You criticize music as being non-hierarchical but yourself like a two tier hierarchy.
Who says I do? I actually view songs in single list usually. But a 2 (or 3) level hierarchy is there when I want it.
Music collections have no intrinsic structure. It's a set. You can view it as hierarchies if you want, or you can filter it. Directory tree structures don't give this flexibility. You choose an arbitrary structure one time, as you start the collection. And that's the structure you have for ever more. Stupid.
but putting 25,000 albums/folders in one folder is a non-starter.
Folder??? What the fuck has the size of folders got to do with it? That's an implementation detail. But a flat list of 25,000 songs is perfectly manageable.
25,000 albums? That too. But buying one album a day, that would take you 68 years to accumulate. Playing once through alone, we're still talking years. So I can't imagine whether you that's hyperbole, or you're talking about an obsessive hoarder that doesn't really listen to the music they collect.
Organising music using the file system is the non starter. It's so dysfunctional you'd have to be stupid to try it. iTunes and other music apps that manage the music for you is the answer.
As I said, why do you care do much? Whether the iPod was something "new" is a subjective call. Of all the things to argue about why are you so determined for people to accept your subjective view on whether you call the iPod "new"?
I mean, I played with a G1 iPod, and bought a G2 iPod, and my subjective judgement is that they were "new". But I don't really care whether you share that judgement. And I say that as someone who normally enjoys a good Apple based argument. It just seems really unimportant to have this particular argument for the 100th time a dozen years after it was a topical question.
You're right. The Be Filing System did it nicely. However, you do get the problem of what happens when you transfer files to people who are not using BFS.
ID3 tags do have the advantage over both BFS style file metadata and directory/filenames, that they survive arbitrary transfers between devices.
As for contact details, the BFS solution is quite cute. But still, the way I'd design a contacts app is to use vCards as the native storage format. With caches where needed to make the app speed acceptable. That way, import or export is literally the native format. And there's no question of what compromises to make when doing that import/export. You can do whatever is allowed in the vCard spec. Insert&delete are just file operations like BFS.
The BFS meta data system was only safe to use for files which would only ever exist on BFS.
Indeed. Apple's insight is that users aren't interested in "MP3 files" and their management. They are interested in their collection of music.
It's fundamentally primitive and clunky to try and represent artist, composer, album, CD, song etc by the use of directory and filenames. That's what ID3 tags are for.
And it's doubly stupid to try and manually maintain two different music collections. One on a PC, and a different one on a portable player.
And once you stop trying to use a filesystem and a file browser to manage music, and manage it with an application, you get all sorts of other niceties, like the display of album cover art.
The Nomad in question had a form factor modelled on a CD player. The iPod was the form factor of a pack of cigarettes. Only one of these was a pocketable device.
Songs and albums map quite naturally onto a filesystem.
What directory structure? Which ever organisation you choose, it's always wrong in common scenarios. Music only seems to be hierarchical at to a casual view. Any experience actually doing it that way quickly reveals that it's wrong.
On the other hand, iTunes has more of a "play list" focused interface. It also has this strange inability to allow you to choose a single album.
Hit the albums tab. Select one album. Select more albums. What's your problem?
As a "keep it simple for the n00bs" interface, it's rather laughable really.
And yet you don't seem to understand how to do the simplest thing with it.
Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port
The first Mac was Mac only, and Macs already had iTunes on. So you're wrong there.
As music is ripped by iTunes, it gets the track list from an online DB. I didn't have to enter ANY tags. Clearly you did something stupid. Like perhaps ripping your music with an inferior music app that didn't do tags. Or stealing the music from others.
There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.
Bullshit. The iPod was an amazing and high quality machine. There was nothing like it on the market when it launched. And no "iPod Killer" ever caught up.
However that does not make the device in question totally new.
Why do you care so much whether a device is subjectively new, or subjectively not new. Do you have some "NEW DEVICE" stickers you need to distribute or something?
What matters is if it's a good device that people want. THAT would be something new in the history of smart watches.
Apple isn't the company that comes out with the first primitive gizmo, that doesn't work right and nobody wants. Apple comes out with the first gizmo that does it right, and people want.
I think taking pride in your work is a different thing from enjoying your work. You can have a job you don't enjoy but still take pride in doing it well. And vice versa.
I think high turnover in tech jobs is more likely that it's often very easy to move to another tech job that pays more or is more interesting. More so than in other industries.
I'm glad that spending time with your family is considered a bad thing by some.
You're back pedalling. It's very clear what you meant by "sitting on their butts."
We just have a culture that was formed, in part, by Calvinism and certain sects of Prostentism, which hold that work is one of the most important things in the universe. Work, any work, is Godly. This is the "protestant work ethic", we have it, and others don't share the same cultural and historic roots as Americans.
Just because there's a phrase "The protestant work ethic" does not actually mean that protestants want to or do work any harder than any other group. It's just a claim someone once made. And guess what, that person wasn't American, he didn't make it in America, nor about Americans in particular. There are protestants elsewhere in the world.
There are of course cultural differences around the world. But you pulled that one out of your ass. And no, you observation of Hispanics in your own city is not any kind of evidence of anything. Any more than having some blacks in your area is any kind of reason for you to draw general distinctions between blacks and whites.
I suspect you didn't mean to be bigoted. But you were being bigoted nonetheless. Through ignorance rather than malice.
Though in the way this idea is commonly used, it says that we all will end up doing useful labor anyway, since we can't stand being idle. I find this absurd, though it might hold true for Americans, since we inherited a fair amount of our work ethic from our Protestant forebears. For the rest of the world? I'm sure they'd be content to sit on their butts, and spend time with their families.
What an ignorant and bigoted thing to say. A pound to a penny: you're one of the majority of Americans who don't own a passport and have never seen a foreign country.
Weeds are plants in the wrong place. And pollutants are chemicals in the wrong place. Dihydrogen monoxide certainly can be a pollutant. In times of flood for example. Or in my whisky.
Maybe the people who set up this vox-pop trap weren't as clever as they thought they were.
Nokia was already screwed before they took on Elop. Elop simply didn't manage to turn around their decline.
A far better example of a CEO making a difference would be Steve Jobs. Apple was screwed, then they brought Jobs back, and he turned the company around and made them into the most valuable tech company in the world.
Some people enjoy the job of garbage collection. Really, you'd be surprised. In a documentary on waste management, there was one garbage collector who, once a year, would go on a foreign holiday. And he'd arrange with the local garbage collectors to do a route or two with them. Around his lounge there were photos of him with various collection crews around the world.
Whatever the job. No matter how much you might think it's awful, there are people that enjoy that job. Factory working. Retail. Even sewage workers.
For sure, most of them wouldn't do it if they weren't paid. But that's a matter of needing the money because there isn't a basic income scheme, and because no one wants to be taken advantage of.
Having said that there may not be enough people that like the job to supply the need for people to do it. I'm saying there is an issue of balance here. Not one of eradication.
No it didn't. Pretty much the entire rest of the industry had similar alternatives. There was even an "iPad knockoff" released 6 months prior to the iPad. It was just released by a company that's not a media darling.
So it wasn't a desirable tablet. You make my case for me.
Apple hit on a good combination while being noticed.
Yes, Apple did it right, and was in a position to create a market. Just as I said.
fanboy nonsense... iCult... Fascism.
Talking of fanboy nonsense. You really are a ridiculous person.
Slashdot Mirror
You criticize music as being non-hierarchical but yourself like a two tier hierarchy.
Who says I do? I actually view songs in single list usually. But a 2 (or 3) level hierarchy is there when I want it.
Music collections have no intrinsic structure. It's a set. You can view it as hierarchies if you want, or you can filter it. Directory tree structures don't give this flexibility. You choose an arbitrary structure one time, as you start the collection. And that's the structure you have for ever more. Stupid.
but putting 25,000 albums/folders in one folder is a non-starter.
Folder??? What the fuck has the size of folders got to do with it? That's an implementation detail. But a flat list of 25,000 songs is perfectly manageable.
25,000 albums? That too. But buying one album a day, that would take you 68 years to accumulate. Playing once through alone, we're still talking years. So I can't imagine whether you that's hyperbole, or you're talking about an obsessive hoarder that doesn't really listen to the music they collect.
Organising music using the file system is the non starter. It's so dysfunctional you'd have to be stupid to try it. iTunes and other music apps that manage the music for you is the answer.
As I said, why do you care do much? Whether the iPod was something "new" is a subjective call. Of all the things to argue about why are you so determined for people to accept your subjective view on whether you call the iPod "new"?
I mean, I played with a G1 iPod, and bought a G2 iPod, and my subjective judgement is that they were "new". But I don't really care whether you share that judgement. And I say that as someone who normally enjoys a good Apple based argument. It just seems really unimportant to have this particular argument for the 100th time a dozen years after it was a topical question.
But by all means go ahead. I'll say no more.
You're right. The Be Filing System did it nicely. However, you do get the problem of what happens when you transfer files to people who are not using BFS.
ID3 tags do have the advantage over both BFS style file metadata and directory/filenames, that they survive arbitrary transfers between devices.
As for contact details, the BFS solution is quite cute. But still, the way I'd design a contacts app is to use vCards as the native storage format. With caches where needed to make the app speed acceptable. That way, import or export is literally the native format. And there's no question of what compromises to make when doing that import/export. You can do whatever is allowed in the vCard spec. Insert&delete are just file operations like BFS.
The BFS meta data system was only safe to use for files which would only ever exist on BFS.
Contrary to the Samsung marketing you seem to have believed, iOS is not your mom's smartphone OS. Android is.
http://readwrite.com/2012/10/08/sorry-samsung-iphone-is-not-your-mothers-smartphone
Samsung spend 10 time as much on marketing as Apple does.
Apple stuff sells itself.
Indeed. Apple's insight is that users aren't interested in "MP3 files" and their management. They are interested in their collection of music.
It's fundamentally primitive and clunky to try and represent artist, composer, album, CD, song etc by the use of directory and filenames. That's what ID3 tags are for.
And it's doubly stupid to try and manually maintain two different music collections. One on a PC, and a different one on a portable player.
And once you stop trying to use a filesystem and a file browser to manage music, and manage it with an application, you get all sorts of other niceties, like the display of album cover art.
The Nomad in question had a form factor modelled on a CD player. The iPod was the form factor of a pack of cigarettes. Only one of these was a pocketable device.
Songs and albums map quite naturally onto a filesystem.
What directory structure? Which ever organisation you choose, it's always wrong in common scenarios. Music only seems to be hierarchical at to a casual view. Any experience actually doing it that way quickly reveals that it's wrong.
On the other hand, iTunes has more of a "play list" focused interface. It also has this strange inability to allow you to choose a single album.
Hit the albums tab. Select one album. Select more albums. What's your problem?
As a "keep it simple for the n00bs" interface, it's rather laughable really.
And yet you don't seem to understand how to do the simplest thing with it.
Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port
The first Mac was Mac only, and Macs already had iTunes on. So you're wrong there.
As music is ripped by iTunes, it gets the track list from an online DB. I didn't have to enter ANY tags. Clearly you did something stupid. Like perhaps ripping your music with an inferior music app that didn't do tags. Or stealing the music from others.
There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.
Bullshit. The iPod was an amazing and high quality machine. There was nothing like it on the market when it launched. And no "iPod Killer" ever caught up.
However that does not make the device in question totally new.
Why do you care so much whether a device is subjectively new, or subjectively not new. Do you have some "NEW DEVICE" stickers you need to distribute or something?
What matters is if it's a good device that people want. THAT would be something new in the history of smart watches.
Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
The user experience.
Apple isn't the company that comes out with the first primitive gizmo, that doesn't work right and nobody wants. Apple comes out with the first gizmo that does it right, and people want.
I think taking pride in your work is a different thing from enjoying your work. You can have a job you don't enjoy but still take pride in doing it well. And vice versa.
I think high turnover in tech jobs is more likely that it's often very easy to move to another tech job that pays more or is more interesting. More so than in other industries.
I can think of a couple of reasons.
1) For the purpose of saving the weight of radar/sonar/laser devices. It's a small flying device. Weight matters.
2) For the purpose of saving the cost of radar/sonar/laser devices.
This is the way my wife navigates when she's sober.
I'm glad that spending time with your family is considered a bad thing by some.
You're back pedalling. It's very clear what you meant by "sitting on their butts."
We just have a culture that was formed, in part, by Calvinism and certain sects of Prostentism, which hold that work is one of the most important things in the universe. Work, any work, is Godly. This is the "protestant work ethic", we have it, and others don't share the same cultural and historic roots as Americans.
Just because there's a phrase "The protestant work ethic" does not actually mean that protestants want to or do work any harder than any other group. It's just a claim someone once made. And guess what, that person wasn't American, he didn't make it in America, nor about Americans in particular. There are protestants elsewhere in the world.
There are of course cultural differences around the world. But you pulled that one out of your ass. And no, you observation of Hispanics in your own city is not any kind of evidence of anything. Any more than having some blacks in your area is any kind of reason for you to draw general distinctions between blacks and whites.
I suspect you didn't mean to be bigoted. But you were being bigoted nonetheless. Through ignorance rather than malice.
Though in the way this idea is commonly used, it says that we all will end up doing useful labor anyway, since we can't stand being idle. I find this absurd, though it might hold true for Americans, since we inherited a fair amount of our work ethic from our Protestant forebears. For the rest of the world? I'm sure they'd be content to sit on their butts, and spend time with their families.
What an ignorant and bigoted thing to say. A pound to a penny: you're one of the majority of Americans who don't own a passport and have never seen a foreign country.
Weeds are plants in the wrong place. And pollutants are chemicals in the wrong place. Dihydrogen monoxide certainly can be a pollutant. In times of flood for example. Or in my whisky.
Maybe the people who set up this vox-pop trap weren't as clever as they thought they were.
It's possible you misunderstood. I'm still saying that passionate people are always unhappy with the status quo. And it's still right.
Food is getting less plentiful. That's why food inflation is high. That's why there's so much interest in meat substitutes.
Nokia was already screwed before they took on Elop. Elop simply didn't manage to turn around their decline.
A far better example of a CEO making a difference would be Steve Jobs. Apple was screwed, then they brought Jobs back, and he turned the company around and made them into the most valuable tech company in the world.
If you're talking about welfare for all, working or not, then the question is where that money comes from.
Where? Watch this and the answer is obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
So the only question is: How?
Some people enjoy the job of garbage collection. Really, you'd be surprised. In a documentary on waste management, there was one garbage collector who, once a year, would go on a foreign holiday. And he'd arrange with the local garbage collectors to do a route or two with them. Around his lounge there were photos of him with various collection crews around the world.
Whatever the job. No matter how much you might think it's awful, there are people that enjoy that job. Factory working. Retail. Even sewage workers.
For sure, most of them wouldn't do it if they weren't paid. But that's a matter of needing the money because there isn't a basic income scheme, and because no one wants to be taken advantage of.
Having said that there may not be enough people that like the job to supply the need for people to do it. I'm saying there is an issue of balance here. Not one of eradication.
Once again we have abusive modding going on.
There's no element of trolling in that post.
It's just people who can't make a credible argument, using modding to try and censor what they don't agree with.
No it didn't. Pretty much the entire rest of the industry had similar alternatives. There was even an "iPad knockoff" released 6 months prior to the iPad. It was just released by a company that's not a media darling.
So it wasn't a desirable tablet. You make my case for me.
Apple hit on a good combination while being noticed.
Yes, Apple did it right, and was in a position to create a market. Just as I said.
fanboy nonsense... iCult... Fascism.
Talking of fanboy nonsense. You really are a ridiculous person.
Sergy is probably closer to Woz than Jobs then.
He's a geek who is in a good position to see what's coming on the horizon.
Woz didn't see anything. He is a geek who knew how to connect some ICs together to make a computer. All the foresight of the company was from Jobs.