Ah yet another blind "fact" about an Apple event and/or product.
Nice to see you get smacked down with the photo of someone watching the keynote on an Android phone. Did you even check before posting, or do you just have some axe to grind?
By default the hard drive (the boot partition, in fact) is called "Macintosh HD". When you click on it you are at the root mount point ( / ) containing the familiar Users, Applications, Library, System that will be familiar to anyone who used a Unix or Linux system before.
If you want to navigate to other programs not on the Dock, just click "Applications" (also in the dock) for a pop-up list, much like the start menu (it just doesn't say "start" on it). Different modifier keys that you can optionally press when you click this representation of your Applications folder [that is much like the Start button] vary the way it displays - like a fan, like a grid or like a regular list, depending on your preference. The number of apps that have "shortcuts" in the Dock is entirely up to you - you can keep it just to running apps if you really want (with the exception of Finder and the Trash, which you cannot remove, although since the Finder is always running it will always display in the Dock anyway [although you can modify the behaviour so you can quit Finder, you cannot remove it from the far left anchor position on the dock]). Putting apps that you very frequently use in the Dock reduces the launch method to a single click, but you are not obligated to do this. You can tell at a glance what apps are running since they have a big white dot under them if you do choose to keep non-running apps in the Dock. It speaks to your character that you think a different UI paradigm means the entirety of its users are stupid; that's one of the biggest non-sequiturs I have ever seen, although that's closely followed by the assertion that Mac users only run a browser.
The Mac user space is set up very similarly to Linux - home folder, apps folder, system folders etc. All of the "data files and library files" are kept separately in logical places. If you are levelling this criticism at the Mac then surely you must do the same for Linux, since the layout is near-identical.
The fact that you don't personally like the Mac UI doesn't make it some hopeless, inferior method of computer interface - just different. There are enough errors and I-don't-want-to-like-it bias in your post (ie, from someone who uses a Linux system day to day, you are either being wilfully ignorant about some really basic things or you have never actually used a Mac and are just repeating things you have read second hand - if you are proficient with a Linux system, the Mac UI and HD layout is not rocket science).
Also, formatting a Windows box every few months? This is not 1995 any more. XP, 7 and (shock horror) even Vista are not that bad any more if they are properly looked after. This does mean AV software for Windows, but there is no need for it to be giant bloatware.
You miss my point - I'm not claiming MS has not been innovative - far from it; they have a history of innovation over the course of their long and successful existence. I was merely stating that your conclusion that my original post made the claim "the windows UI is innovative because it is in use on so many machines" true, when it does not. MS's business model is what made the Windows UI entrenched (being entrenched itself was not a prerequisite - there's no hypocrisy here, although as an Apple hater I know you are quick to jump to that as a defence). They *became* entrenched through their business model which was "sell an OS that works on IBM compatible boxes" rather than the (then popular) method (and the method Apple and other computer manufacturers used) of "build an OS that works on hardware that we also sell". What MS did was a departure, one might even say an innovative step, in operating systems since they did not make any hardware of their own. It paid off, and their current market position is the result.
The iPod Touch is not a PDA with a focus on the mp3 player - have you actually used one? The primary focus is the apps. The iPod is just one of its features - hardly the focus of it. You might go as far as to say it is a 50/50 split, but the main selling point is the big touch screen and the app store, making it a portable games/utility device. By itself its not necessarily highly innovative (as an extension of the iPod platform) but the OS it is based on and the hardware is is an offshoot from (the iPhone) was highly innovative. The iPod Touch was a natural extension of that (an iPhone without the phone).
When did I talk about type ahead? I never mentioned it. I was talking about predictive text, the feature of Nokia phones in the late 90s and early 2000's that made them so popular (especially in Europe) to the point where there really were no other phones, just Nokias. It had nothing to do with Apple at all. I was talking about an innovation that was totally nothing at all to do with Apple to remove any anti-Apple bias that you are displaying. Read it again: predictive text was innovative but in hindsight "obvious" - pair a dictionary and a word generator with the keypad input on a mobile phone. The UI (Nokia's UI and physical implementation) was what made it innovative and "must have" for consumers and other phone manufacturers. It had nothing at all to do with Apple, I was merely illustrating the sorts of things that are considered "innovation" so that if I point to something Apple has done (like the touch screen UI and hardware design of the iPhone) you have something to compare it to. You will be hard pressed to find people who will argue against Nokia being innovative with predictive text, yet somehow UI design by Apple is not innovation. Double standard, much.
"There were plenty of mp3 players with few buttons" - yes, but were they any good to use? Almost universally no. The number of buttons is ultimately irrelevant if your UI is poor. It was the combination of simple input controls and an elegant UI that made the iPod so good to use. It had its flaws, inherent to any system like that (controlling volume while browsing for songs simultaneously, for example, due to the single wheel) but it was far ahead of the competition *and* it had marketing to get people interested (a much neglected part of a product).
And if the iPad is just a bigger iPod (Touch) [sic] (it's not a big iPod - the iPod is different entirely), then why weren't there any devices before that (that sold)? The tablet market is not new. Apple didn't invent the tablet market, or the tablet. What they *did* do was create a tablet that people wanted to buy. They did this by innovating - certainly much was drawn from their experiences with the iPhone, which again, was the first wildly successful touch screen smartphone (but not the first smartphone) that actually sold well beyond the entrenched business sector with their blackberries. They made a UI and mobile computing experience that was much better than anything
The Windows GUI isn't popular because it was innovative, it is popular because Windows itself is entrenched, using a business model that worked for the PC makers at the time: IBM Compatible machines.
You are also neglecting a crucial part of a product: the bit that Apple does so well. The tech wold is littered with good products that flopped because they were very poorly marketed, or lacked an innovative edge.
The iPod was just another mp3 player, with a better UI than anything else at the time, and seamless integration with iTunes. It may not be as "innovative" as someone inventing the triple expansion steam engine (which really was just an improvement over older steam engines), but it certainly featured some innovation, or change, or something different that no one was doing before, hence the success. That is innovation by any stretch of the imagination, even if it might appear obvious (of course, everything does in hindsight).
You also cannot get by on marketing alone - sooner or later (often sooner) if your product is poor, it will show. Slashdot likes to claim that Apple's successes are entirely down to marketing, but that is not quite true. Just compare the success of their big products with other things that have had marketing hype: the PS3, the Dreamcast, the prequel Star Wars movies, etc. Pure marketing will not get you much more than a flurry of sales on opening weekend/product launch, but beyond that, you actually do need a good product.
It seems obvious now, but at the time the iPod was released, no one was thinking "the UI on these things is terrible, what can we do to improve it" then along comes a device with a rotating wheel and four buttons - a world away from all those other mp3 players that have hundreds of buttons for multiple different settings and controls. The iPod didn't even have a volume control - you adjusted it with the wheel.
While single-input, multiple-operation control systems are nothing new, it was a new method of application to music players (paired with a good UI, which is *vital* for a system like that) that made it innovative.
They did the same thing with the iPhone's interface when it was launched. Not the first smartphone, but the first really usable smartphone with an innovative UI. (and again, easy to look back on with hindsight and say "well that is obvious, it's not innovation" - in which case, where were all the smartphones that had this "obvious" UI before the iPhone came along?
Consider another stepwise advance - predictive text messaging. Not invented by Apple, so we can move away from any bias you have about that particular company. It seems obvious now, and is nothing more than pairing a dictionary with the phone input, and telling the word generator the possible letter combinations that the keys represent (abc=1, def=2 etc), but it was and innovative development when it came out, and suddenly everyone (many people, I know you will attempt to nullify my point if I say 'everyone' when there are some people who hate predictive text) was scrambling to implement it, and consumers were buying phones based on that feature, especially in Europe where text messaging was *huge* (and still is). Of course, everyone wanted to use Nokia's method, since people learned that and were texting like touch typists. An innovative use of something that seems obvious now. Apple's innovations in UI and product design are very similar. Look at how many large-screen-touch-only phones there are now; how many were there before the iPhone?
How strange that it is configured that way in the options. You would think it would be listed in the dropdown box for "how much memory do you want in your custom laptop" where the biggest amount you can select is 4GB. I checked Crucial and it does indeed have 2 slots so you can go to 4GB. So, for my last post, just add on the cost of a 4GB stick to that price.
And "who uses firewire?" - a lot of people. Talk to anyone in the pro audio or pro video fields and you will find a large number of firewire users. It's hardly a "crap" technology - it is far superior (if a tiny bit more expensive to implement) than USB2 for the task it was designed for - high speed serial I/O. There are also many people out there using firewire hard drive enclosures. Any home user who wants to edit home movies on a camcorder with an "iLink" (Sony's name for the 4 pin firewire port) on their camera (not confined to Sony models) will need a firewire port on their machine, unless the camera has alternate means of data transfer (for a MiniDV/HDV camera, that's unlikely).
You'll also note that Apple didn't "lack support for other technologies" when they introduced firewire on their machines, and then made it a standard feature across the range (until very recently with the lowest MacBook where it was removed). At the time there was nothing to compete with firewire at the same price bracket. When USB2 came along, they implemented that too (they were also one of the first manufacturers to ship USB on their machines too, creating universal connections for the keyboard and mouse).
Re: accidental damage
You can't play it both ways - you specifically said that you could get your laptop repaired through accidental damage. If that is the case, you *must* add that cost on, whether Apple offers it or not - otherwise, your cheaper price for the HP is dishonest, since it *doesn't* feature accidental damage cover (and yet you claim you can get it repaired as such), and is thus in the same boat as the Apple machine. You chose to make that a point about how HP's warranty was better, so you have to add it on.
I also forgot to add on the "keep the drive" support option - you said you wanted that, but it costs to have that option with HP. I didn't add the cost. You also stated that Apple "didn;t tell you" about wiping the HD when the machine goes in for AppleCare - they do tell you, it's in the procedures and information, and they strongly advise you to back up data (if possible) before sending it in for repair (and advise you to keep backups anyway, even when the machine is working fine). They have disclaimers and warnings (it would be a liability if they did not).
I'm not arguing that the HP isn't cheaper - most PC laptops are cheaper. I am merely taking issue with your assertion that you are making an Apples to Apples comparison. It's closer than most (who just link to some $300 Dell with crappy parts, compared to an iMac or something), but it's not quite there.
Take a look at the way the markets that those products occupy changed after their introduction - the iPod was not the first or the most feature-rich mp3 player, but it took a small, gradually growing market and bust it wide open. The iPhone did the same thing: not the first smartphone by long, long chalk, but the first one that was genuinely great to use and similarly turned the smartphone market from a niche into a huge open field that everyone wants to participate in.
They drive trends, and create markets. Look at the original iMac. Look at how many companies copied it. Look at the current iMac (the flat panel one) and consider how current PC makers have also tried to do something similar - Dell's machines that fix to the back of the monitor stand in a crude "iMac-like" way to reduce the computer's footprint are a prime example of this (and move us away from towers/mini towers and desktops).
The iPad is one of those ones that is still up in the air; as a reinvention of the tablet market, I think it is succeeding - just look at the state of tablets before iPad, and now look at the upcoming crop of tablets are are going to "take on" the iPad in a market that now exists for them that wasn't there before. Whether this market is actually sustainable in the long term is another question entirely, but there is no doubt that there is (right now) a market for the iPad (they can't make them fast enough) AND a market for a competitor to the iPad (for example, something running Android). The same is true for the smartphone: the vast and growing market for Android devices owes a large part of its success to the iPhone's ignition of the smartphone market as a whole, formerly dominated by business users with blackberries.
Innovation is not always solely about "I invented this thing that has never been seen before" - it is almost always "hey, here's a new take on something we've all been doing before, but we think is a bit better".
People were going to the movies for years when the VCR came out, and the studios cried out that they were going to die with home taping, then quickly realised that "home cinema" would be a lucrative market, so the movie rental business was born. Hardly pure innovation in the strictest sense: "it's watching a movie.... in your home!" (it's buying music...... on the internet!"), but it was a good idea, and one that people quickly took to.
Apple, for all their faults, are very good at spotting markets - they did it with the iMac, the iBook, the iPod, the iPhone and now are trying again with the iPad (which is more an extension of their efforts with the iPhone and iPod Touch).
Rubbish. If you have the machine sent back to Apple 3 times for an issue on AppleCare they ship you a brand new machine instead. I have supported close to 30 Macs in my computing life, and dealing with AppleCare has always been excellent for me - and I have dealt with some lemon-on-arrival machines.
I also had Apple go out of their way to ship me extra parts on a machine (a gig ethernet card) so I wouldn't have to take a work machine out of production to send it away for a repair (this was on a regular AppleCare support contract, not a business one).
Plus, your HP probook is lacking firewire (although does have e-sata), a weird off-centre trackpad that reviewers have said is in an awkward place and also buggy when in use, and crucially, a plastic case. My config came to $2266 (when I eventually found it on HP's store - business store only it seems! It's like they don;t want to sell you this stuff), after I tacked on the accidental damage cover in addition to the 3 year warranty. HP will only let me fit 4GB of RAM into it too - are you sure it has space enough for 8GB?
So, still dearer by a distance (ie, more than $100) but still not completely comparable.
Of course not - they should get lots of credit for it. The same amount of credit Apple gets from slashdot users for the work they did to Webkit since the point of forking it from the KHTML project.;)
(and for those with no sarcasm detector, that's "lots of credit" for both companies).
You have to modify your phone to be able to do this stuff, just like you have to modify your car if you want to install doors, or install a different engine or something not originally designed for the car that may require different mountings, or hose adapters, or changing the ECU (which is a proprietary nightmare on some cars).
So, sell the iPhone, or return it to the store and exchange it for a different one that does do what you want, even if it was a gift - you can return it and get out of any phone contract you're in.
Of course you can hack a car and add a third door, just like you can with the iPhone. However, don;t expect the warranty to be valid on the phone or the car after you do this unsupported thing (that you are within your rights to do in both cases), however, the lack of back doors on the car and the lack of 3rd party installation ability on the phone does not mean that the phone or car is "lacking basic features" since they were never on the thing in the first place - lots of objects lack "basic" features that other objects have. Back doors on 2 door cars, third party installs on smartphones, cordless jugs on electric kettles, number pads on small bluetooth keyboards, eraser on the back end of a pencil....
If you truly were given your iPhone and you quickly realised that in the first month it didn't do what you needed and you're on a contract, then you are unfortunate, but hey - it was a gift. If it was on pay as you go, just sell it and use the proceeds to get a new phone.
Because you just can't do that, and you know that ahead of time. It's not something the iPhone does.
If you buy a two door car do you also complain that it's missing the "basic functionality" of being able to get people into the back through the rear doors, which it doesn't have, without hacking the car to fit some? You knew when you bought it that it didn't have rear doors, and my car or a car you already own has them, so why doesn't this one?!!
If you want to write an app for your smartphone that is just for you, then you should look for a smartphone that has that capability - phones that run Android fit that market.
I have been corrected on that point - stock iPhones now can use VoIP on 3G now. It was carrier based in the US, just like tethering (which my stock UK iPhone does just fine), and unlocking, which my UK carrier will do for me but still can't be done in the states. I just hadn't checked the changes in VoIP because my plan means I just don't need it.
You are attempting to equate the phone with a standard Windows PC, which is a bit disingenuous - it's more accurate to compare it to a games console. Sure, some PS3s can install Linux, but I would hardly call that a basic function of the device (for 95% of the target audience). You can't use PS3 games on an Xbox 360, which I'm sure is not a feature.
If you want an Apple platform that is not set up this way (and sold and promoted to work this way) then that's what the Apple Mac is for, where you can install anything you like (assuming you have appropriate software first - eg, if you want to run windows software you'll need an emulator or a copy of Windows itself).
What's with all the hostility and attempted sarcasm? I'm not trying to personally wound people who don't agree. It just makes your arguments look childish.
So, where does it say that this is a basic function of the phone? It is very clearly designed to *not* work that way.
If you want to install non-vetted software, the iPhone is not the phone for you, unless you want to jailbreak it - ie, it;s not missing a basic function; it was never designed to have it in the first place.
You don't need iTunes to sync contacts. There are third party sync apps that sync your music, photos, contacts, calendars etc without the use of iTunes.
Bluetooth file transfer, I did forget that. Going via the usb cable to get images off is a little restrictive sometimes, but hardly a reason to jailbreak unless you are constantly sending files that way.
Tethering? The phone already does that, without jailbreaking. Installing non-app store apps? I wouldn't call that basic - the phone is just not designed and promoted to work that way (ie, if you want to do other things with it, you're moving away from 'basic' and into 'unsupported, potentially advanced' functions).
The biggest reason I've seen for jailbreaking my phone (although I haven't done so) is to enable use of the phone as an AP, rather than having to tether to my Powerbook and then share my wifit that way, but the number of times I've needed to share my connection when there's been nothing but 3G access is limited. Either way, that's hardly basic functionality.
I guess VoIP is verging on basic, but there are apps that work over wifi - the 3G restrictions are carrier based.
I agree that this exploit has been spun the wrong way - as a positive thing to enable easy jailbreaking. Any security hole is never a positive thing, regardless of the beneficial things you can do with it. I'm glad it has been addressed, although I am hoping it will also be fixed for users of 2G and 3G iPhones who haven;t upgraded to iOS4.
When half of the US population watches Fox News, it's best just to assume your audience is 5 years old to save time. Thos that watch other news channels will understand.
Slashdot Mirror
My Ubuntu box has no problems with iTunes-written and edited i3 tags. They work just fine.
Did Fox News write that one for you?
-1 total fabrication.
The fingerprint logo is new - it's a tie in with the new touch screens on the Nano.
Ah yet another blind "fact" about an Apple event and/or product.
Nice to see you get smacked down with the photo of someone watching the keynote on an Android phone. Did you even check before posting, or do you just have some axe to grind?
Your Tivo and subscription to the premium channels these shows are on are both free? Cool, where can I get that hooked up?
You're being baited. The AC is an anti-Apple troll.
By default the hard drive (the boot partition, in fact) is called "Macintosh HD". When you click on it you are at the root mount point ( / ) containing the familiar Users, Applications, Library, System that will be familiar to anyone who used a Unix or Linux system before.
If you want to navigate to other programs not on the Dock, just click "Applications" (also in the dock) for a pop-up list, much like the start menu (it just doesn't say "start" on it). Different modifier keys that you can optionally press when you click this representation of your Applications folder [that is much like the Start button] vary the way it displays - like a fan, like a grid or like a regular list, depending on your preference. The number of apps that have "shortcuts" in the Dock is entirely up to you - you can keep it just to running apps if you really want (with the exception of Finder and the Trash, which you cannot remove, although since the Finder is always running it will always display in the Dock anyway [although you can modify the behaviour so you can quit Finder, you cannot remove it from the far left anchor position on the dock]). Putting apps that you very frequently use in the Dock reduces the launch method to a single click, but you are not obligated to do this. You can tell at a glance what apps are running since they have a big white dot under them if you do choose to keep non-running apps in the Dock. It speaks to your character that you think a different UI paradigm means the entirety of its users are stupid; that's one of the biggest non-sequiturs I have ever seen, although that's closely followed by the assertion that Mac users only run a browser.
The Mac user space is set up very similarly to Linux - home folder, apps folder, system folders etc. All of the "data files and library files" are kept separately in logical places. If you are levelling this criticism at the Mac then surely you must do the same for Linux, since the layout is near-identical.
The fact that you don't personally like the Mac UI doesn't make it some hopeless, inferior method of computer interface - just different. There are enough errors and I-don't-want-to-like-it bias in your post (ie, from someone who uses a Linux system day to day, you are either being wilfully ignorant about some really basic things or you have never actually used a Mac and are just repeating things you have read second hand - if you are proficient with a Linux system, the Mac UI and HD layout is not rocket science).
Also, formatting a Windows box every few months? This is not 1995 any more. XP, 7 and (shock horror) even Vista are not that bad any more if they are properly looked after. This does mean AV software for Windows, but there is no need for it to be giant bloatware.
[citation needed]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1757102&cid=33277532
Bob Geldof.
It's been scientifically proven that he ages at 1/16 the speed of a normal person. We have at least a couple of centuries left with him.
You miss my point - I'm not claiming MS has not been innovative - far from it; they have a history of innovation over the course of their long and successful existence. I was merely stating that your conclusion that my original post made the claim "the windows UI is innovative because it is in use on so many machines" true, when it does not. MS's business model is what made the Windows UI entrenched (being entrenched itself was not a prerequisite - there's no hypocrisy here, although as an Apple hater I know you are quick to jump to that as a defence). They *became* entrenched through their business model which was "sell an OS that works on IBM compatible boxes" rather than the (then popular) method (and the method Apple and other computer manufacturers used) of "build an OS that works on hardware that we also sell". What MS did was a departure, one might even say an innovative step, in operating systems since they did not make any hardware of their own. It paid off, and their current market position is the result.
The iPod Touch is not a PDA with a focus on the mp3 player - have you actually used one? The primary focus is the apps. The iPod is just one of its features - hardly the focus of it. You might go as far as to say it is a 50/50 split, but the main selling point is the big touch screen and the app store, making it a portable games/utility device. By itself its not necessarily highly innovative (as an extension of the iPod platform) but the OS it is based on and the hardware is is an offshoot from (the iPhone) was highly innovative. The iPod Touch was a natural extension of that (an iPhone without the phone).
When did I talk about type ahead? I never mentioned it. I was talking about predictive text, the feature of Nokia phones in the late 90s and early 2000's that made them so popular (especially in Europe) to the point where there really were no other phones, just Nokias. It had nothing to do with Apple at all. I was talking about an innovation that was totally nothing at all to do with Apple to remove any anti-Apple bias that you are displaying. Read it again: predictive text was innovative but in hindsight "obvious" - pair a dictionary and a word generator with the keypad input on a mobile phone. The UI (Nokia's UI and physical implementation) was what made it innovative and "must have" for consumers and other phone manufacturers. It had nothing at all to do with Apple, I was merely illustrating the sorts of things that are considered "innovation" so that if I point to something Apple has done (like the touch screen UI and hardware design of the iPhone) you have something to compare it to. You will be hard pressed to find people who will argue against Nokia being innovative with predictive text, yet somehow UI design by Apple is not innovation. Double standard, much.
"There were plenty of mp3 players with few buttons" - yes, but were they any good to use? Almost universally no. The number of buttons is ultimately irrelevant if your UI is poor. It was the combination of simple input controls and an elegant UI that made the iPod so good to use. It had its flaws, inherent to any system like that (controlling volume while browsing for songs simultaneously, for example, due to the single wheel) but it was far ahead of the competition *and* it had marketing to get people interested (a much neglected part of a product).
And if the iPad is just a bigger iPod (Touch) [sic] (it's not a big iPod - the iPod is different entirely), then why weren't there any devices before that (that sold)? The tablet market is not new. Apple didn't invent the tablet market, or the tablet. What they *did* do was create a tablet that people wanted to buy. They did this by innovating - certainly much was drawn from their experiences with the iPhone, which again, was the first wildly successful touch screen smartphone (but not the first smartphone) that actually sold well beyond the entrenched business sector with their blackberries. They made a UI and mobile computing experience that was much better than anything
The Windows GUI isn't popular because it was innovative, it is popular because Windows itself is entrenched, using a business model that worked for the PC makers at the time: IBM Compatible machines.
You are also neglecting a crucial part of a product: the bit that Apple does so well. The tech wold is littered with good products that flopped because they were very poorly marketed, or lacked an innovative edge.
The iPod was just another mp3 player, with a better UI than anything else at the time, and seamless integration with iTunes. It may not be as "innovative" as someone inventing the triple expansion steam engine (which really was just an improvement over older steam engines), but it certainly featured some innovation, or change, or something different that no one was doing before, hence the success. That is innovation by any stretch of the imagination, even if it might appear obvious (of course, everything does in hindsight).
You also cannot get by on marketing alone - sooner or later (often sooner) if your product is poor, it will show. Slashdot likes to claim that Apple's successes are entirely down to marketing, but that is not quite true. Just compare the success of their big products with other things that have had marketing hype: the PS3, the Dreamcast, the prequel Star Wars movies, etc. Pure marketing will not get you much more than a flurry of sales on opening weekend/product launch, but beyond that, you actually do need a good product.
It seems obvious now, but at the time the iPod was released, no one was thinking "the UI on these things is terrible, what can we do to improve it" then along comes a device with a rotating wheel and four buttons - a world away from all those other mp3 players that have hundreds of buttons for multiple different settings and controls. The iPod didn't even have a volume control - you adjusted it with the wheel.
While single-input, multiple-operation control systems are nothing new, it was a new method of application to music players (paired with a good UI, which is *vital* for a system like that) that made it innovative.
They did the same thing with the iPhone's interface when it was launched. Not the first smartphone, but the first really usable smartphone with an innovative UI. (and again, easy to look back on with hindsight and say "well that is obvious, it's not innovation" - in which case, where were all the smartphones that had this "obvious" UI before the iPhone came along?
Consider another stepwise advance - predictive text messaging. Not invented by Apple, so we can move away from any bias you have about that particular company. It seems obvious now, and is nothing more than pairing a dictionary with the phone input, and telling the word generator the possible letter combinations that the keys represent (abc=1, def=2 etc), but it was and innovative development when it came out, and suddenly everyone (many people, I know you will attempt to nullify my point if I say 'everyone' when there are some people who hate predictive text) was scrambling to implement it, and consumers were buying phones based on that feature, especially in Europe where text messaging was *huge* (and still is). Of course, everyone wanted to use Nokia's method, since people learned that and were texting like touch typists. An innovative use of something that seems obvious now. Apple's innovations in UI and product design are very similar. Look at how many large-screen-touch-only phones there are now; how many were there before the iPhone?
How strange that it is configured that way in the options. You would think it would be listed in the dropdown box for "how much memory do you want in your custom laptop" where the biggest amount you can select is 4GB. I checked Crucial and it does indeed have 2 slots so you can go to 4GB. So, for my last post, just add on the cost of a 4GB stick to that price.
And "who uses firewire?" - a lot of people. Talk to anyone in the pro audio or pro video fields and you will find a large number of firewire users. It's hardly a "crap" technology - it is far superior (if a tiny bit more expensive to implement) than USB2 for the task it was designed for - high speed serial I/O. There are also many people out there using firewire hard drive enclosures. Any home user who wants to edit home movies on a camcorder with an "iLink" (Sony's name for the 4 pin firewire port) on their camera (not confined to Sony models) will need a firewire port on their machine, unless the camera has alternate means of data transfer (for a MiniDV/HDV camera, that's unlikely).
You'll also note that Apple didn't "lack support for other technologies" when they introduced firewire on their machines, and then made it a standard feature across the range (until very recently with the lowest MacBook where it was removed). At the time there was nothing to compete with firewire at the same price bracket. When USB2 came along, they implemented that too (they were also one of the first manufacturers to ship USB on their machines too, creating universal connections for the keyboard and mouse).
Re: accidental damage
You can't play it both ways - you specifically said that you could get your laptop repaired through accidental damage. If that is the case, you *must* add that cost on, whether Apple offers it or not - otherwise, your cheaper price for the HP is dishonest, since it *doesn't* feature accidental damage cover (and yet you claim you can get it repaired as such), and is thus in the same boat as the Apple machine. You chose to make that a point about how HP's warranty was better, so you have to add it on.
I also forgot to add on the "keep the drive" support option - you said you wanted that, but it costs to have that option with HP. I didn't add the cost. You also stated that Apple "didn;t tell you" about wiping the HD when the machine goes in for AppleCare - they do tell you, it's in the procedures and information, and they strongly advise you to back up data (if possible) before sending it in for repair (and advise you to keep backups anyway, even when the machine is working fine). They have disclaimers and warnings (it would be a liability if they did not).
I'm not arguing that the HP isn't cheaper - most PC laptops are cheaper. I am merely taking issue with your assertion that you are making an Apples to Apples comparison. It's closer than most (who just link to some $300 Dell with crappy parts, compared to an iMac or something), but it's not quite there.
Take a look at the way the markets that those products occupy changed after their introduction - the iPod was not the first or the most feature-rich mp3 player, but it took a small, gradually growing market and bust it wide open. The iPhone did the same thing: not the first smartphone by long, long chalk, but the first one that was genuinely great to use and similarly turned the smartphone market from a niche into a huge open field that everyone wants to participate in.
They drive trends, and create markets. Look at the original iMac. Look at how many companies copied it. Look at the current iMac (the flat panel one) and consider how current PC makers have also tried to do something similar - Dell's machines that fix to the back of the monitor stand in a crude "iMac-like" way to reduce the computer's footprint are a prime example of this (and move us away from towers/mini towers and desktops).
The iPad is one of those ones that is still up in the air; as a reinvention of the tablet market, I think it is succeeding - just look at the state of tablets before iPad, and now look at the upcoming crop of tablets are are going to "take on" the iPad in a market that now exists for them that wasn't there before. Whether this market is actually sustainable in the long term is another question entirely, but there is no doubt that there is (right now) a market for the iPad (they can't make them fast enough) AND a market for a competitor to the iPad (for example, something running Android). The same is true for the smartphone: the vast and growing market for Android devices owes a large part of its success to the iPhone's ignition of the smartphone market as a whole, formerly dominated by business users with blackberries.
Innovation is not always solely about "I invented this thing that has never been seen before" - it is almost always "hey, here's a new take on something we've all been doing before, but we think is a bit better".
People were going to the movies for years when the VCR came out, and the studios cried out that they were going to die with home taping, then quickly realised that "home cinema" would be a lucrative market, so the movie rental business was born. Hardly pure innovation in the strictest sense: "it's watching a movie.... in your home!" (it's buying music...... on the internet!"), but it was a good idea, and one that people quickly took to.
Apple, for all their faults, are very good at spotting markets - they did it with the iMac, the iBook, the iPod, the iPhone and now are trying again with the iPad (which is more an extension of their efforts with the iPhone and iPod Touch).
Rubbish. If you have the machine sent back to Apple 3 times for an issue on AppleCare they ship you a brand new machine instead. I have supported close to 30 Macs in my computing life, and dealing with AppleCare has always been excellent for me - and I have dealt with some lemon-on-arrival machines.
I also had Apple go out of their way to ship me extra parts on a machine (a gig ethernet card) so I wouldn't have to take a work machine out of production to send it away for a repair (this was on a regular AppleCare support contract, not a business one).
Plus, your HP probook is lacking firewire (although does have e-sata), a weird off-centre trackpad that reviewers have said is in an awkward place and also buggy when in use, and crucially, a plastic case. My config came to $2266 (when I eventually found it on HP's store - business store only it seems! It's like they don;t want to sell you this stuff), after I tacked on the accidental damage cover in addition to the 3 year warranty. HP will only let me fit 4GB of RAM into it too - are you sure it has space enough for 8GB?
So, still dearer by a distance (ie, more than $100) but still not completely comparable.
Of course not - they should get lots of credit for it. The same amount of credit Apple gets from slashdot users for the work they did to Webkit since the point of forking it from the KHTML project. ;)
(and for those with no sarcasm detector, that's "lots of credit" for both companies).
You can leave any contract before 30 days at no penalty. You have consumer rights.
How are Apple stopping you?
You have to modify your phone to be able to do this stuff, just like you have to modify your car if you want to install doors, or install a different engine or something not originally designed for the car that may require different mountings, or hose adapters, or changing the ECU (which is a proprietary nightmare on some cars).
No, but if you have a warranty with Mazda and you install parts yourself, or from a non-authorised repair place, you will void your warranty.
Other than that, Mazda don;t care what you do with your car. They just won't support you if you "go off the Mazda-approved path".
Much like a smartphone.
So, sell the iPhone, or return it to the store and exchange it for a different one that does do what you want, even if it was a gift - you can return it and get out of any phone contract you're in.
Of course you can hack a car and add a third door, just like you can with the iPhone. However, don;t expect the warranty to be valid on the phone or the car after you do this unsupported thing (that you are within your rights to do in both cases), however, the lack of back doors on the car and the lack of 3rd party installation ability on the phone does not mean that the phone or car is "lacking basic features" since they were never on the thing in the first place - lots of objects lack "basic" features that other objects have. Back doors on 2 door cars, third party installs on smartphones, cordless jugs on electric kettles, number pads on small bluetooth keyboards, eraser on the back end of a pencil....
If you truly were given your iPhone and you quickly realised that in the first month it didn't do what you needed and you're on a contract, then you are unfortunate, but hey - it was a gift. If it was on pay as you go, just sell it and use the proceeds to get a new phone.
Because you just can't do that, and you know that ahead of time. It's not something the iPhone does.
If you buy a two door car do you also complain that it's missing the "basic functionality" of being able to get people into the back through the rear doors, which it doesn't have, without hacking the car to fit some? You knew when you bought it that it didn't have rear doors, and my car or a car you already own has them, so why doesn't this one?!!
If you want to write an app for your smartphone that is just for you, then you should look for a smartphone that has that capability - phones that run Android fit that market.
I have been corrected on that point - stock iPhones now can use VoIP on 3G now. It was carrier based in the US, just like tethering (which my stock UK iPhone does just fine), and unlocking, which my UK carrier will do for me but still can't be done in the states. I just hadn't checked the changes in VoIP because my plan means I just don't need it.
You are attempting to equate the phone with a standard Windows PC, which is a bit disingenuous - it's more accurate to compare it to a games console. Sure, some PS3s can install Linux, but I would hardly call that a basic function of the device (for 95% of the target audience). You can't use PS3 games on an Xbox 360, which I'm sure is not a feature.
If you want an Apple platform that is not set up this way (and sold and promoted to work this way) then that's what the Apple Mac is for, where you can install anything you like (assuming you have appropriate software first - eg, if you want to run windows software you'll need an emulator or a copy of Windows itself).
What's with all the hostility and attempted sarcasm? I'm not trying to personally wound people who don't agree. It just makes your arguments look childish.
So, where does it say that this is a basic function of the phone? It is very clearly designed to *not* work that way.
If you want to install non-vetted software, the iPhone is not the phone for you, unless you want to jailbreak it - ie, it;s not missing a basic function; it was never designed to have it in the first place.
You don't need iTunes to sync contacts. There are third party sync apps that sync your music, photos, contacts, calendars etc without the use of iTunes.
Bluetooth file transfer, I did forget that. Going via the usb cable to get images off is a little restrictive sometimes, but hardly a reason to jailbreak unless you are constantly sending files that way.
What basic functionality?
Tethering? The phone already does that, without jailbreaking. Installing non-app store apps? I wouldn't call that basic - the phone is just not designed and promoted to work that way (ie, if you want to do other things with it, you're moving away from 'basic' and into 'unsupported, potentially advanced' functions).
The biggest reason I've seen for jailbreaking my phone (although I haven't done so) is to enable use of the phone as an AP, rather than having to tether to my Powerbook and then share my wifit that way, but the number of times I've needed to share my connection when there's been nothing but 3G access is limited. Either way, that's hardly basic functionality.
I guess VoIP is verging on basic, but there are apps that work over wifi - the 3G restrictions are carrier based.
I agree that this exploit has been spun the wrong way - as a positive thing to enable easy jailbreaking. Any security hole is never a positive thing, regardless of the beneficial things you can do with it. I'm glad it has been addressed, although I am hoping it will also be fixed for users of 2G and 3G iPhones who haven;t upgraded to iOS4.
When half of the US population watches Fox News, it's best just to assume your audience is 5 years old to save time. Thos that watch other news channels will understand.