1) Turn on the FS on iPodB (an option when it is plugged into PCB)
So it's impossible.
You misunderstand. Perhaps I should have started with: Ensure mass storage is enabled on both iPods. Once that is true you can copy files off both iPods on any PC you want.
What you're saying is that unless you have access to BOTH the PCs the iPods are synced to you can't transfer music at all.
Nope, not at all. As long as the iPods are visible as a file system to the single PC you care about, you can copy all the files off the iPod.
If you need access to BOTH PCs, why bother? Just move the files PC to PC.
You only need access to "both" PCs in the first place in the same sense you need both PCs in order to populate the iPods in the first place.
This is clearly seems deliberate to me. Apple really doesn't want you to share music.
No, you are just misunderstanding my instructions.
Apple doesn't care if you share music, they just don't make it the primary function of the iPod.
Um, the problem definitely existed seven years ago when this feature was first unveiled, and as a solution it definitely worked.
No it didn't. I had an original Rio PMP300, and MP3Man, the first MP3 players ever made and neither had this problem (they didn't do any metadata though).
Um, those systems couldn't handle 5GB of songs (or roughly 1000 songs). When you need to parse 1000 songs, you need some kind of magic when you have a 60MHz CPU...
I had an original Archos and it didn't have this problem, and it was a slow HD-based player AND did metadata and on-the-fly playlists.
Ugh, when I first got the iPod I could tell it was literally 10x faster than the Nomad and Archos my coworkers had.
For one thing, clicking on a genre/artist/playlist did not spin up the HDD. That is literally a 1/10th second difference between the iPod and most other HDD based players.
Since it was a mass storage device it also meant the filesystem could not contain anything other than straight ASCII (and limited at that), so the files HAD to be mangled if the file had apostrophes, diacriticals, etc.
This makes no sense at all. The filesystem most MP3 players use is FAT32, iPods (I think) originally used HFS+, now they use FAT32. FAT32 supports almost exactly the same character set as NTFS (the only possible 3rd filesystem here) so the filenames on your PC SHOULD work on the iPod, just as they do on EVERY OTHER MP3 PLAYER. Special characters and Unicode are meant to be handled in the metatdata, the ID3 tags.
Um, I had Japanese music files from Japanese music CDs that contained Japanese characters. Experience (and this document) says FAT32 could only store/display 8 bit DBCS characters... unicode was stored in special metadata folders/directories
There is simply no need to mangle the filenames and metadata into ASCII gibberish for "performance" and there never was.
If you say so. My experience was it worked. My training in CS also tells me that a hashtable is going to be faster.
Where did it insert hash data?
Into the tags. Last time I imported MP3 files into iTunes the song, artist, and album names in the ID3 tags were replaced with random ASCII strings (which I assume is hash data). Album art was stripped too.
No disagreement from me, but I suspect this doesn't satisfy the original poster wanting to argue that instincts are poorly understood. Everything in the wiki article seems to have a strong evolutionary survival benefit, which means they would have been selected for without any "learning" necessary.
Pulling back from painful stimulus is probably hardwired (if you want to call it an instinct) because any creature who lack this "instinct" get killed/burned/maimed. So there is probably a portion of the brain stem responsible for this. You never lose this instinct.
Grabbing at hair is hardly an instinct. At least with my children, it was grabbing EVERYTHING. It was more likely a need to explore their surroundings and hair happens to be close by when someone is holding them.
Crying when hungry is also hardwired, I suspect. You see it in all animals, because if you never tell your parental unit you are hungry, you starve and fail to develop. In any case, this again is probably part of the brainstem. You lose this instinct pretty early.
Arms going out is something my son does, but my daughter lost this instinct very early. More likely it was a learned unlearning as she can now catch herself and prevent herself from falling. This is probably also hardwired, it is essentially a reflex, like blinking and ducking.
Sneezing while closing of eyes does not sound like instinct, it sounds like reflex.
So grab those files in iTunes (since you already have it up), drag it to the desktop or into the filesystem of the second iPod you want to own those files. We are talking files, right?
Um, how do I do this?
1) Turn on the FS on iPodB (an option when it is plugged into PCB) 2) Plug iPodB into PCA; do not synch iPod 3) Drag files from iTunes on PCA onto HDD of iPodB (in Explorer or Finder) 4) Connect iPodB into PCB 5) Drag files from iPodB into iTunes on PCB 6) Synch iPodB
I never said it was simple, only that it was possible.
The mangling of filenames is actually a feature called a hash table and was implemented with iPod 1.0, where all the files were stored into a fixed number of directories and subdirectories. It essentially mean you could search the iPod with no more than 2 directories accesses and 10 files searched.
I know this "feature" is supposed to make searching faster, but it solves a problem that doesn't exist.
Um, the problem definitely existed seven years ago when this feature was first unveiled, and as a solution it definitely worked. The iPod was the fastest AND the most power efficient because of this arrangement. Maybe the problem doesn't exist any more, but redesigning the iPod makes no sense from an engineering perspective as that just means introducing more bugs and adding no enhancements.
Searching works just fine on other MP3 players that don't mangle the filenames.
I think you mean search in a totally different context than I mean search. On an iPod, you search an 11mb index file (a database really). There is no HDD activity involved. The file mangling has a definite advantage as it means you don't have FS errors when the filename contains unicode characters (a problem that is circumvented because all filenames are translated into straight ASCII). This is a valid solution because the iPod was originally a dumb mass storage device, which meant no drivers were necessary to use it.
Since it was a mass storage device it also meant the filesystem could not contain anything other than straight ASCII (and limited at that), so the files HAD to be mangled if the file had apostrophes, diacriticals, etc.
And iTunes fucked up all the ID3 tags of my MP3s as well by inserting hash data.
What is that? Where did it insert hash data? The only place iTunes should muck up ID3 tags is when ripping from CD (that is the only time it inserts any data). Your existing MP3 files should not have any ID3 tags modified unless you tell iTunes to modify it (there is a menu to convert ID3 tags to various versions as well as the ability to search CDDB or adding album artwork). iTunes itself doesn't automatically touch the ID3 tags.
Look, iTunes makes interoperability with other MP3 players very difficult by mangling the filenames and metadata. It's just a fact.
No disagreement there. Apple didn't care about interoperability, it's primary focus was usability and operability, and towards that end the iPod has found a lot of success.
Whether it's a deliberate anti-competitive move or just stupidity is another questions.
Nope, neither. Arrogance is probably the best answer; the same reason they went to ADC instead of DVI, then DVI, then to miniDisplayPort, why they invented their own dock connector instead of using straight USB, etc.
WebKit is fully open source, despite S60, and is utilized by Chrome(Google) and on Android(Google), both open source, as well as QT itself.
GCC fixes also benefit everyone. A bugfix is a bugfix, a feature is a feature. Apple doesn't ONLY have platform specific fixes, they contribute to ARM, PPC, and Intel compiler optimizations, they support the C++, C, and Objective C interfaces, and yes, they do compile to the Mach interface.
CUPS is hardly platform specific. Apple didn't adopt it until 2002, when it was already 5 years old. It is available on GNOME, KDE, Mandrake, and RedHat, among others.
In any case the point is yes, they do indeed add value to Open Source; without Apple there would be less coders working on this and all the open source proejcts Apple uses.
Do you think Apple deploys these programs without testing? Do you think this testing doesn't make all the open source projects better?
Nor are you supposed to try to find out where your data is actually stored... and the behavior of EXT3 was just bizarre to me. As far as I'm concerned, I put my DATA where it should be. EXT3 has no business moving it or otherwise disturbing it in any way.
Did you see what I did? I gave an example where the computer abstracts away data in order to make it more usable!
It's just supposed to play it back.
That is where you get it wrong. That is like saying a filesystem exists only so you can read data!
iTunes imports, manages, sorts, indexes, exports, and synchs data. iTunes is the interface, the filesystem is the database. Does that make more sense to you? Yes, it does playback, but only with QuickTime. QuickTime is actually the playback program.
Yet she never knew where the files it was playing were actually being kept.
Why should she? Do you keep track of all your inodes, sectors, and tracks on your hard drive?
It's no wonder applications designed with Apple's philosophy in mind never flow back to other platforms - the users of other platforms don't tolerate having stuff hidden from them very well.
I think this statement perfectly illustrates what I hate about iTunes.
You might want to close your legs, your ignorance is showing.
Let's say you have an iPod and I have an iPod and you want to share some files off your iPod with me.
So is there a computer involved or not? Because you mention iTunes...
This is completely impossible in iTunes.
Until recently with the iPod touch, it wasn't impossible at all. iTunes is a jukebox, library, store, player, and importer. What you want to do is 100% doable, you just don't know how/why.
You have to sync against the library which means wiping out your collection.
So grab those files in iTunes (since you already have it up), drag it to the desktop or into the filesystem of the second iPod you want to own those files. We are talking files, right?
You can't just add a handful of files. Downloading non-iTunes music or filesharing is anathema to iTunes since you have to drag and drop downloaded files to the library, which immediately mangles the filenames and metadata to make interoperability (and filesharing) as hard as possible.
Nope, wrong answer. The mangling of filenames is actually a feature called a hash table and was implemented with iPod 1.0, where all the files were stored into a fixed number of directories and subdirectories. It essentially mean you could search the iPod with no more than 2 directories accesses and 10 files searched.
And the metadata was stored INSIDE the MP3 file, so no metadata was mangled. It makes finding the files manually difficult, but made finding the files with iTunes or the iPod incredibly simple and fast, and since that was the normal use case (browsing the iPod, searching iTunes) it made sense. It also reduced disc spin/read and allowed for longer battery life.
Anyway, the point is that the iPod was not designed first and foremost as a song sharing device. The Zune was.
Prior to the iPhone/Touch, a file system browser was essentially pointless to implement as all the files you could browse were already accessible via playlist, song, album, genre, title, etc.
With the advent of Apps on the iPhone/Touch, a FS makes more sense however.
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes
I don't think of this as a basic feature... essentially you are asking for automated library updates whenever new files are added to the system. iTunes is built around two methods of file importation: Rip from CD or add from iTunes Store. The third option is manual: Drag and drop files to the library.
We will have to see how quickly Apple develops their iPhone! If this is anything like OS X vs Windows, Apple will always be one release ahead (in terms of UI and consumer features). If this is like OS X vs LInux, make that two steps ahead.
Apple vs Google should make for some excellent phones in 2009.
We are comparing to the RAZR here, which due to age and popularity defines average well enough for me.
The RAZR has cut and paste ability? Compared to the RAZR, the iPhone is definitely smart, with the ability to install apps, customize the phone, do email and web browsing, YouTube, etc.
In other words, by definition it is more like a computer that can make phone calls than a phone with limited web capabilities.
Huh. Still, what do you make of the fact that the iPhone is the #2 selling phone in the US (not #2 smartphone, but #2 phone)?
I'm just replying to the guy who said the iPhone was just average... maybe average among smartphones (I don't deny that it isn't cutting edge in terms of features), but among phones in general, it's part of the cutting edge (including the G1 and N95/N96 class of phones)
Yes, but as per the original poster, we're talking about average. Your N95 isn't the average phone in the US (where the G1 exists). We are comparing to the Motorola RAZR, which last quarter was the #1 selling phone, followed by the iPhone. The iPhone is competing against the average phone. If you want to qualify against the average smartphone, that means the Blackberry!
Wow, I've never met an anarchist before. Well, not a real one at least.
I hate capitalism because it removes freedom.
Very interesting. I'm a Libertarian for the same reason, except that it supports the idea of capitalism.
It is a hierarchical system, reliant on the state.
As far as I understand it, the state exists because individuals are unequal and the state is necessary to prevent both mob rule, rule of the strongest, rule of the richest, and rule of the luckiest. Libertarianism accepts that individuals are unequal and government is necessary to "cater" to those unable to survive in an anarchist world. In other words, because people are greedy and unjust, we need (as little as possible) government to intervene.
Capitalism is freedom only for a few, where as I want freedom for everyone.
How does anarchy (or Anarchy) address the problem of the lucky or strong getting recurring advantages from displacing/disturbing/repressing/removing freedom from everyone else? I was under the impression that anarchy implies lack of government?
I don't have a problem with competition as such. And competition isn't the same as capitalism (neither are markets). Capitalism is a complex economic system that is much more then just markets and competition. There as to be the "right" to unlimited ownership of resources, the "right" to own land which isn't being used by the "owner", the "right" to collect rent and interest, be able to make a profit beyond what it cost to make a product (as opposed to "Cost the limit of price"), etc.
As for the other stuff, OK. I'm not really interested in getting into a long debate about browsers and what their makers get from making them. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but whatever.
I understand, and I apologize if you don't want to explain your philosophy, I just have never met a real anarchist before:)
How/why do you hate capitalism? That is about as specific as saying you hate socialism, when in reality most people hate poorly implemented socialist governments.
As far as I can tell, the fact that you enjoy competition and therefore the fruits of competition is a direct endorsement for capitalism, at least at a basic level. Add another layer, that you agree to the negotiable exchange of value, and you have capitalism right there.
How can you hate that? IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera all happen to give you a free web browser in exchange for different goods OTHER than money, which means they all play in the capitalist system.
IE for control of the internet Safari to prevent Microsoft controlling the internet FireFox in exchange for investments from Google Chrome in exchange for more data mining Opera in exchange for license fees
When has Windows been free? The internet is just another tool to get people to use Windows. FireFox and Chrome are both funded by Google, and their take is ad revenue, so they are interested in catering to the largest market possible (which runs counter to Microsoft because Microsoft wants to control the largest market possible).
Apple is in a similar boat; they promote a free internet in order to prevent someone else from locking Macs and iPhones out of the market.
I'm not a capitalist (or even a real supporter of "markets"), but actually when it comes down to it, in situations such as these, competition is good.
That is the essence of capitalism; if there is a profit motive and a second source competes, everyone wins.
And what's amazing, and completely against capitalism, none of these web browser makers are charging any money for their products! All this great software is being developed and given away for free!
Hardly. Capitalism also observes network effects. Microsoft gives away IE *only* to Windows in order to give Windows a competitive advantage, seeing as how Microsoft makes money from Windows. Safari is given away for free in order to deny Microsoft a competitive advantage, and force standards to become dominant thereby leveling Microsoft's initial advantage. This in turn means Apple can sell a few more Macs to a few more people who don't require IE. Oh, and a few more iPhones to people who can access websites coded to standards instead of IE. Chrome is given away for free to make sure Apple stays honest (since it is based off the same source, WebKit), and to ensure Google isn't hamstrung by Apple OR Mozilla if either makes a mistake.
Google's profit motive? Nearly all it's money is made from ads on the internet, so it wants to make sure it isn't held hostage by Microsoft (who controls IE), Apple (who controls Safari), or Mozilla (who has been known to screw up once in a while, the first time IE was released, then before FireFox was released... and potentially again in the mobile space now that Safari is gaining traction)
That's gotta be evidence that capitalism isn't the be all and end all...
Nope. It just means you don't understand profit motive nor chess:)
So capitalism is preserved: Google makes money from the internet so releases a free web browser to ensure no one can stop their money flow. Microsoft makes money from PCs so releases IE to ensure it can control what people see. Apple makes money from iPhones and Macs and releases Safari to make sure iPhones and Macs aren't locked out of the market. Mozilla is funded primarily by Google, so the first statement about Google not being held hostage by the web browser applies again...
Slashdot Mirror
1) Turn on the FS on iPodB (an option when it is plugged into PCB)
So it's impossible.
You misunderstand. Perhaps I should have started with:
Ensure mass storage is enabled on both iPods. Once that is true you can copy files off both iPods on any PC you want.
What you're saying is that unless you have access to BOTH the PCs the iPods are synced to you can't transfer music at all.
Nope, not at all. As long as the iPods are visible as a file system to the single PC you care about, you can copy all the files off the iPod.
If you need access to BOTH PCs, why bother? Just move the files PC to PC.
You only need access to "both" PCs in the first place in the same sense you need both PCs in order to populate the iPods in the first place.
This is clearly seems deliberate to me. Apple really doesn't want you to share music.
No, you are just misunderstanding my instructions.
Apple doesn't care if you share music, they just don't make it the primary function of the iPod.
Um, the problem definitely existed seven years ago when this feature was first unveiled, and as a solution it definitely worked.
No it didn't. I had an original Rio PMP300, and MP3Man, the first MP3 players ever made and neither had this problem (they didn't do any metadata though).
Um, those systems couldn't handle 5GB of songs (or roughly 1000 songs). When you need to parse 1000 songs, you need some kind of magic when you have a 60MHz CPU...
I had an original Archos and it didn't have this problem, and it was a slow HD-based player AND did metadata and on-the-fly playlists.
Ugh, when I first got the iPod I could tell it was literally 10x faster than the Nomad and Archos my coworkers had.
For one thing, clicking on a genre/artist/playlist did not spin up the HDD. That is literally a 1/10th second difference between the iPod and most other HDD based players.
Since it was a mass storage device it also meant the filesystem could not contain anything other than straight ASCII (and limited at that), so the files HAD to be mangled if the file had apostrophes, diacriticals, etc.
This makes no sense at all. The filesystem most MP3 players use is FAT32, iPods (I think) originally used HFS+, now they use FAT32. FAT32 supports almost exactly the same character set as NTFS (the only possible 3rd filesystem here) so the filenames on your PC SHOULD work on the iPod, just as they do on EVERY OTHER MP3 PLAYER. Special characters and Unicode are meant to be handled in the metatdata, the ID3 tags.
Um, I had Japanese music files from Japanese music CDs that contained Japanese characters. Experience (and this document) says FAT32 could only store/display 8 bit DBCS characters... unicode was stored in special metadata folders/directories
There is simply no need to mangle the filenames and metadata into ASCII gibberish for "performance" and there never was.
If you say so. My experience was it worked. My training in CS also tells me that a hashtable is going to be faster.
Where did it insert hash data?
Into the tags. Last time I imported MP3 files into iTunes the song, artist, and album names in the ID3 tags were replaced with random ASCII strings (which I assume is hash data). Album art was stripped too.
Bizarre. Never happened to me.
No disagreement from me, but I suspect this doesn't satisfy the original poster wanting to argue that instincts are poorly understood. Everything in the wiki article seems to have a strong evolutionary survival benefit, which means they would have been selected for without any "learning" necessary.
You call those instincts?
Pulling back from painful stimulus is probably hardwired (if you want to call it an instinct) because any creature who lack this "instinct" get killed/burned/maimed. So there is probably a portion of the brain stem responsible for this. You never lose this instinct.
Grabbing at hair is hardly an instinct. At least with my children, it was grabbing EVERYTHING. It was more likely a need to explore their surroundings and hair happens to be close by when someone is holding them.
Crying when hungry is also hardwired, I suspect. You see it in all animals, because if you never tell your parental unit you are hungry, you starve and fail to develop. In any case, this again is probably part of the brainstem. You lose this instinct pretty early.
Arms going out is something my son does, but my daughter lost this instinct very early. More likely it was a learned unlearning as she can now catch herself and prevent herself from falling. This is probably also hardwired, it is essentially a reflex, like blinking and ducking.
Sneezing while closing of eyes does not sound like instinct, it sounds like reflex.
Raising both a two year old and a seven month old, there appears to be precious little instinct. Maybe dancing to music.
Can you define instinct so we can talk intelligently about it?
So grab those files in iTunes (since you already have it up), drag it to the desktop or into the filesystem of the second iPod you want to own those files. We are talking files, right?
Um, how do I do this?
1) Turn on the FS on iPodB (an option when it is plugged into PCB)
2) Plug iPodB into PCA; do not synch iPod
3) Drag files from iTunes on PCA onto HDD of iPodB (in Explorer or Finder)
4) Connect iPodB into PCB
5) Drag files from iPodB into iTunes on PCB
6) Synch iPodB
I never said it was simple, only that it was possible.
The mangling of filenames is actually a feature called a hash table and was implemented with iPod 1.0, where all the files were stored into a fixed number of directories and subdirectories. It essentially mean you could search the iPod with no more than 2 directories accesses and 10 files searched.
I know this "feature" is supposed to make searching faster, but it solves a problem that doesn't exist.
Um, the problem definitely existed seven years ago when this feature was first unveiled, and as a solution it definitely worked. The iPod was the fastest AND the most power efficient because of this arrangement. Maybe the problem doesn't exist any more, but redesigning the iPod makes no sense from an engineering perspective as that just means introducing more bugs and adding no enhancements.
Searching works just fine on other MP3 players that don't mangle the filenames.
I think you mean search in a totally different context than I mean search. On an iPod, you search an 11mb index file (a database really). There is no HDD activity involved. The file mangling has a definite advantage as it means you don't have FS errors when the filename contains unicode characters (a problem that is circumvented because all filenames are translated into straight ASCII). This is a valid solution because the iPod was originally a dumb mass storage device, which meant no drivers were necessary to use it.
Since it was a mass storage device it also meant the filesystem could not contain anything other than straight ASCII (and limited at that), so the files HAD to be mangled if the file had apostrophes, diacriticals, etc.
And iTunes fucked up all the ID3 tags of my MP3s as well by inserting hash data.
What is that? Where did it insert hash data? The only place iTunes should muck up ID3 tags is when ripping from CD (that is the only time it inserts any data). Your existing MP3 files should not have any ID3 tags modified unless you tell iTunes to modify it (there is a menu to convert ID3 tags to various versions as well as the ability to search CDDB or adding album artwork). iTunes itself doesn't automatically touch the ID3 tags.
Look, iTunes makes interoperability with other MP3 players very difficult by mangling the filenames and metadata. It's just a fact.
No disagreement there. Apple didn't care about interoperability, it's primary focus was usability and operability, and towards that end the iPod has found a lot of success.
Whether it's a deliberate anti-competitive move or just stupidity is another questions.
Nope, neither. Arrogance is probably the best answer; the same reason they went to ADC instead of DVI, then DVI, then to miniDisplayPort, why they invented their own dock connector instead of using straight USB, etc.
WebKit is fully open source, despite S60, and is utilized by Chrome(Google) and on Android(Google), both open source, as well as QT itself.
GCC fixes also benefit everyone. A bugfix is a bugfix, a feature is a feature. Apple doesn't ONLY have platform specific fixes, they contribute to ARM, PPC, and Intel compiler optimizations, they support the C++, C, and Objective C interfaces, and yes, they do compile to the Mach interface.
CUPS is hardly platform specific. Apple didn't adopt it until 2002, when it was already 5 years old. It is available on GNOME, KDE, Mandrake, and RedHat, among others.
In any case the point is yes, they do indeed add value to Open Source; without Apple there would be less coders working on this and all the open source proejcts Apple uses.
Do you think Apple deploys these programs without testing? Do you think this testing doesn't make all the open source projects better?
Uh, right. Let us use another example:
Nor are you supposed to try to find out where your data is actually stored... and the behavior of EXT3 was just bizarre to me. As far as I'm concerned, I put my DATA where it should be. EXT3 has no business moving it or otherwise disturbing it in any way.
Did you see what I did? I gave an example where the computer abstracts away data in order to make it more usable!
It's just supposed to play it back.
That is where you get it wrong. That is like saying a filesystem exists only so you can read data!
iTunes imports, manages, sorts, indexes, exports, and synchs data. iTunes is the interface, the filesystem is the database. Does that make more sense to you? Yes, it does playback, but only with QuickTime. QuickTime is actually the playback program.
Yet she never knew where the files it was playing were actually being kept.
Why should she? Do you keep track of all your inodes, sectors, and tracks on your hard drive?
It's no wonder applications designed with Apple's philosophy in mind never flow back to other platforms - the users of other platforms don't tolerate having stuff hidden from them very well.
Or... like you, they are just ignorant.
I think this statement perfectly illustrates what I hate about iTunes.
You might want to close your legs, your ignorance is showing.
Let's say you have an iPod and I have an iPod and you want to share some files off your iPod with me.
So is there a computer involved or not? Because you mention iTunes...
This is completely impossible in iTunes.
Until recently with the iPod touch, it wasn't impossible at all. iTunes is a jukebox, library, store, player, and importer. What you want to do is 100% doable, you just don't know how/why.
You have to sync against the library which means wiping out your collection.
So grab those files in iTunes (since you already have it up), drag it to the desktop or into the filesystem of the second iPod you want to own those files. We are talking files, right?
You can't just add a handful of files. Downloading non-iTunes music or filesharing is anathema to iTunes since you have to drag and drop downloaded files to the library, which immediately mangles the filenames and metadata to make interoperability (and filesharing) as hard as possible.
Nope, wrong answer. The mangling of filenames is actually a feature called a hash table and was implemented with iPod 1.0, where all the files were stored into a fixed number of directories and subdirectories. It essentially mean you could search the iPod with no more than 2 directories accesses and 10 files searched.
And the metadata was stored INSIDE the MP3 file, so no metadata was mangled. It makes finding the files manually difficult, but made finding the files with iTunes or the iPod incredibly simple and fast, and since that was the normal use case (browsing the iPod, searching iTunes) it made sense. It also reduced disc spin/read and allowed for longer battery life.
Anyway, the point is that the iPod was not designed first and foremost as a song sharing device. The Zune was.
Which iPod are you complaining about?
Prior to the iPhone/Touch, a file system browser was essentially pointless to implement as all the files you could browse were already accessible via playlist, song, album, genre, title, etc.
With the advent of Apps on the iPhone/Touch, a FS makes more sense however.
Oh, like:
KHTML->WebKit->Safari/Chrome/S60 browser?
So this is clearly Linux->Apple->back to Linux!
Then the fact that they contribute to GCC or Apache? CUPS? BSD (as in Darwin source), etc
How about the converse?
iTunes->Amarok
iTunes->Songbird
Seriously, Amarok and Songbird started off as iTunes clones; without iTunes, Amarok and Songbird wouldn't have someone as capable to copy.
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes
I don't think of this as a basic feature... essentially you are asking for automated library updates whenever new files are added to the system. iTunes is built around two methods of file importation: Rip from CD or add from iTunes Store. The third option is manual: Drag and drop files to the library.
Plugins are even listed at Apple's website.
Themes are missing, I admit, but for many people this is not a "basic feature", either.
We will have to see how quickly Apple develops their iPhone! If this is anything like OS X vs Windows, Apple will always be one release ahead (in terms of UI and consumer features). If this is like OS X vs LInux, make that two steps ahead.
Apple vs Google should make for some excellent phones in 2009.
We are comparing to the RAZR here, which due to age and popularity defines average well enough for me.
The RAZR has cut and paste ability? Compared to the RAZR, the iPhone is definitely smart, with the ability to install apps, customize the phone, do email and web browsing, YouTube, etc.
In other words, by definition it is more like a computer that can make phone calls than a phone with limited web capabilities.
Huh. Still, what do you make of the fact that the iPhone is the #2 selling phone in the US (not #2 smartphone, but #2 phone)?
I'm just replying to the guy who said the iPhone was just average... maybe average among smartphones (I don't deny that it isn't cutting edge in terms of features), but among phones in general, it's part of the cutting edge (including the G1 and N95/N96 class of phones)
Yes, and none of those were average phones. The iPhone and G1 are actually competing against the likes of the Motorola RAZR or the Blackberry phones.
Yes, but as per the original poster, we're talking about average. Your N95 isn't the average phone in the US (where the G1 exists). We are comparing to the Motorola RAZR, which last quarter was the #1 selling phone, followed by the iPhone. The iPhone is competing against the average phone. If you want to qualify against the average smartphone, that means the Blackberry!
Yes. Considering that more RAZRs were sold in the US than iPhones?
So in four years we can complain when iPhones become "average" and the new G2 is completely uninspiring.
Average only means something because it is established. 5 years ago the RAZR was NEW, not average.
What, GPS, WiFi, web browsing, email, maps, chat, video, music, YouTube, and the lightsaber app don't count as more than looks?
Better than what? The average phone is the RAZR, so in THAT standpoint the iPhone is better than the average.
By average you mean the rest of the market is a sea of similar phones?
I'm an anarchist.
Wow, I've never met an anarchist before. Well, not a real one at least.
I hate capitalism because it removes freedom.
Very interesting. I'm a Libertarian for the same reason, except that it supports the idea of capitalism.
It is a hierarchical system, reliant on the state.
As far as I understand it, the state exists because individuals are unequal and the state is necessary to prevent both mob rule, rule of the strongest, rule of the richest, and rule of the luckiest. Libertarianism accepts that individuals are unequal and government is necessary to "cater" to those unable to survive in an anarchist world. In other words, because people are greedy and unjust, we need (as little as possible) government to intervene.
Capitalism is freedom only for a few, where as I want freedom for everyone.
How does anarchy (or Anarchy) address the problem of the lucky or strong getting recurring advantages from displacing/disturbing/repressing/removing freedom from everyone else? I was under the impression that anarchy implies lack of government?
I don't have a problem with competition as such. And competition isn't the same as capitalism (neither are markets). Capitalism is a complex economic system that is much more then just markets and competition. There as to be the "right" to unlimited ownership of resources, the "right" to own land which isn't being used by the "owner", the "right" to collect rent and interest, be able to make a profit beyond what it cost to make a product (as opposed to "Cost the limit of price"), etc.
As for the other stuff, OK. I'm not really interested in getting into a long debate about browsers and what their makers get from making them. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but whatever.
I understand, and I apologize if you don't want to explain your philosophy, I just have never met a real anarchist before :)
How/why do you hate capitalism? That is about as specific as saying you hate socialism, when in reality most people hate poorly implemented socialist governments.
As far as I can tell, the fact that you enjoy competition and therefore the fruits of competition is a direct endorsement for capitalism, at least at a basic level. Add another layer, that you agree to the negotiable exchange of value, and you have capitalism right there.
How can you hate that? IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera all happen to give you a free web browser in exchange for different goods OTHER than money, which means they all play in the capitalist system.
IE for control of the internet
Safari to prevent Microsoft controlling the internet
FireFox in exchange for investments from Google
Chrome in exchange for more data mining
Opera in exchange for license fees
When has Windows been free? The internet is just another tool to get people to use Windows. FireFox and Chrome are both funded by Google, and their take is ad revenue, so they are interested in catering to the largest market possible (which runs counter to Microsoft because Microsoft wants to control the largest market possible).
Apple is in a similar boat; they promote a free internet in order to prevent someone else from locking Macs and iPhones out of the market.
Competition is great isn't it?
I'm not a capitalist (or even a real supporter of "markets"), but actually when it comes down to it, in situations such as these, competition is good.
That is the essence of capitalism; if there is a profit motive and a second source competes, everyone wins.
And what's amazing, and completely against capitalism, none of these web browser makers are charging any money for their products! All this great software is being developed and given away for free!
Hardly. Capitalism also observes network effects. Microsoft gives away IE *only* to Windows in order to give Windows a competitive advantage, seeing as how Microsoft makes money from Windows. Safari is given away for free in order to deny Microsoft a competitive advantage, and force standards to become dominant thereby leveling Microsoft's initial advantage. This in turn means Apple can sell a few more Macs to a few more people who don't require IE. Oh, and a few more iPhones to people who can access websites coded to standards instead of IE. Chrome is given away for free to make sure Apple stays honest (since it is based off the same source, WebKit), and to ensure Google isn't hamstrung by Apple OR Mozilla if either makes a mistake.
Google's profit motive? Nearly all it's money is made from ads on the internet, so it wants to make sure it isn't held hostage by Microsoft (who controls IE), Apple (who controls Safari), or Mozilla (who has been known to screw up once in a while, the first time IE was released, then before FireFox was released... and potentially again in the mobile space now that Safari is gaining traction)
That's gotta be evidence that capitalism isn't the be all and end all...
Nope. It just means you don't understand profit motive nor chess :)
So capitalism is preserved: Google makes money from the internet so releases a free web browser to ensure no one can stop their money flow. Microsoft makes money from PCs so releases IE to ensure it can control what people see. Apple makes money from iPhones and Macs and releases Safari to make sure iPhones and Macs aren't locked out of the market. Mozilla is funded primarily by Google, so the first statement about Google not being held hostage by the web browser applies again...