With today's far larger storage media, you should be able to get songs in lossless format, even uncompressed. There would be no patent issues at all with these.
Using.shn or.flac (compressed, but lossless) you can fit an LP on a minidisk. Lossy compresson should only be needed on a portable iPod-type player.
I agree with you. Since I rip CDs and I don't purchase downloads, everything I have is ripped to Apple Lossless. I use AAC for the iPod. One of the major reasons I don't purchase downloads is because they are all in compressed format.
The truth is I might not be able to tell the difference between AAC 256kps and lossless even on my premium audio system, but somehow I feel cheated by compressed formats. If I can download movies why not a lossless format?
I think of MP3's and AAC files as the equivalent of the old 45rpm singles in the glory days of vinyl. They were relatively cheap and useful if you only wanted the "hit" song. If you became a fan of the group you'd spring for the LP. I'd usually pass on the 45's and make my decision based on what I heard on the radio. I don't agree with unilaterally violating copyrights but if an artist or record company is smart, they'd want some MP3 and AAC tunes in free circulation in order to promote their work. They are in my mind today's radio.
they should be offering it in a standard format like mp3. That, or they should prepare to be broken up, as they do have a monopoly in the distribution of the music as well as the manufacturing of the players.
Apple uses the AAC format which is an open royalty free format designed to replace mp3. Alcatel-Lucent owns the patent on MP3. So, Apple chose the more modern and more open format. Any company can support or use AAC without paying any royalties. Why so many others in the industry stay with an older proprietary format they have to license is what you should be questioning. BTW, Sony's devices support AAC as do some other manufacturers.
Apple does not have a monopoly on the distribution of music. Never has and never will because it doesn't own or control the content. Apple does not have a history of trying to dominate the world, gain a monopoly and then abuse it. They've dominated in a couple of areas because they've done a better job of putting together the right package and selling it. The only thing holding back their competitors is their amazing stupidity and lack of imagination. The worst you can accuse Apple of is being very focused and not trying to be all things to all people by offering a multitude of product options. Either you like what they sell or you go elsewhere. Obviously a lot of people like what they sell.
Apple does protect and promote their business model which is essentially to create and nurture an "ecosystem' of products that work very well together and exploit their synergies. People who point to an individual Apple product and says it lacks this or that feature product x or y have are completely missing the point. The point is that once you buy into the ecosystem, each thing you add to it can use or be used by the other things you've bought before. For example, I manage my music on iTunes (ripped from my CDs) on my computer. I extend my wireless network by buying a $99 airport express. I place the express near my audio system and connect the receiver to the airport express and suddenly iTunes knows about it. Suddenly I can stream music from my computer to my audio system. I can remotely control what iTunes does and where it streams using my iPhone or iPod Touch. I can synch all my computers where ever they may be using mobile me. When I buy an iPhone it synchs that as well. I don't worry about my calendars or settings or passwords or much of anything else getting out of synch on one device or another. It just works. That's the sort of thing that is so attractive (to many people) about buying Apple.
This article isn't talking about the types of of roads that are used to support commerce and industry. These are rural roads in BFE that are rarely used by anyone other than local residents. And these gravel roads are in better condition that the pothole-filled "paved" roads anyway. All the major roads that support commerce and industry will still be paved.
I hope that is true, but sometimes its hard to predict which rural roads might be destined to become thoroughfares in the future. Most thoroughfares began as rural roads connecting farms and villages. That's how how new areas are developed.
Also, I wonder about the affect on farm vehicles transporting the harvest. If they are well maintained, I assume it won't matter but I remember when I used to study world hunger that in India in the 1960's more food was lost falling out of the trucks and carts on the way to market than was imported to feed the hungry.
Turning your roads from paved to gravel is like giving up on economic recovery or development. Gravel roads don't support commerce or industry very well. They are a good reason not to locate somewhere.
I lived in West Virginia for 2 years before returning to urban life 2 1/2 years ago. Bad roads and gravel roads abound because the state is poor. But the state will remain poor in part because of bad roads and gravel roads. If a state cannot provide a modern infrastructure, it will not be able to compete.
Now its not always a bad thing to de-settle an area and let it revert to a more primitive state, but don't count on being able to undo the damage if you later change your mind.
Because it's ESPN, they may get away with this. Look at how sports fans are gouged at every event. They'll pay whatever it takes to see their heroes play. ESPN/Disney know this and that is who they cater to. "Serious" sports fans/addicts are also very vocal about their favorite events being available and some of these fans are politicians or the "mentors" of politicians. The cable companies catch a lot of grief when they don't offer some sports channel - like the Big 10 channel or NFL channel or what have you. I can imagine the complaints to the ISP's and their regulators. Look at how taxpayers end up paying for stadiums for these highly profitable teams to play in.
Ed Whiteacre helped create the net neutrality movement by claiming that providers like Google should pay for the content they deliver even though they and each of their users are already paying for their connections.
He started with SBC and after a number of acquistions renamed the company to AT&T. He's a take no-prisoners, trample the employees and customers kind of guy. If AT&T is getting better, I'd guess it's because he's no longer there.
Um, didn't the iPhone only come out two years ago?
You missed the fact that this happened recently - a 6 weeks ago.
Also, AT&T is AT&T, unlike Verizon which is/was a partnership (Vodaphone?). You are right that most of AT&T's cell is the old Cingular net and that they phased out the original AT&T TDMA network. It's the old network that I dropped for poor coverage. I'll soon find out first hand about how they're doing now.
My biggest problem with AT&T is probably their SBC/Ed Whiteacre legacy. Now Ed is going to run GM. I see no more GM cars in my future.
You've put up one too many posts sounding like a salesman or a Sprint or Palm employee. I now must disregard everything you've written.
I'm very happy for all the happy owners of whatever smartphone floats your boat. So now let's get on with exchanging information instead of crowing (or dissing) this device or that.
they'd dump AT&T if they had an alternative. None of them like AT&T at all.
Can you tell me why? I just switched from vzw, and am much happier with ATT. They have a cheaper plan, and it seems like better coverage.
First of all, I'm in Chicago. Experiences may vary. They complain about basic phone reception being much spottier than Verizon and others. AT&Ts 3G coverage and speeds are getting better (they say) but it's not what they would like - good all the time at least if you are in the city or near burbs. It's not. They also complain about rates and AT&T customer service. My guess is that if they had Sprint's rates they'd forgive some of the coverage issues.
My own experience with AT&T has been mixed and I haven't had their cell service since I dropped it 5 years ago because of poor coverage. I have an AT&T land line and recently I checked into their DSL when Comcast started having issues and AT&T sent me a "special" offer. Their web site didn't work correctly so I couldn't sign up. I sent them a nasty note. They responded (nice surprise!) and blamed my problems on my browser cache. They said to call them and they could sign me up over the phone. I responded by saying that I couldn't have much faith in an internet service that couldn't sign me up over the internet. (I knew it wasn't my cache.) Any way, I passed.
It turns out my problem was that I was on a Mac using Safari. Their site didn't work with Safari. Now considering they are the exclusive U.S. iPhone provider, you'd think they could do better than that!
I agree, but even with more cell phone carriers it wasn't any better. Our (U.S.) carriers lock us into their plans and the phones they want to sell and the features they are willing to let us have. Only recently have we been able to even keep our phone numbers when we change carriers. It's an awful tyranny and it does hurt the sales of all smartphones.
I'm only now willing to throw in the towel and buy an iPhone 3Gs. I've resisted until now because I hate AT&T, but this new model is too compelling for me to resist. I know a couple of guys who are lusting after the Pre but they won't buy it because they hate Sprint. To Apple's credit, the broke much of the carrier's ability to dictate what hardware features you can use on your phone, but this MMS and tethering thing show that not enough has been done.
All my iPhone using friends are very happy with their devices, but they'd dump AT&T if they had an alternative. None of them like AT&T at all.
Fine if you say so, but Em's point was that the iPhone 3Gs was playing catch up. It's not catch up since they were both released at about the same time and were both in design at about the same time. It's competition, not catch up in the case of these two. Software is likely to be the deciding factor. Also, Em seems to be hyper emotional about what to me are just interesting devices. Saying someone is stupid, laughing or making unsubstantiated qualitative assertions are poor ways to make a point and are counter productive if your aim is to persuade anyone.
I read several reviews and thought they were funny since they didn't have an iPhone 3Gs to actually compare them to. I expect the iPhone 3Gs to be faster primarily because it's software has had more time to mature. Frankly, though I don't care. I don't work for either company.
The one Pre user I know tells me he regrets his choice because he feels it is slower than the iPhone 3G (not s) models he tried - no benchmarks, just perception. I don't know, the grass is always greener elsewhere.
To me the Pre looks like a good choice for people who want something like an iPhone but with a keyboard. I'm not sure Sprint versus AT&T would be a deciding factor though. If the Pre is offered by Verizon it may be very successful, provided Palm can remain capitalized well enough to compete with much bigger companies.
The guy next to me at work has a Blackberry Storm. He's happy, but he's not into music or video playback, games or internet browsing much. The only really unhappy smartphone users I know have or had phones with Windows CE.
If you've indeed worked on large projects and if you have followed Apple very much you'd know that they plan far ahead and tend not to be distracted. They've been releasing hardware refreshes to the iPhone on a predictable twice a year schedule since it's release. Palm knew when the next refresh would be and pretty much what it might include and planned their announcement date in hopes of stealing some of Apple's thunder.
Tear downs of the Pre show that Palm uses many of the same components as the iPhone and is similar in it's design - with Palm's own twists and innovations added. However, one thing Palm did not duplicate is the Powervr chip. Apple was reported to be licensing this chip in 2008. It's iPhone software is off-loading a lot of processing to it which is part of why the iPhone 3Gs is twice as fast as it's predecessor yet it's CPU is only 50% faster. (Doubling RAM helped too.) So the evidence is that the new iPhone's design started in 2008. Now tell me again how this was playing catchup to Palm? Tell me when Palm is going to catch up with Apple.
BTW, I have no problems with the Palm Pre and I'm interested in seeing how it evolves. I also hope Palm can get the capital it will need in order to compete with the bigger players.
Native code is not necessarily heavier or more bloated and it certainly is not slower. Bloat depends on the libraries and run-time support you've linked in and their granularity. Careless developers do not always pay attention to that. If Native code is slower it's because most application programmers are not capable of writing as good code as the elite folks who write JVMs, JITs and JS. Nevertheless, if you are that good and are willing to hand optimize, your code will likely be faster.
Speaking of bloat, compare the run time footprint of Java with C or Objective C. You'd see that Java requires a lot more memory. I primarily program in Java these days(last 10 years) and I appreciate it's relative portability, but with Java, don't expect to squeeze a major application into 64k. I used to write a lot of assembler when CPUs were slow and memory tight. Surely you agree that we use languages like Java, C#, JS and Groovy for productivity. Their speed is good enough, not better. If speed were the only criteria then we'd have stayed with assembler or C.
Work on HTML5 began in 2003. Early adopters of the draft specifications include Sproutcore - the open source javascript framework/libraries Apple used. It's key features have been in use far longer than you think. Take a look at it's rate of adoption amongst all the browser vendors especially device browsers from Apple, Opera and Google.
The rapid improvements in JS speed combined with HTML5 along with open standards like H.264 (also used in iPhone and others) make Flash and Flex unnecessary for all but the more esoteric requirements.
I disagree with you interpretation of why flash is not on the iPhone. Adobe does not compete with Apple. I think part of it is philosophical and part of it is payback for Adobe's past treatment of Apple. Apple has embraced open standards in a big way (webkit, BSD, JS/HTML5, etc.) because it does not want the software vendors to be able to control it's destiny, but that's an old story.
Let's see, you think that the difference between June 6th and June 8th (or 19th if you count ship dates) is playing "catch up" You must know a lot about product development.
When you don't know an answer to a question your response seems to be different forms of "LOL". Are you nervous and insecure? Moving out of your Mom's basement and getting a job might help your self esteem.
Do you think JS/HTML/CSS means web pages? Well I didn't say that, but what is a web page if not an HTML document with or without JS and CSS? Also, why does WebOS use a webserver these applications or did you miss that part. Also, you don't seem to understand the importance of HTML5 - especially for implementing RIA's that work off-line. HTML5 gives you standards based local persistence among other things. It's kind of important.
Re: native apps and native speed - Do you understand what an Objective C (or C) compiler outputs? It's machine language for the processor(s) that will execute it. That's different from let's say Java which compiles to byte code for a virtual processor. That's even more different than something that interprets(compiled or not) markup language and script. In the later 2 cases you have at least one layer of interpretation between you and execution and you have less access to the OS's APIs. Whatever access you do have will not be portable so it has the disadvantages of interpretation without the portability. Do you know of any hotspot or JIT compilers for HTML or JS?
"Universal Search", aka Spotlight is part of iPhone 3.0. It can do more though since it can access your iDrive too.
Tell me when Pre or Android start running Flash. Tell me why I'd want to.
I doubt that you've ever spent any time using or evaluating an iPhone. I'm not sure you've spent much time in the adult world from what you've written.
I would prefer Windows and OS X refuse to run unsigned applications - if there was an application signing process in place. Microsoft tried this some years ago, but it was too late. People were used to running unsigned apps.
I'd prefer it if Apple handed it's application signing process to a trusted but disinterested third party, but frankly, it really doesn't bother me that much. Phones have always existed to be participants in shared infrastructure. The relationship between the PC and the Internet barely existed until about 15 years ago so the horses were out of the barn before people realized what a problem malware would become.
I guess you aren't familiar with the iPhone 3Gs yet. Compare that to the Pre in terms of speed. Also, consider real speed an not theoretical (i.e. CPU) speed. The iPhone 3Gs has more than just the CPU doing its processing. At work we have a Pre user. He's now wishing he had an iPhone 3G (not even the newest one) because the Pre is so much slower.
Please explain what you mean by "better memory handling" and try to compare iPhone 3Gs with the Pre, not last year's models.
Isn't the "standard easy to develop platform" Javascript and HTML5 running on Webkit. That's what iPhone 1.0 launched with in 2007! Objective C is for folks who want native speed. That option (native code) is not yet supported for Pre developers.
"Ability to develop for ANY OS"? How is that? If it's Javascript and HTML5 it will also run on the iPhone and Android. So what is special about Pre?
"No big-brother" and "No app kill-switch" are security vulnerabilities that can endanger more than the device itself. It's a shared network. Ever use a PC? Do you like how any there is not way to be sure as where your applications really come from? Let's see how well that works out.
"Ability to synch music to multiple sources" - You can do that with an iPhone if you really want to. The iPhone is a USB mass storage device. Tell us about how the Pre does it automagically.
What do you mean by "Universal search"?
The ability to buy music directly to the handset is part of iPhone 3.0.
The difference is in the architecture. What iPhone (and potentially Pre and Android) will show you is how many more capabilities and how much more power they can have via software upgrades. Their operating systems (BSD and Linux) are abstracted from the device and are capable of supporting an array of capabilities not found in earlier devices. A good part of that results from the fact that the Palm OS, Symbian and others were created when hardware was more expensive and far less capable. They had to be more limited and more tightly coupled to the resources available.
The fact that Palm changed their OS from Palm OS to Linux when they rolled out the Pre is evidence of that.
I'm not an Apple fanboy or an anything fanboy and I agree that Apple shipped a product that was still in the works. That's pretty common in the industry. It's also why I've held off buying an iPhone for myself - that and AT&T. I'll probably succumb and buy one of the new ones. In the meantime I've worked with some bought on other people's dimes. My friends and collegues who've bought the 1.0 versions of the Storm or an Android phone had similar or worse issues as early iPhone users - minus AT&T "service".
My point is that I think the evidence is there that Apple always intended to support an SDK for untethererd applications and that it was in the works by the time the first phones shipped. Apple doesn't "cave" to public pressure very quickly or easily. How long did it take them to support a second mouse button? Where is the smaller expandable mac (between a mini and a pro) many of us have been asking for?
Apple (or Jobs) has a vision well in advance and executes according to plan. They do respond to consumer demand if it is consistent with the direction they want to go, but they aren't a reactive company. It's one of the things I admire about them.
Gee, somebody has been reading Wikipedia again. Apple officially announced their intention to deliver the iPhone SDK for native applications in October (see the link) 2007. They announced that they expected it to be available in February 2008. It was delayed so the formal announcement of it's release was March 2008.
Accurate information about the SDK was available by June 2007. See Gruber's stuff and Roughly Drafted from that time period. Considering that the device and OS weren't even functional in June 2006, it's not surprising that delivering an SDK and its' security and distribution models took a bit longer. As any early iPhone adopter knows, Apple was still working on getting the core features working as expected on AT&T's Edge network for months after they started shipping it.
"As Steve Jobs was saying at the time when promising things like support for native applications, Apple was still working on their security model and other aspects of the platform to insure that applications could not compromise AT&T's services or other things."
Jobs didn't say this. Jobs said that 3rd party apps couldn't be supported because of security concerns and never promised, or even suggested, that an SDK would be coming.
Jobs and Apple spokespersons did say that. Maybe you were not paying attention. Apple announced the iPhone in January 2007. In October 2007, Apple announced the native SDK. There had been leaks and rumors for almost all the months in between about what the SDK would be like and when it would be announced. There was some faint hope for a June 2007 announcement at the developers conference. There were reports of delays for various reasons including the security and distribution models. Remember the problems Apple initially had distributing firmware updates via iTunes? I think it's pretty clear that the native SDK had been in the works even before the product announcement, but when you are talking about a brand new type of device - not a smart phone but a computer that functions as a smart phone and media player - and you are inventing a new market, things will take longer and not go as smoothly as they should in a mature market.
Jobs lied about security to cover for his incomplete product just as he lied about 3G.
He lied? And, to paraphrase you, how do you know about that? The evidence is contradicts you. You don't think that supporting native applications has security repercussions? The fact that he they were not yet ready with a solution for those issues was an admission that they were not "finished'. As if anything ever is.
"We see that they've finally added cut and paste, but not in response to earlier complaints, but according to a schedule of work they had to get through."
How do you know that?
I know this because Apple has been asked about cut and paste since the iPhone came out and their answer has always been that it's coming, but they had other priorities to address first.
I don't think it's correct to say that "Apple responded to that" when talking about how Apple has expanded support for development on the iPhone. I think it's more correct to say that when the iPhone was first released, Apple wasn't ready to support native applications or a number of other things useful to developers. As Steve Jobs was saying at the time when promising things like support for native applications, Apple was still working on their security model and other aspects of the platform to insure that applications could not compromise AT&T's services or other things.
We're seeing with iPhone 3.0, for example, that with the introduction of parental controls they can be a bit less anal about the content applications can provide users. We see that they've finally added cut and paste, but not in response to earlier complaints, but according to a schedule of work they had to get through.
If you read some of the accounts about the development of the iPhone you'll recall that things were going much more slowly than Jobs wanted, but Jobs was committed to a release date. So iPhone 1.0 was a great start in terms of introducing a new class of device to the world, but it was far from complete.
Now if you said that Apple allowed applications that competed with iTunes, then I'd agree that such a move would be in response to external pressures. I don't know if that will ever happen.
Those are iPhone specific for one. iPhone is one of the few such devices with native apps being developed at a large scale. None of these apps represent a significant investment of cash for individual or enterprise customers or the developers themselves. Corporate types will tend to rely more on RIAs connected to services.
The other point is that for years Microsoft has maintained its Windows monopoly because of the large number of applications available and even more importantly because of the huge investment their customers had in these applications. The game is changing so Microsoft won't be able to leverage their Windows applications portfolio in this new market.
So now it's more about the device and the total package and much less about the operating system.
But back to what I was really saying and that is that the iPhone and Android devices are computers and that they are computers with operating systems that are well suited for many kinds of devices and that the market for these devices and what goes on them will be the big growth market in personal technology.
Apple has changed the game and is now in the lead.
Slashdot Mirror
With today's far larger storage media, you should be able to get songs in lossless format, even uncompressed. There would be no patent issues at all with these.
Using .shn or .flac (compressed, but lossless) you can fit an LP on a minidisk. Lossy compresson should only be needed on a portable iPod-type player.
I agree with you. Since I rip CDs and I don't purchase downloads, everything I have is ripped to Apple Lossless. I use AAC for the iPod. One of the major reasons I don't purchase downloads is because they are all in compressed format.
The truth is I might not be able to tell the difference between AAC 256kps and lossless even on my premium audio system, but somehow I feel cheated by compressed formats. If I can download movies why not a lossless format?
I think of MP3's and AAC files as the equivalent of the old 45rpm singles in the glory days of vinyl. They were relatively cheap and useful if you only wanted the "hit" song. If you became a fan of the group you'd spring for the LP. I'd usually pass on the 45's and make my decision based on what I heard on the radio. I don't agree with unilaterally violating copyrights but if an artist or record company is smart, they'd want some MP3 and AAC tunes in free circulation in order to promote their work. They are in my mind today's radio.
I stand corrected on the royalty fees. So much for believing PC "journalism". Thanks.
they should be offering it in a standard format like mp3. That, or they should prepare to be broken up, as they do have a monopoly in the distribution of the music as well as the manufacturing of the players.
Apple uses the AAC format which is an open royalty free format designed to replace mp3. Alcatel-Lucent owns the patent on MP3. So, Apple chose the more modern and more open format. Any company can support or use AAC without paying any royalties. Why so many others in the industry stay with an older proprietary format they have to license is what you should be questioning. BTW, Sony's devices support AAC as do some other manufacturers.
Apple does not have a monopoly on the distribution of music. Never has and never will because it doesn't own or control the content. Apple does not have a history of trying to dominate the world, gain a monopoly and then abuse it. They've dominated in a couple of areas because they've done a better job of putting together the right package and selling it. The only thing holding back their competitors is their amazing stupidity and lack of imagination. The worst you can accuse Apple of is being very focused and not trying to be all things to all people by offering a multitude of product options. Either you like what they sell or you go elsewhere. Obviously a lot of people like what they sell.
Apple does protect and promote their business model which is essentially to create and nurture an "ecosystem' of products that work very well together and exploit their synergies. People who point to an individual Apple product and says it lacks this or that feature product x or y have are completely missing the point. The point is that once you buy into the ecosystem, each thing you add to it can use or be used by the other things you've bought before. For example, I manage my music on iTunes (ripped from my CDs) on my computer. I extend my wireless network by buying a $99 airport express. I place the express near my audio system and connect the receiver to the airport express and suddenly iTunes knows about it. Suddenly I can stream music from my computer to my audio system. I can remotely control what iTunes does and where it streams using my iPhone or iPod Touch. I can synch all my computers where ever they may be using mobile me. When I buy an iPhone it synchs that as well. I don't worry about my calendars or settings or passwords or much of anything else getting out of synch on one device or another. It just works. That's the sort of thing that is so attractive (to many people) about buying Apple.
This article isn't talking about the types of of roads that are used to support commerce and industry. These are rural roads in BFE that are rarely used by anyone other than local residents. And these gravel roads are in better condition that the pothole-filled "paved" roads anyway. All the major roads that support commerce and industry will still be paved.
I hope that is true, but sometimes its hard to predict which rural roads might be destined to become thoroughfares in the future. Most thoroughfares began as rural roads connecting farms and villages. That's how how new areas are developed.
Also, I wonder about the affect on farm vehicles transporting the harvest. If they are well maintained, I assume it won't matter but I remember when I used to study world hunger that in India in the 1960's more food was lost falling out of the trucks and carts on the way to market than was imported to feed the hungry.
Turning your roads from paved to gravel is like giving up on economic recovery or development. Gravel roads don't support commerce or industry very well. They are a good reason not to locate somewhere. I lived in West Virginia for 2 years before returning to urban life 2 1/2 years ago. Bad roads and gravel roads abound because the state is poor. But the state will remain poor in part because of bad roads and gravel roads. If a state cannot provide a modern infrastructure, it will not be able to compete. Now its not always a bad thing to de-settle an area and let it revert to a more primitive state, but don't count on being able to undo the damage if you later change your mind.
Because it's ESPN, they may get away with this. Look at how sports fans are gouged at every event. They'll pay whatever it takes to see their heroes play. ESPN/Disney know this and that is who they cater to. "Serious" sports fans/addicts are also very vocal about their favorite events being available and some of these fans are politicians or the "mentors" of politicians. The cable companies catch a lot of grief when they don't offer some sports channel - like the Big 10 channel or NFL channel or what have you. I can imagine the complaints to the ISP's and their regulators. Look at how taxpayers end up paying for stadiums for these highly profitable teams to play in.
So in addition to Palm and Apple competing, their fan boys will be competing too? Can't we all just get along?
Ed Whiteacre helped create the net neutrality movement by claiming that providers like Google should pay for the content they deliver even though they and each of their users are already paying for their connections.
He started with SBC and after a number of acquistions renamed the company to AT&T. He's a take no-prisoners, trample the employees and customers kind of guy. If AT&T is getting better, I'd guess it's because he's no longer there.
Um, didn't the iPhone only come out two years ago?
You missed the fact that this happened recently - a 6 weeks ago.
Also, AT&T is AT&T, unlike Verizon which is/was a partnership (Vodaphone?). You are right that most of AT&T's cell is the old Cingular net and that they phased out the original AT&T TDMA network. It's the old network that I dropped for poor coverage. I'll soon find out first hand about how they're doing now.
My biggest problem with AT&T is probably their SBC/Ed Whiteacre legacy. Now Ed is going to run GM. I see no more GM cars in my future.
You've put up one too many posts sounding like a salesman or a Sprint or Palm employee. I now must disregard everything you've written. I'm very happy for all the happy owners of whatever smartphone floats your boat. So now let's get on with exchanging information instead of crowing (or dissing) this device or that.
It's my understanding that Apple gave up it's cut of the monthly charges in exchange for AT&T's offering the "subsidy".
they'd dump AT&T if they had an alternative. None of them like AT&T at all.
Can you tell me why? I just switched from vzw, and am much happier with ATT. They have a cheaper plan, and it seems like better coverage.
First of all, I'm in Chicago. Experiences may vary. They complain about basic phone reception being much spottier than Verizon and others. AT&Ts 3G coverage and speeds are getting better (they say) but it's not what they would like - good all the time at least if you are in the city or near burbs. It's not. They also complain about rates and AT&T customer service. My guess is that if they had Sprint's rates they'd forgive some of the coverage issues.
My own experience with AT&T has been mixed and I haven't had their cell service since I dropped it 5 years ago because of poor coverage. I have an AT&T land line and recently I checked into their DSL when Comcast started having issues and AT&T sent me a "special" offer. Their web site didn't work correctly so I couldn't sign up. I sent them a nasty note. They responded (nice surprise!) and blamed my problems on my browser cache. They said to call them and they could sign me up over the phone. I responded by saying that I couldn't have much faith in an internet service that couldn't sign me up over the internet. (I knew it wasn't my cache.) Any way, I passed.
It turns out my problem was that I was on a Mac using Safari. Their site didn't work with Safari. Now considering they are the exclusive U.S. iPhone provider, you'd think they could do better than that!
I agree, but even with more cell phone carriers it wasn't any better. Our (U.S.) carriers lock us into their plans and the phones they want to sell and the features they are willing to let us have. Only recently have we been able to even keep our phone numbers when we change carriers. It's an awful tyranny and it does hurt the sales of all smartphones.
I'm only now willing to throw in the towel and buy an iPhone 3Gs. I've resisted until now because I hate AT&T, but this new model is too compelling for me to resist. I know a couple of guys who are lusting after the Pre but they won't buy it because they hate Sprint. To Apple's credit, the broke much of the carrier's ability to dictate what hardware features you can use on your phone, but this MMS and tethering thing show that not enough has been done.
All my iPhone using friends are very happy with their devices, but they'd dump AT&T if they had an alternative. None of them like AT&T at all.
Fine if you say so, but Em's point was that the iPhone 3Gs was playing catch up. It's not catch up since they were both released at about the same time and were both in design at about the same time. It's competition, not catch up in the case of these two. Software is likely to be the deciding factor. Also, Em seems to be hyper emotional about what to me are just interesting devices. Saying someone is stupid, laughing or making unsubstantiated qualitative assertions are poor ways to make a point and are counter productive if your aim is to persuade anyone.
I read several reviews and thought they were funny since they didn't have an iPhone 3Gs to actually compare them to. I expect the iPhone 3Gs to be faster primarily because it's software has had more time to mature. Frankly, though I don't care. I don't work for either company.
The one Pre user I know tells me he regrets his choice because he feels it is slower than the iPhone 3G (not s) models he tried - no benchmarks, just perception. I don't know, the grass is always greener elsewhere.
To me the Pre looks like a good choice for people who want something like an iPhone but with a keyboard. I'm not sure Sprint versus AT&T would be a deciding factor though. If the Pre is offered by Verizon it may be very successful, provided Palm can remain capitalized well enough to compete with much bigger companies.
The guy next to me at work has a Blackberry Storm. He's happy, but he's not into music or video playback, games or internet browsing much. The only really unhappy smartphone users I know have or had phones with Windows CE.
If you've indeed worked on large projects and if you have followed Apple very much you'd know that they plan far ahead and tend not to be distracted. They've been releasing hardware refreshes to the iPhone on a predictable twice a year schedule since it's release. Palm knew when the next refresh would be and pretty much what it might include and planned their announcement date in hopes of stealing some of Apple's thunder.
Tear downs of the Pre show that Palm uses many of the same components as the iPhone and is similar in it's design - with Palm's own twists and innovations added. However, one thing Palm did not duplicate is the Powervr chip. Apple was reported to be licensing this chip in 2008. It's iPhone software is off-loading a lot of processing to it which is part of why the iPhone 3Gs is twice as fast as it's predecessor yet it's CPU is only 50% faster. (Doubling RAM helped too.) So the evidence is that the new iPhone's design started in 2008. Now tell me again how this was playing catchup to Palm? Tell me when Palm is going to catch up with Apple.
BTW, I have no problems with the Palm Pre and I'm interested in seeing how it evolves. I also hope Palm can get the capital it will need in order to compete with the bigger players.
Native code is not necessarily heavier or more bloated and it certainly is not slower. Bloat depends on the libraries and run-time support you've linked in and their granularity. Careless developers do not always pay attention to that. If Native code is slower it's because most application programmers are not capable of writing as good code as the elite folks who write JVMs, JITs and JS. Nevertheless, if you are that good and are willing to hand optimize, your code will likely be faster.
Speaking of bloat, compare the run time footprint of Java with C or Objective C. You'd see that Java requires a lot more memory. I primarily program in Java these days(last 10 years) and I appreciate it's relative portability, but with Java, don't expect to squeeze a major application into 64k. I used to write a lot of assembler when CPUs were slow and memory tight. Surely you agree that we use languages like Java, C#, JS and Groovy for productivity. Their speed is good enough, not better. If speed were the only criteria then we'd have stayed with assembler or C.
Work on HTML5 began in 2003. Early adopters of the draft specifications include Sproutcore - the open source javascript framework/libraries Apple used. It's key features have been in use far longer than you think. Take a look at it's rate of adoption amongst all the browser vendors especially device browsers from Apple, Opera and Google.
The rapid improvements in JS speed combined with HTML5 along with open standards like H.264 (also used in iPhone and others) make Flash and Flex unnecessary for all but the more esoteric requirements.
I disagree with you interpretation of why flash is not on the iPhone. Adobe does not compete with Apple. I think part of it is philosophical and part of it is payback for Adobe's past treatment of Apple. Apple has embraced open standards in a big way (webkit, BSD, JS/HTML5, etc.) because it does not want the software vendors to be able to control it's destiny, but that's an old story.
Let's see, you think that the difference between June 6th and June 8th (or 19th if you count ship dates) is playing "catch up" You must know a lot about product development.
When you don't know an answer to a question your response seems to be different forms of "LOL". Are you nervous and insecure? Moving out of your Mom's basement and getting a job might help your self esteem.
Do you think JS/HTML/CSS means web pages? Well I didn't say that, but what is a web page if not an HTML document with or without JS and CSS? Also, why does WebOS use a webserver these applications or did you miss that part. Also, you don't seem to understand the importance of HTML5 - especially for implementing RIA's that work off-line. HTML5 gives you standards based local persistence among other things. It's kind of important.
Re: native apps and native speed - Do you understand what an Objective C (or C) compiler outputs? It's machine language for the processor(s) that will execute it. That's different from let's say Java which compiles to byte code for a virtual processor. That's even more different than something that interprets(compiled or not) markup language and script. In the later 2 cases you have at least one layer of interpretation between you and execution and you have less access to the OS's APIs. Whatever access you do have will not be portable so it has the disadvantages of interpretation without the portability. Do you know of any hotspot or JIT compilers for HTML or JS?
"Universal Search", aka Spotlight is part of iPhone 3.0. It can do more though since it can access your iDrive too.
Tell me when Pre or Android start running Flash. Tell me why I'd want to.
I doubt that you've ever spent any time using or evaluating an iPhone. I'm not sure you've spent much time in the adult world from what you've written.
I would prefer Windows and OS X refuse to run unsigned applications - if there was an application signing process in place. Microsoft tried this some years ago, but it was too late. People were used to running unsigned apps.
I'd prefer it if Apple handed it's application signing process to a trusted but disinterested third party, but frankly, it really doesn't bother me that much. Phones have always existed to be participants in shared infrastructure. The relationship between the PC and the Internet barely existed until about 15 years ago so the horses were out of the barn before people realized what a problem malware would become.
I guess you aren't familiar with the iPhone 3Gs yet. Compare that to the Pre in terms of speed. Also, consider real speed an not theoretical (i.e. CPU) speed. The iPhone 3Gs has more than just the CPU doing its processing. At work we have a Pre user. He's now wishing he had an iPhone 3G (not even the newest one) because the Pre is so much slower.
Please explain what you mean by "better memory handling" and try to compare iPhone 3Gs with the Pre, not last year's models.
Isn't the "standard easy to develop platform" Javascript and HTML5 running on Webkit. That's what iPhone 1.0 launched with in 2007! Objective C is for folks who want native speed. That option (native code) is not yet supported for Pre developers.
"Ability to develop for ANY OS"? How is that? If it's Javascript and HTML5 it will also run on the iPhone and Android. So what is special about Pre?
"No big-brother" and "No app kill-switch" are security vulnerabilities that can endanger more than the device itself. It's a shared network. Ever use a PC? Do you like how any there is not way to be sure as where your applications really come from? Let's see how well that works out.
"Ability to synch music to multiple sources" - You can do that with an iPhone if you really want to. The iPhone is a USB mass storage device. Tell us about how the Pre does it automagically.
What do you mean by "Universal search"?
The ability to buy music directly to the handset is part of iPhone 3.0.
Keep going on, please.
The difference is in the architecture. What iPhone (and potentially Pre and Android) will show you is how many more capabilities and how much more power they can have via software upgrades. Their operating systems (BSD and Linux) are abstracted from the device and are capable of supporting an array of capabilities not found in earlier devices. A good part of that results from the fact that the Palm OS, Symbian and others were created when hardware was more expensive and far less capable. They had to be more limited and more tightly coupled to the resources available.
The fact that Palm changed their OS from Palm OS to Linux when they rolled out the Pre is evidence of that.
Great idea, an iPhone mounted on a shark with a friggin' laser beam attached! Bwahahahahaha!
I'm not an Apple fanboy or an anything fanboy and I agree that Apple shipped a product that was still in the works. That's pretty common in the industry. It's also why I've held off buying an iPhone for myself - that and AT&T. I'll probably succumb and buy one of the new ones. In the meantime I've worked with some bought on other people's dimes. My friends and collegues who've bought the 1.0 versions of the Storm or an Android phone had similar or worse issues as early iPhone users - minus AT&T "service".
My point is that I think the evidence is there that Apple always intended to support an SDK for untethererd applications and that it was in the works by the time the first phones shipped. Apple doesn't "cave" to public pressure very quickly or easily. How long did it take them to support a second mouse button? Where is the smaller expandable mac (between a mini and a pro) many of us have been asking for?
Apple (or Jobs) has a vision well in advance and executes according to plan. They do respond to consumer demand if it is consistent with the direction they want to go, but they aren't a reactive company. It's one of the things I admire about them.
Gee, somebody has been reading Wikipedia again. Apple officially announced their intention to deliver the iPhone SDK for native applications in October (see the link) 2007. They announced that they expected it to be available in February 2008. It was delayed so the formal announcement of it's release was March 2008.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/17/apple-we-plan-to-have-an-iphone-sdk-in-developers-hands-in-fe/
Accurate information about the SDK was available by June 2007. See Gruber's stuff and Roughly Drafted from that time period. Considering that the device and OS weren't even functional in June 2006, it's not surprising that delivering an SDK and its' security and distribution models took a bit longer. As any early iPhone adopter knows, Apple was still working on getting the core features working as expected on AT&T's Edge network for months after they started shipping it.
"As Steve Jobs was saying at the time when promising things like support for native applications, Apple was still working on their security model and other aspects of the platform to insure that applications could not compromise AT&T's services or other things."
Jobs didn't say this. Jobs said that 3rd party apps couldn't be supported because of security concerns and never promised, or even suggested, that an SDK would be coming.
Jobs and Apple spokespersons did say that. Maybe you were not paying attention. Apple announced the iPhone in January 2007. In October 2007, Apple announced the native SDK. There had been leaks and rumors for almost all the months in between about what the SDK would be like and when it would be announced. There was some faint hope for a June 2007 announcement at the developers conference. There were reports of delays for various reasons including the security and distribution models. Remember the problems Apple initially had distributing firmware updates via iTunes? I think it's pretty clear that the native SDK had been in the works even before the product announcement, but when you are talking about a brand new type of device - not a smart phone but a computer that functions as a smart phone and media player - and you are inventing a new market, things will take longer and not go as smoothly as they should in a mature market.
Jobs lied about security to cover for his incomplete product just as he lied about 3G.
He lied? And, to paraphrase you, how do you know about that? The evidence is contradicts you. You don't think that supporting native applications has security repercussions? The fact that he they were not yet ready with a solution for those issues was an admission that they were not "finished'. As if anything ever is.
"We see that they've finally added cut and paste, but not in response to earlier complaints, but according to a schedule of work they had to get through."
How do you know that?
I know this because Apple has been asked about cut and paste since the iPhone came out and their answer has always been that it's coming, but they had other priorities to address first.
I don't think it's correct to say that "Apple responded to that" when talking about how Apple has expanded support for development on the iPhone. I think it's more correct to say that when the iPhone was first released, Apple wasn't ready to support native applications or a number of other things useful to developers. As Steve Jobs was saying at the time when promising things like support for native applications, Apple was still working on their security model and other aspects of the platform to insure that applications could not compromise AT&T's services or other things.
We're seeing with iPhone 3.0, for example, that with the introduction of parental controls they can be a bit less anal about the content applications can provide users. We see that they've finally added cut and paste, but not in response to earlier complaints, but according to a schedule of work they had to get through.
If you read some of the accounts about the development of the iPhone you'll recall that things were going much more slowly than Jobs wanted, but Jobs was committed to a release date. So iPhone 1.0 was a great start in terms of introducing a new class of device to the world, but it was far from complete.
Now if you said that Apple allowed applications that competed with iTunes, then I'd agree that such a move would be in response to external pressures. I don't know if that will ever happen.
Those are iPhone specific for one. iPhone is one of the few such devices with native apps being developed at a large scale. None of these apps represent a significant investment of cash for individual or enterprise customers or the developers themselves. Corporate types will tend to rely more on RIAs connected to services.
The other point is that for years Microsoft has maintained its Windows monopoly because of the large number of applications available and even more importantly because of the huge investment their customers had in these applications. The game is changing so Microsoft won't be able to leverage their Windows applications portfolio in this new market.
So now it's more about the device and the total package and much less about the operating system.
But back to what I was really saying and that is that the iPhone and Android devices are computers and that they are computers with operating systems that are well suited for many kinds of devices and that the market for these devices and what goes on them will be the big growth market in personal technology.
Apple has changed the game and is now in the lead.