As others have pointed out, the subject here is "point-and-click adventures" in the style of Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion, Space Quest, etc. Those games don't rely on action scenes or leveling up, and in the LucasArts games, you can't die even if you try(*). They're all about solving puzzles, combining objects and working your way through conversations to achieve a goal. They share with RPGs an emphasis on story and some of the more superficial puzzle solving aspects, but they're really a different genre.
And yes, I think one of the problems with those games on consoles has been the controls. When the game is all about moving a pointer around on the screen to select verbs and items, a D-pad just doesn't work very well.. but the Wiimote certainly does.
(* OK, there are a couple places where you can die, but you have to try really hard. Dying is an easter egg.)
Look at the picture - do you see a machine that isn't much wider than a 5.25" drive bay, because that's what I see in that picture. It looks nearly as wide as two 5.25" bays. That silver trim on each side is pretty wide.
For reference, two 5.25" bays are about 3.5" tall together. The case is clearly as tall as about 5 of those bays (we can see two of them), which puts it around the 9 inch mark, and it's wider than it is tall.
I've seen one of these cases, they sit on the shelf at my local computer shop. They ain't 11.2" wide. They're similar to the machine I have sitting on my desk which is only 9.5" wide. I suggest you take a measuring tape the next time you go to that shop. The manufacturer's specified dimensions look right to me.
Of course not, but I ask you again -- what core functionality does a Blackberry or Treo have that an iPhone does not? Other than the ability to install 3rd party software or to interface with specific software (i.e. Exchange servers) there's nothing. What do you mean, "other than the ability to install 3rd party software"? That's like asking "What does a tricycle have that a bicycle does not, other than an extra wheel?" The ability to install third party software is precisely what separates them.
Well, then give me a definition of smartphone that includes a Treo and a Blackberry but not an iPhone or a RAZR that doesn't rely on whatever a salesperson steers you towards. All right: it's a mobile phone intended for use a general mobile computing device, with the ability for the end user to add functionality, and a user interface that facilitates entering and manipulating data rather than simply viewing it.
Furthermore, it's going to be very hard to find a salesperson that going to have the option of steering you towards an iPhone on display for several months, now isn't it? Probably, but that's an irrelevant strawman. What I said is they wouldn't steer you toward the plethora of currently available phones that merely have some PDA functionality built in, because people looking for smartphones expect more than just a checklist of PDA functions; they want a phone that they'll be able to adapt to their particular needs.
None of these definitions seem to exclude the iPhone. This definition doesn't seem to conflict. Neither does this one. Nor this one. Not this one either. Fair enough. Wikipedia says "An important feature of most smartphones is that applications for enhanced data processing and connectivity can be installed on the device, by contrast to regular phones which support sandboxed applications", but I suppose the word "most" leaves the door open for rare counterexamples, and indeed even Wikipedia seems to treat the iPhone as a smartphone. Guess I'll just have to start calling it a crippled smartphone.
Admit it; you just have a feature wishlist that the iPhone doesn't meet. The iPhone is missing the one fundamental feature that justifies the typical smartphone's price tag. Charging the same price for a phone that can't be extended is like charging full price for a PC that can only run signed executables. Without the ability to change it, it's hardly a computer at all - it's just a toy.
The common definition is a phone that combines PDA & cellphone functionality. Anything else is really irrelevant. Again, that simply isn't true. You can hardly buy a phone without PDA functionality these days, but that doesn't mean every phone is a smartphone. The term would be meaningless if it applied to every phone. I repeat: go to any cell phone store and ask to see a smartphone; they won't just point you to the $20 phone with a built-in calendar.
By that definition, Symbian phones from Nokia aren't smartphones anymore due to the expense of getting VeriSign to sign your apps, and the RAZR is one since its Java engine lets it run 3rd party software. Well, a crippled smartphone is no smartphone at all, so you're right about Nokia. As for the RAZR: running third party software isn't the only requirement of a smartphone, it's just one of them.
If you look at the potential volume of "smart" handsets and the potential 3rd party add-on sales, then it looks like the sheer numbers make the profitability such that Apple would want to sell add-ons. Of course. That's the point! They want to sell you software; they don't want you installing freeware or writing your own.
Sure Apple would take its cut on the iTunes sale of an iPhone add-on, but Apple is going to be well deserved to earn that amount based on offering solid software, easily and conveniently to each user, with an Apple guarantee of maximum compatibility with the iPhone (& Mac no doubt). Maybe so, but that doesn't justify locking everyone else out. A lot of software simply won't get written because of these restrictions. If they were just trying to maintain quality, they'd offer to sell well-tested software but still let users install their own untested software.
Mac compatibility is a non-issue. Very few phone apps need to interoperate with a computer at all.
I think we are pre-judging Apple to quickly with something that is not yet out or implemented. What's wrong with judging the iPhone based on what Steve Jobs has said? This isn't speculation, it's public knowledge.
I think that once iPhone is delivered, we will find that if an individual developer wants to implement his own application, say an HP 15 emulator, that it will be a straightforward process to get it certified and offered to iPhone users. First, that's pretty optimistic. Apple certainly didn't make it straightforward to develop iPod games. If you've been developing Mac games for the past 10 years and want to move to the iPod, you're out of luck; it's a closed process, and you're not welcome. That's why there are only 11 games, including such ancient titles as Bejeweled and Tetris, and half of them are from EA.
Second, suppose they do make it straightforward: you download an SDK, write your app, submit it for testing, and if it passes, they sign it and sell it on your behalf. You know who else does that? Verizon, and with basically the same end result as the iPod games market: there's a limited selection of expensive apps, with broad but shallow appeal (a lot of classic games and movie tie-ins), and hardly anything gets written that's original or serves a niche market. Developers have to invest a lot of time and money into getting their apps approved, and they pass that on to customers in the form of high prices and aiming for the lowest common denominator.
Apple collectively is not dumb about involving developers, and with the volume of phones in the world, they know they need them for localization & specific industry, hobby & connectivity issues. I wouldn't be so certain. Again, look at the iPod, and look at Verizon's Get It Now system. There is no hobbyist development for either, because hobbyists are locked out by the very nature of the development process.
Almost all phones today that sell for more than $50 are smartphones. The iPhone has calendaring, contact lists, a notepad, a web browser, a GPS navigation system, and so on, and so on. That is not a common definition of "smartphone". Go to any cell phone store and ask to see the smartphones; they'll show you to the Blackberries and Treos.
If that isn't a smartphone, then I'd love to hear what phone on the market is one. What exactly can you do with a PDA that you can't do with an iPhone that overrides everything it can do? You can install new software on it to meet your current and future needs, without having to pay the manufacturer for an expensive development license, or waiting for an "approved" developer to write, test, and sell the app you need. If you can't download an app from the internet and install it on your phone, it's not a smartphone.
It will be able to install and run some custom applications just as the iPhone runs games today. Those games are not always written by Apple. I think you mean the iPod.
If you want a peek at the future of third-party iPhone apps, just look at the selection of iPod games today: there are only eleven games, from just a couple companies; they're old titles with broad but shallow appeal, nothing special, and priced just at the edge of tolerability. Five bucks for yet another version of Bejeweled or Tetris?
Now think about it from a developer's perspective. Have you ever seen an iPod games SDK? If you wanted to develop a new game for the iPod, how would you go about it? Is it even possible? The answer seems to be no: several long-time Mac game developers approached Apple and were turned away. Developing iPod games is by invitation only.
The bottleneck on development translates into a limited and expensive selection of apps. You can see something similar with Verizon's Get It Now store: anyone can download the BREW SDK and start developing an app for free, but they have to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops to get it certified and made available to customers. As a result, there are plenty of ports of classic games, and plenty of movie tie-in titles, but hardly anything original, and they're all relatively pricey.
You've selected this case, right? Again, just like the Packard Bell, if all you care about is computing power then it's close enough.
But the Mac Mini has "mini" in its name for a reason - the main selling point is its size. The Mini is 2" high, 6.5" wide and deep. According to the manufacturer, however, your case is 9" high, 11.2" wide, and 13.8" deep: sixteen times the volume, four times the height, and twice the other dimensions. Just looking at my entertainment center, I could fit the Mac Mini on top of my TiVo, VCR, or DVD player; I couldn't fit your case on any of the shelves even if they were empty, and I bet that 550W power supply would make quite a bit more noise than the Mini.
Macbook, as already stated - same resolution, way more features, leess price. You complain that the HP lacks a few rarely-used ports and runs 160 MHz (8%) slower, but now you want me to believe a 13" screen is equivalent to a 15.4", even though the latter has 40% more area? Talk about hypocrisy! No wonder Apple's lineup sucks so much if their fans are willing to go this far to justify their shortcomings.
Yet people do all the time. People pay exactly that much (or more) for just that tiny a performance boost. You can't come in lowballing and then claim you have the same computer. All right. Then let me put it this way: for $1500 or less, I can get an HP laptop with a 15.4" screen and a Core 2 Duo. Where's the equivalent from Apple? Can I get a decent sized screen without spending $2000 or not? (Hint: the answer is "not". You can either "lowball" and get a laptop with a tiny screen, cheap keyboard, and bargain-bin video chipset, or spend an extra 33%.)
That's just 18% bigger. Not much of a difference. Actually, it's 40% bigger: 101.84 square inches vs. Apple's 72.32 square inches. A bigger screen makes a difference.
And you have a larger window onto less capability - what's the point? Well, we both know that's not true; a PC can do everything a Mac can, including running MacOS if that's what you want. That extra 40% screen area makes a big difference if you're watching movies on it... which seems to be an intended use, since it's a 16:9 screen.
Firewire is again useful if your computer is set up to automatically set up user accounts from your old computer - then it's not a luxary, but a nessecity in that it seems like madness to not have a computer completey set up in a half hour including all your applications! And it's not a luxury in reading images from CF cards. What good is the larger screen with a box so I/O constrained? Huh, I guess you've never heard of USB 2.0. You can copy files between computers and read flash cards using the very same connector you use for your mouse and printer, and it's just as fast in practice. You should check it out sometime.;)
DVI is useful on more and more HDTV sets that only take DVI in, if you want to hook your computer to an HD-TV for photo shows. If you're one of the relative handful of people who actually own an HDTV, you probably won't mind dropping another $500, because you will have already spent more on your TV than you're about to spend on the laptop. Personally, I wouldn't spend a dime on a TV that didn't even have S-video inputs.
Again you can get cheaper if you lowball - and then you wonder why computers don't really seem as useful as they could be. No, actually, the $1500 laptop is plenty useful. I have FireWire and DVI now and I never use either of them. I'm just wondering why Apple doesn't have anything in that price range - I can either go down to the slap-in-the-face MacBook, or spend an extra $500 for the MBP. I like my PowerBook, but no thanks, I can't justify spending so much more on its replacement when competing laptops have everything I need for less.
So in no way did you even get close to a Macbook, much less a Macbook Pro - showing yet again that today, Macs are actually the less expensive alternative for a very practical computer. Less expensive? No, a $2000 laptop is not "less expensive" than a $1500 laptop under any definition. At best, they're about the same price as a PC with identical features (if you want to customize a Sony or something to have exactly the same specs), or far more expensive if you're willing to accept a PC with slightly lower specs - one for which Apple doesn't have any equivalent.
The highest processor speed you can get on a dv6000z or dv6000t seems to be 2.0GHz. The Macbook Pros start at 2.16 and go up... That's an 8% difference in CPU speed - barely noticeable, and certainly not worth paying 33% more.
From looking at it, the dv6000t/z seems to be a lot more comparible to a Macbook, though even there are a lot of things still missing - like a gigbit ethernet port, or even a DVI connector (VGA only). Or Firewire. Well, you're overlooking the biggest difference between the HP and the plain MB, IMO, which is the HP's 15.4" screen. You can't get a screen bigger than 13" from Apple without spending $2000.
Gigabit Ethernet, DVI, and FireWire are all luxury features with little utility to the general public. I suppose they'd come in handy if you do a lot of video editing (with an old camera that doesn't support USB 2.0), transfer the uncompressed files over your LAN, and view them on a 50" plasma screen - but who does that outside of an Apple commercial? DVI doesn't look any better than VGA on a decent desktop flat panel, and hardly any devices need FireWire.
Not to mention, why on earth do they have two different models that are virtually identical? The "z" uses an AMD processor, which requires a different motherboard.
Indeed. One possibility is to just get a Windows machine and load OSx86 on it. It runs fine on a Dell with a Radeon, although the short hardware compatibility list could be a problem for laptops (I went through three PCI wifi cards before finding one that was supported). Apple might not be happy with that, but IMO they have no room to complain when they're ignoring such a big segment of the market.
Fair enough.. but the problem remains that you can get quite a good laptop elsewhere for $1200-$1500, with most of their specs about equivalent to the MBP's specs. Not identical, but close enough for most people. I've got a PowerBook G4, but there's no way I could justify replacing it with a pricey MBP when I can get all the features I need for far less elsewhere.
Apple's product line has a huge gap between the regular MacBook and the MacBook Pro, which means a feature comparison looks even worse if you do it the other way around: spec an HP laptop for $1500, then try to find a Mac that matches. You have to either spend an extra $500 for the MBP, or settle for the MB's tiny screen, cheap keyboard, and bargain-bin video chipset - the regular MacBook is a slap in the face to anyone who's comparison shopping.
Windows Media DRM and "PlaysForSure" aren't separate things. Windows Media DRM and Windows Media Player are separate things: one is a DRM scheme licensed by Microsoft to several manufacturers, the other is an application written by Microsoft. You made a claim about the former and then tried to back it up with facts about the latter. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
Look, I hate to defend Apple's pricing because it's so crappy overall, but now you're making me do it. The Packard Bell you linked to is a full sized desktop. The Mac Mini is about the size of a cable modem, suitable to be placed in a living room entertainment center (where a desktop PC's fan would be intolerably loud). They're not equivalent.
Exactly. The problem with Apple's notebook lineup is it's feast or famine. MacBooks are expensive because if you want any of the MBP features, you have to pay for all of them. You can't get a 15" laptop for less than $2000 if there's a picture of an apple on it; one might argue that the other included features make it worth the price, but not everyone needs them.
You can't buy an HP or anything else I've found with the same spec for under $1500 either Oh, but you can. Check out the HP dv6000 series. You can get one with the same size screen as the low-end MBP (slightly lower res), same or larger hard drive, same or faster optical drive, CPU within about 133 MHz, weight within 1/2 lb, dimensions within 1/2 inch, built-in mic and camera, remote control, and more USB ports for $500 less than the MBP.
I know people here are in love with the myth that Apple products are cheaper than PCs, but it just isn't true. Please don't waste my time objecting that the HP isn't exactly the same; I'll point out right now that it's a different color and has a different logo, too. Point is, it's nearly identical, equivalent overall, and it's several hundred dollars cheaper.
The Macbook Pro and Macbook are both cheaper than Dell's with the same specs. Sorry to hamper your illusions. I don't know about Dells, but an HP dv6000 series with specs equivalent to the low-end MacBook Pro is about $500 cheaper. Last year the price difference was over $800, so at least Apple is closing the gap.
Oh, I forgot to mention a big media limitation that has nothing to do with iTMS DRM: they changed the library sharing in iTunes 7 to break compatibility with iTunes 6. Why? Perhaps because the iTunes 6 protocol had been deciphered, and people were using third-party apps like Xbox Media Center to stream their own music to non-Apple devices. Now, even if your library is full of nothing but songs you recorded yourself, you can't share it with anything but another copy of iTunes (or an Apple TV).
And all for a lower price for what you get... Lower price? Not really. There's at least one Apple model that's cheaper than the equivalent Windows box (the Mac Mini), and one of the desktops might qualify... but it's nowhere near true across the board. If you're getting a laptop, Apple will bend you over a stump.
Ah, so by "purchased separately", you mean "not purchased from Apple". Apple goes pretty far to limit what you can do with data you purchase from them (including encrypting parts of the OS, locking it to their own hardware, crippling QuickTime Player, and restricting iTMS videos to the point where they're nearly useless), but it's true that they don't try to exercise the same control on behalf of third parties.
If you were actually a Mac user as you previously claimed, none of this would be news for you. If you're accusing me of lying about the brand of computer I own, you're a paranoid nutjob. I'm only vaguely aware of the status of Windows Media Player on OS X, because I don't have any Windows Media to Play. Of course, WMP is irrelevant here anyway, because your original (and still baseless) claim was not about WMP, but about licensing PlaysForSure to Mac developers.
Do I have a smoking gun letter from someone at Microsoft saying "We'll never license Windows Media DRM for Macintosh?" Of course not How about a statement from anyone, Apple or a third party developer, who has tried to license it and been denied? No? Then you're just making shit up.
I personally think too many people who responded to this message thread have a "it won't happen here" attitude in regards to terrorist threats. I personally think you have an "it won't happen here" attitude in regards to lightning strikes, car accidents, and heart disease, which are all far more likely to harm you or a loved one than a terrorist attack. Wearing a grounded metal hat when it's raining is more likely to save your life than blowing up a Lite-Brite... but reacting to threats rationally is so boring, isn't it?
Apple had to provide extra features. But not for free. They could simply compete by providing a better value than their competitors, because their competitors weren't imposing any extra artificial costs. There was no "neighborhood bully" forcing Apple's potential customers to pay hundreds of dollars more for an iPod than the price on the sticker (or, alternatively, to throw away their existing music collections).
(While there were conversion costs for those who owned nothing but CDs, those costs were natural consequences of technology, not deliberate anticompetitive measures like the costs imposed by Apple today.)
The first iPod far exceeded its competitors. Why should the rest of the industry not be held to the same standard? They should be held to exactly the same standard: competing based on the value provided for the sticker price, not for the sticker price plus Apple's conversion tax.
Slashdot Mirror
As others have pointed out, the subject here is "point-and-click adventures" in the style of Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion, Space Quest, etc. Those games don't rely on action scenes or leveling up, and in the LucasArts games, you can't die even if you try(*). They're all about solving puzzles, combining objects and working your way through conversations to achieve a goal. They share with RPGs an emphasis on story and some of the more superficial puzzle solving aspects, but they're really a different genre.
And yes, I think one of the problems with those games on consoles has been the controls. When the game is all about moving a pointer around on the screen to select verbs and items, a D-pad just doesn't work very well.. but the Wiimote certainly does.
(* OK, there are a couple places where you can die, but you have to try really hard. Dying is an easter egg.)
For reference, two 5.25" bays are about 3.5" tall together. The case is clearly as tall as about 5 of those bays (we can see two of them), which puts it around the 9 inch mark, and it's wider than it is tall. I've seen one of these cases, they sit on the shelf at my local computer shop. They ain't 11.2" wide. They're similar to the machine I have sitting on my desk which is only 9.5" wide. I suggest you take a measuring tape the next time you go to that shop. The manufacturer's specified dimensions look right to me.
Mac compatibility is a non-issue. Very few phone apps need to interoperate with a computer at all. I think we are pre-judging Apple to quickly with something that is not yet out or implemented. What's wrong with judging the iPhone based on what Steve Jobs has said? This isn't speculation, it's public knowledge.
Second, suppose they do make it straightforward: you download an SDK, write your app, submit it for testing, and if it passes, they sign it and sell it on your behalf. You know who else does that? Verizon, and with basically the same end result as the iPod games market: there's a limited selection of expensive apps, with broad but shallow appeal (a lot of classic games and movie tie-ins), and hardly anything gets written that's original or serves a niche market. Developers have to invest a lot of time and money into getting their apps approved, and they pass that on to customers in the form of high prices and aiming for the lowest common denominator. Apple collectively is not dumb about involving developers, and with the volume of phones in the world, they know they need them for localization & specific industry, hobby & connectivity issues. I wouldn't be so certain. Again, look at the iPod, and look at Verizon's Get It Now system. There is no hobbyist development for either, because hobbyists are locked out by the very nature of the development process.
If you want a peek at the future of third-party iPhone apps, just look at the selection of iPod games today: there are only eleven games, from just a couple companies; they're old titles with broad but shallow appeal, nothing special, and priced just at the edge of tolerability. Five bucks for yet another version of Bejeweled or Tetris?
Now think about it from a developer's perspective. Have you ever seen an iPod games SDK? If you wanted to develop a new game for the iPod, how would you go about it? Is it even possible? The answer seems to be no: several long-time Mac game developers approached Apple and were turned away. Developing iPod games is by invitation only.
The bottleneck on development translates into a limited and expensive selection of apps. You can see something similar with Verizon's Get It Now store: anyone can download the BREW SDK and start developing an app for free, but they have to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops to get it certified and made available to customers. As a result, there are plenty of ports of classic games, and plenty of movie tie-in titles, but hardly anything original, and they're all relatively pricey.
You've selected this case, right? Again, just like the Packard Bell, if all you care about is computing power then it's close enough.
But the Mac Mini has "mini" in its name for a reason - the main selling point is its size. The Mini is 2" high, 6.5" wide and deep. According to the manufacturer, however, your case is 9" high, 11.2" wide, and 13.8" deep: sixteen times the volume, four times the height, and twice the other dimensions. Just looking at my entertainment center, I could fit the Mac Mini on top of my TiVo, VCR, or DVD player; I couldn't fit your case on any of the shelves even if they were empty, and I bet that 550W power supply would make quite a bit more noise than the Mini.
Gigabit Ethernet, DVI, and FireWire are all luxury features with little utility to the general public. I suppose they'd come in handy if you do a lot of video editing (with an old camera that doesn't support USB 2.0), transfer the uncompressed files over your LAN, and view them on a 50" plasma screen - but who does that outside of an Apple commercial? DVI doesn't look any better than VGA on a decent desktop flat panel, and hardly any devices need FireWire. Not to mention, why on earth do they have two different models that are virtually identical? The "z" uses an AMD processor, which requires a different motherboard.
Indeed. One possibility is to just get a Windows machine and load OSx86 on it. It runs fine on a Dell with a Radeon, although the short hardware compatibility list could be a problem for laptops (I went through three PCI wifi cards before finding one that was supported). Apple might not be happy with that, but IMO they have no room to complain when they're ignoring such a big segment of the market.
Fair enough.. but the problem remains that you can get quite a good laptop elsewhere for $1200-$1500, with most of their specs about equivalent to the MBP's specs. Not identical, but close enough for most people. I've got a PowerBook G4, but there's no way I could justify replacing it with a pricey MBP when I can get all the features I need for far less elsewhere.
Apple's product line has a huge gap between the regular MacBook and the MacBook Pro, which means a feature comparison looks even worse if you do it the other way around: spec an HP laptop for $1500, then try to find a Mac that matches. You have to either spend an extra $500 for the MBP, or settle for the MB's tiny screen, cheap keyboard, and bargain-bin video chipset - the regular MacBook is a slap in the face to anyone who's comparison shopping.
Look, I hate to defend Apple's pricing because it's so crappy overall, but now you're making me do it. The Packard Bell you linked to is a full sized desktop. The Mac Mini is about the size of a cable modem, suitable to be placed in a living room entertainment center (where a desktop PC's fan would be intolerably loud). They're not equivalent.
Exactly. The problem with Apple's notebook lineup is it's feast or famine. MacBooks are expensive because if you want any of the MBP features, you have to pay for all of them. You can't get a 15" laptop for less than $2000 if there's a picture of an apple on it; one might argue that the other included features make it worth the price, but not everyone needs them.
I know people here are in love with the myth that Apple products are cheaper than PCs, but it just isn't true. Please don't waste my time objecting that the HP isn't exactly the same; I'll point out right now that it's a different color and has a different logo, too. Point is, it's nearly identical, equivalent overall, and it's several hundred dollars cheaper.
Oh, I forgot to mention a big media limitation that has nothing to do with iTMS DRM: they changed the library sharing in iTunes 7 to break compatibility with iTunes 6. Why? Perhaps because the iTunes 6 protocol had been deciphered, and people were using third-party apps like Xbox Media Center to stream their own music to non-Apple devices. Now, even if your library is full of nothing but songs you recorded yourself, you can't share it with anything but another copy of iTunes (or an Apple TV).
Ah, so by "purchased separately", you mean "not purchased from Apple". Apple goes pretty far to limit what you can do with data you purchase from them (including encrypting parts of the OS, locking it to their own hardware, crippling QuickTime Player, and restricting iTMS videos to the point where they're nearly useless), but it's true that they don't try to exercise the same control on behalf of third parties.
(While there were conversion costs for those who owned nothing but CDs, those costs were natural consequences of technology, not deliberate anticompetitive measures like the costs imposed by Apple today.) The first iPod far exceeded its competitors. Why should the rest of the industry not be held to the same standard? They should be held to exactly the same standard: competing based on the value provided for the sticker price, not for the sticker price plus Apple's conversion tax.