Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ZnU wrote
>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm developing
>>>> a platform that can match OS X? Creating and maintaining a
>>>> desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of Apple's competitors
>>>> really has any serious experience with it except for Microsoft, and
>>>> Microsoft has its own problems.

>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.

>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.

> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.

Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that MS can improve the UI.

> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.

I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.

> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.

We'll see...

The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

>>> I have a very simple Motorola V190. It's just a phone. No music
>>> player, no built-in camera, not even bluetooth. It is without a
>>> doubt the most illogically laid-out interface I've ever seen

>> Sure, but the same functionality Nokias are much better in that
>> regard. The most I ever have a problem with is which top level
>> menu a particular function that I hardly ever use like the timer is in etc.

> Yes, among the cell phone vendors, Nokia does seem much
> better than the competition when it comes to UI. Motorola is
> the worst among the first-tier handset makers, probably.

Dunno, some of the Koreans are pretty obscene too.

> But none of them come close to what Apple is doing with the iPhone.

Sure, I was just commenting on that OS UI line. I dont believe its that relevant.

> The iPhone looks like one of those technology demos tech
> companies used to put together about what things would
> be like in 10 years. Except it goes on sale in four days.

Sure, like the ipod its certainly a significant advance.

They aint the only operation thats produced a decent UI with a
device that has just a touch screen tho, most obviously with the GPSs.

---

› See More: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote
> George Graves wrote

>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS how to do a user
>> interface designed a phone. I have a very simple Motorola V190. It's
>> just a phone. No music player, no built-in camera, not even
>> bluetooth. It is without a doubt the most illogically laid-out
>> interface I've ever seen (who ever designed it must been on the
>> Windows GUI design team). Its almost impossible to find anything in
>> its menus and when you do, they are so illogically placed that

> If it's "just a phone" why in the world does it HAVE that many setup menus?

Any decent phone needs some way to keep commonly used numbers etc even
if you are stupid enough to demand one that only makes and receives calls.

> With most of these infernal thigs, the problem
> is the absurd notion that a ten-button phone NEEDS
> to do fifty things besides be a #$%^&(*^( PHONE.

****ed if I want to cart around multiple devices
to do what I want to do when out and about.

> (Says the guy who would like to get a #$%^&(*^( PHONE without paying for those fifty other
> things!)

Doesnt make any difference to the price.

Even with stuff like a camera that does need some extra hardware,
its going to cost more to have a special low volume phone that hasnt
got that when most have enough of a clue to want that capability in
the phone so its handy if you ever need it ocassionally.

You're always welcome to keep using some old dinosaur phone
that doesnt even have any memory if you want the lowest price.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
> >> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> ZnU wrote
> >>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm developing
> >>>> a platform that can match OS X? Creating and maintaining a
> >>>> desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of Apple's competitors
> >>>> really has any serious experience with it except for Microsoft, and
> >>>> Microsoft has its own problems.
>
> >>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
> >>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.
>
> >> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.
>
> > You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.
>
> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that MS can improve the UI.
>
> > Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
> > that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
> > devices before, but they're no Apple.e.
>
> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.
>
> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.
>
> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

It works very well for navigating large amounts of data on a tiny
screen. That's no easy task.

> >> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
> >> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
> >> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
> >> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.
>
> > True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.
>
> We'll see...
>
> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

I've never seen many complaints about iTunes UI. It's certainly a lot
more user friendly than what it replaced. If you'll recall back to early
2001 when it was introduced, the usual situation was that you'd use
separate apps for ripping, burning, organizing and tagging. And if you
had a music player, you were probably manually managing what songs were
on it from the file manager.

Apple stuck all of that into one app that had a single unified user
interface for the whole process.

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jim Lee Jr." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Justin wrote on [25 Jun 2007 01:09:18 -0000]:
> > > > > Rocky Mountain News
> > >
> > > > Who cares. This is a Verizon newsgroup. We don't care about this
> > > > overhyped piece of crap.
> > > >
> > > > Piss off.
> > >
> > > Did Steve Ballmer brush you off?
> >
> > Who cares. I'm tired of reading all this iPhone crap in
> > misc.consumers, too. Just because all the hype seems to indicate
> > that the iPhone is going to be a life changing experience
> > doesn't mean that posts about it have the right to be spammed to
> > off-topic newsgroups.
>
> This topic is perfectly on topic for a consumers group, so learn about
> kill files. Just filter anything that says "iPhone" in it. Problem
> solved.

With that logic, we could get rid of all the cellular and
computer groups and just let them post everything in
misc.consumers.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:30:06 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm developing
>>>>> a platform that can match OS X? Creating and maintaining a
>>>>> desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of Apple's competitors
>>>>> really has any serious experience with it except for Microsoft, and
>>>>> Microsoft has its own problems.
>
>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.
>
>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.
>
>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.
>
> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that MS can improve the UI.

When are they gonna do it for their own computer OS users?

>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.
>
> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

Have you used many portable media players? Most have a lousy UI. Its one
reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.
>
> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

Huh? Are we talking about the same iPod? It's so intuitive that when I got
mine, (which was given to me) it came without a manual. I never needed one.
It was instantly obvious to even the most casual observer, exactly how the
lil' bugger worked.

> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.
>
>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.
>
>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.
>
> We'll see...
>
> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

You must be using iTunes and the iPod in a parallel universe. A child can
figure out both in seconds

>>>> I have a very simple Motorola V190. It's just a phone. No music
>>>> player, no built-in camera, not even bluetooth. It is without a
>>>> doubt the most illogically laid-out interface I've ever seen
>
>>> Sure, but the same functionality Nokias are much better in that
>>> regard. The most I ever have a problem with is which top level
>>> menu a particular function that I hardly ever use like the timer is in etc.
>
>> Yes, among the cell phone vendors, Nokia does seem much
>> better than the competition when it comes to UI. Motorola is
>> the worst among the first-tier handset makers, probably.
>
> Dunno, some of the Koreans are pretty obscene too.
>
>> But none of them come close to what Apple is doing with the iPhone.
>
> Sure, I was just commenting on that OS UI line. I dont believe its that
> relevant.
>
>> The iPhone looks like one of those technology demos tech
>> companies used to put together about what things would
>> be like in 10 years. Except it goes on sale in four days.
>
> Sure, like the ipod its certainly a significant advance.
>
> They aint the only operation thats produced a decent UI with a
> device that has just a touch screen tho, most obviously with the GPSs.
>
>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:08:21 -0700, Wes Groleau wrote
(in article <VNYfi.2302$yp.1227@trnddc08>):

> George Graves wrote:
>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS how to do a user
>> interface
>> designed a phone. I have a very simple Motorola V190. It's just a phone. No
>> music player, no built-in camera, not even bluetooth. It is without a doubt
>> the most illogically laid-out interface I've ever seen (who ever designed
>> it
>> must been on the Windows GUI design team). Its almost impossible to find
>> anything in its menus and when you do, they are so illogically placed that
>
> If it's "just a phone" why in the world does it
> HAVE that many setup menus?

Good question. It has ring tones, screen wallpaper settings and the
methodology for adding names to the address book is byzantine. Setting up
voice dialing is likewise needlessly complex, etc.

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm developing
>>>>>> a platform that can match OS X? Creating and maintaining a
>>>>>> desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of Apple's
>>>>>> competitors really has any serious experience with it except for
>>>>>> Microsoft, and Microsoft has its own problems.

>>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.

>>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.

>>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.

>> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that even MS can improve the UI.

>>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.

>> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

>> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

>> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

> It works very well for navigating large amounts
> of data on a tiny screen. That's no easy task.

Sure, but there is a hell of a lot more to a decent UI than just that.

>>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.

>>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.

>> We'll see...

>> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
>> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

> I've never seen many complaints about iTunes UI.

All that shows is that most dont have much of a clue about a decent UI.

> It's certainly a lot more user friendly than what it replaced.

Thats no recommendation.

> If you'll recall back to early 2001 when it was introduced,
> the usual situation was that you'd use separate apps for
> ripping, burning, organizing and tagging.

Nope. It wasnt the only app to integrate those at that time.

> And if you had a music player, you were probably manually
> managing what songs were on it from the file manager.

Yes, and in many cases that was a better UI too.

> Apple stuck all of that into one app that had a
> single unified user interface for the whole process.

Sure, but it wasnt the only one to do that at that time.

And its a pretty clunky UI anyway.

George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm
>>>>>> developing a platform that can match OS X? Creating and
>>>>>> maintaining a desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of
>>>>>> Apple's competitors really has any serious experience with
>>>>>> it except for Microsoft, and Microsoft has its own problems.

>>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.

>>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.

>>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.

>> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that even MS can improve the UI.

> When are they gonna do it for their own computer OS users?

They've already done that, and its hilarious how
much of the UI is spreading into Linux now.

>>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.

>> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

> Have you used many portable media players?

Yep.

> Most have a lousy UI.

Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.

ITunes in spades.

> Its one reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.

Nope, thats primarily due to the recognition factor. The same
thing that sees MS so completely dominate PC apps now.

>> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

> Huh? Are we talking about the same iPod?

Yep.

> It's so intuitive that when I got mine, (which was given to me) it came
> without a manual. I never needed one. It was instantly obvious to
> even the most casual observer, exactly how the lil' bugger worked.

Thats just plain wrong with loading it with what you want.

And finding a particular tune when its full of stuff too.

>> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

>>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.

>>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.

>> We'll see...

>> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
>> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

> You must be using iTunes and the iPod in a parallel universe.

Nope.

> A child can figure out both in seconds

Fantasy.

>>>>> I have a very simple Motorola V190. It's just a phone. No music
>>>>> player, no built-in camera, not even bluetooth. It is without a
>>>>> doubt the most illogically laid-out interface I've ever seen

>>>> Sure, but the same functionality Nokias are much better in that regard.
>>>> The most I ever have a problem with is which top level menu a particular
>>>> function that I hardly ever use like the timer is in etc.

>>> Yes, among the cell phone vendors, Nokia does seem much
>>> better than the competition when it comes to UI. Motorola is
>>> the worst among the first-tier handset makers, probably.

>> Dunno, some of the Koreans are pretty obscene too.

>>> But none of them come close to what Apple is doing with the iPhone.

>> Sure, I was just commenting on that OS UI line. I dont believe its that relevant.

>>> The iPhone looks like one of those technology demos tech
>>> companies used to put together about what things would
>>> be like in 10 years. Except it goes on sale in four days.

>> Sure, like the ipod its certainly a significant advance.

>> They aint the only operation thats produced a decent UI with a
>> device that has just a touch screen tho, most obviously with the GPSs.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:38:19 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm
>>>>>>> developing a platform that can match OS X? Creating and
>>>>>>> maintaining a desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of
>>>>>>> Apple's competitors really has any serious experience with
>>>>>>> it except for Microsoft, and Microsoft has its own problems.
>
>>>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.
>
>>>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.
>
>>>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.
>
>>> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that even MS can improve the UI.
>
>> When are they gonna do it for their own computer OS users?
>
> They've already done that, and its hilarious how
> much of the UI is spreading into Linux now.
>
>>>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>>>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>>>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.
>
>>> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.
>
>> Have you used many portable media players?
>
> Yep.
>
>> Most have a lousy UI.
>
> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>
> ITunes in spades.
>
>> Its one reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.
>
> Nope, thats primarily due to the recognition factor. The same
> thing that sees MS so completely dominate PC apps now.
>
>>> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.
>
>> Huh? Are we talking about the same iPod?
>
> Yep.
>
>> It's so intuitive that when I got mine, (which was given to me) it came
>> without a manual. I never needed one. It was instantly obvious to
>> even the most casual observer, exactly how the lil' bugger worked.
>
> Thats just plain wrong with loading it with what you want.
>
> And finding a particular tune when its full of stuff too.

We can't be talking about the same iPod. Nothing could be simpler
>
>>> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.
>
>>>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.
>
>>>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>>> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
>>> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.
>
>> You must be using iTunes and the iPod in a parallel universe.
>
> Nope.
>
>> A child can figure out both in seconds
>
> Fantasy.

Yet they do.

Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>> Most have a lousy UI.

>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.

> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.

Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
there's heaps of apps that leave its UI for dead.

> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable media player extant--until Friday, that is.

Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
because they integrate the media player with other capability.

The iphone isnt the only cellphone that is also a
media player, they've been around for years now.

>>> Its one reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.

>> Nope, thats primarily due to the recognition factor. The same
>> thing that sees MS so completely dominate PC apps now.

> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?

Essentially because its an Apple product.

All the other media players dont have that brand recognition.

Thats the main reason MS so completely dominates PC apps now.

George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>>>>> zeez <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm
>>>>>>>> developing a platform that can match OS X? Creating and
>>>>>>>> maintaining a desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of
>>>>>>>> Apple's competitors really has any serious experience with
>>>>>>>> it except for Microsoft, and Microsoft has its own problems.

>>>>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.

>>>>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.

>>>>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.

>>>> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that even MS can improve the UI.

>>> When are they gonna do it for their own computer OS users?

>> They've already done that, and its hilarious how
>> much of the UI is spreading into Linux now.

>>>>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>>>>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>>>>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.

>>>> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

>>> Have you used many portable media players?

>> Yep.

>>> Most have a lousy UI.

>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.

>> ITunes in spades.

>>> Its one reason why iPod is on top and stays on top.

>> Nope, thats primarily due to the recognition factor. The same
>> thing that sees MS so completely dominate PC apps now.

>>>> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

>>> Huh? Are we talking about the same iPod?

>> Yep.

>>> It's so intuitive that when I got mine, (which was given to me) it
>>> came without a manual. I never needed one. It was instantly obvious
>>> to even the most casual observer, exactly how the lil' bugger worked.

>> Thats just plain wrong with loading it with what you want.

>> And finding a particular tune when its full of stuff too.

> We can't be talking about the same iPod.

Fraid so.

> Nothing could be simpler

Corse it could be simpler.

>>>> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

>>>>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>>>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>>>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>>>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.

>>>>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.

>>>> We'll see...

>>>> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
>>>> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

>>> You must be using iTunes and the iPod in a parallel universe.

>> Nope.

>>> A child can figure out both in seconds

>> Fantasy.

> Yet they do.

No they dont, that seconds is a lie.

Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.

>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.

>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.

>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,

> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?

Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
you already have on the computer for example.

> And what applications do those things better?

Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

> And how do they do them better?

See just above.

>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.

>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>> they integrate the media player with other capability.

> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?

Those others combined those functions long before the iphone ever showed up.

Apple was very slow to see the need for that.

>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?

>> Essentially because its an Apple product.

> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?

Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
the brand when they decided they needed a media player
and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.

Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?

>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
>> you already have on the computer for example.

> Explain, please.

I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
are already used to than a special purpose app.

iTunes doesnt even browse the computer's drive very intuitively.

>> And what applications do those things better?

>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

> That's one option you have with iTunes.

Not with the file manager you use for everything else.

The media player is just another drive. So are the cameras etc.

>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.

>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.

>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?

>> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone ever showed up.

> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.

Nope, we're talking about media players.

> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.

They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.

> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't
> download music from the computer to the phone, period.

Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.

>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.

> Slow?

Yep, everyone else has had phones that are
also media players for a long time now.

> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.

Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.

>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?

>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.

>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?

>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised the brand
>> when they decided they needed a media player and a superficial look
>> showed that its a viable product.

> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the
> market before the iPod made no impression on them?

Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.

> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at Apple to
> make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally didn't do) because
> it was, by God, an *Apple*, whose computers they refused to buy.

Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.

Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?

>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
>>>> you already have on the computer for example.

>>> Explain, please.

>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
>> are already used to than a special purpose app.

> No it isn't.

Corse it is. You dont have a separate app per device for starters.

>>>> And what applications do those things better?

>>>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
>>>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

>>> That's one option you have with iTunes.

>> Not with the file manager you use for everything else.

> And that file manager can't play music.

Corse it can.

> Let's see, with your preferred method, you use one application to download music,
> another to play it, another to copy it to the iPod, and another to burn it to CDs.

Wrong again, I use the one file manager for all of that.

> I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of those functions
> in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.

Pity about all the other devices that also just show up as a drive.

>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.

> Right here, we're talking about the iPod

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist mindless bigots ?

>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
>>>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.

> Gee, right here, you're changing it to cell phones.

Because even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that the iphone has both of those functionalitys.

>>>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?

>>>> Those others combined those functions
>>>> long before the iphone ever showed up.

> And here you're talking about cell phones again,

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist mindless bigots ?

> still in response to the iPod interface.

Wrong again.

>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.

>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

> And now, you're talking about media players.

Because even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that the iphone has both of those functionalitys.

>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

>>> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
>>> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.

>> They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.

>>> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't download
>>> music from the computer to the phone, period.

>> Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.

> But we were talking about one of the reasons I'm planning to switch from Verizon.

Nope, we've moved on to rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that
Apple is VERY late with a phone that is also a media player.

>>>> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.

>>> Slow?

>> Yep, everyone else has had phones that are
>> also media players for a long time now.

>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.

Typical mindless silly stuff.

>> Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.

> Oh, so you're saying that Apple should have produced a cell phone years ago?

Yep. Everyone else noticed the advantage of combining the functionality of a phone, media
player, web browser, camera, even GPS, etc LONG before Apple ever had a product.

>>>>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?

>>>>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.

>>>>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple product?

>>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised the brand
>>>> when they decided they needed a media player and a superficial look
>>>> showed that its a viable product.

>>> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the
>>> market before the iPod made no impression on them?

>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.

> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?

Nope, never ever said anything like that.

>>> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at Apple to
>>> make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally didn't do) because
>>> it was, by God, an *Apple*, whose computers they refused to> buy.

>> Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.

> If they hadn't shown an interest in wanting an iPod, Apple wouldn't
> have made the iPod compatible with Windows in the first place.

Bull****. Even Jobs has managed to grasp that the
absolute vast bulk of the market doesnt use a Mac.

> But even if you're right, that means that people who had avoided
> both Apple and MP3 players in droves suddenly swarmed to get
> iPods because Apple made the iPod available for Windows?

Nope.

> Do you realize how senseless your thesis is?

Easy to claim, bigot.

> I'll tell you one thing, though; if the iPhone won't do voice
> dialing and if it won't upload its address book to my car
> (which has Bluetooth capability for cell phones), I won't buy
> one. If it does one, but not the other, I'll have to decide.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:07:21 -0700, Rod Speed wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>>> Most have a lousy UI.
>
>>>>> Yep. But the ipod UI still leaves quite a bit to be desired anyway.
>
>>>> Only because nothing is perfect and everything can be improved.
>
>>> Nope, iTunes particularly has a pretty poor UI,
>
>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>
> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
> you already have on the computer for example.

Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes launches
pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard and
non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>
>> And what applications do those things better?
>
> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

Yeah, I can see where that might be easier in some cases. But with works with
lots of related cuts, that could be a disadvantage.

>> And how do they do them better?
>
> See just above.
>
>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>
>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially because
>>> they integrate the media player with other capability.
>
>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?
>
> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone ever showed up.
>
> Apple was very slow to see the need for that.
>
>>>> Why do you think that the iPod has that recognition factor?
>
>>> Essentially because its an Apple product.
>
>> And all those Windows users flocked to the iPod because it's an Apple
>> product?
>
> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.

It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's ever
come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have cited the
GUI as one reason.