Let me introduce you to iTunes Music Store. An otherwise great service with no way to redownload previous purchases, if say for example your macbook crashes.
> Uh... yeah. That is kind of one of the things we're testing for: How quickly can people guess (which, in this context, is just another word for "learn" or "find out") how to do the tasks we think are important?
No, "learn" or "find out" would be looking it up in the manual. Arbitrarily clicking buttons of which you have no idea of the function is guessing.
Okay, now you're arguing semantics. Look, it doesn't matter what you call it. People don't read the manual, they learn how to use the application by just clicking around. Whether you call that "learning" or "guessing" simply does not matter.
What you're testing for certainly is how quickly people can guess how to do tasks you think are important.
Yes.
But that's not what you want to be testing for. What you want to test for is how quickly people can guess how to do tasks they think are important.
That depends on what you're testing. If you're testing something like amazon.com, we don't particularly care what the users think is important. We optimize the UI to make buying stuff as frictionless as possible. That means we test things like "can the user find the product he's looking for" and "can he finish the checkout process." OTOH, we might not test if the user manages to contact support (this is not a real example; I've never done usability testing for amazon and don't know what they optimize for).
If, on the other hand, you test something like an OS, then figuring out what to test becomes a bit more complicated. Often, we have use data and click maps and such which tells us the functions and paths most people use. In some cases (such as for software used in corporations), we can simply put a camera behind somebody's back for a few days to see what parts of the application they use. For web sites, we have traffic logs and click maps which tell us exactly what people are doing on the site.
In other words, either we know what to test for because we test the features important to the company who owns the UI, or we know what to test for because we have access to actual usage data.
As you can see, your suspicions have more to do with your lack of knowledge about the subject than with reality.
And no, I'm not baiting you. One of the reasons I like OSS is because it doesn't treat me like an idiot
But you are an idiot. Well, you're not really an idiot all the time, but you are an idiot while you learn something new (compared to people who are proficient with the thing you're learning).
and usually makes things easy for the experienced user at the expense of the novice.
It doesn't make things easy for the experienced user; at most, it makes things efficient for the experienced user.
And, since all (non-idiot) users eventually become experienced, this is a good trade-off: you're sacrificing short-term for long-term gain.
But you don't have to. Software can be easy to learn and efficient to use at the same time. And since most people never get over the initial learning curve if software is hard to learn, making software only efficient to use and not easy to learn is bad if you want mass acceptance.
People are busy. The aren't idiots just because they don't want to invest tons of time into what is essentially a tool. Most people don't consider using computers fulfilling in itself. You probably do, but most people don't. That doesn't make them idiots; you wouldn't want to spend a few hours learning how a drill works just so you can hang up a picture; likewise, people don't want to spend hours learning how to use an application just so they can order a book or write a letter or fix the red eyes in a picture.
As far as developers using programs differently than normal users, I really don't know what you're talking about.
I liked reading Elantris, but the book has very obvious flaws, such as the weak "deus ex machina" ending. I'd recommend it, but the Mistborn books are way better.
You have the typical social scientist's misunderstanding about what true science really is.
That's interesting, because I'm not actually a "social scientist". As I said, I studied computer science. I worked for the biology department at ETHZ writing genome sequencing software. I actually co-wrote published papers on de novo genome sequencing. This is some heavy-duty science involving maths and statistics and probability. My minor was in ergonomics/human computer interaction.
It's called the "quantitative fallacy". I believe you when you say that you do a test and get a number out of it. Woopdee-f*ing-doo. Now, what the hell does that number mean? It means the UI with the lower error rate is better? It does? Really? Of course not. Your error rate just means that out of your sample group (possibility for bias)
Of course there is a possibility for bias there, and when doing usability studies, you intentionally try to have a bias towards your target audience. You test UIs with a test group which is similar to the people who are going to use your interface.
Even so, we make sure that we take gender, income, age and such factors into account when putting together tests. And since the "control group" testing the second interface or the previous iteration is similarly biased, the bias even becomes a bit less important since it's unlikely that the people with the better results were smarter or a better fit for the UI than the other group.
people were able to more quickly guess how to do the tasks you thought were important
Uh... yeah. That is kind of one of the things we're testing for: How quickly can people guess (which, in this context, is just another word for "learn" or "find out") how to do the tasks we think are important?
Then, you try to use psychology to figure out why the UI that did better was actually better
Yeah, but that point is unimportant to the discussion. Psychology is not involved when testing UI, only when trying to improve it, so it has no influence on the actual test results comparing interfaces. And since the "improved" (sometimes they don't improve or get worse) UIs are tested again, it doesn't matter how we come up with the changes for the next iteration; you might as well do random changes if you hate psychology so much since the tests will make sure only "good" changes are retained.
So your whole point boils down to "there could potentially be bias when selecting the people you test, so usability is nothing but hand waving."
You should take a step back and rething your position. I think there's some major cognitive dissonance involved in how you try to rationalize your beliefs. Maybe you should consider whether your belief about usability could potentially be misguided.
It's highly unlikely the iPhone would be a step up from OpenMoko, though.
I won't comment on that as I have not used it.
The developers have been using it.
Developers use computers differently from 90% of the population. What's the best UI for developers is probably a pretty bad UI for the remaining 90% who are going to use the device. Developers are the special case when designing user interfaces: They understand how programs work. Normal people build a mental model of an application that is very far from how the application actually works. The application then has to accomodate that imaginary model. Developers don't do that; hence, applications designed for developers are different from applications designed for normal people (think vi vs. Word, Eclipse vs. Powerpoint).
So yeah, devs like different UIs, which explains why you like OpenMoko: its UI was made by developers and thus (probably, I have not used it) for developers (which is good for developers, but bad for the mass adoption of the device, since most people won't like its UI).
> Oh, yeah, they're perfectly usable, of course. I was able to enter appointments in my P990i, too, it's just that it drove me insane while I was doing so.
I looked up the P990i; it seems to be a fairly standard Symbian OS smartphone. If it caused you mental problems, switching away from it probably only hid the issue; you may wish to seek help.;-)
It is a fairly standard phone, and there's no doubt I should seek help, but I don't think one is connected with the other. The UI on the P990i was quite obviously designed by a bunch of wild monkeys on crack. Entering an appointment requires around 20 taps with the stylus (not including typing the actual appointment, of course). The animations the P990i throws at you after every tap make sure that you waste the maximum amount of time possible while you wait for menus to slide out of the screen's border, and applications to zoom in. And it regularly crashes and restarts, only to then insult you by claiming that it did not crash, but rather suddenly restarted "to improve performance".
> This is so wrong that it is absurd to me that anyone could ever even say something like this. I have no idea how to respond; it's like trying to respond to somebody who claims that the moon is made of cheese. Sure, it looks like that from here, but... really? You do believe that?
Yes, I don't think that iPhones, iPods, or the Mac UI (the OS is a decent Unix) is all that great, and I generally attribute assertions to the contrary to fanboism or Apple's advertising campaigns (or both).
That is the typical conclusions an uninformed person would come to. It seems to make sense. You've probably used a Mac or an iPod from time to time, and found it a bit confusing and not really better than what you've been using. That's because you're used to the stuff you're using, obviously. The fact that you're used to something else, however, does not mean that Apple's UI is not better than what you're using. It's just your subjective experience. In fact, Apple's UI is generally objectively better than comparable user interfaces. For example, Apple mandates that buttons contain verbs, while Windows defaults to "YesNo" dialog boxes. Apple mandates that the menu bar adheres to Fitt's law, while Windows makes it impossible to adhere to Fitt's law. This is not some kind of preference. These are measurable advantages of Apple's UI.
> By which you mean that it doesn't cram the screen full of crap I'm going to use once in a blue moon, thereby making the things I actually do use harder to use.
I don't have any complaints with Apple's use of screen real estate on the iPhone, really, except that I really like my devices to have hardware keyboards, and, since the iPhone doesn't, I'd need to use an on-screen keyboard all the time, and that would waste screen space.
Actually, hardware keyboards waste screen space, too, but they do it all the time instead of only when they're used. And if they don't (such as in a slide-out design), they make the device thicker, which is a killer for a cell phone, in my opinion.
> That is wrong. I majored in computer science, but my minor was in "work studies" (not sure what it's called in English - it's basically ergonomics and usability and workplace design and things like this). I now work as an interface designer, and I regularly do usability tests. Believe me, "intuitiveness" (which roughly translates to "how well can people use an interface if they've never seen it before") can be measured perfectly well.
What you're probably thinking of is called "human-computer interaction" in English. To be honest, I generally don't hold the subfield in very high regard; it's too much of a social science, and therefore lacks rigor.
Again, I must attribute that to your lack of experience. I encourage you to sit i
I usually would not respond to this, but I just must point out this delicious case of irony. There are many strange people on Slashdot. Even so, it's rare that you are insulted and called a Troll in the same post (one could even make the argument that it was in the same sentence).
Sanderson's Mistborn is a great book (and the first part of a trilogy, which is, I guess, why they give it away for free - the book has a proper ending, though, so you don't need to read the other two books if you end up not liking it). I haven't read the other one, but it has 4 1/2 stars on amazon.com, so I imagine it's pretty good, too.
Edge is faster than people think. My edge connection often reaches 200 kbps, which is actually not noticeably slower than what I used to get using UMTS. Downstream speed is perfectly usable for internet browsing; what I often find is that slow roundtrips is what makes Edge seem a bit poky.
Depends on what you want from your phone. If you just want a phone, the iPhone is abysmal - a Nokia 1110i beats it on price, size and robustness while being equally good on features.
True.
Likewise, if you're in Europe and want to use the UMTS network, the iPhone is a non-competitor.
Interestingly, I switched from an UMTS phone to an iPhone (in Switzerland, where UMTS coverage is pretty much 100%). For web surfing, I don't find the difference in speed very noticeable, frankly.
The iPhone apeals exactly to those users who want a stylish smartphone tht doesn't need to do 3G. Of course, once you start dropping requirements like "stylish", the number of alternatives goes up.
Stylish is not a requirement for me. Usability and efficiency are.
Has anyone ever told you that you seem like a bit of a simpleton? "I don't understand why he prefers this, thus he must be under the influence of some imaginary mind control device!"
Other phones are perfectly useable, and I'm sure the OpenMoko and Android phones will be as well.
Oh, yeah, they're perfectly usable, of course. I was able to enter appointments in my P990i, too, it's just that it drove me insane while I was doing so.
There's nothing special about iPhone usability
This is so wrong that it is absurd to me that anyone could ever even say something like this. I have no idea how to respond; it's like trying to respond to somebody who claims that the moon is made of cheese. Sure, it looks like that from here, but... really? You do believe that?
the interface doesn't make particularly good use of screen real estate
By which you mean that it doesn't cram the screen full of crap I'm going to use once in a blue moon, thereby making the things I actually do use harder to use.
and "intuitiveness" is so subjective it's not even worth arguing about.
That is wrong. I majored in computer science, but my minor was in "work studies" (not sure what it's called in English - it's basically ergonomics and usability and workplace design and things like this). I now work as an interface designer, and I regularly do usability tests. Believe me, "intuitiveness" (which roughly translates to "how well can people use an interface if they've never seen it before") can be measured perfectly well.
Awesome. And I'm not telling you to buy another phone. The N65 works perfectly well for you, better than any other phone. Good for you; I wouldn't tell you to use another phone. For many people, the iPhone works perfectly well, better than any other phone, which is why for those people, there are no alternatives. No other phone is as usable as an iPhone. No other phone offers as pleasant an interface as the iPhone. That's what's important to me, and that's why there is no alternative to the iPhone for me. For you, GPS and 3.5G are important, which is why you chose your phone.
See, you don't understand what makes the iPhone great, which is why you think "it isn't that great." The iPhone isn't "web browsing and phone." Tons of phones do web browsing. What makes the iPhone different is usability; frankly, I doubt an open source phone can compete with the iPhone at this point.
Look, I've been using smartphones since the P800i. I've used Symbian phones, Palm phones and even (for very short amounts of time) Windows CE phones. THEY ALL FUCKING SUCK. This sounds harsh, even crass, but it is unfortunately the truth. Nothing to do with marketing or spin or anything like this. The iPhone is the only phone I've ever owned that I don't hate. Not because it has more features or because it is prettier or anything like that, but simply because it works, it doesn't crash, and it's easy to use. It doesn't make me jump through hoops to enter appointments, it doesn't force me to enter tons of data to join a wireless network, it doesn't come with crappy sync software which never works. It just works exactly like a smartphone should work, and that is why there is no alternative to the iPhone. No other smartphone works as well.
I'm still not understanding the attraction of Apple's mice.
90% of all Mac owners are perfectly happy with them and don't even bother to turn on the second button. Which is good, because it forces developers to make user interfaces which don't make you hunt for features by right-clicking on every UI element (Word, I'm looking in your general direction).
At any rate, I think it's ovious that you simply like to complain. I suggest you look for a better reason, this one makes you look slightly lunatic. Why not rant about the fact that you have to pay for QuickTime Pro after buying Mac OS X? Or maybe rant about Apple's release notes for their applications, which often don't say more than "improved compatibility with Mac OS X"? There are valid reasons to complain about Apple. The mouse isn't one of them.
Not all Macs come with mice (in fact, only iMac and PowerMacs come with mice - MacBooks, MacBook Pros and Mac minis don't), and if you really hate the mice so much, you can sell them on eBay for quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
The author writes:
"certain points are arguable ('Doesn't use Mac OS X Leopard. Winner: MacBook Air').""But I don't see what's arguable about "Being able to legally run Windows and Mac OS X is better than only being able to run Windows."
This is blatantly false. E-Mail Apple and they will let you re-download your songs.
Not to mention that you can backup your iTunes music (in fact, iTunes has a built-in backup function). Can't do that with Xbox games.
> Uh... yeah. That is kind of one of the things we're testing for: How quickly can people guess (which, in this context, is just another word for "learn" or "find out") how to do the tasks we think are important?
No, "learn" or "find out" would be looking it up in the manual. Arbitrarily clicking buttons of which you have no idea of the function is guessing.
Okay, now you're arguing semantics. Look, it doesn't matter what you call it. People don't read the manual, they learn how to use the application by just clicking around. Whether you call that "learning" or "guessing" simply does not matter.
What you're testing for certainly is how quickly people can guess how to do tasks you think are important.
Yes.
But that's not what you want to be testing for. What you want to test for is how quickly people can guess how to do tasks they think are important.
That depends on what you're testing. If you're testing something like amazon.com, we don't particularly care what the users think is important. We optimize the UI to make buying stuff as frictionless as possible. That means we test things like "can the user find the product he's looking for" and "can he finish the checkout process." OTOH, we might not test if the user manages to contact support (this is not a real example; I've never done usability testing for amazon and don't know what they optimize for).
If, on the other hand, you test something like an OS, then figuring out what to test becomes a bit more complicated. Often, we have use data and click maps and such which tells us the functions and paths most people use. In some cases (such as for software used in corporations), we can simply put a camera behind somebody's back for a few days to see what parts of the application they use. For web sites, we have traffic logs and click maps which tell us exactly what people are doing on the site.
In other words, either we know what to test for because we test the features important to the company who owns the UI, or we know what to test for because we have access to actual usage data.
As you can see, your suspicions have more to do with your lack of knowledge about the subject than with reality.
And no, I'm not baiting you. One of the reasons I like OSS is because it doesn't treat me like an idiot
But you are an idiot. Well, you're not really an idiot all the time, but you are an idiot while you learn something new (compared to people who are proficient with the thing you're learning).
and usually makes things easy for the experienced user at the expense of the novice.
It doesn't make things easy for the experienced user; at most, it makes things efficient for the experienced user.
And, since all (non-idiot) users eventually become experienced, this is a good trade-off: you're sacrificing short-term for long-term gain.
But you don't have to. Software can be easy to learn and efficient to use at the same time. And since most people never get over the initial learning curve if software is hard to learn, making software only efficient to use and not easy to learn is bad if you want mass acceptance.
People are busy. The aren't idiots just because they don't want to invest tons of time into what is essentially a tool. Most people don't consider using computers fulfilling in itself. You probably do, but most people don't. That doesn't make them idiots; you wouldn't want to spend a few hours learning how a drill works just so you can hang up a picture; likewise, people don't want to spend hours learning how to use an application just so they can order a book or write a letter or fix the red eyes in a picture.
As far as developers using programs differently than normal users, I really don't know what you're talking about.
Consider drivi
I liked reading Elantris, but the book has very obvious flaws, such as the weak "deus ex machina" ending. I'd recommend it, but the Mistborn books are way better.
You have the typical social scientist's misunderstanding about what true science really is.
That's interesting, because I'm not actually a "social scientist". As I said, I studied computer science. I worked for the biology department at ETHZ writing genome sequencing software. I actually co-wrote published papers on de novo genome sequencing. This is some heavy-duty science involving maths and statistics and probability. My minor was in ergonomics/human computer interaction.
It's called the "quantitative fallacy". I believe you when you say that you do a test and get a number out of it. Woopdee-f*ing-doo. Now, what the hell does that number mean? It means the UI with the lower error rate is better? It does? Really? Of course not. Your error rate just means that out of your sample group (possibility for bias)
Of course there is a possibility for bias there, and when doing usability studies, you intentionally try to have a bias towards your target audience. You test UIs with a test group which is similar to the people who are going to use your interface.
Even so, we make sure that we take gender, income, age and such factors into account when putting together tests. And since the "control group" testing the second interface or the previous iteration is similarly biased, the bias even becomes a bit less important since it's unlikely that the people with the better results were smarter or a better fit for the UI than the other group.
people were able to more quickly guess how to do the tasks you thought were important
Uh... yeah. That is kind of one of the things we're testing for: How quickly can people guess (which, in this context, is just another word for "learn" or "find out") how to do the tasks we think are important?
Then, you try to use psychology to figure out why the UI that did better was actually better
Yeah, but that point is unimportant to the discussion. Psychology is not involved when testing UI, only when trying to improve it, so it has no influence on the actual test results comparing interfaces. And since the "improved" (sometimes they don't improve or get worse) UIs are tested again, it doesn't matter how we come up with the changes for the next iteration; you might as well do random changes if you hate psychology so much since the tests will make sure only "good" changes are retained.
So your whole point boils down to "there could potentially be bias when selecting the people you test, so usability is nothing but hand waving."
You should take a step back and rething your position. I think there's some major cognitive dissonance involved in how you try to rationalize your beliefs. Maybe you should consider whether your belief about usability could potentially be misguided.
It's highly unlikely the iPhone would be a step up from OpenMoko, though.
I won't comment on that as I have not used it.
The developers have been using it.
Developers use computers differently from 90% of the population. What's the best UI for developers is probably a pretty bad UI for the remaining 90% who are going to use the device. Developers are the special case when designing user interfaces: They understand how programs work. Normal people build a mental model of an application that is very far from how the application actually works. The application then has to accomodate that imaginary model. Developers don't do that; hence, applications designed for developers are different from applications designed for normal people (think vi vs. Word, Eclipse vs. Powerpoint).
So yeah, devs like different UIs, which explains why you like OpenMoko: its UI was made by developers and thus (probably, I have not used it) for developers (which is good for developers, but bad for the mass adoption of the device, since most people won't like its UI).
> Oh, yeah, they're perfectly usable, of course. I was able to enter appointments in my P990i, too, it's just that it drove me insane while I was doing so.
I looked up the P990i; it seems to be a fairly standard Symbian OS smartphone. If it caused you mental problems, switching away from it probably only hid the issue; you may wish to seek help. ;-)
It is a fairly standard phone, and there's no doubt I should seek help, but I don't think one is connected with the other. The UI on the P990i was quite obviously designed by a bunch of wild monkeys on crack. Entering an appointment requires around 20 taps with the stylus (not including typing the actual appointment, of course). The animations the P990i throws at you after every tap make sure that you waste the maximum amount of time possible while you wait for menus to slide out of the screen's border, and applications to zoom in. And it regularly crashes and restarts, only to then insult you by claiming that it did not crash, but rather suddenly restarted "to improve performance".
> This is so wrong that it is absurd to me that anyone could ever even say something like this. I have no idea how to respond; it's like trying to respond to somebody who claims that the moon is made of cheese. Sure, it looks like that from here, but... really? You do believe that?
Yes, I don't think that iPhones, iPods, or the Mac UI (the OS is a decent Unix) is all that great, and I generally attribute assertions to the contrary to fanboism or Apple's advertising campaigns (or both).
That is the typical conclusions an uninformed person would come to. It seems to make sense. You've probably used a Mac or an iPod from time to time, and found it a bit confusing and not really better than what you've been using. That's because you're used to the stuff you're using, obviously. The fact that you're used to something else, however, does not mean that Apple's UI is not better than what you're using. It's just your subjective experience. In fact, Apple's UI is generally objectively better than comparable user interfaces. For example, Apple mandates that buttons contain verbs, while Windows defaults to "YesNo" dialog boxes. Apple mandates that the menu bar adheres to Fitt's law, while Windows makes it impossible to adhere to Fitt's law. This is not some kind of preference. These are measurable advantages of Apple's UI.
> By which you mean that it doesn't cram the screen full of crap I'm going to use once in a blue moon, thereby making the things I actually do use harder to use.
I don't have any complaints with Apple's use of screen real estate on the iPhone, really, except that I really like my devices to have hardware keyboards, and, since the iPhone doesn't, I'd need to use an on-screen keyboard all the time, and that would waste screen space.
Actually, hardware keyboards waste screen space, too, but they do it all the time instead of only when they're used. And if they don't (such as in a slide-out design), they make the device thicker, which is a killer for a cell phone, in my opinion.
> That is wrong. I majored in computer science, but my minor was in "work studies" (not sure what it's called in English - it's basically ergonomics and usability and workplace design and things like this). I now work as an interface designer, and I regularly do usability tests. Believe me, "intuitiveness" (which roughly translates to "how well can people use an interface if they've never seen it before") can be measured perfectly well.
What you're probably thinking of is called "human-computer interaction" in English. To be honest, I generally don't hold the subfield in very high regard; it's too much of a social science, and therefore lacks rigor.
Again, I must attribute that to your lack of experience. I encourage you to sit i
I usually would not respond to this, but I just must point out this delicious case of irony. There are many strange people on Slashdot. Even so, it's rare that you are insulted and called a Troll in the same post (one could even make the argument that it was in the same sentence).
Congratulations on this achievement.
Sanderson's Mistborn is a great book (and the first part of a trilogy, which is, I guess, why they give it away for free - the book has a proper ending, though, so you don't need to read the other two books if you end up not liking it). I haven't read the other one, but it has 4 1/2 stars on amazon.com, so I imagine it's pretty good, too.
You do realize of course that a good Edge connection is way faster than 180 kbps, don't you?
Edge is faster than people think. My edge connection often reaches 200 kbps, which is actually not noticeably slower than what I used to get using UMTS. Downstream speed is perfectly usable for internet browsing; what I often find is that slow roundtrips is what makes Edge seem a bit poky.
I'm not in the US, I'm in Europe, and you obviously have never used a Nokia Communicator if you think its UI is equal to the iPhone's.
True.
Likewise, if you're in Europe and want to use the UMTS network, the iPhone is a non-competitor.Interestingly, I switched from an UMTS phone to an iPhone (in Switzerland, where UMTS coverage is pretty much 100%). For web surfing, I don't find the difference in speed very noticeable, frankly.
The iPhone apeals exactly to those users who want a stylish smartphone tht doesn't need to do 3G. Of course, once you start dropping requirements like "stylish", the number of alternatives goes up.Stylish is not a requirement for me. Usability and efficiency are.
That is not what makes an iPhone an iPhone. Better luck next time.
Has anyone ever told you that you seem like a bit of a simpleton? "I don't understand why he prefers this, thus he must be under the influence of some imaginary mind control device!"
Oh, yeah, they're perfectly usable, of course. I was able to enter appointments in my P990i, too, it's just that it drove me insane while I was doing so.
There's nothing special about iPhone usabilityThis is so wrong that it is absurd to me that anyone could ever even say something like this. I have no idea how to respond; it's like trying to respond to somebody who claims that the moon is made of cheese. Sure, it looks like that from here, but... really? You do believe that?
the interface doesn't make particularly good use of screen real estateBy which you mean that it doesn't cram the screen full of crap I'm going to use once in a blue moon, thereby making the things I actually do use harder to use.
and "intuitiveness" is so subjective it's not even worth arguing about.That is wrong. I majored in computer science, but my minor was in "work studies" (not sure what it's called in English - it's basically ergonomics and usability and workplace design and things like this). I now work as an interface designer, and I regularly do usability tests. Believe me, "intuitiveness" (which roughly translates to "how well can people use an interface if they've never seen it before") can be measured perfectly well.
Awesome. And I'm not telling you to buy another phone. The N65 works perfectly well for you, better than any other phone. Good for you; I wouldn't tell you to use another phone. For many people, the iPhone works perfectly well, better than any other phone, which is why for those people, there are no alternatives. No other phone is as usable as an iPhone. No other phone offers as pleasant an interface as the iPhone. That's what's important to me, and that's why there is no alternative to the iPhone for me. For you, GPS and 3.5G are important, which is why you chose your phone.
Its look isn't what makes an iPhone a better phone. Its human interface is. None of these offer the iPhone's human interface.
See, you don't understand what makes the iPhone great, which is why you think "it isn't that great." The iPhone isn't "web browsing and phone." Tons of phones do web browsing. What makes the iPhone different is usability; frankly, I doubt an open source phone can compete with the iPhone at this point.
If you think these are alternatives to the iPhone, you don't understand why people like the iPhone. Hint: It's not the looks.
Look, I've been using smartphones since the P800i. I've used Symbian phones, Palm phones and even (for very short amounts of time) Windows CE phones. THEY ALL FUCKING SUCK. This sounds harsh, even crass, but it is unfortunately the truth. Nothing to do with marketing or spin or anything like this. The iPhone is the only phone I've ever owned that I don't hate. Not because it has more features or because it is prettier or anything like that, but simply because it works, it doesn't crash, and it's easy to use. It doesn't make me jump through hoops to enter appointments, it doesn't force me to enter tons of data to join a wireless network, it doesn't come with crappy sync software which never works. It just works exactly like a smartphone should work, and that is why there is no alternative to the iPhone. No other smartphone works as well.
There are alternatives to Hotmail. There are none to the iPhone (so far).
Oh, never mind then. In that case, it's perfectly reasonable to complain about the mouse! :-)
90% of all Mac owners are perfectly happy with them and don't even bother to turn on the second button. Which is good, because it forces developers to make user interfaces which don't make you hunt for features by right-clicking on every UI element (Word, I'm looking in your general direction).
At any rate, I think it's ovious that you simply like to complain. I suggest you look for a better reason, this one makes you look slightly lunatic. Why not rant about the fact that you have to pay for QuickTime Pro after buying Mac OS X? Or maybe rant about Apple's release notes for their applications, which often don't say more than "improved compatibility with Mac OS X"? There are valid reasons to complain about Apple. The mouse isn't one of them.
Not all Macs come with mice (in fact, only iMac and PowerMacs come with mice - MacBooks, MacBook Pros and Mac minis don't), and if you really hate the mice so much, you can sell them on eBay for quite a bit.
You missed my point: You didn't get this mouse with your computer, you bought it extra. You can do the same, and use that very same mouse on a Mac.