This is the only thing that I find hopeful about the whole iPhone thing. I keep hoping I can spend a couple hundred bucks and get some sort of WiMax phone in a year or so, though. Not sure how realistic a want that is, however.
Most carriers have pay as you go or month-to-month services as well, but they don't advertise it. Granted, you typically pay more for the phone, and often a little more for a month-to-month flat fee than a 2-year, but (at least in my mind) it's worth it to not be stuck in a contract.
1. A hammer that has a loose neck that will only stiffen strong enough to be used after you enter into a keypad on the handle the first 56 digits of Pi.
2. A light switch that requires you to recite the Gettysburgh Address in order to function.
3. A weight scale that requires you to tap dance like Fred Astaire for 15 minutes before it will tell you your weight.
4. And lastly a dishwasher with a panel on the front that will require you to specify the exact amounts of water used, at what pressure and what temperatures and what amounts of detergent to be released at 50 different intervals during the wash cycle before you can use it.
Comical indeed. Note that I didn't say we should all be using vi to do everything. By implication, I was obviously not saying we should have tools that require us to do everything from scratch. That's silly and frankly you're putting up a strawman in order to knock it down and look insightful.
However, it is obvious to anyone not overcome with awe by Apple's offerings that aside from the dubiously useful touchscreen interface (which is only "new" in the sense that it's being offered as the primary interface for finger-only use), the features aren't innovative, they're just aggregated, and it remains to be seen how well that has been done. Nonetheless, all your silly examples aren't relevant, because current smartphone offerings aren't broken. Even the relatively ancient blackberry i have from work has a UI (with a single click interface!) that the most techno-illiterate of our sales force navigates with ease and current offerings have very nice interfaces, indeed. They are not directly comparable to your absurd list of examples, since they *work* and do so in an expected fashion. The iPhone is getting a lot of traction (aside from the RDF) because it's different (the marking slogan of "Think Different" is no accident), but different isn't necessarily better.
I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this particular issue. Apple has been oversimplifying interfaces since the Mac first came out (single mouse button is one prime example, it wastes a whole hand worth of digits that can be used in a variety of ways on the mouse; yes, you can plug in a multi-button mouse, but it's obviously not what they want people doing), and the iPod is along the same vein.
I realize that Apple (whether they say it outright or not) is really in the business of making computer appliances, not computers, but even when Apple simply conglomerates existing features and puts them in one device, the techno-hipster/maczelot crowd spooges all over itself because there's a logo and a smooth styling to it. *This* is why they make them oversimplified, as the devices are intended to serve a single flow of purpose (in addition to being "hip"), and are marketed as such. People consider them to be devices which have multiple abilities because Apple markets them very well. However, like any device (say, a washing machine), using them outside the main purpose they were built and marketed for can become very difficult (yes, before you go on that route, I have this problem with non-Apple single-purpose multi-function devices as well -- I've yet to find a popular product that can be extended and manipulated to serve a variety of purposes at whim that isn't a homebuilt PC -- and the reason why is that simple, braindead, single-purpose devices *sell* since any goober can understand what it is.)
As for how I can judge based on 30-second videos, their entire marketing campaign revolves around it being "simple and better". Though I seem to remember that the commercial I last saw went on and on about how it could access the "real web", except that as far as I can tell, it doesn't support Flash (yet), which (as evidenced by the article we're commenting on). Not really sure what the "fake" web is, to be honest.
You seem to forget how many ad impressions this must generate. Though since its slashdot, I can't imagine a lot of people aren't running no-script or ad-block in FF.
The poster I replied to pretty clearly was implying that the reason that "geeks" don't think the iPhone is special is because the functionality exists, it just isn't simple enough for the general population to use. I don't see how my reply did anything but agree with that assessment.
I own Macs, I own PC-clones. Back in the day I owned Commodores. I do not find Apple interfaces to be particularly intuitive vs these other platform interfaces. It is true, that Apple can sometimes make common tasks easy to perform, but as you say, you must learn their designated way of doing things first.
I'm not saying that everyone should have to use vi to make a webpage. I'm saying that there's plenty of decent UIs out there for phones/smartphones/pdas, but that the iPhone is catering to the "we chew your food for you" computing crowd (in addition to the Mac fanbois, who I'm convinced are created when a normal person who lacks a certain genetic immunity comes in contact with an RDF).
Geeks on the other hand will put up with crappy user interfaces because they are blinded by the features underneath.
Interesting use of the word "blinded". Devices are tools and the features are the point. What you're arguing, essentially, is that people without critical thinking skills and who lack the ability to learn how to use a tool will love being spoon-fed by Apple when the iPhone comes out.
The execs won't use it, it doesn't sync completely with Exchange as a Blackberry does, it works differently than a Blackberry, and none of their colleagues will have one.
Furthermore, we lock down functionality for devices in IT departments because the devices are 1) Owned by the company, 2) For business use and as such 3) subject to security requirements and needs of a corporation.
I foresee the iPhone getting a lot of press, being gobbled up by the Apple cheering squad, but having little to no penetration in the corporate world.
As said over and over in this comment cloud, even if you can do IMAP securely, the lack of Calendar/tasks/notes/etc syncing with Exchange is the real killer. Without that, the heavy corporate Blackberry users won't even look at it.
Execs are frequently an exception, unfortunately. Though frankly I have long since tried to reconcile it mentally. If someone asks, the answer is "He gets to use whatever hardware he wants, because he's the CEO."
The problem with that lay in a version of Murphy's Law. If there's a way to fuck up a machine, a user will find it. Typically my mindset is this: IT admin/support and devs get free reign of their machines, all other users have much reduced privs to their machine (tho in WinXP local admin is pretty much required to get anything done without them calling constantly that they can't do something trivial), but if they mess it up, they get to rebuild their own box.
Exchange only forwards external, not internal mail via rules _ I never could figure out how to forward internal email. Really? Is this an IMAP/POP thing only problem? The only rules-based weirdness that I came across in terms of handling mail was that it wouldn't move a mail that hit a rule to a PST unless the client was running (which makes sense in a way, but you'd think that they could have a stub or something for Outlook in an enterprise environment that would handle tasks like that, so that when you open outlook it doesn't take a busy mailbox forever to do the moves).
*gasp* This is America. Putting your kids outside will only result in them IMMEDIATELY being molested by roaming bands of pedophiles who are behind every tree, under every rock, and around every corner. I, sir (or madam) am disgusted by your suggestion!
They charge the price that the market will bear. You'll note that people grumble about the price, but still pay it. There's nothing unethical about placing a product/service at a price point people are willing to pay.
I had a problem with an old apartment complex that was poorly run and lost one of the last checks I wrote them when I moved out. The collection agency sent me a note saying that they'd gotten the info from the apartment complex. I sent them a copy of the cashed check with the management company's endorsement and date they'd deposited it on the copy. Called back a few days later and checked up on the situation and the collection company rep said, "Tally ho!" and it was all okay. AFAIK my credit wasn't touched at all, but YMMV. I suspect the collection agency gets paid either way.
IANAL, but I seem to recall that courts across the US tend to use federal appeals courts decisions in other circuits in their rulings, since a precedent is a precedent. I suspect there are a great many issues that have been effectively decided for all practical purposes on a nation-wide by having appellate courts issue a decision and then later being cited that never make it to the supreme court.
It doesn't, because the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure restricts government actions not the actions of private individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the only thing that I find hopeful about the whole iPhone thing. I keep hoping I can spend a couple hundred bucks and get some sort of WiMax phone in a year or so, though. Not sure how realistic a want that is, however.
Most carriers have pay as you go or month-to-month services as well, but they don't advertise it. Granted, you typically pay more for the phone, and often a little more for a month-to-month flat fee than a 2-year, but (at least in my mind) it's worth it to not be stuck in a contract.
1. A hammer that has a loose neck that will only stiffen strong enough to be used after you enter into a keypad on the handle the first 56 digits of Pi.
2. A light switch that requires you to recite the Gettysburgh Address in order to function.
3. A weight scale that requires you to tap dance like Fred Astaire for 15 minutes before it will tell you your weight.
4. And lastly a dishwasher with a panel on the front that will require you to specify the exact amounts of water used, at what pressure and what temperatures and what amounts of detergent to be released at 50 different intervals during the wash cycle before you can use it.
Comical indeed. Note that I didn't say we should all be using vi to do everything. By implication, I was obviously not saying we should have tools that require us to do everything from scratch. That's silly and frankly you're putting up a strawman in order to knock it down and look insightful.
However, it is obvious to anyone not overcome with awe by Apple's offerings that aside from the dubiously useful touchscreen interface (which is only "new" in the sense that it's being offered as the primary interface for finger-only use), the features aren't innovative, they're just aggregated, and it remains to be seen how well that has been done. Nonetheless, all your silly examples aren't relevant, because current smartphone offerings aren't broken. Even the relatively ancient blackberry i have from work has a UI (with a single click interface!) that the most techno-illiterate of our sales force navigates with ease and current offerings have very nice interfaces, indeed. They are not directly comparable to your absurd list of examples, since they *work* and do so in an expected fashion. The iPhone is getting a lot of traction (aside from the RDF) because it's different (the marking slogan of "Think Different" is no accident), but different isn't necessarily better.
I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this particular issue. Apple has been oversimplifying interfaces since the Mac first came out (single mouse button is one prime example, it wastes a whole hand worth of digits that can be used in a variety of ways on the mouse; yes, you can plug in a multi-button mouse, but it's obviously not what they want people doing), and the iPod is along the same vein.
I realize that Apple (whether they say it outright or not) is really in the business of making computer appliances, not computers, but even when Apple simply conglomerates existing features and puts them in one device, the techno-hipster/maczelot crowd spooges all over itself because there's a logo and a smooth styling to it. *This* is why they make them oversimplified, as the devices are intended to serve a single flow of purpose (in addition to being "hip"), and are marketed as such. People consider them to be devices which have multiple abilities because Apple markets them very well. However, like any device (say, a washing machine), using them outside the main purpose they were built and marketed for can become very difficult (yes, before you go on that route, I have this problem with non-Apple single-purpose multi-function devices as well -- I've yet to find a popular product that can be extended and manipulated to serve a variety of purposes at whim that isn't a homebuilt PC -- and the reason why is that simple, braindead, single-purpose devices *sell* since any goober can understand what it is.)
As for how I can judge based on 30-second videos, their entire marketing campaign revolves around it being "simple and better". Though I seem to remember that the commercial I last saw went on and on about how it could access the "real web", except that as far as I can tell, it doesn't support Flash (yet), which (as evidenced by the article we're commenting on). Not really sure what the "fake" web is, to be honest.
You seem to forget how many ad impressions this must generate. Though since its slashdot, I can't imagine a lot of people aren't running no-script or ad-block in FF.
See my reply above. Not worth it for me to address your comment seperately. Sorry.
The poster I replied to pretty clearly was implying that the reason that "geeks" don't think the iPhone is special is because the functionality exists, it just isn't simple enough for the general population to use. I don't see how my reply did anything but agree with that assessment.
I own Macs, I own PC-clones. Back in the day I owned Commodores. I do not find Apple interfaces to be particularly intuitive vs these other platform interfaces. It is true, that Apple can sometimes make common tasks easy to perform, but as you say, you must learn their designated way of doing things first.
I'm not saying that everyone should have to use vi to make a webpage. I'm saying that there's plenty of decent UIs out there for phones/smartphones/pdas, but that the iPhone is catering to the "we chew your food for you" computing crowd (in addition to the Mac fanbois, who I'm convinced are created when a normal person who lacks a certain genetic immunity comes in contact with an RDF).
Interesting use of the word "blinded". Devices are tools and the features are the point. What you're arguing, essentially, is that people without critical thinking skills and who lack the ability to learn how to use a tool will love being spoon-fed by Apple when the iPhone comes out.
On second though, I think I agree with you.
Well then beggars can't be choosers I guess.
People buy new-release games without reading reviews anymore?
In any event, what kind of prissy wuss gamer are you, anyway.
Funny, cuz the Simpsons is in such wide syndication that you can have both! (free OTA sd/hd [tho the simpsons is sadly in sd] AND not starve)
The execs won't use it, it doesn't sync completely with Exchange as a Blackberry does, it works differently than a Blackberry, and none of their colleagues will have one.
Furthermore, we lock down functionality for devices in IT departments because the devices are 1) Owned by the company, 2) For business use and as such 3) subject to security requirements and needs of a corporation.
I foresee the iPhone getting a lot of press, being gobbled up by the Apple cheering squad, but having little to no penetration in the corporate world.
As said over and over in this comment cloud, even if you can do IMAP securely, the lack of Calendar/tasks/notes/etc syncing with Exchange is the real killer. Without that, the heavy corporate Blackberry users won't even look at it.
Execs are frequently an exception, unfortunately. Though frankly I have long since tried to reconcile it mentally. If someone asks, the answer is "He gets to use whatever hardware he wants, because he's the CEO."
The problem with that lay in a version of Murphy's Law. If there's a way to fuck up a machine, a user will find it. Typically my mindset is this: IT admin/support and devs get free reign of their machines, all other users have much reduced privs to their machine (tho in WinXP local admin is pretty much required to get anything done without them calling constantly that they can't do something trivial), but if they mess it up, they get to rebuild their own box.
Future of IT? It's the present reality and has been the reality for some time now. If you wanted off, you should have bailed years ago.
Sure, TV was free, and milquetoast as could be.
It's still free, tho. OTA HDTV FTW.
*gasp* This is America. Putting your kids outside will only result in them IMMEDIATELY being molested by roaming bands of pedophiles who are behind every tree, under every rock, and around every corner. I, sir (or madam) am disgusted by your suggestion!
How is it that you're able to post to slashdot so well from your tin-roofed shack, Mr Unabomber?
They charge the price that the market will bear. You'll note that people grumble about the price, but still pay it. There's nothing unethical about placing a product/service at a price point people are willing to pay.
I had a problem with an old apartment complex that was poorly run and lost one of the last checks I wrote them when I moved out. The collection agency sent me a note saying that they'd gotten the info from the apartment complex. I sent them a copy of the cashed check with the management company's endorsement and date they'd deposited it on the copy. Called back a few days later and checked up on the situation and the collection company rep said, "Tally ho!" and it was all okay. AFAIK my credit wasn't touched at all, but YMMV. I suspect the collection agency gets paid either way.
While IANAL, that statement betrays a simplistic (and probably incorrect) view of how laws apply differently to government and private enterprises.
IANAL, but I seem to recall that courts across the US tend to use federal appeals courts decisions in other circuits in their rulings, since a precedent is a precedent. I suspect there are a great many issues that have been effectively decided for all practical purposes on a nation-wide by having appellate courts issue a decision and then later being cited that never make it to the supreme court.
It doesn't, because the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure restricts government actions not the actions of private individuals.
IANAL.