I can't speak of the motivations of your friend, but that's sounds like a perfectly justifiable method of protesting invasions of privacy. Someone could be the most productive person in the company - but if the company decides to "be an ass" and pull measures like drug testing, I'll say good luck to him if he decides to do this in response. If everyone did this, maybe we'd see a quick end to this phenomenon.
Yeah, that's you and the company. So tell me, why should the Government be obliged to enforce what a company wants?
The company can ask people to sign whatever contracts they like. And if they sack someone for not following the contract, that's one thing. But non-competes could only have any effect if companies were able to sue you for breaking them (since you're no longer working there, so they can't exactly sack you) - well, the state is not obliged to enforce these contracts, so tough luck for the company.
Standard copyright law is that someone owns by default any work that they produce, which is why software companies say in the contract that work you produce using company resources has the copyright assigned to them. Is there some court ruling in some places that state this is trumped if you're working for a company, even if there isn't anything in the contract about it?
If that is so, would anyone explain to me why those numerous ideas don't make it into the final products? Because after 20 years of gaming experience starting with C64, I fail to recognize the great ideas in the final games. It is in fact not easy to see even a grain of creativity in the majority of recent gaming titles and especially their story-telling sucks. What happens to those great ideas when the end product is just dull, repetitive monster-shooting?
Well, there's "ideas" then there's "idea that is totally original and never been done before".
Of course, lots of "ideas-people" insist their idea is in the latter category:
By the way, I have some general game engine idea that is completely novel, technically realizable, and guarantees long-term commercial success while being reusable and not tied to a particular genre.
But you would say that, wouldn't you. There is no reason to believe it, especially when you won't tell anyone what the idea is.
Anyway my impression is that business environments destroy most creativity and suppress good ideas, so large companies or game studios should better listen to the ideas of their customers.
The former might be true, but the latter does not follow. It is a problem that due to the huge investment required, people are less likely to follow more risky novel ideas. But the problem is still not the lack of ideas, it's the risk in doing something unusual. If you are willing to front the millions of dollars required for your brand new idea, then please step forward.
If a company does decide to do something a bit more risky, there is a long list of "ideas" people: the designers, the programmers, the managers, the people putting up the money, the guy who cleans up the trash - before they start resorting to a random guy on the street who has no knowledge or experience in game development.
(Also I suspect that many companies do do market research that involves looking at what customers like, but that doesn't translate into them writing the pet idea for one particular customer.)
Your ideas website sounds interesting. How would I know if the idea is any good before seeing it? I'm not sure that any programmer would be willing to pay money to see random ideas, and certainly not more than a trivial amount. Also as others have said, it just opens them up to a lawsuit if they do something that they had as an idea, but someone claims they saw it on this site.
I'm curious about this - here in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights is not solely related to what the Government can do. Mostly notably is the recent case in the UK of Max Mosley, where a court ruled that the News of the World had violated his right to privacy by secretly filming his private sexual acts and then publishing it. The court orderd the NOTW to pay him £60,000 in compensation, and a further £450,000 in costs.
So is the US Constitution really more restrictive than the ECHR, in that the former only applies to actions by the Government?
Anyhow, I wonder if there aren't other laws that could apply. For starters there's installing spyware without authorisation. And are there any laws against voyeurism in the US?
Well indeed, I think it's fine if you have something to contribute, either as the programmer or someone with knowledge of designing educational products. As I say, "write it yourself (or as part of a team you put together)". This shouldn't be confused with people who are just trying to sell ideas - there seems to be a lot of other people (on forums like http://gamedev.net/ at least) thinking that their contribution needs be nothing more than "ideas".
Design can be a tricky one, because even if someone has written a fully fledged design document, it can be hard to know how well it will work until it's implemented, so I imagine it may be hard convincing people to work with you unless you pay them, they're your friends, you have a proven track record of past game design, or you are able to put together a working demo yourself to show people (you say "I can program a bit, but I have no idea how to make anything like a finished product." - that may be enough to attract programmers who can make a finished product, and will separate you from the "I have a great idea!" people).
But some ideas [wikipedia.org] are worth a million dollars
Ah that one. Everyone talks about the idea but I'm still not convinced the idea alone was what was important. I mean, how did it go from some kid trying to sell advertising space at a stupidly high price, to a popular site that everyone was talking about? The real questions are to do with how the word was spread in the early stages.
Think about it - if you had that idea ten years ago, would you be a millionaire now? I don't think I would be. We've all had those money making schemes where the ideas are no less good, but only a tiny minority of them, through other factors (either blind luck, or working hard at implementing the ideas) amount to anything.
It's a bit like me saying "I have this great idea for a car. But I have no idea how to make cars, but maybe I can persuade a car company to make my idea?"
Basically, you either have to write it yourself (or as part of a team you put together - but this involves contributing something yourself, as few programmers like to work for free on someone else's "idea"), or pay a team to write it for you (as in upfront, not "I promise you X% of the money I make").
The poster should not be thinking about selling a "video game idea", he should think about selling a "video game". Write the game, then think about selling it, either themselves independently, or to a publisher. Don't expect a publisher to give money to write the game though.
Forums like http://gamedev.net/ will have far more specialised knowledge and experience than Slashdot. But there are also a million other people there going "Hey, I got a great idea for a game!"
conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice. to inflict serious physical &/or psychological damage on a specific individual.
Aren't there already laws regarding harrassment?
I agree with the OP that using this particular law is dangerous, because I don't see this is a misuse to do with computers, and I think it's dangerous to say that violating a TOS is what is illegal. This behaviour would have been just as bad whether or not it violated MySpace's TOS, and violating a TOS in general shouldn't be illegal.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't another existing law that could be sensibly applied, and I fear that any new knee-jerk law would also be overly broad, or miss the point (supposing the new law created said that violating a TOS was illegal?)
(Don't forget whether it will affect house prices, or whether it's made by gypsy lesbians!)
It might be true, it might not. The point is, the source is unreliable, and speculation is not news. If this was anything other than Apple, people would be ridiculing it as vaporware.
Yeah - I find it curious (and worrying) that whilst British mainstream news articles posted tends to be from the BBC or the broadsheets, and Slashdot wouldn't touch tabloids with a bargepole, the Daily Mail is an exception. It makes me embarrassed to be British when I see it quoted on International sites, and read by people who have no idea of what the newspaper is like.
I suggest we start tagging these articles "dailyfail", so that we know what the source for them is.
Agreed - and to refer to the earlier post, "experts" is common Daily Mail speak, almost always used without references or even being attributed to who these experts are. It typically means "actually we don't have a clue who says this, but we'll say 'experts' to make it look convincing".
If this was any other product speculation, it would be branded vaporware. And to add to that is the fact that it comes from an unreliable source such as the Daily Mail. But because it's Apple, it gets lapped up here on Slashdot...
Everyone's heard of Nokia (even without all the free advertising and spam that Apple get for their phone). The only difference is that because Nokia make more than one phone, people tend not to remember every single model of phone they make.
You call it a quirk, I call it a bug, no different to if it didn't have a Delete key, for example. If any other phone missed out on fundamental features, it'd be a laughing stock if there were nonetheless so many stories about it on Slashdot - but because it's Apple, it's seen as worth sacrificing.
I trust Apple will add features,especially those for busienss use, with new software releases, as eveidenced by teh addition of Exchange.
That's just it though - I expect a phone to Just Work, and not have to wait until Apple decide for me that I need those features.
Add me to the list of people who happily did programming and web browsing years ago in 640x256. Hell, come to that what about all the programming people did on 8 bits with even lower resolutions (256x192 on the Spectrum, for me)? This is Slashdot, isn't it?
It only seems mad now because everything else has got bigger too - fonts, GUIs and so on. When things are designed for a lower resolution, it's a lot better.
And people happily browse and do all sorts on mobile devices with far smaller screens and lower resolutions... You really can't make a judgement based on how poor a modern Windows desktop PC performs through a TV.
I refer you to this post - your argument boils down to "My cheap phone was crap, so the Iphone is the best".
The point you are missing is that, even if all the cheap phones have these flaws (I have no problem with copy and paste, Java, MMS, Video recording, btw), there are other expensive phones on the market. Which have these features, and don't have the flaws that the cheap phones have. I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm not saying the Iphone doesn't necessarily do some things better. I'm just not sure why the Iphone is treated as the holy grail of phones to be viewed above and beyond every other phone on the market. It isn't. It's just yet another phone in the higher end of the market. If the best you can come up with in its favour is that it does well against cheap phones - well, that says it all.
I don't think one is in a position to criticise the implementation of copy/paste when the Iphone does not do that at all. Whether it's easy to use or not, a phone that has it is immensely easier to use than one that doesn't allow me to do this. It's not even something I would call a "feature" - it's a basic requirement, and not having it is a bug, just the same as if it didn't have a delete key (the Iphone does allow you to delete, right? I have to ask, given what else it lacks). My Motorola phone can copy from text messages - if yours can't, I'd say it's just as poor as the Iphone.
Your criticism of Itap is specific to Itap - as you say, T9 works fine, and there are loads of phones that do that. No argument for the Iphone here.
I can play mp3s through a standard audio output jack. As for the camera buttons on the outside, you might like to investigate the "Phone lock" feature (and before you say it's a pain to lock it, you have to lock non-flip-phones anyway; plus at least you don't risk dialing 999/911 accidently, which even locking won't prevent).
And the Java is fast enough to be useable for me - again, you can't make a criticism of this when the Iphone doesn't even have it.
Sure, it's not perfect in every single way, and sure, I've never used an iPhone and I'm talking out of my ass. I do know, though, if Apple put as much effort into the design and user interaction with the iPhone as they did with the iPod, it's gonna be miles and miles ahead of its competitors.
Ah, so now we see it, you haven't even used one. This was the point of my post - you're comparing based on brand, not based on product. By this logic, Microsoft's Zune should have been a market leader, based on the success of Windows. And the Ipod should have been a niche product used only by a few, based on the minimal success of Macs.
Sure - I mean that there should be objective ways, even if it isn't quantifiable. The OP I replied to suggested that because it couldn't be measured with numbers, it was intrinsically some subjective thing that couldn't be discussed, and so saying "It just is better because it is" is sufficient.
I agree there are cases where it may be a matter of opinion which UI is better, but we should still be able to discuss how each product works, and what the advantages of each method are, rather than just saying "X product has a better UI because it does" "No, Y product has a better UI because it just works". That's a good point about Fitz's Law, and would be a reasonable counter argument when discussing menuing systems of different OSs.
I don't know why I got modded insightful, but it probably helps when you can make an argument without resorting to ad hominems...
I own plenty of things with utility, but I can explain why they are useful. Yes, I also have things that have no quantifiable utility, such as random scraps of paper or the rubbish that I haven't thrown out yet... not sure why you want to compare the Iphone to these!
I would hope that Apple are selling the shit with the vast amounts of media coverage and hype they get - but nonetheless, their sales are dwarfed by those of other phone companies. I get why a phone company can sell phones. What I don't get is why the Iphone is treated like the holy grail of phones, above and beyond every other phone in existence.
So Samsung make a crappy phone. The whole point of my post was that "X phone is crap" does not imply "Iphone is better than all other phones". Actually this seems to be a common theme with Apple - practically all Mac advocacy is not about what's good about the Mac, but what's bad about Windows. But this argument is even more tenuous with phones, where the number of products on the market is far greater than the number of desktop computer platforms.
For example, on my phone (a standard several-year-old phone), Delete is the first option available. I can send photos at a click of a button (via MMS or email, btw - I'm not restricted). There's nothing special about my phone - it only cost £80 a few years ago, and that was full price on Pay As You Go, no discount. I don't see millions of articles on Slashdot or the media about it. It just works. If the Iphone can only be made to look good in comparison to the worst phones on the market - well, that says it all.
If I wanted to email the photos off the camera to someone, I had to upgrade my plan to include wireless internet, which was another $20 a month.
That's a network issue, not a phone issue. Even bog standard phones come with Internet access as standard now. In fact, they did in 2005 - that must have been a really poor phone/network you were unlucky to pick.
"their agreements"? I think this sums up the point with EULAs - an agreement is between you and something else; something decided only by them is not, by definition, an "agreement".
Anyhow, maybe the person's rules "and agreements" say that he can do this, so that's tough luck to Apple.
Although I do agree - people should buy one of the many just as good and cheaper phones that don't have this problem.
It's that their ease-of-use is notably superior. It's hard to measure 'ease of use'. You can't really quantify it. It's not like megapixels, gigabytes, or battery life... it doesn't really go down to numbers.
Well that makes it easy!
So I claim that the Iphone has the worst UI. You can't claim I'm wrong, because as you say, it's hard to measure "ease of use", so when I claim there are much better phones, you can't prove me wrong on this issue.
But seriously, that it's unmeasurable is a myth put out by those who what to claim that there's something special about the Iphone. This argument would never work for any other company's product (imagine it: "Who cares about all the flaws in Windows - it just is better. It's better in ways we can't measure or quantify, it just is" - would that be accepted?)
UI is quantifiable in all sorts of ways, for example, explaining how a particular process is achieved on different phones, or by comparing features that might make a process quicker. E.g., how do I copy text from somewhere to somewhere else?
There are plenty of examples of quantifying user interface on operating systems. E.g., menus at the top of the screen (as in AmigaOS, MacOS) are better that those not at the top (as in Windows), or proportional scrollbars give a better visual representation than non-proportional scrollbars (as in classic MacOS), or up/down arrows next to each other on a scrollbar (as in AmigaOS) are quicker to access than those at opposite ends on the scrollbar (as in Windows). Anyone who claims that UI is inherently something we can't measure is just grasping at straws to claim that their favourite expensive product is better, and they fail anyway, because I can just as easily claim my dirt cheap phone has the better UI - and by your own rules, you can't claim I'm wrong, because UI is unmeasurable.
Do you think the iPod succeeded just because people like Apple?... Most of the other mp3 players have jagged edges that make them uncomfortable to use... a button that accidentally pauses the music if you have the player in your pocket... a stupid menu that takes 4 clicks to play music, but 2 to change contrast... a short battery life... too heavy... bad software...
The Ipod was a decent product. This topic is about the Iphone. Furthermore, you contradict your own argument. You've provided numerous examples of why the Ipod was better. So much for "it's unmeasurable"! So where are the same reasons for the Iphone?
It's not that Apple products are so superior in every way. It's that they have no strong weaknesses other than big price tags.
[Leaving aside a few basic functionality that even cheap phones have such as copy/paste, Java, MMS, video recording, and it only just finally got 3G.] If you agree that the Iphone is not superior, and it has no major weaknesses either, then that's the point: it's just yet another phone, and there's nothing special about it. Lots of phones fall into this middle ground category
But brand appeal can't carry a bad product... their products are good, AND they have brand appeal. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.
I'm not the one with my head in the sand saying "You can't measure UI, it just is better".
Brand appeal is important - this is shown by the very fact that you tried to claim the Iphone is better be saying how the Ipod was better. Your logic is that they're both "Apple", therefore the Iphone must be good too. That's judging not by product, but by brand. Do you think the Iphone would be getting even a fraction of media coverage it gets, if it wasn't produced by Apple? Brand appeal is everything to Apple. Consider how Macs today are nothing to do with older Macs (different hardware, different OS), but no one says "Well, Apple had to ditch the old OS because they finally realised it was so awful), rather, they're all considered to be the same platform.
Fine, I can concede that point as long as we ignore the whole "usability" issue. I currently have a phone that has most of the features that everyone raves about on the iPhone, but I've never used them. It doesn't even occur to me to use them because I feel like I need a PhD in computer science with a specialization in programing for imbedded devices to figure out how to use the damn features. You don't have that problem? Good for you but the general public shares my frustrations and seem to have been able to figure out the iPhone without so much as having to by an "iPhone for Idiot's" book.
So you picked up a crappy phone. That doesn't mean the Iphone is the best phone, it means that your phone is a crappy phone. I could do the same argument for any phone, e.g., "I can't work out how to use my phone, therefore the Nokia XXX is much better than all other phones"
(I also doubt that "everyone raves" about them - maybe a subset of people on Slashdot who like Apple products, but haven't use mobile phones in a while, and are under the delusion that Internet access on phones is a new feature.)
Do you actually own an Iphone? Or are you seriously basing your argument solely on owning a crappy phone yourself, and being envious at all the Apple-fans on Slashdot who rave about the Iphone?
I use features such as browsing the web and email on my phone, and it's just a bog standard dirt cheap phone. Give us an example of somthing that's easier on the Iphone than all other phones? People throw around this assertion, but no one ever justifies it. Here's an example of objective UI feature comparison: The Iphone fails at basic UI functionality such as copy/paste.
Slashdot Mirror
just to be an ass.
I can't speak of the motivations of your friend, but that's sounds like a perfectly justifiable method of protesting invasions of privacy. Someone could be the most productive person in the company - but if the company decides to "be an ass" and pull measures like drug testing, I'll say good luck to him if he decides to do this in response. If everyone did this, maybe we'd see a quick end to this phenomenon.
that's your issue with the company
Yeah, that's you and the company. So tell me, why should the Government be obliged to enforce what a company wants?
The company can ask people to sign whatever contracts they like. And if they sack someone for not following the contract, that's one thing. But non-competes could only have any effect if companies were able to sue you for breaking them (since you're no longer working there, so they can't exactly sack you) - well, the state is not obliged to enforce these contracts, so tough luck for the company.
Standard copyright law is that someone owns by default any work that they produce, which is why software companies say in the contract that work you produce using company resources has the copyright assigned to them. Is there some court ruling in some places that state this is trumped if you're working for a company, even if there isn't anything in the contract about it?
If that is so, would anyone explain to me why those numerous ideas don't make it into the final products? Because after 20 years of gaming experience starting with C64, I fail to recognize the great ideas in the final games. It is in fact not easy to see even a grain of creativity in the majority of recent gaming titles and especially their story-telling sucks. What happens to those great ideas when the end product is just dull, repetitive monster-shooting?
Well, there's "ideas" then there's "idea that is totally original and never been done before".
Of course, lots of "ideas-people" insist their idea is in the latter category:
By the way, I have some general game engine idea that is completely novel, technically realizable, and guarantees long-term commercial success while being reusable and not tied to a particular genre.
But you would say that, wouldn't you. There is no reason to believe it, especially when you won't tell anyone what the idea is.
Anyway my impression is that business environments destroy most creativity and suppress good ideas, so large companies or game studios should better listen to the ideas of their customers.
The former might be true, but the latter does not follow. It is a problem that due to the huge investment required, people are less likely to follow more risky novel ideas. But the problem is still not the lack of ideas, it's the risk in doing something unusual. If you are willing to front the millions of dollars required for your brand new idea, then please step forward.
If a company does decide to do something a bit more risky, there is a long list of "ideas" people: the designers, the programmers, the managers, the people putting up the money, the guy who cleans up the trash - before they start resorting to a random guy on the street who has no knowledge or experience in game development.
(Also I suspect that many companies do do market research that involves looking at what customers like, but that doesn't translate into them writing the pet idea for one particular customer.)
Your ideas website sounds interesting. How would I know if the idea is any good before seeing it? I'm not sure that any programmer would be willing to pay money to see random ideas, and certainly not more than a trivial amount. Also as others have said, it just opens them up to a lawsuit if they do something that they had as an idea, but someone claims they saw it on this site.
I'm curious about this - here in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights is not solely related to what the Government can do. Mostly notably is the recent case in the UK of Max Mosley, where a court ruled that the News of the World had violated his right to privacy by secretly filming his private sexual acts and then publishing it. The court orderd the NOTW to pay him £60,000 in compensation, and a further £450,000 in costs.
So is the US Constitution really more restrictive than the ECHR, in that the former only applies to actions by the Government?
Anyhow, I wonder if there aren't other laws that could apply. For starters there's installing spyware without authorisation. And are there any laws against voyeurism in the US?
Well indeed, I think it's fine if you have something to contribute, either as the programmer or someone with knowledge of designing educational products. As I say, "write it yourself (or as part of a team you put together)". This shouldn't be confused with people who are just trying to sell ideas - there seems to be a lot of other people (on forums like http://gamedev.net/ at least) thinking that their contribution needs be nothing more than "ideas".
Design can be a tricky one, because even if someone has written a fully fledged design document, it can be hard to know how well it will work until it's implemented, so I imagine it may be hard convincing people to work with you unless you pay them, they're your friends, you have a proven track record of past game design, or you are able to put together a working demo yourself to show people (you say "I can program a bit, but I have no idea how to make anything like a finished product." - that may be enough to attract programmers who can make a finished product, and will separate you from the "I have a great idea!" people).
But some ideas [wikipedia.org] are worth a million dollars
Ah that one. Everyone talks about the idea but I'm still not convinced the idea alone was what was important. I mean, how did it go from some kid trying to sell advertising space at a stupidly high price, to a popular site that everyone was talking about? The real questions are to do with how the word was spread in the early stages.
Think about it - if you had that idea ten years ago, would you be a millionaire now? I don't think I would be. We've all had those money making schemes where the ideas are no less good, but only a tiny minority of them, through other factors (either blind luck, or working hard at implementing the ideas) amount to anything.
It's a bit like me saying "I have this great idea for a car. But I have no idea how to make cars, but maybe I can persuade a car company to make my idea?"
Basically, you either have to write it yourself (or as part of a team you put together - but this involves contributing something yourself, as few programmers like to work for free on someone else's "idea"), or pay a team to write it for you (as in upfront, not "I promise you X% of the money I make").
I entirely agree.
The poster should not be thinking about selling a "video game idea", he should think about selling a "video game". Write the game, then think about selling it, either themselves independently, or to a publisher. Don't expect a publisher to give money to write the game though.
Forums like http://gamedev.net/ will have far more specialised knowledge and experience than Slashdot. But there are also a million other people there going "Hey, I got a great idea for a game!"
conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice. to inflict serious physical &/or psychological damage on a specific individual.
Aren't there already laws regarding harrassment?
I agree with the OP that using this particular law is dangerous, because I don't see this is a misuse to do with computers, and I think it's dangerous to say that violating a TOS is what is illegal. This behaviour would have been just as bad whether or not it violated MySpace's TOS, and violating a TOS in general shouldn't be illegal.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't another existing law that could be sensibly applied, and I fear that any new knee-jerk law would also be overly broad, or miss the point (supposing the new law created said that violating a TOS was illegal?)
Well I got a 3G phone years ago.
(Don't forget whether it will affect house prices, or whether it's made by gypsy lesbians!)
It might be true, it might not. The point is, the source is unreliable, and speculation is not news. If this was anything other than Apple, people would be ridiculing it as vaporware.
Will it run Duke Nukem Forever?
Yeah - I find it curious (and worrying) that whilst British mainstream news articles posted tends to be from the BBC or the broadsheets, and Slashdot wouldn't touch tabloids with a bargepole, the Daily Mail is an exception. It makes me embarrassed to be British when I see it quoted on International sites, and read by people who have no idea of what the newspaper is like.
I suggest we start tagging these articles "dailyfail", so that we know what the source for them is.
Agreed - and to refer to the earlier post, "experts" is common Daily Mail speak, almost always used without references or even being attributed to who these experts are. It typically means "actually we don't have a clue who says this, but we'll say 'experts' to make it look convincing".
If this was any other product speculation, it would be branded vaporware. And to add to that is the fact that it comes from an unreliable source such as the Daily Mail. But because it's Apple, it gets lapped up here on Slashdot...
Everyone's heard of Nokia (even without all the free advertising and spam that Apple get for their phone). The only difference is that because Nokia make more than one phone, people tend not to remember every single model of phone they make.
It has its quirks - no cut and past
You call it a quirk, I call it a bug, no different to if it didn't have a Delete key, for example. If any other phone missed out on fundamental features, it'd be a laughing stock if there were nonetheless so many stories about it on Slashdot - but because it's Apple, it's seen as worth sacrificing.
I trust Apple will add features,especially those for busienss use, with new software releases, as eveidenced by teh addition of Exchange.
That's just it though - I expect a phone to Just Work, and not have to wait until Apple decide for me that I need those features.
Add me to the list of people who happily did programming and web browsing years ago in 640x256. Hell, come to that what about all the programming people did on 8 bits with even lower resolutions (256x192 on the Spectrum, for me)? This is Slashdot, isn't it?
It only seems mad now because everything else has got bigger too - fonts, GUIs and so on. When things are designed for a lower resolution, it's a lot better.
And people happily browse and do all sorts on mobile devices with far smaller screens and lower resolutions... You really can't make a judgement based on how poor a modern Windows desktop PC performs through a TV.
There are software drivers, but I suspect they'd tend to be far slower than even cheap graphics hardware.
In fact one of the reasons why Intel integrated graphics are so slow is because they do some things (like vertex shaders) in software.
I refer you to this post - your argument boils down to "My cheap phone was crap, so the Iphone is the best".
The point you are missing is that, even if all the cheap phones have these flaws (I have no problem with copy and paste, Java, MMS, Video recording, btw), there are other expensive phones on the market. Which have these features, and don't have the flaws that the cheap phones have. I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm not saying the Iphone doesn't necessarily do some things better. I'm just not sure why the Iphone is treated as the holy grail of phones to be viewed above and beyond every other phone on the market. It isn't. It's just yet another phone in the higher end of the market. If the best you can come up with in its favour is that it does well against cheap phones - well, that says it all.
I don't think one is in a position to criticise the implementation of copy/paste when the Iphone does not do that at all. Whether it's easy to use or not, a phone that has it is immensely easier to use than one that doesn't allow me to do this. It's not even something I would call a "feature" - it's a basic requirement, and not having it is a bug, just the same as if it didn't have a delete key (the Iphone does allow you to delete, right? I have to ask, given what else it lacks). My Motorola phone can copy from text messages - if yours can't, I'd say it's just as poor as the Iphone.
Your criticism of Itap is specific to Itap - as you say, T9 works fine, and there are loads of phones that do that. No argument for the Iphone here.
I can play mp3s through a standard audio output jack. As for the camera buttons on the outside, you might like to investigate the "Phone lock" feature (and before you say it's a pain to lock it, you have to lock non-flip-phones anyway; plus at least you don't risk dialing 999/911 accidently, which even locking won't prevent).
And the Java is fast enough to be useable for me - again, you can't make a criticism of this when the Iphone doesn't even have it.
Sure, it's not perfect in every single way, and sure, I've never used an iPhone and I'm talking out of my ass. I do know, though, if Apple put as much effort into the design and user interaction with the iPhone as they did with the iPod, it's gonna be miles and miles ahead of its competitors.
Ah, so now we see it, you haven't even used one. This was the point of my post - you're comparing based on brand, not based on product. By this logic, Microsoft's Zune should have been a market leader, based on the success of Windows. And the Ipod should have been a niche product used only by a few, based on the minimal success of Macs.
Sure - I mean that there should be objective ways, even if it isn't quantifiable. The OP I replied to suggested that because it couldn't be measured with numbers, it was intrinsically some subjective thing that couldn't be discussed, and so saying "It just is better because it is" is sufficient.
I agree there are cases where it may be a matter of opinion which UI is better, but we should still be able to discuss how each product works, and what the advantages of each method are, rather than just saying "X product has a better UI because it does" "No, Y product has a better UI because it just works". That's a good point about Fitz's Law, and would be a reasonable counter argument when discussing menuing systems of different OSs.
I don't know why I got modded insightful, but it probably helps when you can make an argument without resorting to ad hominems...
I own plenty of things with utility, but I can explain why they are useful. Yes, I also have things that have no quantifiable utility, such as random scraps of paper or the rubbish that I haven't thrown out yet ... not sure why you want to compare the Iphone to these!
I would hope that Apple are selling the shit with the vast amounts of media coverage and hype they get - but nonetheless, their sales are dwarfed by those of other phone companies. I get why a phone company can sell phones. What I don't get is why the Iphone is treated like the holy grail of phones, above and beyond every other phone in existence.
So Samsung make a crappy phone. The whole point of my post was that "X phone is crap" does not imply "Iphone is better than all other phones". Actually this seems to be a common theme with Apple - practically all Mac advocacy is not about what's good about the Mac, but what's bad about Windows. But this argument is even more tenuous with phones, where the number of products on the market is far greater than the number of desktop computer platforms.
For example, on my phone (a standard several-year-old phone), Delete is the first option available. I can send photos at a click of a button (via MMS or email, btw - I'm not restricted). There's nothing special about my phone - it only cost £80 a few years ago, and that was full price on Pay As You Go, no discount. I don't see millions of articles on Slashdot or the media about it. It just works. If the Iphone can only be made to look good in comparison to the worst phones on the market - well, that says it all.
If I wanted to email the photos off the camera to someone, I had to upgrade my plan to include wireless internet, which was another $20 a month.
That's a network issue, not a phone issue. Even bog standard phones come with Internet access as standard now. In fact, they did in 2005 - that must have been a really poor phone/network you were unlucky to pick.
their ... agreements
"their agreements"? I think this sums up the point with EULAs - an agreement is between you and something else; something decided only by them is not, by definition, an "agreement".
Anyhow, maybe the person's rules "and agreements" say that he can do this, so that's tough luck to Apple.
Although I do agree - people should buy one of the many just as good and cheaper phones that don't have this problem.
It's that their ease-of-use is notably superior. It's hard to measure 'ease of use'. You can't really quantify it. It's not like megapixels, gigabytes, or battery life... it doesn't really go down to numbers.
Well that makes it easy!
So I claim that the Iphone has the worst UI. You can't claim I'm wrong, because as you say, it's hard to measure "ease of use", so when I claim there are much better phones, you can't prove me wrong on this issue.
But seriously, that it's unmeasurable is a myth put out by those who what to claim that there's something special about the Iphone. This argument would never work for any other company's product (imagine it: "Who cares about all the flaws in Windows - it just is better. It's better in ways we can't measure or quantify, it just is" - would that be accepted?)
UI is quantifiable in all sorts of ways, for example, explaining how a particular process is achieved on different phones, or by comparing features that might make a process quicker. E.g., how do I copy text from somewhere to somewhere else?
There are plenty of examples of quantifying user interface on operating systems. E.g., menus at the top of the screen (as in AmigaOS, MacOS) are better that those not at the top (as in Windows), or proportional scrollbars give a better visual representation than non-proportional scrollbars (as in classic MacOS), or up/down arrows next to each other on a scrollbar (as in AmigaOS) are quicker to access than those at opposite ends on the scrollbar (as in Windows). Anyone who claims that UI is inherently something we can't measure is just grasping at straws to claim that their favourite expensive product is better, and they fail anyway, because I can just as easily claim my dirt cheap phone has the better UI - and by your own rules, you can't claim I'm wrong, because UI is unmeasurable.
Do you think the iPod succeeded just because people like Apple? ... Most of the other mp3 players have jagged edges that make them uncomfortable to use... a button that accidentally pauses the music if you have the player in your pocket... a stupid menu that takes 4 clicks to play music, but 2 to change contrast... a short battery life... too heavy... bad software...
The Ipod was a decent product. This topic is about the Iphone. Furthermore, you contradict your own argument. You've provided numerous examples of why the Ipod was better. So much for "it's unmeasurable"! So where are the same reasons for the Iphone?
It's not that Apple products are so superior in every way. It's that they have no strong weaknesses other than big price tags.
[Leaving aside a few basic functionality that even cheap phones have such as copy/paste, Java, MMS, video recording, and it only just finally got 3G.] If you agree that the Iphone is not superior, and it has no major weaknesses either, then that's the point: it's just yet another phone, and there's nothing special about it. Lots of phones fall into this middle ground category
But brand appeal can't carry a bad product... their products are good, AND they have brand appeal. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.
I'm not the one with my head in the sand saying "You can't measure UI, it just is better".
Brand appeal is important - this is shown by the very fact that you tried to claim the Iphone is better be saying how the Ipod was better. Your logic is that they're both "Apple", therefore the Iphone must be good too. That's judging not by product, but by brand. Do you think the Iphone would be getting even a fraction of media coverage it gets, if it wasn't produced by Apple? Brand appeal is everything to Apple. Consider how Macs today are nothing to do with older Macs (different hardware, different OS), but no one says "Well, Apple had to ditch the old OS because they finally realised it was so awful), rather, they're all considered to be the same platform.
Fine, I can concede that point as long as we ignore the whole "usability" issue. I currently have a phone that has most of the features that everyone raves about on the iPhone, but I've never used them. It doesn't even occur to me to use them because I feel like I need a PhD in computer science with a specialization in programing for imbedded devices to figure out how to use the damn features. You don't have that problem? Good for you but the general public shares my frustrations and seem to have been able to figure out the iPhone without so much as having to by an "iPhone for Idiot's" book.
So you picked up a crappy phone. That doesn't mean the Iphone is the best phone, it means that your phone is a crappy phone. I could do the same argument for any phone, e.g., "I can't work out how to use my phone, therefore the Nokia XXX is much better than all other phones"
(I also doubt that "everyone raves" about them - maybe a subset of people on Slashdot who like Apple products, but haven't use mobile phones in a while, and are under the delusion that Internet access on phones is a new feature.)
Do you actually own an Iphone? Or are you seriously basing your argument solely on owning a crappy phone yourself, and being envious at all the Apple-fans on Slashdot who rave about the Iphone?
I use features such as browsing the web and email on my phone, and it's just a bog standard dirt cheap phone. Give us an example of somthing that's easier on the Iphone than all other phones? People throw around this assertion, but no one ever justifies it. Here's an example of objective UI feature comparison: The Iphone fails at basic UI functionality such as copy/paste.