3G

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:
The thing is, there are only two types of people... Those who want an iPhone and those that have never used an iPhone.

You're right, there ARE two types of people...  Apple zealots who believe Steve Jobs is god, and those that are more firmly rooted in reality.

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:
The thing is, there are only two types of people... Those who want an iPhone and those that have never used an iPhone.

You're right, there ARE two types of people...  Apple zealots who believe Steve Jobs is god, and those that are more firmly rooted in reality.

That's just an insult... at least my statement was rather clever word play :-P

But how St Jobs managed to turn a failing computer company  into what Apple is today is frightening... by rights Apple should have gone the way of Commmodore, Atari, Sincair, Acorn, etc...

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:

adolescent wrote:
You're right, there ARE two types of people...  Apple zealots who believe Steve Jobs is god, and those that are more firmly rooted in reality.

That's just an insult... at least my statement was rather clever word play :-P

It's more of a compliment.  In some ways you are like Apple disciples.  :-D

bloodline wrote:
But how St Jobs managed to turn a failing computer company  into what Apple is today is frightening... by rights Apple should have gone the way of Commmodore, Atari, Sincair, Acorn, etc...

What shape was Apple in when Jobs was ousted in 1985?  Seems like he was part of the problem back then.  Good to see he fixed things.

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:

adolescent wrote:
You're right, there ARE two types of people...  Apple zealots who believe Steve Jobs is god, and those that are more firmly rooted in reality.

That's just an insult... at least my statement was rather clever word play :-P

It's more of a compliment.  In some ways you are like Apple disciples.  :-D

I don't like his holiness Jobs... But I have a huge amount of respect for him... I do really like Apple's products since 2006.

bloodline wrote:
But how St Jobs managed to turn a failing computer company  into what Apple is today is frightening... by rights Apple should have gone the way of Commmodore, Atari, Sincair, Acorn, etc...

What shape was Apple in when Jobs was ousted in 1985?  Seems like he was part of the problem back then.  

I think Apple was one of the biggest computer companies in 1985...

Good to see he fixed things.

By 1997 apple was losing money hand over fist, and old products unable to keep up with the rest of the industry... It's intriguing to see how he fixed things!

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:
I think Apple was one of the biggest computer companies in

Probably.  But, 1985 was the worst year of Apple's history up to that point.  1/5 of the workforce (1200 jobs) sacked , 3 of 6 factories closed, Mac sales ~10% of expected, first ever operating loss reported, etc.  All under Jobs watch.  

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:
I think Apple was one of the biggest computer companies in

Probably.  But, 1985 was the worst year of Apple's history up to that point.  1/5 of the workforce (1200 jobs) sacked , 3 of 6 factories closed, Mac sales ~10% of expected, first ever operating loss reported, etc.  All under Jobs watch.  

Actually John Sculley was the CEO at that time, Jobs had never been in charge of Apple until 1997 (and in the mid 70s)...

[klx300r]

bloodline wrote:
The thing is, there are only two types of people... Those who want an iPhone and those that have never used an iPhone.

more like..those who own Apple products and those that never have and never will :lol:

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:
Actually John Sculley was the CEO at that time, Jobs had never been in charge of Apple until 1997 (and in the mid 70s)...

Steve Jobs was the Chairman of the Board from 1981 until he was fired in 1985.  You don't get more "in charge" than that.

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:
Actually John Sculley was the CEO at that time, Jobs had never been in charge of Apple until 1997 (and in the mid 70s)...

Steve Jobs was the Chairman of the Board from 1981 until he was fired in 1985.  You don't get more "in charge" than that.

As proven by Jobs ousting, the CEO is more powerful.

[alex]

Hello, I'm more of a lurker and love reading the banter about all this, but there seem to be really the haters of Apple and Steve and those who actually have some first have knowledge and experience.

First, about OS X not being innovative and Linux being the big consumer *NIX.  Well the truth is that no operating system based on 70's technology as Linux or OS X is would be considered innovative so much as evolutionary.  

No OS X is not nearly as innovative as was the Amiga OS when it hit the scene.  That is a leap in innovation that has yet to be even remotely repeated by any OS.  Yet as a *NIX engineer with 18 years in Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Linux, and now OS X, I will without hesitation say that only OS X has successfully done what no other *NIX has ever done and that is to put *NIX in the hands of the consumer in the way OS X has.  Linux is still for the expert user, datacenter, and hobbiest.  if anything, it's eating into the Datacenter taking over tasks once heald by other unixes and Windows server.  It's on cheap, yet barely successful cheap PCs, and in many embedded devices, but it's not a mass market Unix desktop.  Yet.

Where Apple is innovative is that you now have essentially in every major city, a unix computer store in the upscale malls.  Unix computers with Genius Bars, awesome software apps, rabid fan base, and the creative market in Apple heaven.

So Linux has it's place in business, hobbiest, expert-users, and OS X owns the creative and home market.  This is of course not counting Windows.

As for the iPhone.  As an early adopter, I can say I was stupid to buy the damn thing at the price I bought it for, with the apps it had, but now, since iPhone 2.0 software update, this sucker has me almost as excited as the first time I bought my first Amiga (almost, nothing beats my first Amiga experience)

What the iPhone has become, is an awesome new computing platform.  The real unsung platform is the iPod Touch and screw the phone part.

So Steve hating aside.  Apple's marketing machine aside.  You must recognize that Apple's ability to leapfrog Linux in the consumer space to make a platform that my mother and grandmother can use and create a new computing platform in the for of the ipod touch and iphone is awesome.  If you ever used them, then there is no doubt, if you've only watched from a distance, then you will never understand.

The sad part about all of this is that the damn Amiga STILL has innovative concepts and implementations that STILL have yet to be trounced.  

If we could ever find an Asshole like Steve Jobs and the machine of Apple to get behind Amiga is a real way by facelifting the interface, providing a new computing hardware platform, and put any sexiness back, there is no reason why we could not also evolve our earlier most innovative platform beyond where OS X, Linux, and Windows are today in at least technical superiority.

-Alex

Linux - Evolutionary branch from UNIX.  No real innovation only evolution
OS X - Evolutionary branch from UNIX. Innovative user experience for UNIX
Amiga OS - Revolutionary OS and experience.  Stagnant. Dumb-ass owners
Windows Vista - Evolutionary build on horrible OS

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:
As proven by Jobs ousting, the CEO is more powerful.

Not quite.  It was the board of directors that sided with the CEO.  The CEO, Scully, did not actually fire him.  IIRC, the board asked him to resign and striped him of all operation duties, which led to him leaving.

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:
As proven by Jobs ousting, the CEO is more powerful.

Not quite.  It was the board of directors that sided with the CEO.  The CEO, Scully, did not actually fire him.  IIRC, the board asked him to resign and striped him of all operation duties, which led to him leaving.

Yes... it shows clearly that Jobs was not in control... he lost control in the 70s

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:

Yes... it shows clearly that Jobs was not in control... he lost control in the 70s

hmmph..  There is no use arguing with an Apple fanatic...  You are right, Steve Jobs can do no wrong.  He didn't ride the company down to the dumpster in the early 80s, sell off his stock and resign (all as Chairman of the Board and a majority stakeholder of the company).  Nope, didn't happen.  Look over there, something shiny.  :roll:

[bloodline]

adolescent wrote:

bloodline wrote:

Yes... it shows clearly that Jobs was not in control... he lost control in the 70s

hmmph..  There is no use arguing with an Apple fanatic...  You are right, Steve Jobs can do no wrong.  He didn't ride the company down to the dumpster in the early 80s, sell off his stock and resign (all as Chairman of the Board and a majority stakeholder of the company).  Nope, didn't happen.  Look over there, something shiny.  :roll:

Shiny?!?! Where?

[mdwh2]

Nlandas wrote:
Doesn't crash.
Can connect to any device automatically and work with it.
It just works.
Runs faster than any other PC.
Is easier to use.
Is better for graphics.
Makes you cool.

Don't forget "It Just Works"

bloodline wrote:
Yes... you want a phone... get a phone... I want a fully integrated mobile personal life style computing device... so I got the iPhone :-)

Wayne wrote:
Now, do I "need" Internet and all that on my phone?  Hell no, though I do send text messages (at 15 cents each) quite a bit.  What I want however is to combine the things normally found in my pocket into one, single device whenever possible, and $200 (even $300) is a small price to pay for that as far as gadgets go.

Note that even most bog standard phones will do all sorts of extra things like Internet and are basically mobile computers now.

JJ wrote:
Suppose its all a matter of choice, but until Apple catches up with UK phones in new technology ( how old is 3G now)

This is a good point - I'm curious why people are amazed by features they think are new in a phone, but it's possibly to do with the fact that US phones seem to be a few years behind technology-wise. This is all old history for people elsewhere such as the UK.

amigadave wrote:
Apple understands the fact that most people don't want to tinker with and configure their computers and they cater to that, they have no intention of trying to change to satisfy the small group of computer users that want to alter the way the system works.  They are targeting the masses and use any marketing they can to attract more market share, including claims that are not completely accurate at times, but that is true of almost every company out there of any kind, they all exaggerate some time.  Don't blame them for being better at marketing lies to those that don't know better.

All companies understand this. But yes, what Apple are better at is marketing.

As I stated before, I want simplicity and ease of use when it comes to my cell phone and mobile PDA/mp3 player/web enabled device. I have not seen or heard of any other product that does what the 3G iPhone can

OOI, what unique features does the Iphone have?

Wayne wrote:
I don't understand your logic at all.  Are you, or are you not going to have a cellphone during that same 24 months?  Most of us have resigned ourselves to the fact that we will always have a cellphone bill.  For some, like myself, I use it as my only phone, so your logic is flawed.

Again, the point being missed here may be the US versus UK thing. Here in the UK you tend to *either* pay for a contract, and get the phone free or very cheaply, *or* pay for the phone, and have no restrictions on contract. (And the free/cheap phones you get under contract include high end smartphones, not "you get a basic mobile Phone" as bloodline suggests.)

bloodline wrote:
The thing is, there are only two types of people... Those who want an iPhone and those that have never used an iPhone.

Funny, but unfair - you could say the same thing about all models of phones. Most people don't have time to try every single model of phone, so most people have only really tried the phones they use.

Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the Iphone - I just don't see why people give it so much hype and free advertising over all other phone models, as if it were the only phone that could do these things. It's like Windows 95 all over again.

Re: Video calling, whilst it's true that most of the time people don't want it, I can think of some *ahem* uses where people might want to see each other (consider webcams - you can make the same argument about "not wanting to get made up just to use the computer", but clearly some people like using them) ... The point is, if I'm paying for an expensive phone, it'd better at least have all the features that even basic bog-standard phones have these days. Even if I only want to use the feature rarely, I don't want to have to go "Oh dear, I can't use it because I'm an Apple user", I expect it to Just Work. The same goes for video recording, MMS, Java and copy/paste.

mdwh2 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the Iphone - I just don't see why people give it so much hype and free advertising over all other phone models, as if it were the only phone that could do these things.

Well.  Hmmm.  You make some valid points, and on the most part, I agree.  The only thing I would say is that -- for me -- yes, other phones can do most anything the iPhone can do.  HOWEVER, like the olden days when the Amiga actually had a prayer on the desktop, it's not that the iPhone does anything different, it's just that the integration of all these things seems to be 2x better and easier than the others.

Note of course that a lot of the phones we see nowadays did, in fact, steal ideas from the iPhone (the Instinct comes to mind as the most prevalent).  Like Mac OSX, it's just 10x more usable and friendly to me and I'm at a point in my life where I just don't enjoy having to futz around to get computers to do stuff.

I have a thought, I hit a button, it works the way I expect.  Something Windows has never done, and the Amiga has never had the opportunity to do since Commodore died.

It's like Windows 95 all over again.

That's a perspective issue.  I actually have fond memories of Windows 95.  I was the first adopter of any of my friends or fellow club members and I don't remember having the problems others reported.  

Judging by Windows 3.1 before it, and even AmigaOS at the time (I believe 2.1 had just been released??), Windows 95 did just fine if you bought hardware for it, but isn't that the way of ANY Windows version?

Would I go back to '95?  No way in hell, but then again, I specifically asked work to buy me a Mactop so I could actually work and not have to deal with XP or Vista.

Wayne