At 22 Jul 2007 12:35:43 +0900 Brenda Ann wrote:
Do people REALLY want something that is easily broken, lost or stolen
that would pretty much give away their entire life if it fell into the
hands of someone else?
No, but many of us do want an all-in-one device, rather than schlep
separate phones, PDAa, cameras, etc.
I use a PPC phone, and my data's password protected. Not a perfect
failsafe against loss, but I'm not exactly James Bond keeping Her
Majesty's Secrets out of the hands of SPECTRE either...
And hey, my iPaq does most of what the iPhone does.
So you pick on iPhone buyers for wanting an all-in-one device while using
a competitive all-in-one? You might as well make fun of Coke drinkers
for downing wasted empty calories, then say "and I prefer Pepsi anyway!"
Besides,
sometimes I want to do more than one thing at a time. For that it takes
more
than one device.
Depends on how well designed the device is- theoretically I could shoot
pictures on my PPC phone while talking on the phone (with my bluetooth
headet) but I haven't actually needed to.
Cute gimmick, yeah, and young people will buy any gimcrack
that comes out just to be "kewl". That doesn't make it worth what
they're
paying for it.
I think the iPhone is overpriced personally, but I don't condemn the
concept because of it, just as I think Lexus' cars are overpriced as well
but don't condemn all automobiles because of it.
As far as Apple being the be all and end all of gimmickry, I have a
very
nice (and reliable) mp3/video player with a 60GB HDD in it that cost me
far
less than a similar iPod,
To be fair, you use a player that didn't exist before the iPod proved it
market-viable. The MP3 player market was floundering in a sea of akward
to use flash-memory players (like my Rio 500) that were battling each
other on cost vs. capacity. It took Apple to say "people will pay more
for a device with a large, easy to read screen and a huge capacity." And
they were right.
And not to pick on the Apple faithful, but can we cut this hooey about
"perfect design" and "ergonomics?" The iPods' menus are just as idiotic,
confusing and non-intuitive as ever other MP3 player out there- the
difference was an easy-to-read multiline display that could indicate
where in the menu system you were. My Rio 500's menuing system was no
easier or harder to understand than my Nano's, it was just harder to
navigate through it a one-line, grey, pocket-calculator-style, LCD panel.
and I don't have to deal with proprietary files.
Another iPod basher that apparently has never actually used one: iPod
owners do not "have to deal with proprietary files." I have several MP3
players lying around, including an iPod Nano. The iPod doesn't use
"proprietary files"- it plays MP3s I drag to it's drive letter just like
all of my other MP3 players. (Yes, Apple fans, I know I'm missing out on
the whole "iTunes experience"- sue me. I've used computers since before
the GUI, and MP3 players since before the iPod and I don't do "playlists"
and "media syncing"- I drag albums to my player and play them in their
entirety.) Having said that, iPods CAN use non-MP3 .aiff files, but
they're no more (or less) proprietary than the Microsoft .wma files many
players, including yours, probably, can play as well. Like .wma, they
offer better sound quality in a smaller file, but also like .wma, they
cause compatiblity issues since all players can't play them, forcing many
of us to stick with (inferior) MP3 files.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from
http://www.teranews.com