of the trackpad on the new MacBooks to register a right click.
And if you click on the right half of the pad it registers as a right-click. Now can we finally kill the one-button argument?
Solution? Touch screen without touching the screen...like the gesture features of the Mac track pads. I want one for my desktop now. Just make a usb trackpad with all the gesture features of the laptops and I'd retire my mouse, yesterday.
Anyway, you could have two screens. One output-only like you have now, and one touchscreen instead (or next to) the keyboard.
I already have this function. I think they call the second monitor a "track pad" or something like that.
*doesn't make sense in German.... Live free or "deebold"?*
By the time you see it and brake/swerve, you're traveling 35-40 at the most
Unless, of course, you don't see the deer at all because you are yakking away on your phone, or you can't avoid it because you only have one hand on the wheel. Replace deer with kid on a bike, debris in the road, whatever...
I'll take your word that you aren't as distracted on a phone as most. I too can drive and talk without being distracted. It probably does have more to do with your ability to drive, but most people simply are bad drivers to start with AND become even bigger liabilities when on the phone. It's the other 98% of idiots you see out there that are completely oblivious to their surroundings once the have a phone stuck to their ear. However, I'm willing to sacrifice the luxury of talking on a cell phone because the overwhelming majority of drivers out there put the cell phone at the top of their priorities, instead of driving.
Thanks for lecturing me. I am a writer, albeit a Tech Writer. Irrespective (err, irregardless) of what you think, "Irregardless" is listed in pretty much every reference source as meaning "regardless". You can argue stylistically against its use, but saying it is not a word or is a mistake is elitist.