That's what I'm saying, the Treo lets you do that. The problem is finding the time. It's easier to just go through them all at the end of the day, usually.
"What would be nice is if a high-end camera had a basic Palm-like OS where the user could use the preview screen as a touch screen with a virtual keyboard. That way when you're taking pictures metadata could be added on the fly. While I'm dreaming built-in wifi would be nice:)"
My Treo 700p does something like that. You can put captions on the photo, draw doodles on it, and even record voice notes and attach to the photo. The problem is actually finding the time to do it. I took a lot of photos at Disneyland recently but it was always a quick snap then I had to put it in my pocket and move on. Still, though, I thought that'd be great for shopping.
The marketting divisions of Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony seem to be exceedingly blinkered when it comes to home games production on their consoles. It worked for the Amiga, which because of direct support from Commodore (docs and tools) saw the emergence of a huge and extremely buoyant community with legions of Amiga supporters worldwide. And that's only one example.
There's a subtle difference between the Amiga and the game consoles. The Amiga itself was sold to make money, whereas game consoles sell games to make money. Sony and Microsoft, for example, take a loss on the systems. Nintendo, from what I've read, makes some profit on the Wii but very little. The money is recouped through publishing. That's the reason none of these companies are keen on home-brew games. It's sort of like how theaters don't want you bringing your own food and drink in. Interestingly enough, Nintendo survived and thrived when Commodore didn't.
"If you want to know what Firefox 4 will be like, get Opera 9.5 when it comes out. If you want to know what Firefox 5 will be like, get Opera 10 when it comes out."
UmmmMmm yeah, that's a troll. Here's a small patch to make it insightful:
If you want to know what IE 8 will be like, get FireFox 3 when it comes out. If you want to know what IE 15 will be like, get FireFox 4 when it comes out.
You've gotta phrase your posts with public opinion in mind or you're trolling.
Was the iPod revolutionary when it came out? AFAIK the Dell Jukebox was also around at that time when the iPod came out. The difference? Not much when you compare the features. They both had similar battery life, they both played both played music for your ears. Where is the difference then? The Dell Jukebox would make your ears bleed! What I mean is, you don't have to be revolutionary to beat the competition. Just take what others are doing wrong, and do it right, or in a way that you think people will enjoy. The iPod wasn't/isn't successful because of marketing only. It does a great job at being an mp3 player and not a piece of shit that you battle with just to get it working.
I think the short version of what you're saying is that Apple is selling elegance. That'll probably be what makes this phone successful. The videos I saw didn't really show me anything 'new'. I have a Treo 700p, for example. I can watch a video on it, get a craving, then hop on over to Google, find a restaraunt, and click the phone number to dial. Whoop-de-doo. The big difference, that is assuming the commercial was in any way accurate, is that they were more streamlined in doing it. Assuming the internet connection isn't too dissimilar on both phones, the iPhone would probably get to that point fairly faster than the Treo. (Although I've read that the iPhone doesn't support the faster data connections that modern phones have, so I find that a bit questionable.)
For me as a Treo owner, the iPhone isn't that super fantabulous. However, I'm sure I'll develop some envy when I see people around the office with their iPhones with their lack of frustration doing the same things I've been doing for the last year. So maybe I'll have one at some point in the next two years. In the mean time, though, I'm still scratching my head and asking the question: What more will it do for me than what I really have? I honestly think that's a variant of the "what's so revolutionary about it?" question. It's a fair question and Apple doesn't really need people running up to its defense with rhetoric about the iPod's success. Let's wait until the phone's in people's hands so they can say: "Here's what I'm doing with it." That's originally what got me interested in plunking down $300 for a Treo. I'm sure it'll work for Apple, too.
"Wait you've been able to watch Pirates of the Caribbean, got the feeling to eat calamari, look up seafood in Google maps and then make a call to the restaurant? All on your Blackberry, 3 years ago?"
"Plus, there may be ten times more Americans than Canadians as you say, but looking at your mentality, looking at your ignorance-promoting culture, looking at your president, looking at your policies and hell, looking at you, population numbers aside, the overall amount of brain cells seems to be about the same on either side of your Canadian border....."... said the guy generalizing about 300 million people.
"Done. Mod me to hell, American Fanboys. My karma can take it."
Be thankful that I don't do as you do and count your asshattedness against everyone in Australia.
"'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"
For the uninitiated, this is why BSOD jokes don't get the big yucks they used to.
"lol is just lazy, doesn't serve any literary purpose and perverts the language in a different way than colloquial contractions like "ain't" do."
Funny, but when I went to high school in the mid-nineties I was given a very similar pitch about the word "ain't".
In any event, I'll grant you there's a difference, but it's not as big as you're making it out to be. As lol becomes part of everyday lexicon, it becomes as 'useful' as words like ain't. It's difficult to see it now, but eventually 'lol' will get associated with a certain type of people the same way "ain't" is associated with low-brow redneck folks. When it's used to artfully describe a person, as you did with ain't, you'll 'ace' your exams.
"From the videos provided from Blizzard, there is no alteration for StarCraft 2 from StarCraft 1, other than updated graphics. SC2 is a rehashed version of SC1."
Never said it wasn't a rehash.
"Taking SC1 and WoW and significantly altering them by combining them together does not meet the definition of rehash."
"...and will use internet abbreviations (lol, idk, etc.) in school papers."
I get your point about the you/your/you're comment. But the second point you brought up is nothing new. Have you ever tried writing an english paper using words like 'aint' or 'brung'?
"Am I the only one who thinks that ad should be advocating for parents to completely ban their children from text messages?"
I wouldn't go to that extreme, no. Children still need proper education.
"You obviously haven't played WoW if you think they can just change the models, change the name, and launch WoS."
That really depends on the amount of energy they put into it. They can very easily, it's a question of if they would. That's beside the point, though. You're ignoring one game for superficial reasons and wishing they'd make a different one based on a game you like. That's totally fine. It's still a rehash, though. Your heart's in the right place, your agument isn't.
"No, this is lame. Blizzard had the chance to redefine computer gaming by coming out with a truly great, futuristic MMO, but instead decided to do another rehash of a game from nearly ten years ago that looks exactly like the old version."
Umm... so basically you're upset that they rehashed SC2 instead of WoW. I wouldn't mind, but you only used the word 'rehash' once so I got a little confused..
Slashdot Mirror
"controversial message published by Linus Torvalds"
Ooooooh I get what he's saying now! Thanks!
"If you still have your copy sitting unwatched on your Tivo, I'd suggest that you stop reading before you are spoiled..."
I'd just like to thank those involved for learning a lesson over the Lone Gunmen fiasco.
That's what I'm saying, the Treo lets you do that. The problem is finding the time. It's easier to just go through them all at the end of the day, usually.
"What would be nice is if a high-end camera had a basic Palm-like OS where the user could use the preview screen as a touch screen with a virtual keyboard. That way when you're taking pictures metadata could be added on the fly. While I'm dreaming built-in wifi would be nice :)"
My Treo 700p does something like that. You can put captions on the photo, draw doodles on it, and even record voice notes and attach to the photo. The problem is actually finding the time to do it. I took a lot of photos at Disneyland recently but it was always a quick snap then I had to put it in my pocket and move on. Still, though, I thought that'd be great for shopping.
There's a subtle difference between the Amiga and the game consoles. The Amiga itself was sold to make money, whereas game consoles sell games to make money. Sony and Microsoft, for example, take a loss on the systems. Nintendo, from what I've read, makes some profit on the Wii but very little. The money is recouped through publishing. That's the reason none of these companies are keen on home-brew games. It's sort of like how theaters don't want you bringing your own food and drink in. Interestingly enough, Nintendo survived and thrived when Commodore didn't.
UmmmMmm yeah, that's a troll. Here's a small patch to make it insightful:
You've gotta phrase your posts with public opinion in mind or you're trolling.
I think the short version of what you're saying is that Apple is selling elegance. That'll probably be what makes this phone successful. The videos I saw didn't really show me anything 'new'. I have a Treo 700p, for example. I can watch a video on it, get a craving, then hop on over to Google, find a restaraunt, and click the phone number to dial. Whoop-de-doo. The big difference, that is assuming the commercial was in any way accurate, is that they were more streamlined in doing it. Assuming the internet connection isn't too dissimilar on both phones, the iPhone would probably get to that point fairly faster than the Treo. (Although I've read that the iPhone doesn't support the faster data connections that modern phones have, so I find that a bit questionable.)
For me as a Treo owner, the iPhone isn't that super fantabulous. However, I'm sure I'll develop some envy when I see people around the office with their iPhones with their lack of frustration doing the same things I've been doing for the last year. So maybe I'll have one at some point in the next two years. In the mean time, though, I'm still scratching my head and asking the question: What more will it do for me than what I really have? I honestly think that's a variant of the "what's so revolutionary about it?" question. It's a fair question and Apple doesn't really need people running up to its defense with rhetoric about the iPod's success. Let's wait until the phone's in people's hands so they can say: "Here's what I'm doing with it." That's originally what got me interested in plunking down $300 for a Treo. I'm sure it'll work for Apple, too.
I don't think the Treo would be a terribly popular phone if either of these was a serious issue.
"Wait you've been able to watch Pirates of the Caribbean, got the feeling to eat calamari, look up seafood in Google maps and then make a call to the restaurant? All on your Blackberry, 3 years ago?"
How long have Treos been available?
"Plus, there may be ten times more Americans than Canadians as you say, but looking at your mentality, looking at your ignorance-promoting culture, looking at your president, looking at your policies and hell, looking at you, population numbers aside, the overall amount of brain cells seems to be about the same on either side of your Canadian border....." ... said the guy generalizing about 300 million people.
"Done. Mod me to hell, American Fanboys. My karma can take it."
Be thankful that I don't do as you do and count your asshattedness against everyone in Australia.
"To get rid of the blue screen of death all you have to do is hit it with something (like, a fist)."
Wow... a big red button I might use once in the next year. They should have sold this 8 years ago.
"I always found the PS2 controller really uncomfortable compared to the GC one."
That and the L3 and R3 buttons are too easy to hit.
"How is Microsoft supposed to take drastic measures to ensure retailers don't sell its games to people under 17? "
That's easy*: Microsoft could say no to 17+ games on their system.
*easy in Jack's world, I mean.
"'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"
For the uninitiated, this is why BSOD jokes don't get the big yucks they used to.
"What online rights is this about? Your right to post videos on the internet without being held accountable for what they contain?"
I'd normally agree, but 40 days?
"Why are we trying to prove that piracy, an illegal act, is somehow "good"?"
No. It's saying that it has a silver lining.
"lol is just lazy, doesn't serve any literary purpose and perverts the language in a different way than colloquial contractions like "ain't" do."
Funny, but when I went to high school in the mid-nineties I was given a very similar pitch about the word "ain't".
In any event, I'll grant you there's a difference, but it's not as big as you're making it out to be. As lol becomes part of everyday lexicon, it becomes as 'useful' as words like ain't. It's difficult to see it now, but eventually 'lol' will get associated with a certain type of people the same way "ain't" is associated with low-brow redneck folks. When it's used to artfully describe a person, as you did with ain't, you'll 'ace' your exams.
"From the videos provided from Blizzard, there is no alteration for StarCraft 2 from StarCraft 1, other than updated graphics. SC2 is a rehashed version of SC1."
Never said it wasn't a rehash.
"Taking SC1 and WoW and significantly altering them by combining them together does not meet the definition of rehash."
WoW with new characters. Rehash.
"...and will use internet abbreviations (lol, idk, etc.) in school papers."
I get your point about the you/your/you're comment. But the second point you brought up is nothing new. Have you ever tried writing an english paper using words like 'aint' or 'brung'?
"Am I the only one who thinks that ad should be advocating for parents to completely ban their children from text messages?"
I wouldn't go to that extreme, no. Children still need proper education.
"Better than "Just like StarCraft 1, but with updated graphics!""
Not in any measureable way, no. A rehash is a rehash, despite which you'd prefer. You really should have chosen your words better originally.
"Right, because $15 a month is soooo damn expensive. "
It's expensive if it's $15/mo. more than you want to pay. Would you pay $15 for said Big Mac? No? But $15 is so easy to come by! Etc.
"Quit being a loser, get a fucking job, do some side work or whatever, get the money, lay it down, and join the modern era."
Um.. yeah.. Sony didn't get very far with that line, either.
"Waiting for you to catch up is a shitty reason for Blizzard to hold back."
Hahaha. It's the market's fault that Blizzard isn't releasing a product. That's funny. Again, very Sony'eqsue. Bravo.
Considering the success of WoW's formula, they'd certainly nudge it in that direction. Sorry, but it'd be "Wow.. but in SPACE!!!" Whoop-de-fuck.
"You obviously haven't played WoW if you think they can just change the models, change the name, and launch WoS."
That really depends on the amount of energy they put into it. They can very easily, it's a question of if they would. That's beside the point, though. You're ignoring one game for superficial reasons and wishing they'd make a different one based on a game you like. That's totally fine. It's still a rehash, though. Your heart's in the right place, your agument isn't.
Were Blizzard to make a MMO out of StarCraft, it wouldn't look anything like WoW."
Right. It'd be WoW with different skins on it. Hey I'm with you, they should rehash a more recent game.
"No, this is lame. Blizzard had the chance to redefine computer gaming by coming out with a truly great, futuristic MMO, but instead decided to do another rehash of a game from nearly ten years ago that looks exactly like the old version."
Umm... so basically you're upset that they rehashed SC2 instead of WoW. I wouldn't mind, but you only used the word 'rehash' once so I got a little confused..