While it's not entirely meaningful to compare the transition rates between non-consecutive software versions (I.e windows 95 to XP, instead of Windows 2000 to XP)
What you're saying implies furthermore that Vista will have a slow uptake. You see if transitions from 2000 to XP is less than transitions of 9x to XP as your suggesting. Surveying is still placing 2000 to XP transitions greater than XP to Vista.
I suppose the problem here is that Apple didn't start out as a big player in the music market.(On part due to their agreement with Apple Corp.)They had to start somewhere and still managed to popularise the online music market. Remember it took a long time to get all the major labels on iTunes Store, Sony was a particularly long hold out while they were trying to leverage their own music store in the competitive gap.
Since then competitors eager to join this growing market hastily agreed to restrictive DRM - not even the might of Microsoft couldn't convince Sony that sharing music over a Zune is a good idea.
Now that the contracts are signed, the agreements done and dusted so to speak. Apple are locked into their own success. Contractually - they can't put pressure to free the music from DRM, when they've already proven a model of DRM which consumers evidently don't mind (2+ Billion songs). Apple's business agreements prevent it from being two faced - Especially when there are so many large competitors(Sony/MS/Real/etc) ready to fill any void that Apple leaves.
At the end of the day, I believe DRM wouldn't be so negatively connotative if companies such as Sony/MS/Real/etc didn't hastily agree to draconian and utterly pathetic DRM restrictions when they launched their own music stores.
Actually what you're saying is mostly flamebait. It's ridiculous to believe that a single company has sole discretion over the millions of songs available on iTunes store, let alone control over the multitude of other companies which they work with. As for iTunes on Vista, iTunes actually worked perfectly fine until the most latter version of Vista, providing basically nil time to make a Vista compliant version. Even still they released a patch and work around for the bugs just 2 days after Vista's launch. Also since not even Microsoft have their entire catalogue working on Vista, I'd hardly expect 3rd party developers to be jumping on Vista until it has some critical mass.
Speaking of critical mass and Vista, industry is expecting a far longer time gap between users upgrading from XP and Vista, than 2000 and XP. It's already been suggested at more than 5 years until the majority of windows users are running on Vista.
I think you're right about the coercive lawsuit...
The company management is clearly poor. The lawsuit is a good indication of this.
Bad management is probably why the work environment is crap. Which is why people are choosing to leave.
Chicken and egg.
As you'd understand stations around the world aren't run by one giant corportation. They are individual companies that aren't here to soley entertain you, they're about making some pretty big bucks. They buy content for the specific purpose of pairing the target market with advertising which they charge clients lots of money for.. Often stations will ask the annoying question: "What kind of viewer percentage increase can I expect from showing your show on my station?" They ask this because they need something solid to lure potential advertising clients with. The best answer a studio can give is "In USA this led to an x% increase in viewers from the target market." When programs are launched they are tested, often by various methods, but usually with "Pilot" episodes.
Long-running programs e.g. Stargate/Startrek/other variation serials/etc are already proven in markets, so they don't need to be constantly retested with each variation. You can introduce a serial sequel in established markets in little time at all. If Stargate isn't getting launched in your country it has more to do with your local stations not believing there is sufficient cost/profit & benefit from running the show. If a studio can't sell their program into enough channels/countries production is suspended or axed entirely.
This briefly touches the television economy, but it does a lot to explain why you get variation in times for programs to reach certain countries (if they reach the country at all.. remember there is content from every country that doesn't get sold into your own country.)
This is the exact reason, it's not Apple marketing or factually any Apple decision at all.
Music companies (and tv/movie content) are behind the times, they are accustomed to releasing music/movies/tv shows gradually world wide, instead of a universal date. There are various reasons for why they do this, many of which are out of their control. (E.g. how do you sell a TV show to a station in every country, when it hasn't even been tested to work in one country.)
Now opposingly: games/software are an entirely different distribution paradigm... for this reason the iPod games are available in every store at the same time.
Apple do a lot of hard work to get the labels to all agree on a common set of DRM restrictions.. for this reason there is a lag as companies join the iTunes Store. This is unlike Microsoft which is in the news recently for signing on with Sony and Universal's music on their more restrictive terms. (no sharing of most of their songs, particularly new titles.)
It's clear that Apple do a lot of hard work to get the labels to agree to the same set of terms (hence why there is a long hold out on many labels and movie studios.) Unfortuantely though, getting universal release dates on all content is simply not possible as no label is willing to do this.
Persons living outside of the USA are used to getting American Movies/Music/TV later than the USA audience, and as a result aren't shocked by other iTunes Stores having entirely different content. E.G. Here in Australia we get local artists before they are released internationally(if they are ever released at all abroad.)
I think it's important that Microsoft doesn't correlate WGA failures with actual pirate installations. Firstly for the reason you've listed above, but also because we all know that WGA doesn't even work very well. I for one know of many systems that have passed WGA despite having an illegitimate serial number. I also know of a few where they haven't passed, despite being bonafide installations from dell. I believe MS hasn't well-tracked the serials which are being pirated out there 'in the wild' and WGA is their future on clamping down on serial number duplicity.
I also believe Microsoft should 'suck it up' because if they have an 80% non-piracy rate for a monopolised operating system that is still very good returns, and the "20%" of pirated software merely helps to maintain that monopoly.
I'm certain Microsoft would prefer to keep those 20% on windows rather than have them on linux for example.
Since plans on releasing a 3G iPhone have already been revealed by Jobs at the WWSF keynote.. I don't think this is such a moot point, but I digress. It's going to be more than a year before the iPhone is released in countries which have high quality, wide spread 3G networks. I'm certain by then a 3G iPhone handset will be ready for market.
For the USA EDGE on 2G is better than fine. Considering that Apple are paired with Cingular/AT&T in that region. Also for your reference EDGE is hardly "woefully inadequet". (From wiki) "EDGE can carry data speeds up to 236.8 kbit/s for 4 timeslots (theoretical maximum is 473.6 kbit/s for 8 timeslots) in packet mode and will therefore meet the International Telecommunications Union's requirement for a 3G network, and has been accepted by the ITU as part of the IMT-2000 family of 3G standards." If you check your numbers with the current state of the art, this already compares with 3G. (Although in the future 3G will be easier and cheaper to boost speed.)
I think the best reason for this is because implementing EDGE is a "bolt-on" addition to existing 2G networks. Consequently EDGE on 2G is supported by a large number of carriers worldwide, while it is an easy upgrade for non-EDGE 2G providers. While 3G on the other hand requires new towers et. al, and as a result is more expensive and not as widespread as 2G GSM..yet
With the world-wide audience in mind, EDGE on 2G is a much more logical choice, despite being an inferior technology to 3G.
It's not like Apple are going to turn around and say "Sorry Folks we lied, the iPhone doesn't actually make phone calls at all.. oh and the screen is just a sticker."
Honestly the only thing people could get annoyed about is browsing speeds, and that has nothing to do with Apple anyway. Even in the keynote the browsing speed over wifi wasn't flawless.
Consumers will expect the interface of the iPhone to be as snappy as in the keynote.. and so far there appears to be no reason for why that won't be the case. I'm lost to what over-expectations people are going to be having about the device? It's not going to make you fly like a windows 98 commercial.
I guess it's because people who are fanboys generally don't know enough about technology to make a -real- argument against any operating system, so they pick on ridiculous things like mouse buttons or start menu clutter. A person who is brushed up in technology doesn't really care about the orgy of operating systems out there. They just use what they like, or what is right for their purpose. For example I was totally fine recommending my flatmate to buy a small windows laptop, the reality being that it'll make life quite easy for her as she wants to use it for work and the software used in her windows-centric office space won't require mac-substitutions. It would provide her with the least amount of work. While a friend who isn't tethered to "the windows monopoly" I usually will recommend them a mac, they're easier to take care of, present well and are often more useful to home users. Also Apple does a very good job of moving high-tech from the technophiles to the mass market audience.
Yes you can run mac-based-substitutions for most windows software. This isn't ideal for the average user who doesn't understand that.exe files are for windows.
Likewise you can get media organising, lifestyle and production software for windows... but just like the mac-substitions they are not ideal and usually lack lustre. The mac's iLife program alone would sell a lot of mac computers.
Fanboyism is like that loyalty that comes about from people fearing everything different from themselves. I compare fanboyism with the uneducated, the bigot and the dogmatist. This is not to be confused with a person who is merely correcting someone's completely misguided or down-right incorrect knowledge on a platform, correcting someone's false ideas of a platform is not fanboyism.. I'd just call that dealing with idiots.
Re:I'm sorry, but that's retarded.
on
iPhone Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Aah dude.. speak with your wallet, not your "retarded" brain.. just because apple made it doesn't mean you should buy it. Apple designing a phone doesn't "dictate" any market. If the phone's good, then it will succeed. You seem to forget that Apple have made plenty of stuff that has bombed in the market.
Apple makes products which navigate to the centres of ease of use for the average person.. so really they're about bringing useful technology to people other than technophiles, technophiles already have access to bleeding edge technology. Technophiles jokingly refer to the RDF, the reality distortion field..a place where steve jobs sells off existing(sometimes old) technology as if it's an amazing new device. What you don't seem to understand, is that it's not about the technology inside, it's about the fact that your "retarded" friend can pick up the phone and use it heuristically. Apple are famous for heuristic interfaces, this is where their success comes from, by blocking any-old developer they're protecting the heuristics of the iPhone's interface. The tech industry is mostly devoid of heuristic devices. That is the trouble with current smart phones, they take too long to learn (for your clarification, 5 minutes or looking at a manual is too long.)
Engineering crews spend so much time and thought developing amazing technologies and no one spends any time making them approachable for the mass-market.
So duh.. the iPhone will be cracked and probably running iDoom in no time.. but hell, wake up to yourself and realise that isn't why people are going to be buying the iPhone. Also if you haven't also noticed: a lot of 3rd party developers can't program to save their life. With all the custom silicon inside the iPhone it's a blessing that they're locked out from day 1. These things aren't running on hot, energy sapping x86 chips.
Also for the record.. if you want a hand held computer with telephony and wap.. what is stopping you? Go buy one, there are hundreds of handsets on the market and they're cheaper too. There is nothing that I'm saying that is "dictating" to you that you can't buy these anymore. It's curious that you'd come to such a conclusion in the first place. Perhaps you're just "retarded" to what has been out there for years already.
Re:Third party software, Phone locked tight
on
iPhone Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'd be most concerned about a piece of software that automatically dials pay-for calls when the device is idle. Or software that silently sends pay-for text messages, or silently surfs the net visiting advertisers.
When you're computer has some spyware program, it may pop up adverts and send you around the internet cashing up some advert program but ultimately it won't cost you much.. if anything at all. However when your phone has spyware you realise it because your phone bill is in the thousands.
It's a connected device and as consumers we deserve, rather require, the manufacturer to keep the platform free from exploitation.
The iPhone is best thought of as an iPod with a wap phone attached with a few bridging functions to make it all work well together... and not as a hand held computer with telephony/internet connectivity. It's a far more limited device and hence there is a lot of software that simply shouldn't be run on it.
We all know how well defence by ignorance works in US courts.
It's not so much who they received the file from as the usage agreement is merely a purification of existing US copyright law. You'd have to be in a pretty deep bunker for the last week to not know what the iPhone looks like.
Another interesting side is that it's Apple's responsibility to consumers to ensure that this skin isn't released before the iPhone is. I can already imagine some rather unscrupulous persons selling "iPhones" over ebay complete with a similar looking user interface.
I'd have to add that some of their actions have been apt, they haven't sued any regular blogger/reporter who reported on them.. they've actually just sent a rather gently worded legal notice to the ones who are showing an image of the skin AND providing a direct download link. The legal notice (available in many of the articles about this.) is probably the most casually written and easy to understand legal notice a person could receive.. It doesn't say "DIE! REMOVE SKIN AND LINK OR DMCA PATENTS COPYRIGHT!"
Placing a lawsuit agains those people who made the skin is two pronged approach, it gets rid of the current skin and discourages further iPhone skin development.
The skin authors are getting what is coming to them, and I have little sympathy for them because their condition was not only highly avoidable, but incredible stupid thing to do in the first place, they did it for cred with perfect knowledge they were breaking a usage agreement. Why do I say this? because to make the skin they needed to download the high res PR images from apple.com/pr/products. To download these images you have to agree to a very short usage agreement.. (the usage agreement is 3 paragraphs long and fits in your screen.. we're not talking about some hard to read microsoft windows/office eula that goes for 50 pages and excuses your right to live, breathe and reproduce.)
The portion of the usage agreement which making a 'skin' breaks is in the first paragraph (in fact in one way or another making a skin breaks most of the agreement) "This right to use is personal to you and is not transferable by you to another party. The Image cannot be used to promote or sell any product or technology (such as on advertising, brochures, book-covers, stock photos, t-shirts, or other promotional merchandise). You may not alter, or modify the Image, in whole or in part, for any reason." Then a little further down "You, not Apple, are responsible for your use of the Image. Any misuse of the Image or breach of this Agreement will cause Apple irreparable harm. "
So yeah from the get-get they're pretty serious about how people download and use the images. While I seriously doubt Apple will follow through with the lawsuits to their end, they'll definitely hold onto them long enough to give it adequet press as a warning to others that are looking to do a little self promotion via apple's artwork.
I know this is going to sound a bit unusual, but here goes anyway.
Coding a website and designing a website occur in two different sides of the brain, one side of your brain is creative, the other is more analytical and methodical. Swapping sides of the brain through the day isn't a good idea for productivity. It's very difficult to be creative after a stint of coding, and it's very difficult to code after sitting and drawing from your imagination. (This is pretty easy to test, many graphic & web designers will volunteer that it's difficult to draw anything other than symmetrical geometric designs after having coded for a few hours) It's actually policy at a few web design companies I know of, that staff may not code and design on the same day. One or the other, but not both.
Another good example of this is why fabulous linux applications tend to have incredibly poorly designed interfaces/workflow. These short comings in design belie their coding genius.
There is also a trend to follow here... people who use one side of their brain more frequently than the other, such as coders using the left side of their brain all day, are more likely to be completely useless when it comes to using their creative side. Overtime a person can become a better coder or creative simply by having conditioned their body to using one side more than the other. The short of it is that if your job requires you to be technical, a coder, methodical or analytical.. then just hire a creative to do the creative work and set them a brief of the things the website must contain.. on their worst day they'll walk all over you. (As you too would walk all over their coding. Graphic designers are as likely to copy snippets of other websites code, as you are likely to copy clipart and graphics from other webpages.)
Apple products aren't Steve Jobs tinkering with electronic wires in his basement. They're huge efforts of magnitude between many people, Apple can make the stuff it does because it has an elaborate combined intelligence of staff with history in computing and manufacturing that is almost entirely unique in the industry. As for the finesse of the products: most of the refinement comes from the team he's already assembled, and not Jobs himself. Jobs is just good at throwing out stuff which sucks (and honestly that's all most teams need.. a guy in authority there to say "sorry not good enough, try again") A bigger concern is what happens when Apple loses it's leading industrial designers and engineers? (They all have to die one day.) Although, you never know, we could just get someone even better.
Another note is that Apple often outsources a lot of their preliminary creative for products, taking in various designs and making their own efforts from the research. (It's just another research method) Jobs himself has said on occassion that there are design studios out there that'll design things that'll make you s**t your pants.
Some DRM = Can be good for consumers, e.g. It satisfies crazy music execs while giving average consumers DRM which they will rarely/if ever notice at all.
Restrictive DRM = Bad for consumers. Draconian style restrictions that stop the average consumer from doing ordinary things with their music.
Apple's music is unrestrictive DRM (2 Billion songs worth) you can even burn it to a Audio CD removing the DRM entirely.
We're not talking about zunes that let you share a song which expires after a few plays or a few days (which ever comes first.) Or windows media devices that require regular docking otherwise the music will cease to function. We're talking about the ability to legally download music and literally give it to any of 5 computer users. Or burn copies and spread them infinitely. Some kids use maybe two of their 5 licenses on other computers in the house, the rest usually go to their friends. (Legal or not, it still lets you.)
Before the iPod I wouldn't dare spend so much on a music player, but the iPod functions so well in what it proports to do and comes in a form factor that is appealing to me.
I remember when the first iPod came out, 5gb of hard drive storage, a mechanical scroll wheel (i.e it physically spun). I also recall slashdot and the web was abuzz that it was the death of Apple, people pledging far and wide that they'll never own one in their life, that it's just another music player(with various arguments for and against), it's less featureful and smaller capacity than similarly priced models and of course these reviews too were without actually having seen the device(other than a photo on the web).. Also noteworthy is that the iPod started with a similar $499 price tag. Here in Australia they sold for over a thousand dollars a unit.
Somehow today we're back in the same spot, with the same cynical audience chiming in their 5 minutes thought on a device that was considered by a team of experienced professionals for more than 2 years.
While I agree there is a definite market contraint for such a device, after all it is a smart phone and not everyone needs/wants a smart phone. (Although the cost of one smart phone usually outweighs the cost of the culmination of multiple cheaper phones.)There has been definite room for innovation in this area.
I'd wonder if users would think a little harder before posting the most elementary concerns as some factual insight that is going to bring down the device. (Slashdot posts covering everything from, it will shatter when dropped, it'll drop calls at random, it's not a clamshell, it simply doesn't do as advertised, etc) Not only are these things that apple would have considered in the first 5 minutes of designing the device.. but they're not even things you expect from companies that produce phones in horde every quarter(with equally short Q&A periods and poorer manufacturing standards). Those phones that pack some a simple gimmick or form factor, crammed together with existing electronics and a user interface which has not received any real refinements since it's hey day.
I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate concerns such as "Carriers are generally quite spoilt, so a real concern should be: why is a carrier going to implement random access voicemail, or fast EDGE service for just one handset?" History prevailing we can generally trust that apple have the ability to manufacture a device that will live up to the advertising, any bugs with the device will definitely be new one (not issues like easily scratched screens which they've already dealt with ad nauseum). Apple know that the device working well is going to make or break it.
One thing is certain, the gains which Cingular make from this device will be transformed into the clout which apple approach new mobile carriers. The entire delay in international introduction is entirely from the time it'll take to convince local carriers to implement the required service levels and contracts to support the iPhone.
Not being a fanboy here (I admire well designed technology no matter who makes it. It's about my personal experience and not donating money to some tech company.) The points you're making are definitely scraping at the bottom of the barrel considering the history of apple, they aren't a new-comer to digital devices, aesthetics or design, so to address a few of your points...
- Mobile phone makers are pretty cluey about how to produce a phone with good signal, they often choose not to use optimal components in the cheaper models (or models which have an expensive portion which they're trying to make cost efficient.) Apple are keen to ensure it makes a good phone and won't go cheap on this essential function. As for wifi/bluetooth Apple have gotten very good with their wifi and bluetooth reception..after all they do make laptops, bluetooth accessories and wifi basestations.
- Dropping calls mysteriously can only be considered fud, honestly, as in the first point: apple aren't those other companies, proposing such ideas is as random as asking if the power button won't work mysteriously
- Treos fragile.. (apple) newtons tough.. and they made the newtons a very long time ago, perhaps they've considered dropping stuff in the past? Was drop durability a consideration in using flash over micro HDD? Definitely.
- Cingular will be cingular, no one is buying this phone before knowing what it's about. Hence the press.
- Random issues with voice mail.. you're basically asking if it's programmed properly.. why wouldn't it be? It's voicemail.. not an arianne rocket.
- The touch screen went through various revisions, some will think it feels awful and others will be delighted... most won't care. They've been learning from iPod screens about what the consumer worries about.
- Loudspeaker: apple are pretty good with speakers these days... think ipod earphones, laptop speakers and even tiny clickers in the mighty mouse, I'm sure they can source a decent speaker considering the clarity in the macbook pro's speakers despite being tiny.
- In a touch screen driven device....I'd think they'd test durability of the touch screen. Already a few articles discussing the choices made for the touch screen. They've even taken into account the greasy finger factor.
- The keynote was mostly done over wifi, the mail demo was imap over edge from yahoo. Edge is perfectly capable, cingular just need to flick the switch on giving it more service. (they've had two years to plan for it, so I expect there might be some data rate upgrades around the corner.)
- G devices don't force a mass slowdown of your N network. Even B devices only marginally hit a G network.
It's pretty hard for consumers to not be getting what they expect, Jobs was very clear in showing the features and how they work.. journalists which tried the device unsurprisingly agreed that it did work as portrayed. It's not like you press the SMS key and it sends your personal details to sa.windows.com...A lot of the points you've made on the aesthetics have been spoken about at length and have already been exhaustively run through at apple. (They're not about to produce small black devices in the Gen1 nano screen polymer. Plus from the iPod they already know what consumers have the most gripes with.)
It's not like a start-up's device.. It's a tech company with a huge library of intelligence, well experienced in portable devices and an excellent track record at addressing problems.
Little worries about the devices finer points are an argument that is out of scope with the company. A more poignant concern is if international mobile providers will be able (or willing) to implement random access voicemail.
It's hard to say this right away, xbox 360 has been out for a while now and is spreading it a bit thin with the functionality and are probably taking a loss on hardware sales just to get the device out there.
It's more important to have a solution which can be upgraded and worked apon, than having nothing at all to give the consumers. So AppleTV is good for extending iTunes into the living room, costs less than an xbox 360 and provides HDMI support already, while encouraging the sale of Movies and television on iTunes Store. The xbox360 does seep content from other networked PC's and can act as a PVR, this makes it complete more with TiVo.. and not so much with Apple.
The vista home server will be interesting as it'll allow the back up of numerous devices onto a network volume.. but I can't help to notice that the new apple wireless base station allows a new kind of wireless network drive, plugging a usb drive straight into the base station allows networked machines a form of remote storage. (No computer or vista software license necessary.)
Meanwhile microsoft have bigger problems on the rise with the nintendo console having almost sold half of the total xbox360 sales volume in 2 months.
I hardly think your frind [sic] uses his mac to run windows "99%" of the time.
P.S. The mac happily runs Mac OS, Windows or Linux and that's the point. Apple makes money on hardware sales and virtually nothing from software sales, that's why the OS comes free with the computer, that's why lots of very useful, well debugged software comes free with the apple computer purchase. It's why they're dedicated to making quality software (it makes their computers look better, when in reality it's the same hardware in nicer packaging.) It's why Apple purchases software titles such as Shake and drops the price of the software for the MacOS version, while leaving the price fixed for Linux, and discontinue the Windows version.
Closer inspection usually reveals that it's cheaper to buy an apple mac pro, final cut studio and 2 cinema displays than to buy say a single Avid software license.
I'm not sure how well the author has articulated his point. The safari buttons stay active because you can actually click them at any time from any window (including when safari is not the active application.) This behaviour exists in a few applications but only where it's useful. E.g. you can change tracks in iTunes without activating iTunes. However in Safari when back/forward is pressed it's logical to switch to the application. It's not that they are highlighted and non-functional, which is a past windows trait.
Personally I find the actual issue with XP or Vista is that there is simply too much over stimulation on the screen, a user is desensitised to the bold interface and thus the OS requires more brazen efforts to gather attention when it's required in a different area of the screen. This is why windows users find that all the mac windows look grey and unsubstantial (this is also why mac users can tolerate many windows on the screen at once). Opposingly mac users find that windows is excessively clunky and child-like in appearance (hence terms for XP such as Fisher-Price). The excessively bold interface of windows leads users to maximise each window otherwise they can't concentrate on the task at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're saying implies furthermore that Vista will have a slow uptake. You see if transitions from 2000 to XP is less than transitions of 9x to XP as your suggesting. Surveying is still placing 2000 to XP transitions greater than XP to Vista.
Since then competitors eager to join this growing market hastily agreed to restrictive DRM - not even the might of Microsoft couldn't convince Sony that sharing music over a Zune is a good idea.
Now that the contracts are signed, the agreements done and dusted so to speak. Apple are locked into their own success. Contractually - they can't put pressure to free the music from DRM, when they've already proven a model of DRM which consumers evidently don't mind (2+ Billion songs). Apple's business agreements prevent it from being two faced - Especially when there are so many large competitors(Sony/MS/Real/etc) ready to fill any void that Apple leaves.
At the end of the day, I believe DRM wouldn't be so negatively connotative if companies such as Sony/MS/Real/etc didn't hastily agree to draconian and utterly pathetic DRM restrictions when they launched their own music stores.
Speaking of critical mass and Vista, industry is expecting a far longer time gap between users upgrading from XP and Vista, than 2000 and XP. It's already been suggested at more than 5 years until the majority of windows users are running on Vista.
The company management is clearly poor. The lawsuit is a good indication of this.
Bad management is probably why the work environment is crap. Which is why people are choosing to leave.
Chicken and egg.
Long-running programs e.g. Stargate/Startrek/other variation serials/etc are already proven in markets, so they don't need to be constantly retested with each variation. You can introduce a serial sequel in established markets in little time at all. If Stargate isn't getting launched in your country it has more to do with your local stations not believing there is sufficient cost/profit & benefit from running the show. If a studio can't sell their program into enough channels/countries production is suspended or axed entirely.
This briefly touches the television economy, but it does a lot to explain why you get variation in times for programs to reach certain countries (if they reach the country at all.. remember there is content from every country that doesn't get sold into your own country.)
Music companies (and tv/movie content) are behind the times, they are accustomed to releasing music/movies/tv shows gradually world wide, instead of a universal date. There are various reasons for why they do this, many of which are out of their control. (E.g. how do you sell a TV show to a station in every country, when it hasn't even been tested to work in one country.)
Now opposingly: games/software are an entirely different distribution paradigm... for this reason the iPod games are available in every store at the same time.
Apple do a lot of hard work to get the labels to all agree on a common set of DRM restrictions.. for this reason there is a lag as companies join the iTunes Store.
This is unlike Microsoft which is in the news recently for signing on with Sony and Universal's music on their more restrictive terms. (no sharing of most of their songs, particularly new titles.)
It's clear that Apple do a lot of hard work to get the labels to agree to the same set of terms (hence why there is a long hold out on many labels and movie studios.) Unfortuantely though, getting universal release dates on all content is simply not possible as no label is willing to do this.
Persons living outside of the USA are used to getting American Movies/Music/TV later than the USA audience, and as a result aren't shocked by other iTunes Stores having entirely different content. E.G. Here in Australia we get local artists before they are released internationally(if they are ever released at all abroad.)
I also believe Microsoft should 'suck it up' because if they have an 80% non-piracy rate for a monopolised operating system that is still very good returns, and the "20%" of pirated software merely helps to maintain that monopoly.
I'm certain Microsoft would prefer to keep those 20% on windows rather than have them on linux for example.
For the USA EDGE on 2G is better than fine. Considering that Apple are paired with Cingular/AT&T in that region.
Also for your reference EDGE is hardly "woefully inadequet". (From wiki) "EDGE can carry data speeds up to 236.8 kbit/s for 4 timeslots (theoretical maximum is 473.6 kbit/s for 8 timeslots) in packet mode and will therefore meet the International Telecommunications Union's requirement for a 3G network, and has been accepted by the ITU as part of the IMT-2000 family of 3G standards." If you check your numbers with the current state of the art, this already compares with 3G. (Although in the future 3G will be easier and cheaper to boost speed.)
With the world-wide audience in mind, EDGE on 2G is a much more logical choice, despite being an inferior technology to 3G.
Honestly the only thing people could get annoyed about is browsing speeds, and that has nothing to do with Apple anyway. Even in the keynote the browsing speed over wifi wasn't flawless.
Consumers will expect the interface of the iPhone to be as snappy as in the keynote.. and so far there appears to be no reason for why that won't be the case. I'm lost to what over-expectations people are going to be having about the device? It's not going to make you fly like a windows 98 commercial.
A person who is brushed up in technology doesn't really care about the orgy of operating systems out there. They just use what they like, or what is right for their purpose. For example I was totally fine recommending my flatmate to buy a small windows laptop, the reality being that it'll make life quite easy for her as she wants to use it for work and the software used in her windows-centric office space won't require mac-substitutions. It would provide her with the least amount of work. While a friend who isn't tethered to "the windows monopoly" I usually will recommend them a mac, they're easier to take care of, present well and are often more useful to home users. Also Apple does a very good job of moving high-tech from the technophiles to the mass market audience.
Yes you can run mac-based-substitutions for most windows software. This isn't ideal for the average user who doesn't understand that
Likewise you can get media organising, lifestyle and production software for windows... but just like the mac-substitions they are not ideal and usually lack lustre. The mac's iLife program alone would sell a lot of mac computers.
Fanboyism is like that loyalty that comes about from people fearing everything different from themselves. I compare fanboyism with the uneducated, the bigot and the dogmatist. This is not to be confused with a person who is merely correcting someone's completely misguided or down-right incorrect knowledge on a platform, correcting someone's false ideas of a platform is not fanboyism.. I'd just call that dealing with idiots.
Apple makes products which navigate to the centres of ease of use for the average person.. so really they're about bringing useful technology to people other than technophiles, technophiles already have access to bleeding edge technology. Technophiles jokingly refer to the RDF, the reality distortion field..a place where steve jobs sells off existing(sometimes old) technology as if it's an amazing new device. What you don't seem to understand, is that it's not about the technology inside, it's about the fact that your "retarded" friend can pick up the phone and use it heuristically. Apple are famous for heuristic interfaces, this is where their success comes from, by blocking any-old developer they're protecting the heuristics of the iPhone's interface. The tech industry is mostly devoid of heuristic devices. That is the trouble with current smart phones, they take too long to learn (for your clarification, 5 minutes or looking at a manual is too long.)
Engineering crews spend so much time and thought developing amazing technologies and no one spends any time making them approachable for the mass-market.
So duh.. the iPhone will be cracked and probably running iDoom in no time.. but hell, wake up to yourself and realise that isn't why people are going to be buying the iPhone. Also if you haven't also noticed: a lot of 3rd party developers can't program to save their life. With all the custom silicon inside the iPhone it's a blessing that they're locked out from day 1. These things aren't running on hot, energy sapping x86 chips.
Also for the record.. if you want a hand held computer with telephony and wap.. what is stopping you? Go buy one, there are hundreds of handsets on the market and they're cheaper too. There is nothing that I'm saying that is "dictating" to you that you can't buy these anymore. It's curious that you'd come to such a conclusion in the first place. Perhaps you're just "retarded" to what has been out there for years already.
When you're computer has some spyware program, it may pop up adverts and send you around the internet cashing up some advert program but ultimately it won't cost you much.. if anything at all. However when your phone has spyware you realise it because your phone bill is in the thousands.
It's a connected device and as consumers we deserve, rather require, the manufacturer to keep the platform free from exploitation.
The iPhone is best thought of as an iPod with a wap phone attached with a few bridging functions to make it all work well together... and not as a hand held computer with telephony/internet connectivity. It's a far more limited device and hence there is a lot of software that simply shouldn't be run on it.
It's not so much who they received the file from as the usage agreement is merely a purification of existing US copyright law. You'd have to be in a pretty deep bunker for the last week to not know what the iPhone looks like.
Another interesting side is that it's Apple's responsibility to consumers to ensure that this skin isn't released before the iPhone is. I can already imagine some rather unscrupulous persons selling "iPhones" over ebay complete with a similar looking user interface.
Placing a lawsuit agains those people who made the skin is two pronged approach, it gets rid of the current skin and discourages further iPhone skin development.
The skin authors are getting what is coming to them, and I have little sympathy for them because their condition was not only highly avoidable, but incredible stupid thing to do in the first place, they did it for cred with perfect knowledge they were breaking a usage agreement. Why do I say this? because to make the skin they needed to download the high res PR images from apple.com/pr/products. To download these images you have to agree to a very short usage agreement.. (the usage agreement is 3 paragraphs long and fits in your screen.. we're not talking about some hard to read microsoft windows/office eula that goes for 50 pages and excuses your right to live, breathe and reproduce.)
The portion of the usage agreement which making a 'skin' breaks is in the first paragraph (in fact in one way or another making a skin breaks most of the agreement) "This right to use is personal to you and is not transferable by you to another party. The Image cannot be used to promote or sell any product or technology (such as on advertising, brochures, book-covers, stock photos, t-shirts, or other promotional merchandise). You may not alter, or modify the Image, in whole or in part, for any reason." Then a little further down "You, not Apple, are responsible for your use of the Image. Any misuse of the Image or breach of this Agreement will cause Apple irreparable harm. "
So yeah from the get-get they're pretty serious about how people download and use the images. While I seriously doubt Apple will follow through with the lawsuits to their end, they'll definitely hold onto them long enough to give it adequet press as a warning to others that are looking to do a little self promotion via apple's artwork.
Coding a website and designing a website occur in two different sides of the brain, one side of your brain is creative, the other is more analytical and methodical. Swapping sides of the brain through the day isn't a good idea for productivity. It's very difficult to be creative after a stint of coding, and it's very difficult to code after sitting and drawing from your imagination. (This is pretty easy to test, many graphic & web designers will volunteer that it's difficult to draw anything other than symmetrical geometric designs after having coded for a few hours) It's actually policy at a few web design companies I know of, that staff may not code and design on the same day. One or the other, but not both.
Another good example of this is why fabulous linux applications tend to have incredibly poorly designed interfaces/workflow. These short comings in design belie their coding genius.
There is also a trend to follow here... people who use one side of their brain more frequently than the other, such as coders using the left side of their brain all day, are more likely to be completely useless when it comes to using their creative side. Overtime a person can become a better coder or creative simply by having conditioned their body to using one side more than the other. The short of it is that if your job requires you to be technical, a coder, methodical or analytical.. then just hire a creative to do the creative work and set them a brief of the things the website must contain.. on their worst day they'll walk all over you. (As you too would walk all over their coding. Graphic designers are as likely to copy snippets of other websites code, as you are likely to copy clipart and graphics from other webpages.)
Another note is that Apple often outsources a lot of their preliminary creative for products, taking in various designs and making their own efforts from the research. (It's just another research method) Jobs himself has said on occassion that there are design studios out there that'll design things that'll make you s**t your pants.
That's a hot idea. I love it.
Restrictive DRM = Bad for consumers. Draconian style restrictions that stop the average consumer from doing ordinary things with their music.
Apple's music is unrestrictive DRM (2 Billion songs worth) you can even burn it to a Audio CD removing the DRM entirely.
We're not talking about zunes that let you share a song which expires after a few plays or a few days (which ever comes first.) Or windows media devices that require regular docking otherwise the music will cease to function. We're talking about the ability to legally download music and literally give it to any of 5 computer users. Or burn copies and spread them infinitely. Some kids use maybe two of their 5 licenses on other computers in the house, the rest usually go to their friends. (Legal or not, it still lets you.)
I remember when the first iPod came out, 5gb of hard drive storage, a mechanical scroll wheel (i.e it physically spun). I also recall slashdot and the web was abuzz that it was the death of Apple, people pledging far and wide that they'll never own one in their life, that it's just another music player(with various arguments for and against), it's less featureful and smaller capacity than similarly priced models and of course these reviews too were without actually having seen the device(other than a photo on the web).. Also noteworthy is that the iPod started with a similar $499 price tag. Here in Australia they sold for over a thousand dollars a unit.
Somehow today we're back in the same spot, with the same cynical audience chiming in their 5 minutes thought on a device that was considered by a team of experienced professionals for more than 2 years.
While I agree there is a definite market contraint for such a device, after all it is a smart phone and not everyone needs/wants a smart phone. (Although the cost of one smart phone usually outweighs the cost of the culmination of multiple cheaper phones.)There has been definite room for innovation in this area.
I'd wonder if users would think a little harder before posting the most elementary concerns as some factual insight that is going to bring down the device. (Slashdot posts covering everything from, it will shatter when dropped, it'll drop calls at random, it's not a clamshell, it simply doesn't do as advertised, etc) Not only are these things that apple would have considered in the first 5 minutes of designing the device.. but they're not even things you expect from companies that produce phones in horde every quarter(with equally short Q&A periods and poorer manufacturing standards). Those phones that pack some a simple gimmick or form factor, crammed together with existing electronics and a user interface which has not received any real refinements since it's hey day.
I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate concerns such as "Carriers are generally quite spoilt, so a real concern should be: why is a carrier going to implement random access voicemail, or fast EDGE service for just one handset?" History prevailing we can generally trust that apple have the ability to manufacture a device that will live up to the advertising, any bugs with the device will definitely be new one (not issues like easily scratched screens which they've already dealt with ad nauseum). Apple know that the device working well is going to make or break it.
One thing is certain, the gains which Cingular make from this device will be transformed into the clout which apple approach new mobile carriers. The entire delay in international introduction is entirely from the time it'll take to convince local carriers to implement the required service levels and contracts to support the iPhone.
The points you're making are definitely scraping at the bottom of the barrel considering the history of apple, they aren't a new-comer to digital devices, aesthetics or design, so to address a few of your points...
- Mobile phone makers are pretty cluey about how to produce a phone with good signal, they often choose not to use optimal components in the cheaper models (or models which have an expensive portion which they're trying to make cost efficient.) Apple are keen to ensure it makes a good phone and won't go cheap on this essential function. As for wifi/bluetooth Apple have gotten very good with their wifi and bluetooth reception..after all they do make laptops, bluetooth accessories and wifi basestations.
- Dropping calls mysteriously can only be considered fud, honestly, as in the first point: apple aren't those other companies, proposing such ideas is as random as asking if the power button won't work mysteriously
- Treos fragile.. (apple) newtons tough.. and they made the newtons a very long time ago, perhaps they've considered dropping stuff in the past? Was drop durability a consideration in using flash over micro HDD? Definitely.
- Cingular will be cingular, no one is buying this phone before knowing what it's about. Hence the press.
- Random issues with voice mail.. you're basically asking if it's programmed properly.. why wouldn't it be? It's voicemail.. not an arianne rocket.
- The touch screen went through various revisions, some will think it feels awful and others will be delighted... most won't care. They've been learning from iPod screens about what the consumer worries about.
- Loudspeaker: apple are pretty good with speakers these days... think ipod earphones, laptop speakers and even tiny clickers in the mighty mouse, I'm sure they can source a decent speaker considering the clarity in the macbook pro's speakers despite being tiny.
- In a touch screen driven device....I'd think they'd test durability of the touch screen. Already a few articles discussing the choices made for the touch screen. They've even taken into account the greasy finger factor.
- The keynote was mostly done over wifi, the mail demo was imap over edge from yahoo. Edge is perfectly capable, cingular just need to flick the switch on giving it more service. (they've had two years to plan for it, so I expect there might be some data rate upgrades around the corner.)
- G devices don't force a mass slowdown of your N network. Even B devices only marginally hit a G network.
It's pretty hard for consumers to not be getting what they expect, Jobs was very clear in showing the features and how they work.. journalists which tried the device unsurprisingly agreed that it did work as portrayed. It's not like you press the SMS key and it sends your personal details to sa.windows.com...A lot of the points you've made on the aesthetics have been spoken about at length and have already been exhaustively run through at apple. (They're not about to produce small black devices in the Gen1 nano screen polymer. Plus from the iPod they already know what consumers have the most gripes with.)
It's not like a start-up's device.. It's a tech company with a huge library of intelligence, well experienced in portable devices and an excellent track record at addressing problems.
Little worries about the devices finer points are an argument that is out of scope with the company. A more poignant concern is if international mobile providers will be able (or willing) to implement random access voicemail.
It's more important to have a solution which can be upgraded and worked apon, than having nothing at all to give the consumers. So AppleTV is good for extending iTunes into the living room, costs less than an xbox 360 and provides HDMI support already, while encouraging the sale of Movies and television on iTunes Store. The xbox360 does seep content from other networked PC's and can act as a PVR, this makes it complete more with TiVo.. and not so much with Apple.
The vista home server will be interesting as it'll allow the back up of numerous devices onto a network volume.. but I can't help to notice that the new apple wireless base station allows a new kind of wireless network drive, plugging a usb drive straight into the base station allows networked machines a form of remote storage. (No computer or vista software license necessary.)
Meanwhile microsoft have bigger problems on the rise with the nintendo console having almost sold half of the total xbox360 sales volume in 2 months.
P.S. The mac happily runs Mac OS, Windows or Linux and that's the point. Apple makes money on hardware sales and virtually nothing from software sales, that's why the OS comes free with the computer, that's why lots of very useful, well debugged software comes free with the apple computer purchase. It's why they're dedicated to making quality software (it makes their computers look better, when in reality it's the same hardware in nicer packaging.) It's why Apple purchases software titles such as Shake and drops the price of the software for the MacOS version, while leaving the price fixed for Linux, and discontinue the Windows version.
Closer inspection usually reveals that it's cheaper to buy an apple mac pro, final cut studio and 2 cinema displays than to buy say a single Avid software license.
Personally I find the actual issue with XP or Vista is that there is simply too much over stimulation on the screen, a user is desensitised to the bold interface and thus the OS requires more brazen efforts to gather attention when it's required in a different area of the screen. This is why windows users find that all the mac windows look grey and unsubstantial (this is also why mac users can tolerate many windows on the screen at once). Opposingly mac users find that windows is excessively clunky and child-like in appearance (hence terms for XP such as Fisher-Price). The excessively bold interface of windows leads users to maximise each window otherwise they can't concentrate on the task at hand.
it's more like comparing Apples with lemons.