Hmm, I forget the original point too. I think I was talking about how most PCs could not act like mass storage devices, just like the iPhone does not, while the original iPod does have a mass storage mode built in.
Then I mentioned that Macs also have a mass storage mode; press T while booting your Mac, plug it in via a normal firewire cable, and it is an external firewire hard drive, not a firewire network.
More here. No PC I know of has anything like this.
You forgot the word "usability" besides "cool UI" and "big multitouch screen".
It's been publicly acknowledged by Google to be a huge boost in Maps and mobile Search (50x bigger than the next most popular handset, regardless of it being a Nokia or Windows device.
It is with this knowledge that I make my "ridiculous" claim; before the iPhone, you had phones that could (but did not) access the internet, while the iPhone was a networked computer that made phone calls.
Really? You can plug in most Windows computers, via USB cable, to another Windows computer and have it act as a storage device?
On my Mac I boot while hitting the T button, and can plug it into any system using a firewire cable and it appears as a mass storage device. How do you access that feature in Windows? I haven't seen it.
I'm not dismissing the Android platform at all. I'm just dismissing the notion that, just because Android is more open it will grind the iPhone into the dust.
You're right, but my point was to respond to the poster who wondered why the OS couldn't handle background tasks... it can, Apple just made a decision not to allow it (yet).
Doesn't that describe Linux to a T? "If they want to win the market, they'll make sure that Linux is super easy to port to existing PCs. They'll immediately have market saturation at no expense to the end user..."
Yet Linux is arguably less successful than Microsoft and Apple in the PC space.
Hmm, functionally different: 4gb to 16gb storage, integrated Twice the resolution Higher resolution camera 6x the CPU Support for WiFi or EDGE (2 to 200x faster) Soft-qwerty keyboard (vs number pad) The ability to store gigabytes of music and video The ability to browse YouTube
You misunderstand the iPHone if you think it's just a nice, expensive, phone. It's really a small, portable computer that can make phone calls. As a computer, it can also browse the web, take notes, watch videos, listen to music, check your stocks, check the weather, take pictures, and email.
And with every firmware release and the release of the SDK, it will move further and further from being "just a phone".
Android, in comparison, doesn't exist yet. It's a beta SDK and platform in some developer's hands.
Apple has released more features and functions to developers and consumers than Google has, courtesy of a shipping iPhone in four countries vs none, a shipping SDK, and multiple firmware revisions. I would be hesitant to proclaim Android capable of grinding Apple into the dirt until after an Android phone exists.
So Apple has three things working in their favor: 1) Resources 2) Developers 3) Customers
Well, let us see: Working product: Apple Final OS: Apple Beta SDK: Tie
So by the time an Android phone is released, Apple will have had all three (OS and product for a greater part of a year) where Google will not. Sounds "ahead of the curve" to me.
So no you bring up minutiae. Why isn't the iPhone a general purpose computing device? RAM, storage, display, input, software, etc. Some brave souls already load their own software, and within a few months everyone will.
You're too cynical. For many people, a computer is something to browse the web, check your email, take a few notes, watch YouTube, some movie trailers, listen to music, check the weather, and some stock prices. For those people, the iPhone is a perfect "little computer". If you think of a computer as something to write term papers on, analyze large datasets, develop software, or control robots, the iPhone is a horrible computer.
So for the people who love the iPhone, it's a perfect "little computer" with phone functionality. For people who don't see that, well, it means they want more out of the iPhone, first, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I forget the original point too. I think I was talking about how most PCs could not act like mass storage devices, just like the iPhone does not, while the original iPod does have a mass storage mode built in.
Then I mentioned that Macs also have a mass storage mode; press T while booting your Mac, plug it in via a normal firewire cable, and it is an external firewire hard drive, not a firewire network.
More here. No PC I know of has anything like this.
He was probably talking about US sales... I know I was.
You forgot the word "usability" besides "cool UI" and "big multitouch screen".
It's been publicly acknowledged by Google to be a huge boost in Maps and mobile Search (50x bigger than the next most popular handset, regardless of it being a Nokia or Windows device.
It is with this knowledge that I make my "ridiculous" claim; before the iPhone, you had phones that could (but did not) access the internet, while the iPhone was a networked computer that made phone calls.
Really? You can plug in most Windows computers, via USB cable, to another Windows computer and have it act as a storage device?
On my Mac I boot while hitting the T button, and can plug it into any system using a firewire cable and it appears as a mass storage device. How do you access that feature in Windows? I haven't seen it.
I'm not dismissing the Android platform at all. I'm just dismissing the notion that, just because Android is more open it will grind the iPhone into the dust.
Apple also has more phones than Google, too, over 4m sold.
You're right, but my point was to respond to the poster who wondered why the OS couldn't handle background tasks... it can, Apple just made a decision not to allow it (yet).
So? I've been using Linux since 1997. It's a technology (like Android), not a belief system (though some people act like it).
Android definitely has it's place, and will be quite powerful, but I wouldn't expect it to dominate just because it is open.
Ah, well, good luck with that then. Me, I'm wishing for the better phone, not the better mobile platform.
Yup, stuck in the US. Most phones here suck in comparison to the iPhone. The ones that don't, they cost about as much.
Doesn't that describe Linux to a T?
"If they want to win the market, they'll make sure that Linux is super easy to port to existing PCs. They'll immediately have market saturation at no expense to the end user..."
Yet Linux is arguably less successful than Microsoft and Apple in the PC space.
Your iPhone doesn't (yet) have the feature of mass storage. Most Windows computers don't either. My Mac does.
Your Sony Ericsson sounds much more capable than an iPhone.
Evidently you can override "applicationSuspend" so the iPhone doesn't kill your program, letting it run in the background.
I've read there is an API to enable multitasking within the iPhone SDK; just that by default it is turned off for battery/performance reasons.
Hmm, functionally different:
4gb to 16gb storage, integrated
Twice the resolution
Higher resolution camera
6x the CPU
Support for WiFi or EDGE (2 to 200x faster)
Soft-qwerty keyboard (vs number pad)
The ability to store gigabytes of music and video
The ability to browse YouTube
What is your point?
There are no Android phones, yet. The iPhone is real, it is usable and used, and has real market share right now.
You misunderstand the iPHone if you think it's just a nice, expensive, phone. It's really a small, portable computer that can make phone calls. As a computer, it can also browse the web, take notes, watch videos, listen to music, check your stocks, check the weather, take pictures, and email.
And with every firmware release and the release of the SDK, it will move further and further from being "just a phone".
Android, in comparison, doesn't exist yet. It's a beta SDK and platform in some developer's hands.
Apple has released more features and functions to developers and consumers than Google has, courtesy of a shipping iPhone in four countries vs none, a shipping SDK, and multiple firmware revisions. I would be hesitant to proclaim Android capable of grinding Apple into the dirt until after an Android phone exists.
:)
So Apple has three things working in their favor:
1) Resources
2) Developers
3) Customers
Google, thus far, only has hype
Well, let us see:
Working product: Apple
Final OS: Apple
Beta SDK: Tie
So by the time an Android phone is released, Apple will have had all three (OS and product for a greater part of a year) where Google will not. Sounds "ahead of the curve" to me.
They are about to hit 9% this year. 10% isn't so far off.
And regarding revenue stream, the iPod is something like 40% with 50% going to the Mac.
The Nintendo Wii is the closest thing I can think of to VR, today, that is commercial in nature.
So no you bring up minutiae. Why isn't the iPhone a general purpose computing device? RAM, storage, display, input, software, etc. Some brave souls already load their own software, and within a few months everyone will.
You're too cynical. For many people, a computer is something to browse the web, check your email, take a few notes, watch YouTube, some movie trailers, listen to music, check the weather, and some stock prices. For those people, the iPhone is a perfect "little computer". If you think of a computer as something to write term papers on, analyze large datasets, develop software, or control robots, the iPhone is a horrible computer.
So for the people who love the iPhone, it's a perfect "little computer" with phone functionality. For people who don't see that, well, it means they want more out of the iPhone, first, I think.
To some people it's a tiny little computer that happens to make phone calls.
The iPhone has 3x the CPU your phone does, 2x the resolution, and 4x the storage. Can your phone even play 320x480 mpeg-4 video?