Re: iPhone is the Invention of the YEAR - TIME Magazine

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-11-02, Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>
> nobody seems to know... except you. how strange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_G...uter_scientist)

Heh, she's from my hometown.

I assume the influence on Steve had something to do with Smalltalk. Wasn't
the Lisa's programming language based on Smalltalk? (grasping at straws here)



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news @the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/
Local wildfire coverage, KFMB-TV San Diego: http://cbs8.com/

Actually, nothing strange - other than the foolish fanatic fanboy
who can't answer a direct question. And, that is typical for Oxford
(or whatever name de' jour he's using)

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-FE83E1.20285901112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>
> nobody seems to know... except you. how strange.
>
> ---
>

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-6DD99A.14373101112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> iPhone is the invention of the YEAR - TIME Magazine
>
> This goes without question of course, nothing so remarkable has ever
> been introduced to the phone market probably since the rotary dial or
> original phone back in 1876.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1..._Telephone.jpg
>
> The iPhone changes EVERYTHING we knew before.
>
> Congrats Apple for showing phone makers how a PHONE should actually work!
>
>
> 1. The iPhone design
>
> Most high-tech companies don't take design seriously. They treat it as
> an afterthought. Window-dressing. But one of Jobs' basic insights about
> technology is that good design is actually as important as good
> technology. All the cool features in the world won't do you any good
> unless you can figure out how to use said features, and feel smart and
> attractive while doing it.
>
> An example: look at what happens when you put the iPhone into "airplane"
> mode (i.e., no cell service, WiFi, etc.). A tiny little orange airplane
> zooms into the menu bar! Cute, you might say. But cute little touches
> like that are part of what makes the iPhone usable in a world of useless
> gadgets. It speaks your language. In the world of technology, surface
> really is depth.
>
> 2. It's touchy-feely
>
> Apple didn't invent the touchscreen. Apple didn't even reinvent it
> (Apple probably acquired its much hyped multitouch technology when it
> snapped up a company called Fingerworks in 2005). But Apple knew what to
> do with it. Apple's engineers used the touchscreen to innovate past the
> graphical user interface (which Apple helped pioneer with the Macintosh
> in the 1980s) to create a whole new kind of interface, a tactile one
> that gives users the illusion of actually physically manipulating data
> with their hands > stretching and shrinking photographs with their
> fingers.
>
> This is, as engineers say, nontrivial. It's part of a new way of
> relating to computers. Look at the success of the Nintendo Wii. Look at
> Microsoft's new Surface Computing division. Look at how Apple has
> propagated its touchscreen interface to the iPod line with the iPod
> Touch. Can it be long before we get an iMac Touch? A TouchBook? Touching
> is the new seeing.
>
> 3. It will make other phones better
>
> Jobs didn't write the code inside the iPhone. These days he doesn't
> dirty his fingers with 1's and 0's, if he ever really did. But he did
> negotiate the deal with AT&T to carry the iPhone. That's important: one
> reason so many cell phones are lame is that cell-phone-service providers
> hobble developers with lame rules about what they can and can't do. AT&T
> gave Apple unprecedented freedom to build the iPhone to its own
> specifications. Now other phone makers are jealous. They're demanding
> the same freedoms. That means better, more innovative phones for all.
>
> 4. It's not a phone, it's a platform
>
> When Apple made the iPhone, it didn't throw together some cheap-o
> bare-bones firmware. It took OS X, its full-featured desktop operating
> system, and somehow squished it down to fit inside the iPhone's elegant
> glass-and-stainless-steel case. That makes the iPhone more than just a
> gadget. It's a genuine handheld, walk-around computer, the first device
> that really deserves the name. One of the big trends of 2007 was the
> idea that computing doesn't belong just in cyberspace, it needs to
> happen here, in the real world, where actual stuff happens. The iPhone
> gets applications like Google Maps out onto the street, where we really
> need them.
>
> And this is just the beginning. Platforms are for building on. Last
> month, after a lot of throat-clearing, Apple decided to open up the
> iPhone, so that you > able to develop software for it too. Ever notice all
> that black blank
> space on the iPhone's desktop? It's about to fill up with lots of tiny,
> pretty, useful icons.
>
> 5. It is but the ghost of iPhones yet to come
>
> The iPhone has sold enough units > time > and its infinitely updatable,
> all-software interface, the iPhone is
> built to evolve. Look at the iPod of six years ago. That monochrome
> interface! That clunky touchwheel! It looks like something a caveman
> whittled from a piece of flint using another piece of flint. Now imagine
> something that's going to make the iPhone look that primitive. You'll
> have one in a few years. It'll be very cool. And it'll be even cheaper.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...678581,00.html

Don't you mean the greatest disaster of the 21st century.

In article <8be9f$472a77e9$cef8887a$2666@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > iPhone is the invention of the YEAR - TIME Magazine
> >
> > This goes without question of course, nothing so remarkable has ever
> > been introduced to the phone market probably since the rotary dial or
> > original phone back in 1876.
>
> Apple squandered a HUGE opportunity with he Iphone. By agreeing to
> become a slave to wireless networks, the feature set of the iphone will
> forever be reduced to protect wireless network revenus. So Wi-Fi will
> forever be crippled to prevent owners from bypassing expensive network
> services.

We don't know what kind of restrictions there might be on third-party
apps. It's possible there might not be any, really, and someone can
implement Skype for the iPhone while Apple throws up its hands and tells
AT&T they didn't do it and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

I suspect this was a hard choice for Apple, but given today's cell phone
market they didn't see much alternative. iPhone users would likely be
paying twice as much for their unlimited data if Apple hadn't cut a deal
with AT&T.

Apple probably *does* plan to move to an unlocked device eventually,
which is probably a big part of why they're getting people used to
paying $400 upfront. But at least in the US, the mobile landscape just
isn't ready for this yet IMO.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Damn it!

And here I was thinking Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in
1876!!!!!

Damn history books are all liars!!!!

Oxford wrote:
> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>> iPhone is the invention of the YEAR - TIME Magazine
>>>
>>> This goes without question of course, nothing so remarkable has ever
>>> been introduced to the phone market probably since the rotary dial or
>>> original phone back in 1876.
>> More remarkable that the idea of cell phones? Or transistors, or
>> direct dial? I don't think so. The iPhone is a new way to do
>> something old, not a way to do something new.
>
> nobody has done multi-touch before, nobody has done a real browser in a
> cell phone before, nobody has done an ipod in a cell phone before.
>
> workable visual voice mail another first. super slim size, incredible
> battery life, airport mode, international mode, on and on...
>
> but thanks for trying jack!
>
> you'll get an iphone at some point, so don't worry!
>
> -


No MMS messages

No 3G

No GPS

No user-replaceable battery

Poor PDA functionality

Restrictive terms of use...

No memory expansion..

Have to PAY for ringtones?

2 Megapixel Camera

No output to TV

VOIP?

Touch Screen? Been around for along time.. 'MultiTouch'.. Completely
superfluous.. What USEFUL thing can it do? Please do not come back with
the old pinch and stretch argument... It is a cute feature, but hardly
earth shattering..

No one has done the iPod in a phone? Have you forgotten the ROKr?, and
the iPhone doesn't have near the capacity it should to make it truly
'useful' as an iPod...

'Real' Browser? Please...

Visual Voice Mail? I get that with GrandCentral..(Who by the way, was
the 'first'..) and really have no use for it..

Airport Mode/ International Mode? Phones have had that for years...

Super Slim? Slim? maybe, but 'super'.. NOT...
The iPhone is 4.5x2.5x.46 inches.. The Razr (what is that a 5 year old
phone?) is 3.86x2.08x.54

As far as volume.. The iPhone is 5.2 cubic inches vs Razr's 4.3...

So why is it again? that the iPhone is so revolutionary? You, and many
others, have obviously fallen victim to another genius marketing blitz
by Apple and have gotten sucked into a flashy overpriced product with
little or no substance...

It is 'pretty'., I will give you that, but that's all it is..

If you like the phone, good for you, enjoy it.. But it sounds more like
you are trying to convince yourselves you didn't waste the money on old,
repackaged tech...

Tony <tony@nospam.net> wrote:

> No output to TV

sure it does -

http://snipurl.com/1t20m

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...?productLearnM
ore=MB129LL/A

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Nah, they still have total flexibility. They have the option to buy part
> > of the wireless spectrum, or they can go full WiFi, or WiMax... they can
> > also cut deals with other cell carriers, etc. There are no blocks on the
> > iPhone which gives Apple plenty of leverage.
>
> Are you aware that Apple has a 5 year exclusivity agreement with AT&T ?
> It is not able to sell iPhOnEs to any other USA network for 5 years.

it's 2 years not five.

In article <67dc$472ad896$cef8887a$24502@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > I suspect this was a hard choice for Apple, but given today's cell phone
> > market they didn't see much alternative. iPhone users would likely be
> > paying twice as much for their unlimited data if Apple hadn't cut a deal
> > with AT&T.
>
> The above works very well for "phone" which are seen as essentially
> disposable devices you wish to replace every couple of years, so you are
> unwilling to spend big bucks on it.
>
> If you view the iPhone as primarily a computer/PDA with a phone attached
> to it, then people are probably willing to pay more for it because they
> are buying a long lasting tool that could work with any GSM network (if
> it were unlocked with its full potential enabled).

Apple is going for a mass market with the iPhone, not just for techies.
I don't think most of the market would pay $40/month or up just for
data, which is what unlimited data service tends to cost for high-end
devices whose vendors haven't cut a deal with the carriers.

> > Apple probably *does* plan to move to an unlocked device eventually,
>
> Such a device might be marketed as an iPod and thus bypass any legal
> restrictions due to Apple's exclusive contracts with various networks in
> the world. And if such Ipod was based on a non "phone" network (aka:
> WiMax instead of GSM) then Apple could claim it isn't competing against
> the iphone.

Well, the ITU just approved WiMAX as part of the 3G standard, which
would probably make it a lot harder for Apple claim it's not a "phone"
network technology. It's hard to say just what Apple could get away
with, since we don't have access to the exact contract they signed with
AT&T (and we probably never will).

> On the other hand, perhaps the exclusive contracts apply only to the
> 2.5G networks (GSM/GPRS/EDGE), and when Apple unveils a 3G version, it
> will not be tied to any exclusive contracts (and by then, Apple will
> have built brand credibility in the phone market and people will want to
> pay the real price for a unit that is unhindered by any network
> restrictions.

Maybe. They seem to have gotten a fair bit of what they wanted from
AT&T, so it doesn't seem *too* implausible that there's a way for them
to get out of the deal early, if they really want to.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Mark Thompson wrote:
> Tony <tony@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> No output to TV
>
> sure it does -
>
> http://snipurl.com/1t20m
>
> http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...?productLearnM
> ore=MB129LL/A

My mistake, thanks.. It is not listed at
http://www.apple.com/iphone/accessories

But, for the price of the thing, it should be included in the box..

Tony <tony@nospam.net> wrote:

> > http://snipurl.com/1t20m
> >
> > http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...?productLearnM
> > ore=MB129LL/A
>
> My mistake, thanks.. It is not listed at
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/accessories
>
> But, for the price of the thing, it should be included in the box..

no problem, but price wise it's the most inexpensive smartphone by far.

including cables in the box would be an ecological error since less than
10% are going to use it with a TV, plus it would make the box heavier to
ship, etc. no need to waste that much jet fuel / plastic on the few that
needed.

apple tends to get down to the "pure essence" of a product, they don't
go for frills or unneeded features. just all the power packed into a
well engineered box that is simple to use and will last for 4-6 years
without any maintenance.

other cell phone companies should try this approach and they have no
choice but to do it now. the iphone is incredible and puts every other
cell phone manufacture to shame.

Tony <tony@nospam.net> wrote:

> No MMS messages

not needed by 99% of users

> No 3G

kills battery life, WiFi is much faster and more common / free.

> No GPS

GPS might not yet be ready for the iPhone's level of needs.

> No user-replaceable battery

Incorrect, it's $20 for a user to replace the iPhone battery

> Poor PDA functionality

Ah, I think you mean GREAT PDA functionality, Apple invented PDA's so
this is just an extension of Apple's original dream.

> Restrictive terms of use...

? Use is the exact same as any smartphone.

> No memory expansion..

Ah, you are forgetting how iTunes works, syncing makes for little need
for expansion when iTunes does this automatically.

> Have to PAY for ringtones?

no you don't, use iToner.

http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/itoner/

> 2 Megapixel Camera

Megapixels have little to do with image quality, the Lens in the iPhone
is higher grade than most any smartphone or cellphone.

> No output to TV

Apple offers cables to output TV from any iPhone or (most) any iPod.

> VOIP?

VoIP is still in the formative stages. iChat does this now so it's only
a matter of time before it can be moved to the iPhone. Apple tends to
wait until the time is right, not push out inferior products before they
are ready.

> Touch Screen?

Yes, it's the best on the market. The Multi-Touch tech is a revolution
that only Apple will have for the next 17 years. The use of "Gestures"
has been a long held research project of Apple. Even the CEO of MS was
shocked / impressed by how good Apple did it with the iPhone.

Flicking through data with a single finger is unreal. The future of all
phones in the 18 year time frame.

-----

In article <colalovesmacs-6DD99A.14373101112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>, Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:
>iPhone is the invention of the YEAR - TIME Magazine

So why are you cross-posting this to every group and its mother? I'm seeing
this on the T-Mobile group, which I believe doesn't support that contraption.

Art

To each his own... But...

Gene Jones wrote:
> Tony <tony@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> No MMS messages
>
> not needed by 99% of users

99%? really? I use it extensively..

>
>> No 3G
>
> kills battery life, WiFi is much faster and more common / free.

I tether my phone to either my laptop or a Nokia N800 frequently..
Wifi, esp 'free' wifi is not as ubiquitous as you might think... and
Edge is too slow to be useful for a number of tasks... IMHO, Jobs panned
3G as being a power hog as the 'company line' for not including it... I
suspect the story behind the scenes is quite different.. Most likely
couldn't get past an engineering hurdle before they needed to launch
it.. but I am speculating..

>
>> No GPS
>
> GPS might not yet be ready for the iPhone's level of needs.

This one is a 'push'.. but considering the emphasis on google maps in
their advertisements, I would disagree...

>
>> No user-replaceable battery
>
> Incorrect, it's $20 for a user to replace the iPhone battery


Doesn't it require the user to send the phone in to Apple, and then pay
for a rental iPhone if they cannot be without one for more than 10 days?
or has Apple changed their stance on it? I did say 'user-replaceable'...

>
>> Poor PDA functionality
>
> Ah, I think you mean GREAT PDA functionality, Apple invented PDA's so
> this is just an extension of Apple's original dream.

Nope, I meant POOR... Apparently, what either of us look for in a PDA is
very different... and if you mean to bring up the Newton, I will give
you a 'Mulligan' on that... I owned one of those things...

>
>> Restrictive terms of use...
>
> ? Use is the exact same as any smartphone.

Not if you purchase an unlocked phone.. Granted, in the US, that means I
can use either ATT or T-Mobile, or a few other smaller independent
providers... but it is still a choice..
>
>> No memory expansion..
>
> Ah, you are forgetting how iTunes works, syncing makes for little need
> for expansion when iTunes does this automatically.

I have in excess of 7,000 songs, a number of videos, audiobooks, etc...
on my current iPod 5G Video.. If you think that having to 'plan' what
you want to listen to in advance and check off several hundred little
boxes is more efficient, than God Bless You... I would find it a
maddening waste of time... I spent enough time digitizing my entire
music library..

>
>> Have to PAY for ringtones?
>
> no you don't, use iToner.
>
> http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/itoner/

Fair enough.. but, and I know it's nit-picky, you have to pay for
iToner.. therefore you are still 'paying' for ringtones.. and the MS
Windows crowd is left out...
>
>> 2 Megapixel Camera
>
> Megapixels have little to do with image quality, the Lens in the iPhone
> is higher grade than most any smartphone or cellphone.

Megapixels/Image Quality.. really depends on what you want to do with
the image... my cell phone (5MP/Carl Zeiss Lens) takes awesome pictures,
but I do not use it to take family portraits..


>
>> No output to TV
>
> Apple offers cables to output TV from any iPhone or (most) any iPod.

Yes, I saw that in a different section on the Apple Website.. It was not
listed as an iPhone accessory. See a previous post..

>
>> VOIP?
>
> VoIP is still in the formative stages. iChat does this now so it's only
> a matter of time before it can be moved to the iPhone. Apple tends to
> wait until the time is right, not push out inferior products before they
> are ready.


VOIP is used by numerous corporations, large and small, for their main
telecommunications needs.. the technology has matured quite well,
certainly well beyond, the 'formative' stages.
I use it all the time.. more so than the standard cell phone... Voice
quality is perfectly fine... Again, the reason was probably more
dependent on ATT not wanting the iPhone to circumvent their 'per minute'
plans than any view that VOIP is an immature technology..


>
>> Touch Screen?
>
> Yes, it's the best on the market. The Multi-Touch tech is a revolution
> that only Apple will have for the next 17 years. The use of "Gestures"
> has been a long held research project of Apple. Even the CEO of MS was
> shocked / impressed by how good Apple did it with the iPhone.
>

I actually moved away from a touch screen entirely and haven't had to
look back... to each his own...


> Flicking through data with a single finger is unreal. The future of all
> phones in the 18 year time frame.
>
> -----
Again, to each his own.. It seems counter productive to me to obscure
half of what is already not already that big of a screen with a virtual
keyboard, then obscure even more with a finger..

Like everything else, we will see.. Remember the Newton? The Lisa?
They were all visions of the future, Apple will show the world, etc...
Not that Apple is the only company with products that didn't quite 'make
it'..

Look at MS... Anyone here remember Microsoft Bob? Steve Ballmer was
very impressed with that as well... It died a quiet and speedy death...
I am definitely NOT a MS fan, and their opinions or what they are
'impressed' by, mean very little to me.

The iPhone is a good phone for a 'basic' user, it is a very well
designed phone from an aesthetic standpoint, but it is NOT the greatest
thing since sliced bread, nor is it as an innovative product as Apple
Marketing would like you to believe...

"Tony" <tony@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:UPydnUtDkYELsrbanZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Oxford wrote:
>> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> iPhone is the invention of the YEAR - TIME Magazine
>
> No output to TV

Who has >output< to TV?

(owner of Razr, Blackjack and Hermes).