iPhone is AT&T's top-selling handset

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Mr. Strat wrote:
> It's about how we interact with technology. Gates and the Windows
> empire has no clue as evidenced by their pitiful products.

Oh, really? The market disagrees with you.

I use Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X on a daily and continual basis. Each
platform has its own strengths and weaknesses. There is no compelling
case for the unconditional superiority of any of the three over the other
two.

> Bill is free to spend his money as he pleases, but that doesn't mean
> he's a better person than someone who continues to devote their life to
> furthering technology. Jeez, you liberals are a self-righteous lot.

I don't see how liberalism or conservativism has anything to do with this
matter. I have no idea of Gates' political views; but observe that
conservatives are (and always have been) among the most generous donors to
charitable causes. I see nothing to criticize, and much to praise, about
Gates using his wealth to improve third world conditions.

I have more of a quarrel with his father, who wants to establish a state
income tax in Washington State for "fairness".

I don't see how Jobs "furthers technology" in any way. His company makes
occasionally interesting products based upon technology that others have
invented, but Apple's strength is in packaging, not invention nor
innovation.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

---

› See More: iPhone is AT&T's top-selling handset

In article
<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710221347460.1280@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Oh, really? The market disagrees with you.

Just because Britney Spears sells a lot of records doesn't mean she's a
good singer.

> I use Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X on a daily and continual basis. Each
> platform has its own strengths and weaknesses. There is no compelling
> case for the unconditional superiority of any of the three over the other
> two.

Linux - designed by and for geeks, although Ubuntu is tolerable.
Windows, especially the pathetic Vista, I have no use for.

> I have more of a quarrel with his father, who wants to establish a state
> income tax in Washington State for "fairness".

I'd agree with that. I went to your fine school back in 1970/71.

> I don't see how Jobs "furthers technology" in any way. His company makes
> occasionally interesting products based upon technology that others have
> invented, but Apple's strength is in packaging, not invention nor
> innovation.

The Macintosh/iPod/iPhone are not innovative products?

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 21 Oct 2007 18:55:33 -0700 Mr. Strat wrote:
>
>> If you caught the Q&A a couple months back where Bill & Steve shared a
>> stage, Gates came across as a visionless geek with no understanding of
>> the relationship of technology and people. Steve, on the other hand,
>> showed a vision of how technology could improve people's lives.
>
>
> Improve whose lives, though?
> One man is currently trying to improve conditions in the third world, the
> other is making it easier to identify what song is currently playing at
> Starbucks.

Gates doesn't have the rock star qualities of Steve Jobs. They each have
their own set of groups that they help. Think of how Apple popularized
the use of computers in education. Gates has the financial resources to
help improve conditions in the third world. He is (or was) several
orders of magnitude wealthier than Jobs.

Combining a cell phone and MP3 player with a web browser may not be the
same as feeding the world's hungry, but maybe it'll help Job's transfer
enough wealth to himself and Apple stock holders that they can emulate
what Gate's is doing.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Mr. Strat wrote:
>> I don't see how Jobs "furthers technology" in any way. His company makes
>> occasionally interesting products based upon technology that others have
>> invented, but Apple's strength is in packaging, not invention nor
>> innovation.
> The Macintosh/iPod/iPhone are not innovative products?

There is nothing in any of these that did not first appear in products
from other companies. Apple did not invent GUI or the mouse; nor did
Apple invent MP3; nor did Apple invent cell phones; nor did Apple invent
portable computing. Apple didn't invent the PDA either; the Newton was a
repackaged Sharp PDA.

I repeat: Apple's strength is in packaging, not invention nor innovation.
Apple does a good, at times excellent, job in taking existing technology
and repackaging it in very attractive forms. They then sell the resulting
derivative product for much higher prices than the original.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In article
<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710221727250.5880@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is nothing in any of these that did not first appear in products
> from other companies. Apple did not invent GUI or the mouse; nor did
> Apple invent MP3; nor did Apple invent cell phones; nor did Apple invent
> portable computing. Apple didn't invent the PDA either; the Newton was a
> repackaged Sharp PDA.

No, they didn't invent these things. But they looked at how bad
existing products for them were and created superior products in each
category.
What operating system (that's still around) is superior to OS X for
usability and security?
What MP3 player is as elegant and simple in design as the iPod?
What cell phone has the intuitive interface and design of the iPhone?

> I repeat: Apple's strength is in packaging, not invention nor innovation.
> Apple does a good, at times excellent, job in taking existing technology
> and repackaging it in very attractive forms. They then sell the resulting
> derivative product for much higher prices than the original.

I guess working in the U District has damaged your critical thinking
skills.

Mark Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in news:markt-
[email protected]:

> [Off topic iPhone horse **** removed to save space]

At 22 Oct 2007 08:32:43 -0700 Mr. Strat wrote:

> It's about how we interact with technology.

"How we interact with technology?" And _I'm_ the liberal hippy?

> Gates and the Windows
> empire has no clue as evidenced by their pitiful products.

I'd point to market share but would have to endure another "just because
Brittany Spears sells a lot of records..." quip. Cute line, but Sinatra,
Elvis and the Beatles all sold a ton of albums too, because they were good.



> Bill is free to spend his money as he pleases, but that doesn't mean
> he's a better person than someone who continues to devote their life to
> furthering technology.

Replacing our analog Sony Walkman with iPods doesn't exactly make Steve
Jobs the next Albert Schweitzer, does it?

When Jobs is older and feels he's done everything he has wanted to in
business, perhaps he'll pull a Gates or Ted Turner and devote his time,
energy and/or wealth to a bigger cause than hawking consumer entertainment.



> Jeez, you liberals are a self-righteous lot.

Where did that come from? What does this have to do with "liberal?" If
anything, this is pure "thousand points of light" conservatism- the well-
off donating time and money freely to those without, rather than
government doing it with taxpayer money.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Mr. Strat wrote:
> No, they didn't invent these things. But they looked at how bad
> existing products for them were and created superior products in each
> category.

Have you ever used any of the Xerox PARC systems that Macintosh imitated?

If you have not, then I respectfully suggest that you don't have a clue
about what you are talking about, since Mac OS X today is still quite a
bit inferior.

> What operating system (that's still around) is superior to OS X for
> usability and security?

Linux.

> What MP3 player is as elegant and simple in design as the iPod?

Who cares about MP3 players?

> What cell phone has the intuitive interface and design of the iPhone?

iPhone may be intuitive to a nerd, but not to a non-nerd (I choose "nerd"
instead of "geek" because very few computer people bite off the heads of
live chickens).

This is the Achilles' Heel of most technology products; they focus to the
male toy collector.

> I guess working in the U District has damaged your critical thinking
> skills.

Ah yes, a flower child of the 1960s from a bourgeois background who throws
out such phrases as "critical thinking skills" without comprehending its
meaning, but says it anyway because he thinks that it marks him as part of
"intellectual elite" (or "the brights").

Pray tell, what is your experience in the field of mobile devices? What
relevant specifications have you written?

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark Crispin wrote:

> iPhone may be intuitive to a nerd, but not to a non-nerd (I choose
> "nerd" instead of "geek" because very few computer people bite off the
> heads of live chickens).

I was helping someone with an iPhone today who was trying to set up POP3
access to G-Mail. It was not intuitive to him (a non-nerd), or me (a
nerd) on how to set up the port numbers in the e-mail program. But what
was really amusing/annoying was to watch someone with normal size
fingers attempt to use the soft-keyboard. A stylus would really aid
usability. There are several manufacturers of styluses, but the demand
is so high that everyone is sold out.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I was helping someone with an iPhone today who was trying to set up POP3
> access to G-Mail. It was not intuitive to him (a non-nerd), or me (a
> nerd) on how to set up the port numbers in the e-mail program. But what
> was really amusing/annoying was to watch someone with normal size
> fingers attempt to use the soft-keyboard. A stylus would really aid
> usability. There are several manufacturers of styluses, but the demand
> is so high that everyone is sold out.

I got to mess with an iPhone at an Apple store last month (the closest
is 100 miles away). I had no problem with the keyboard.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd point to market share but would have to endure another "just because
> Brittany Spears sells a lot of records..." quip. Cute line, but Sinatra,
> Elvis and the Beatles all sold a ton of albums too, because they were good.

Just because someone sells a lot of something doesn't mean it's any
good. The reason for Windows' success can be traced to early-day
philosophies of the two companies.

In article <231020070904599327%[email protected]>,
"Mr. Strat" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I was helping someone with an iPhone today who was trying to set up POP3
> > access to G-Mail. It was not intuitive to him (a non-nerd), or me (a
> > nerd) on how to set up the port numbers in the e-mail program. But what
> > was really amusing/annoying was to watch someone with normal size
> > fingers attempt to use the soft-keyboard. A stylus would really aid
> > usability. There are several manufacturers of styluses, but the demand
> > is so high that everyone is sold out.
>
> I got to mess with an iPhone at an Apple store last month (the closest
> is 100 miles away). I had no problem with the keyboard.

I find it much easier than my Treo ever was. Whole lot easier to do
numbers, @, .com, etc.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

At 23 Oct 2007 09:06:01 -0700 Mr. Strat wrote:

> Just because someone sells a lot of something doesn't mean it's any
> good.

Unless it's an iPod, right?
You're quick to point out that sales isn't an indicator of quality when
it's a category that Apple has a small fraction of the market, like PC or
OS sales, yet the market dominance of the iPod is somehow "proof" of it's
greatness.

> The reason for Windows' success can be traced to early-day
> philosophies of the two companies.

Yes, one was sold as an add-on to any compatible device with an open
architecture, while one was bundled as a value-add only available for or
with higher-priced computers with a closed architecture from a single
vendor.

Knock the instability of Windows all you like, but it has a tough task-
it has to install, and work, on a myriad of essentially untested hardware
configurations from dozens, if not hundreds of vendors.

Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
drivers or software to conflict with, etc.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Unless it's an iPod, right?
> You're quick to point out that sales isn't an indicator of quality when
> it's a category that Apple has a small fraction of the market, like PC or
> OS sales, yet the market dominance of the iPod is somehow "proof" of it's
> greatness.

The iPod is an excellent example of a do-dad that was engineered
brilliantly...so much so that even a dummy could use it...and they
captured the market with it.

> Yes, one was sold as an add-on to any compatible device with an open
> architecture, while one was bundled as a value-add only available for or
> with higher-priced computers with a closed architecture from a single
> vendor.

That's pretty much the deal.

> Knock the instability of Windows all you like, but it has a tough task-
> it has to install, and work, on a myriad of essentially untested hardware
> configurations from dozens, if not hundreds of vendors.

Yup, it's a tough gig. But the security model doesn't have to be as
lame as it is.

> Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
> sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
> of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
> is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
> drivers or software to conflict with, etc.

Which is why you won't see OS X sold for non-Apple computers.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
>>sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
>>of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
>>is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
>>drivers or software to conflict with, etc.
>
>
> That's not true anymore. People are adding all sorts of hardware to
> their configurations, and expecting it to work.
>

Right, like AAPL's hard-coded WEP Key 1 (only).