Wrong, the ROKR was a collaboration between Motorola and Apple. If not, explain why Steve Jobs was unveiling the phone?
I didn't say it wasn't a collaboration. The collaboration was the licensing and commercial secrets required to implement it. But if you think that Apple designed the hardware or the UI of it, you're smoking crack.
Why did Jobs unveil it? Because both companies saw that as advantageous for whatever reasons. (Motorola because having Jobs launch it would make big news, as it did. Jobs maybe wanted more licensees, or had something to prove to record companies)
Did you mean the patent with prior art in an actual product?
I mean the patents that they won with in a court of law. Leaving your opinion worthless.
Also, please note that the iPhone 1st Gen wasn't that much of a smartphone, my Nokia 6600 from 2003, running Symbian, could multitask while the iPhone 1st Gen could not.
The G1 iPhone wasn't even a smartphone. As it didn't have third party apps, there was no such thing as a bar on multitasking. iOS certainly was a multitasking OS even back then, and the in-built apps certainly multitasked.
I'm very well aware of what the Symbian phones could do as I was a Software Engineer for Symbian. I didn't have any connection with that particular phone as I'd left by then, but I know the software that went in it. All Symbian phones were outclassed by iPhone from the iPhone 3G. Which is why neither Symbian nor Nokia exist anymore in any real sense. Symbian (as EPOC32) was designed for low spec devices of the mid 1990s with little power or memory, and took very much an embedded approach. By a decade later, mobile computing was powerful enough that they could run a mainstream OS instead. And the outcome was would take maybe 10 times as long to crate an app on Symbian as iOS. And it still wouldn't be nearly as good.
Symbian had some great ideas in it. But it's time was over by the mid noughties.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
The change to Save-as had the unfortunate effect of lost functionality. If you do not see this, then you are a part of the developer's problem. The users want to save the current state without saving over the previous state. The "upgrade" is destroying the previous state.
You're wrong in thinking this change is because of Save As. It's because of autosave. The lost of Save As as a primary function is another symptom, not the cause.
And autosave represents a vast improvement in functionality and safety, not a loss.
If you do not see this, then you are a part of the developer's problem.
I see it for exactly what it is. Users being used to what always was a bad and unsafe practice. The new functionality is better in every way. It's just not familiar. Why subject future generations to a lesser UI simply because some people don't want to change.
The ROKR was very much a Motorola phone, that had licensed the ability to play DRMed tunes from the iTunes store. It's physical form and UI had nothing to do with Apple.
I'm well aware what direction the market was moving in. I'm in Europe and I already had a touchscreen phone in 2002. The Sony Ericsson P800. But since that's not the specifics of the Patent dispute it's not relevant.
What was it, then? I didn't see anyone with a mahl stick and beret, so it wasn't an easel. Perhaps it was for frying bacon on...
It was at the breakfast table. A device they were staring at whilst eating. No interaction. I already said what it was presented as: a video screen. And it's context was a newspaper replacement.
"But the [Star Trek TOS] phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue." It was only pretend, so I don't see how you can come to any conclusion about how it worked.
All Sci-Fi is only pretend. It doesn't mean they aren't presenting certain technologies by what they do with them. With the ST communicator, when atmospheric conditions were bad, James Kirk would turn a little dial on the communicator and all he'd get is static. Which is a presentation of what happens with analogue radio, not digital.
Minor differences? You haven't presented a single computer in the same form factor, let alone a smartphone. That's before we even start looking at the UI.
The problem with that meme is that in the Apple vs Samsung case, designs for the iPhone were presented in evidence dating back to August 2005. More than a year before LG announced the LG Prada.
The basic design appeared in sci-fi for decades including 2001, Space 1999, and Star Trek.
That's becoming a bit of a meme. 2001 had a flat video screen on a table, about the same dimensions as an iPad. No indication of it being any kind of computing device though. Indeed it was a basic plot point that the computing was done by centralised mainframe like computers like HAL. HAL was the vision of computing in 2001, not tablets, let alone smartphones,
Likewise Space 1999 did all their computing on wall panels or desk bound keyboards.
Star Trek TOS had some electronic clipboard devices, About 2 inches thick with coloured lamps on top. But the phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue. There was also tricorders and some sort of memory stick. Their model of computing was again a central mainframe with voice access from anywhere, and some fixed viewscreens. Again, nothing like iPhones.
Star Trek Next Gen had the PADD, but it consisted of a screen covering about half of the device, with the controls below the screen. Again, nothing like an iPad or iPhone.
Yes it was possible to use a fingernail to operate the Palm Pilot. But most of the controls were too small to make even that accurate enough, let alone a finger. Remember? Small menus, small scrollbar. Part of Apple's innovation was making a UI that was still useful when poked with sausage fingers rather than the accuracy of a stylus.
Now all of these things also predated Android. And yet I repeat, they chose to copy Blackberry's design until the iPhone came out at which point they changed to copying the iPhone. So even if those things you mentioned were pre-cursors, the Android team either didn't recognise them, or didn't want them.
Things only ever seem obvious AFTER someone else has done them.
Before iPhone, Android looked like Blackberry. There was nothing obvious about Apple's design features to them then. They were too busy copying Blackberry's "obvious" design.
And that's the point isn't it? Prior to Apple releasing the iPhone, Android resembled the Blackberry. iPhone caused them to change who they were copying. There never was anything original about it. Without others to copy, it's spec team wouldn't have known what to do.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
They CAN implement anything. But what you suggest is not clear. Because of autosave, that would actually be unwinding the currently saved version of the file to some earlier version. Which again is not part of the phrase "Save as...".
Now, as someone said, apparently Apple HAVE implemented something called Save as... under a modifier keypress. But I'm not clear what it would do. And that lack of clarity was the exact reason it was changed in favour of menu items that are clear about what they do.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
The fact remains, since these complaints keep coming up, Apple did fuck up by changing what their users are familiar with.
That's not a fact, that's your opinion.
The fact is that Apple brought in a new feature of auto save, with multiple versions available to go back to. In that way of working, "Save As" to create a variation of a file is poorly defined. What does the original file contain, and what does the new file contain? In the days before autosave, the original file would be the same state it was the last time you manually loaded it or saved it. Now, with autosave, at the point of doing save as, both files would be identical. Changing the word to "Duplicate" represents more clearly what the actual action is. As the point you do it, you get two files that are exactly the same. The old "Save as..." has no such logical model.
The other 2 reasons people used "Save as..." was to simply change the name of the file or to move it somewhere else. With the unfortunate side effect of also leaving a zombie copy of the file under the old name/location. Again, better to remove the ill-named "Save as..." and have the words that represents the actual intentions. "Rename..." and "Move to...".
Apple did what they always did. They made improvements, and in doing so didn't worry too much about sticking with the old way of doing things simply because it was always that way.
Seriously, someone who's computer illiterate, but has learned what the Save and Save As functions do would feel like those functions were removed, even if just one of them was renamed. If you don't believe me, well, that's just fine; come up with a better explanation for why people are complaining that they're gone, then.
The way our computers work shouldn't be defined by what the computer illiterate are used to. If new technology makes the old way obsolete, so be it.
It's probably political, but it could even be intended to sell more Fiat500e cars. Being able to buy a car for $14000 less than it costs to manufacture could make it seem like quite a deal.
But the range of a modern electric car is no greater than those over a century old.
False.
"After enjoying success at the beginning of the 20th century, the electric car began to lose its position in the automobile market. A number of developments contributed to this situation. By the 1920s an improved road infrastructure required vehicles with a greater range than that offered by electric cars. Worldwide discoveries of large petroleum reserves led to the wide availability of affordable gasoline, making gas-powered cars cheaper to operate over long distances. Electric cars were limited to urban use by their slow speed (no more than 24-32 km/h or 15-20 mph.[24]) and low range (30-40 miles or 50-65 km[24]), and gasoline cars were now able to travel farther and faster than equivalent electrics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Modern EVs do at least twice this range, and the Tesla Model S 7-10 times it.
So the only argument you've found against libertarianism is resorting to ad hominem (insults)? That actually strengthens the case for libertarianism.
Illogical. Someone choosing to insult something does absolutely nothing to increase the case for that thing. e.g. If I call Bigfoot hunters charlatans or idiots, it doesn't make it any more likely that their professed belief in Bigfoot is true.
I was only referring to MacBook Air, as I don't know much about recent Windows versions. But my understanding is that Windows 8.1 brought back the classic desktop, such that you could switch between them with a simple toggle.
Ah OK, for sure Architecture has never been a Mac stronghold, due to Autocad being on a PC first development cycle. It's other kinds of design that have traditionally favoured Macs.
My top of the head guess would be more like 30%. Business people that are travelling need access to email, MS Office, and the internet, and they need a real keyboard. And having the smallest, lightest laptop is a big bonus.
The MacBook Air was originally marketed by showing it fitting into a manilla envelope. Very much a business angle. Of course it was far more expensive then, and has now moved into position as the cheapest of the Mac laptops, which will have increased it's consumer appeal enormously. But I don't think it's lost any of it's appeal to business people.
Of course developers and other power users will need a MacBook Pro. But the power of those is not needed for business execs.
The days that MS could make lots of money from supplying OEMs with an operating system are fading. Apple's model of making the whole widget rather than licensing the OS to all comers has made them the biggest tech company in the world. It used to be thought of as Apple's weakness, but actually it turned out to be it's strength.
Slashdot Mirror
That was not "the original post [I] replied to". It was a response to my reply. The "original post [I] replied to" was earlier in the thread.
I don't know what else you're arguing but I'm only talking about the form factor, just like the original post you replied to.
I don't believe the post I replied to was talking about the form factor only.
Wrong, the ROKR was a collaboration between Motorola and Apple. If not, explain why Steve Jobs was unveiling the phone?
I didn't say it wasn't a collaboration. The collaboration was the licensing and commercial secrets required to implement it. But if you think that Apple designed the hardware or the UI of it, you're smoking crack.
Why did Jobs unveil it? Because both companies saw that as advantageous for whatever reasons. (Motorola because having Jobs launch it would make big news, as it did. Jobs maybe wanted more licensees, or had something to prove to record companies)
Did you mean the patent with prior art in an actual product?
I mean the patents that they won with in a court of law. Leaving your opinion worthless.
Also, please note that the iPhone 1st Gen wasn't that much of a smartphone, my Nokia 6600 from 2003, running Symbian, could multitask while the iPhone 1st Gen could not.
The G1 iPhone wasn't even a smartphone. As it didn't have third party apps, there was no such thing as a bar on multitasking. iOS certainly was a multitasking OS even back then, and the in-built apps certainly multitasked.
I'm very well aware of what the Symbian phones could do as I was a Software Engineer for Symbian. I didn't have any connection with that particular phone as I'd left by then, but I know the software that went in it. All Symbian phones were outclassed by iPhone from the iPhone 3G. Which is why neither Symbian nor Nokia exist anymore in any real sense. Symbian (as EPOC32) was designed for low spec devices of the mid 1990s with little power or memory, and took very much an embedded approach. By a decade later, mobile computing was powerful enough that they could run a mainstream OS instead. And the outcome was would take maybe 10 times as long to crate an app on Symbian as iOS. And it still wouldn't be nearly as good.
Symbian had some great ideas in it. But it's time was over by the mid noughties.
The change to Save-as had the unfortunate effect of lost functionality. If you do not see this, then you are a part of the developer's problem.
The users want to save the current state without saving over the previous state. The "upgrade" is destroying the previous state.
You're wrong in thinking this change is because of Save As. It's because of autosave. The lost of Save As as a primary function is another symptom, not the cause.
And autosave represents a vast improvement in functionality and safety, not a loss.
If you do not see this, then you are a part of the developer's problem.
I see it for exactly what it is. Users being used to what always was a bad and unsafe practice. The new functionality is better in every way. It's just not familiar. Why subject future generations to a lesser UI simply because some people don't want to change.
The ROKR was very much a Motorola phone, that had licensed the ability to play DRMed tunes from the iTunes store. It's physical form and UI had nothing to do with Apple.
I'm well aware what direction the market was moving in. I'm in Europe and I already had a touchscreen phone in 2002. The Sony Ericsson P800. But since that's not the specifics of the Patent dispute it's not relevant.
Which would be significant if it was simply the form factor that Apple sued for. Apple was successful, so you're arguing against what already proved.
Seems your memory isn't too good.
What was it, then? I didn't see anyone with a mahl stick and beret, so it wasn't an easel. Perhaps it was for frying bacon on...
It was at the breakfast table. A device they were staring at whilst eating. No interaction. I already said what it was presented as: a video screen. And it's context was a newspaper replacement.
"But the [Star Trek TOS] phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue."
It was only pretend, so I don't see how you can come to any conclusion about how it worked.
All Sci-Fi is only pretend. It doesn't mean they aren't presenting certain technologies by what they do with them. With the ST communicator, when atmospheric conditions were bad, James Kirk would turn a little dial on the communicator and all he'd get is static. Which is a presentation of what happens with analogue radio, not digital.
Minor differences? You haven't presented a single computer in the same form factor, let alone a smartphone. That's before we even start looking at the UI.
You're clutching at straws.
The problem with that meme is that in the Apple vs Samsung case, designs for the iPhone were presented in evidence dating back to August 2005. More than a year before LG announced the LG Prada.
The basic design appeared in sci-fi for decades including 2001, Space 1999, and Star Trek.
That's becoming a bit of a meme. 2001 had a flat video screen on a table, about the same dimensions as an iPad. No indication of it being any kind of computing device though. Indeed it was a basic plot point that the computing was done by centralised mainframe like computers like HAL. HAL was the vision of computing in 2001, not tablets, let alone smartphones,
Likewise Space 1999 did all their computing on wall panels or desk bound keyboards.
Star Trek TOS had some electronic clipboard devices, About 2 inches thick with coloured lamps on top. But the phone design was decidedly both flipphone and analogue. There was also tricorders and some sort of memory stick. Their model of computing was again a central mainframe with voice access from anywhere, and some fixed viewscreens. Again, nothing like iPhones.
Star Trek Next Gen had the PADD, but it consisted of a screen covering about half of the device, with the controls below the screen. Again, nothing like an iPad or iPhone.
Yes it was possible to use a fingernail to operate the Palm Pilot. But most of the controls were too small to make even that accurate enough, let alone a finger. Remember? Small menus, small scrollbar. Part of Apple's innovation was making a UI that was still useful when poked with sausage fingers rather than the accuracy of a stylus.
Now all of these things also predated Android. And yet I repeat, they chose to copy Blackberry's design until the iPhone came out at which point they changed to copying the iPhone. So even if those things you mentioned were pre-cursors, the Android team either didn't recognise them, or didn't want them.
Things only ever seem obvious AFTER someone else has done them.
Before iPhone, Android looked like Blackberry. There was nothing obvious about Apple's design features to them then. They were too busy copying Blackberry's "obvious" design.
It is true that they weren't as polished.
And that's the point isn't it? Prior to Apple releasing the iPhone, Android resembled the Blackberry. iPhone caused them to change who they were copying. There never was anything original about it. Without others to copy, it's spec team wouldn't have known what to do.
They CAN implement anything. But what you suggest is not clear. Because of autosave, that would actually be unwinding the currently saved version of the file to some earlier version. Which again is not part of the phrase "Save as...".
Now, as someone said, apparently Apple HAVE implemented something called Save as... under a modifier keypress. But I'm not clear what it would do. And that lack of clarity was the exact reason it was changed in favour of menu items that are clear about what they do.
The fact remains, since these complaints keep coming up, Apple did fuck up by changing what their users are familiar with.
That's not a fact, that's your opinion.
The fact is that Apple brought in a new feature of auto save, with multiple versions available to go back to. In that way of working, "Save As" to create a variation of a file is poorly defined. What does the original file contain, and what does the new file contain? In the days before autosave, the original file would be the same state it was the last time you manually loaded it or saved it. Now, with autosave, at the point of doing save as, both files would be identical. Changing the word to "Duplicate" represents more clearly what the actual action is. As the point you do it, you get two files that are exactly the same. The old "Save as..." has no such logical model.
The other 2 reasons people used "Save as..." was to simply change the name of the file or to move it somewhere else. With the unfortunate side effect of also leaving a zombie copy of the file under the old name/location. Again, better to remove the ill-named "Save as..." and have the words that represents the actual intentions. "Rename..." and "Move to...".
Apple did what they always did. They made improvements, and in doing so didn't worry too much about sticking with the old way of doing things simply because it was always that way.
Seriously, someone who's computer illiterate, but has learned what the Save and Save As functions do would feel like those functions were removed, even if just one of them was renamed. If you don't believe me, well, that's just fine; come up with a better explanation for why people are complaining that they're gone, then.
The way our computers work shouldn't be defined by what the computer illiterate are used to. If new technology makes the old way obsolete, so be it.
It's probably political, but it could even be intended to sell more Fiat500e cars. Being able to buy a car for $14000 less than it costs to manufacture could make it seem like quite a deal.
But the range of a modern electric car is no greater than those over a century old.
False.
"After enjoying success at the beginning of the 20th century, the electric car began to lose its position in the automobile market. A number of developments contributed to this situation. By the 1920s an improved road infrastructure required vehicles with a greater range than that offered by electric cars. Worldwide discoveries of large petroleum reserves led to the wide availability of affordable gasoline, making gas-powered cars cheaper to operate over long distances. Electric cars were limited to urban use by their slow speed (no more than 24-32 km/h or 15-20 mph.[24]) and low range (30-40 miles or 50-65 km[24]), and gasoline cars were now able to travel farther and faster than equivalent electrics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Modern EVs do at least twice this range, and the Tesla Model S 7-10 times it.
So the only argument you've found against libertarianism is resorting to ad hominem (insults)? That actually strengthens the case for libertarianism.
Illogical. Someone choosing to insult something does absolutely nothing to increase the case for that thing. e.g. If I call Bigfoot hunters charlatans or idiots, it doesn't make it any more likely that their professed belief in Bigfoot is true.
Most of the justification given for upgrading Google is Google Glass, which is:
1) Unknown to the vast majority of people as it remains a small beta program.
2) Is despised by the majority of people who have heard of it.
Which indicates to me that the whole thing is a marketing piece. Either for Google or the person making the claim.
I was only referring to MacBook Air, as I don't know much about recent Windows versions. But my understanding is that Windows 8.1 brought back the classic desktop, such that you could switch between them with a simple toggle.
Ah OK, for sure Architecture has never been a Mac stronghold, due to Autocad being on a PC first development cycle. It's other kinds of design that have traditionally favoured Macs.
My top of the head guess would be more like 30%. Business people that are travelling need access to email, MS Office, and the internet, and they need a real keyboard. And having the smallest, lightest laptop is a big bonus.
The MacBook Air was originally marketed by showing it fitting into a manilla envelope. Very much a business angle. Of course it was far more expensive then, and has now moved into position as the cheapest of the Mac laptops, which will have increased it's consumer appeal enormously. But I don't think it's lost any of it's appeal to business people.
Of course developers and other power users will need a MacBook Pro. But the power of those is not needed for business execs.
The days that MS could make lots of money from supplying OEMs with an operating system are fading.
Apple's model of making the whole widget rather than licensing the OS to all comers has made them the biggest tech company in the world. It used to be thought of as Apple's weakness, but actually it turned out to be it's strength.
What app are they usually using that makes then need to use Windows rather than OSX?
The fact that you could't think of even come up with that thin an avenue of attack for Android's actual competitor iOS says it all.
I look forward to your comparisons of iOS with desktop Linux. Not.
Absolutely. The amazing thing about Nest was the design and marketing that almost made one want to buy it at $249.
And the amazing thing about Google is that it devalued the product overnight by buying it. No one wants it now.