Gingerbread is almost 2 years old, (and compared to Android 4+ is just bad) sorry that doesn't count as modern. What the OP is asking for is a top of the line phone that isn't so large. In other words something with the power of a One X or Galaxy S3, without the big screen.
The thing is that the only way to get a top of the line Android experience is to buy a large phone, so it's a false statement to say that people chose larger screens, they had no choice if they wanted the best experience.
Since Mom and Grandpa are using iPhones, the hipsters have long moved onto Android. And their parents get it for free with a contract, everyone wins, except the anti-Apple brigade.:)
Yes, Windows is the only 'serious' platform to develop for, as I am sure Android will eventually be, but for now Android is more akin to DOS, you better have your autoexec.bat and config.sys setup properly or the fancy new game won't have enough memory to run.
Yes WYSIWYG is bad for generating final code. But, honestly, for non-CMS sites, I still find it much easier to have Dreamweaver with code/wysiwyg side by side, so I can quickly click on the element of a page I need to edit (type, replace image, etc) and go right into the code to do make the edit. Yes, it only saves a second or two of scanning html code, but that adds up over time. Some programs have created tree view/lists to mimic this - Code Navigator in Coda for example - but it's just not the same.
The other thing that I haven't found a replacement for is the library items/assets. Create your Navigation or Footer and then apply it to all pages of your site, links to images etc are updated as required depending on the page and how deep in the site structure it is. Lots of other programs have code snippets, but I haven't found one that will update links like this.
Obviously, both these things are not going to be required when dealing with CMS sites.
Yes! I've done it plenty of times on a first-gen intel macbook pro. And FYI, you can take your old ipod (at least the 'classic' one), mount your mac os install image onto that, and use the ipod to do a install just like from a dvd. I expect something similar should be doable with Lion.
Yes! someone vote up please. Glad to see that I wasn't the only one thinking that it's not Facebook they're after but Last.fm and/or what's left of MySpace. It looks like an extension of the Genius service that came in the last version, but I guess now the recomendations/aggregation won't be anonymous anymore.
Yeah it's all cool to hate on the iPhone/iTunes ecosystem these days, but iOS is a little bit different from OS X. This is the one where it's all overpriced, too shiny, and you get charged for service packs.
option a) Zombie Kane goes on a rampage to kill those that destroyed his precious. Somehow the original movers/people that were hired to clean out the estate all had kids who turn out to be super hot chicks that happen to all go to the same college. roosseeebudd.... roooseeebudd.... braiiinnnsss brainnsss... Kane burn and smash like you smash and burn rosebud...
option b) Kane fakes his own death to become a fighter of crime, and volunteer at orphanages around the world. Next years 'surprise' 'indie' hit. A kind of Batman written by Chris Ware. Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman or Paul Giamatti in the title role.
Yes, it is the nurses job to double check everything, and from the stats it's obvious that 99.99 percent of the time this happens.
The problem is handling of extreme cases. The nurse is at the end of her/his 8 hour shift when an emergency happens, they have 10 seconds to add medical compound A to Tube B, there are half a dozen other people swarming around doing their part to help the patient, who could be having convulsions or is just flailing around uncontrollably. Yes, it's their job to triple check that they are putting things into the right tube, but under conditions like these it gets easier to make a mistake. For most nurses the adrenaline kicks in and it's all good, but even if 1 in a 10,000 make a mistake that ends up being quite a few people at the end of the year.
These nurses can literally hold someone's life in their hands, but they get less respect and pay that someone pushing clip-art around in PowerPoint all day.
Ah well, bad attempt at humour is lost on people I guess.
Was getting one more turn (so really about 3 dozen) of Civ in before finishing my 'first post' comment, that's why it's way down the middle of the conversation.
How about niftydude's reply below. But then again why am I even trying to reply to AC troll posts.
God help me, I'm barely 30 and I already remember the good old days of slashdot when there was actual discussion happening by people who actually looked at the source material of posted stories. Not this digg / engadget knee-jerk reactionary garbage based on story titles alone.
The cereal example I will disagree with you fully. The cereal company is footing the bill for an internally developed product, that's all great, simple R&D. I don't think things would go as well if the cereal company asked third parties to develop a new cereal, with production facilities, raw materials (corn and sugar) et al on the premise that only one would get picked and the others would get nothing.
I agree with you on the redefinition of business as a product vs. a service. I just don't think that good design can be a product that someone takes off the shelf and applies to their company/product. The back and forth between a designer and client is critical, it may be on simple things like colour choices, but also on larger issues such as who the target market is, the 'visual language' chosen by the client, those are all things to be challenged for a unique product to come out.
I completely understand that a small business doesn't have the money to go through this process with a large agency, but they do with a kid that is still in school. Sites that just offer finished logos to pick from don't provide this interaction which is a critical skill for a designer to have if they hope to move forward in the field. In this regard it will hurt the design profession in the long run.
On paper sure, but don't kid yourself, these 'contests' are easy pickings for outright theft of ideas. I've seen it happen first hand to friends. It's hard enough to go after a local company, on the web it's next to impossible. I'm not saying this would be an everyday occurrence, but it would happen.
Same thing as people grabbing photos from Flickr and other places for use in commercial work, they don't have the rights, but that doesn't stop them at all. The only way to fix these things is if there is enough of a public backlash to shame the company into stepping up. I'm not talking about Google or Microsoft stealing ideas, but small/medium business with questionable ethics wouldn't think twice.
Currently, design works just like most other professions. Company needs work done, they send out a request for people to quote on that work. They shortlist a few potential options and sit down with them to go over things in detail. Designers provide a proper quote on the project and then the company decides who to go with.
Really, the same thing as needing to buy a new mail server, getting a few quotes from some vendors and then deciding on one.
What these sites are essentially doing is making each of the vendors go to your place, install the new mail server, and then you only pay for the one you like - but keep everyone elses servers as well.
It can be fun while you are in school, or trying to get your foot in the door, but eventually you realize that you've just spend a full day working for nothing. The worst part is that the client could go through the submissions, copy all the ideas down, decline them all, and send it over to their secretary to redraw it out for 'free'. Design is about ideas and form, it's not really something tangible (I built a car!) it's a hard thing to quantify, and a lot of the time to get paid for.
Spec work is a bad idea in any industry, and 99% of the time leads to the person doing the work getting screwed. That said, if people want to partake it's their choice and none of my business.
From the article... "The record figure for a single month was reported as T$18 billion which is roughly $570 million for the month of April and thus reflects..."
I'm guessing that's Taiwanese Dollars, not the US kind that Apple reports in. In USD it would make it about 1.7 billion per quarter to Apple's 10.
I don't disagree with you fully, but part of what makes Google look good is that they get to play good cop while the phone manufacturer and carrier get to play bad cop - ie. It's not our fault Samsung and Verizon (just picking names out of a hat) decided to put in ad overlays every five minutes, we just made the OS.
Google is great at expanding our consumption of free information. They do a super job at search (and related services) but most of the items that they expand your access to are already there for free, just waiting to be accessed. In a way, I think Apple has been tackling much harder issues, getting 99 cent pricing on all/most songs from the Recording Industry, and then offering DRM free versions took a whole lot of skill. It's all taken for granted now, but getting that stuff off the ground was tough.
I'm not trying to gloss over the fact that search is very very hard, nor that Apple has made some highly suspect choices/decisions. Just random observations badly typed out before my morning coffee.
I should also say that being an advertising company does not mean anything, good or bad, it's just a company like any other.
Is there really a point for people to start up new discussions on Apple's support site because of the Consumer Reports article? I'm sure there must have been plenty of posts re. reception issues since day one. The Consumer Reports article doesn't really add anything new to the discussion, so what is the point? Why not just append it to the other support discussions like normal people.
Browsing though a few stories over there and it's obvious that all the 12 year olds are done school and have nothing better to do between bouts of WoW than to troll Apple Forums, it's almost as bad as the comments on Engadget.
Not trying apologize for Apple in any way here. Just curious.
Always was a bit disappointed that the N900 didn't do as well as it should have, being an open system and all. Everyone jumped from one big and questionable company to another.
Sorry to hear about your mom, no offense meant beyond web forum hyperbole.
Yes, all the things you wrote are documented/real events but the tone that you described them in are a bit on the harsh side. IMHO anyway.
Flash: Like I said, Flash 10.1 looks like it may run well on mobile devices. And once that is proven, and there are some worthwhile uses of it, and it's secure, then yeah Apple should consider putting it on their phone.
How many devices run full on Flash (no flash lite) right now? (Quiet you two N900 fans in the back), yeah I don't see it on Android, or on WinMo (could be wrong, it's been so long), or WebOS, or Blackberries. There is a reason barely anyone is using at the moment, it's an ugly ugly beast. 10.1 will most likely be usable, but like I said, it's take a good 4 years (being generous from when smart phones really took off among the non-geek) to get something usable from Adobe. Adobe isn't exactly the Virgin Mary in this whole thing either.
Apple can charge what they want for their phone, and yes, that meant they could charge $600 for the thing when it first launched. People were more then happy enough to buy it at that price. I though that was crazy, hence I didn't buy one. No turtle-neck ninja's running around putting guns to people's heads making them buy it.
Nonsensical ramblings on PC death; isn't it happening though? You've got your smart phone on the go, smarter and smarter TVs for watching content (Google TV, for example), Consoles for playing games, etc. More and more specialized devices are coming out and being embraced by consumers. So far the PC is the central hub for most of this (a point Apple has made repeatedly), but eventually the PC could just become a server in a closet somewhere to store all the data, if not going completely central and storing content in 'the cloud'. Sure apple is happy to sell you gadgets like the iPad, but so is everyone else.
The Journalist thing. I'll try to avoid the obvious jokes about Gizmodo being real journalist. But the fact is that the guy who found the phone made money from his find, knowing pretty well what exactly he had in his hands. It would be one thing if he had posted the photos and everything, but instead he was offered a bunch of money from Gizmodo for it, and sold it. Would it fly if a 'real' news journalist had to pay a source for information? Gizmodo being juvenile through the entire thing didn't help either. If there was no case, the police would have told Apple lawyers to kiss their ass.
Restricted developer tools. I don't like it either, but Apple does have some valid points about API access and taking advantage of iPhone specific calls. Apple got badly burned with this exact kind of thing by none other than Adobe. When Apple switched to Intel, their own programming tools just required a check box to make things PowerPC and Intel compatible (grossly simplifying here I know), but those programs build with other tools had to wait for the maker of those tools to come out with the option of doing so. For Apple this meant that Adobe programs weren't Intel-native for a good year after the big switch. Sure, Adobe marks it up to their development cycle and all that, but they knew well enough ahead of time, but didn't or couldn't make the change. And on the topic of Adobe, have a look at the garbage user interface they have been trying to cook up with Creative Suite? Looks and works like shit on both windows and os x, this is exactly what Apple is trying to prevent.
Next, I don't think the open source movement will crash and burn because of a video codec. Apple has invested a lot in h264, and like any other corporation wants to see it adopted, and they have everything in place to support it from day one. I'll grant you it's contradictory of them to go on about open standards - html5 and all - and then push for this, so there. So, you get a point, but really this isn't 'a threat against open source' it's a threat against an open source video codec, big big difference.
Wow. You left out the part where the entire Apple campus had their way with your mom. They are just another corporation. It's fine if you don't like Apple, many people don't, and they choose not to buy their products. Is that so hard?
I know you're replying to a troll post, but really come on.
Oh and please, Flash 10.1 is might actually be 'all that' but it's taken Adobe how many years to make a usable version of flash for mobile phones? Yeah. Lets face it until now Flash on mobile has been a joke, and frankly Adobe deserved to be called on it. I mean, Apple build an entire mobile phone operating system, so has Google, Microsoft put out Vista, and Win7, heck even blackberries have gotten sorta usable (I keed, I keed) in the same span of time that it's take Adobe to do some optimizations of an existing product.
Slashdot Mirror
Gingerbread is almost 2 years old, (and compared to Android 4+ is just bad) sorry that doesn't count as modern. What the OP is asking for is a top of the line phone that isn't so large. In other words something with the power of a One X or Galaxy S3, without the big screen.
The thing is that the only way to get a top of the line Android experience is to buy a large phone, so it's a false statement to say that people chose larger screens, they had no choice if they wanted the best experience.
Hahahah.... I know this list is a joke, but come-the-fuck-on Flash on mobile is dead, just get over it.
They do.
Since Mom and Grandpa are using iPhones, the hipsters have long moved onto Android. And their parents get it for free with a contract, everyone wins, except the anti-Apple brigade. :)
Yes, Windows is the only 'serious' platform to develop for, as I am sure Android will eventually be, but for now Android is more akin to DOS, you better have your autoexec.bat and config.sys setup properly or the fancy new game won't have enough memory to run.
Yes WYSIWYG is bad for generating final code. But, honestly, for non-CMS sites, I still find it much easier to have Dreamweaver with code/wysiwyg side by side, so I can quickly click on the element of a page I need to edit (type, replace image, etc) and go right into the code to do make the edit. Yes, it only saves a second or two of scanning html code, but that adds up over time. Some programs have created tree view/lists to mimic this - Code Navigator in Coda for example - but it's just not the same.
The other thing that I haven't found a replacement for is the library items/assets. Create your Navigation or Footer and then apply it to all pages of your site, links to images etc are updated as required depending on the page and how deep in the site structure it is. Lots of other programs have code snippets, but I haven't found one that will update links like this.
Obviously, both these things are not going to be required when dealing with CMS sites.
Because there is a big world beyond US borders, and some countries like Canada have 3 year contracts.
Yes! I've done it plenty of times on a first-gen intel macbook pro. And FYI, you can take your old ipod (at least the 'classic' one), mount your mac os install image onto that, and use the ipod to do a install just like from a dvd. I expect something similar should be doable with Lion.
Please take that shrilly devil spawn.
xoxo,
Canada
Yes! someone vote up please. Glad to see that I wasn't the only one thinking that it's not Facebook they're after but Last.fm and/or what's left of MySpace. It looks like an extension of the Genius service that came in the last version, but I guess now the recomendations/aggregation won't be anonymous anymore.
Yeah it's all cool to hate on the iPhone/iTunes ecosystem these days, but iOS is a little bit different from OS X. This is the one where it's all overpriced, too shiny, and you get charged for service packs.
Lets keep the hate-boyism straight.
I'd see these in an instant.
option a) Zombie Kane goes on a rampage to kill those that destroyed his precious. Somehow the original movers/people that were hired to clean out the estate all had kids who turn out to be super hot chicks that happen to all go to the same college. roosseeebudd.... roooseeebudd.... braiiinnnsss brainnsss... Kane burn and smash like you smash and burn rosebud...
option b) Kane fakes his own death to become a fighter of crime, and volunteer at orphanages around the world. Next years 'surprise' 'indie' hit. A kind of Batman written by Chris Ware. Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman or Paul Giamatti in the title role.
These are freebies!
Yes, it is the nurses job to double check everything, and from the stats it's obvious that 99.99 percent of the time this happens.
The problem is handling of extreme cases. The nurse is at the end of her/his 8 hour shift when an emergency happens, they have 10 seconds to add medical compound A to Tube B, there are half a dozen other people swarming around doing their part to help the patient, who could be having convulsions or is just flailing around uncontrollably. Yes, it's their job to triple check that they are putting things into the right tube, but under conditions like these it gets easier to make a mistake. For most nurses the adrenaline kicks in and it's all good, but even if 1 in a 10,000 make a mistake that ends up being quite a few people at the end of the year.
These nurses can literally hold someone's life in their hands, but they get less respect and pay that someone pushing clip-art around in PowerPoint all day.
Ah well, bad attempt at humour is lost on people I guess.
Was getting one more turn (so really about 3 dozen) of Civ in before finishing my 'first post' comment, that's why it's way down the middle of the conversation.
Ha Ha.
Yeah, I'm not quitting my dayjob.
How about niftydude's reply below. But then again why am I even trying to reply to AC troll posts.
God help me, I'm barely 30 and I already remember the good old days of slashdot when there was actual discussion happening by people who actually looked at the source material of posted stories. Not this digg / engadget knee-jerk reactionary garbage based on story titles alone.
First Post Bia**es!!
Just had to get one more turn in first.
The cereal example I will disagree with you fully. The cereal company is footing the bill for an internally developed product, that's all great, simple R&D. I don't think things would go as well if the cereal company asked third parties to develop a new cereal, with production facilities, raw materials (corn and sugar) et al on the premise that only one would get picked and the others would get nothing.
I agree with you on the redefinition of business as a product vs. a service. I just don't think that good design can be a product that someone takes off the shelf and applies to their company/product. The back and forth between a designer and client is critical, it may be on simple things like colour choices, but also on larger issues such as who the target market is, the 'visual language' chosen by the client, those are all things to be challenged for a unique product to come out.
I completely understand that a small business doesn't have the money to go through this process with a large agency, but they do with a kid that is still in school. Sites that just offer finished logos to pick from don't provide this interaction which is a critical skill for a designer to have if they hope to move forward in the field. In this regard it will hurt the design profession in the long run.
On paper sure, but don't kid yourself, these 'contests' are easy pickings for outright theft of ideas. I've seen it happen first hand to friends. It's hard enough to go after a local company, on the web it's next to impossible. I'm not saying this would be an everyday occurrence, but it would happen.
Same thing as people grabbing photos from Flickr and other places for use in commercial work, they don't have the rights, but that doesn't stop them at all. The only way to fix these things is if there is enough of a public backlash to shame the company into stepping up. I'm not talking about Google or Microsoft stealing ideas, but small/medium business with questionable ethics wouldn't think twice.
Graphic Designer here, so consider me biased.
Currently, design works just like most other professions. Company needs work done, they send out a request for people to quote on that work. They shortlist a few potential options and sit down with them to go over things in detail. Designers provide a proper quote on the project and then the company decides who to go with.
Really, the same thing as needing to buy a new mail server, getting a few quotes from some vendors and then deciding on one.
What these sites are essentially doing is making each of the vendors go to your place, install the new mail server, and then you only pay for the one you like - but keep everyone elses servers as well.
It can be fun while you are in school, or trying to get your foot in the door, but eventually you realize that you've just spend a full day working for nothing. The worst part is that the client could go through the submissions, copy all the ideas down, decline them all, and send it over to their secretary to redraw it out for 'free'. Design is about ideas and form, it's not really something tangible (I built a car!) it's a hard thing to quantify, and a lot of the time to get paid for.
Spec work is a bad idea in any industry, and 99% of the time leads to the person doing the work getting screwed. That said, if people want to partake it's their choice and none of my business.
From the article... "The record figure for a single month was reported as T$18 billion which is roughly $570 million for the month of April and thus reflects..."
I'm guessing that's Taiwanese Dollars, not the US kind that Apple reports in. In USD it would make it about 1.7 billion per quarter to Apple's 10.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I don't disagree with you fully, but part of what makes Google look good is that they get to play good cop while the phone manufacturer and carrier get to play bad cop - ie. It's not our fault Samsung and Verizon (just picking names out of a hat) decided to put in ad overlays every five minutes, we just made the OS.
Google is great at expanding our consumption of free information. They do a super job at search (and related services) but most of the items that they expand your access to are already there for free, just waiting to be accessed. In a way, I think Apple has been tackling much harder issues, getting 99 cent pricing on all/most songs from the Recording Industry, and then offering DRM free versions took a whole lot of skill. It's all taken for granted now, but getting that stuff off the ground was tough.
I'm not trying to gloss over the fact that search is very very hard, nor that Apple has made some highly suspect choices/decisions. Just random observations badly typed out before my morning coffee.
I should also say that being an advertising company does not mean anything, good or bad, it's just a company like any other.
Is there really a point for people to start up new discussions on Apple's support site because of the Consumer Reports article? I'm sure there must have been plenty of posts re. reception issues since day one. The Consumer Reports article doesn't really add anything new to the discussion, so what is the point? Why not just append it to the other support discussions like normal people.
Browsing though a few stories over there and it's obvious that all the 12 year olds are done school and have nothing better to do between bouts of WoW than to troll Apple Forums, it's almost as bad as the comments on Engadget.
Not trying apologize for Apple in any way here. Just curious.
Always was a bit disappointed that the N900 didn't do as well as it should have, being an open system and all. Everyone jumped from one big and questionable company to another.
Sorry to hear about your mom, no offense meant beyond web forum hyperbole.
Yes, all the things you wrote are documented/real events but the tone that you described them in are a bit on the harsh side. IMHO anyway.
Flash: Like I said, Flash 10.1 looks like it may run well on mobile devices. And once that is proven, and there are some worthwhile uses of it, and it's secure, then yeah Apple should consider putting it on their phone.
How many devices run full on Flash (no flash lite) right now? (Quiet you two N900 fans in the back), yeah I don't see it on Android, or on WinMo (could be wrong, it's been so long), or WebOS, or Blackberries. There is a reason barely anyone is using at the moment, it's an ugly ugly beast. 10.1 will most likely be usable, but like I said, it's take a good 4 years (being generous from when smart phones really took off among the non-geek) to get something usable from Adobe. Adobe isn't exactly the Virgin Mary in this whole thing either.
Apple can charge what they want for their phone, and yes, that meant they could charge $600 for the thing when it first launched. People were more then happy enough to buy it at that price. I though that was crazy, hence I didn't buy one. No turtle-neck ninja's running around putting guns to people's heads making them buy it.
Nonsensical ramblings on PC death; isn't it happening though? You've got your smart phone on the go, smarter and smarter TVs for watching content (Google TV, for example), Consoles for playing games, etc. More and more specialized devices are coming out and being embraced by consumers. So far the PC is the central hub for most of this (a point Apple has made repeatedly), but eventually the PC could just become a server in a closet somewhere to store all the data, if not going completely central and storing content in 'the cloud'. Sure apple is happy to sell you gadgets like the iPad, but so is everyone else.
The Journalist thing. I'll try to avoid the obvious jokes about Gizmodo being real journalist. But the fact is that the guy who found the phone made money from his find, knowing pretty well what exactly he had in his hands. It would be one thing if he had posted the photos and everything, but instead he was offered a bunch of money from Gizmodo for it, and sold it. Would it fly if a 'real' news journalist had to pay a source for information? Gizmodo being juvenile through the entire thing didn't help either. If there was no case, the police would have told Apple lawyers to kiss their ass.
Restricted developer tools. I don't like it either, but Apple does have some valid points about API access and taking advantage of iPhone specific calls. Apple got badly burned with this exact kind of thing by none other than Adobe. When Apple switched to Intel, their own programming tools just required a check box to make things PowerPC and Intel compatible (grossly simplifying here I know), but those programs build with other tools had to wait for the maker of those tools to come out with the option of doing so. For Apple this meant that Adobe programs weren't Intel-native for a good year after the big switch. Sure, Adobe marks it up to their development cycle and all that, but they knew well enough ahead of time, but didn't or couldn't make the change. And on the topic of Adobe, have a look at the garbage user interface they have been trying to cook up with Creative Suite? Looks and works like shit on both windows and os x, this is exactly what Apple is trying to prevent.
Next, I don't think the open source movement will crash and burn because of a video codec. Apple has invested a lot in h264, and like any other corporation wants to see it adopted, and they have everything in place to support it from day one. I'll grant you it's contradictory of them to go on about open standards - html5 and all - and then push for this, so there. So, you get a point, but really this isn't 'a threat against open source' it's a threat against an open source video codec, big big difference.
It doesn't help that you
Wow. You left out the part where the entire Apple campus had their way with your mom. They are just another corporation. It's fine if you don't like Apple, many people don't, and they choose not to buy their products. Is that so hard?
I know you're replying to a troll post, but really come on.
Oh and please, Flash 10.1 is might actually be 'all that' but it's taken Adobe how many years to make a usable version of flash for mobile phones? Yeah. Lets face it until now Flash on mobile has been a joke, and frankly Adobe deserved to be called on it. I mean, Apple build an entire mobile phone operating system, so has Google, Microsoft put out Vista, and Win7, heck even blackberries have gotten sorta usable (I keed, I keed) in the same span of time that it's take Adobe to do some optimizations of an existing product.