Technology Android

[Pittsey]

What do you mean by a portable HD music player? Mp3 player, mp4 player with a display? Everything was out there before. I agree that Apple devices tend to change the market though because they bring innovations.



That contributes too but is not the main factor. Especially IT people are annoyed that people are satisfied with Apple and buy their products if there are cheaper and technically better things.

The Ipod >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anything similar that came before it.


The Iphone>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anything similar that came before it.


TheIpad>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anything similar that came before it.

 

[masta247]

It depends on how you look at it. The first Ipod was released in 2001 or 2002. There were superior mp3 players before. For example In 1999 there were superior Iriver (if I remember correctly that it was Iriver) mp3 players on the market but they were only popular amongst audiophiles. Paradoxally they were cheaper than Ipods. Still Irivers are better than Ipods though. Actually Iriver creates the best mp3 players but they are by far less popular, despite being cheaper. I don't remember exactly but I could bet that there were at least 2 or 3 other better mp3 player companies at that time. I remember that first Ipods had terrible reviews in audio magazines. Most of all the first Ipod was a copy of Creative NOMAD Jukebox and Rio pmp300 in a nicer case.

I agree with the Iphone though, before that there were only Windows Mobile and Symbian smartphones.

Ipad hmm it depends on what you're after. There were superior tablets, especially for artists but they were running Windows.

So in short I agree that Apple are innovative but they in no way pioneered any type of device. They just work with already existing ones to make them more appealing and mainstream.

 

[dilla]

And everyone likes to hate on the mainstream because "everyone has them." I feel this is what will end up happening with Android soon.

I think I'm too old to debate Mac vs. PC. I think we all are because now there really is no difference between the two, other than price. If you can afford a Mac and want one, you get one. There's no compatibility issues, or very few, when running Windows stuff. It runs Windows natively, in fact. But it's just stupid to still be butt-hurt over a company's philosophy.

 

[Pittsey]

So in short I agree that Apple are innovative but they in no way pioneered any type of device. They just work with already existing ones to make them more appealing and mainstream.

That is still pioneering in my opinion. No-one was interested in mp3 players until the ipod. No-one would touch the tablet, they were too scared of failure, until the ipad. The iphone was the first smart phone, and current smart phones are still based around Apples early designs....

I like how they look at problems and solve them. I just don't like how Apple expect everyone to agree that their way is the beat way.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Does anyone know of any Android apps for the Google Books service?

 

[THEV1LL4N]

The iphone was the first smart phone

excuse me?

 

[THEV1LL4N]

okay i have found that there is Book Search but most books arent even available here in the UK due to copyright laws

 

[dilla]

There were smartphones before the iPhone. They just sucked dick like Dracula.

 

[Casey]

You guys don't know shit about smartphones.

Apple ripped off a LOT of stuff from Andy Rubin. Yes, Andy Rubin the head of Android.

Before he founded Android in 2005 (2 years before the iPhone came out) he was at a company called Danger that made a little something called the Hiptop and Hiptop OS in 2001. In 2001, T-Mobile rebranded it as the T-Mobile Sidekick, and it became the first smartphone, sold millions and became one of the most popular mobile devices of all time. Hell, a good chunk of people on this very forum had them, including me.

Not only could you surf the full web on a Sidekick since '02 - but it had integrated IM clients that stored IM's on a server in case you lost signal, so you'd still get them when you got back online, it had multitasking that was still way better implemented than what the iPhone has, AND get this - it had an integrated application store where you could buy applications, games, and ringtones..... YEARS before the App Store. It had a thriving developer community which I was a part of (so many iOS and Android devs I know are friends of mine from the Sidekick days), it had huge celebrity endorsements from everyone from Snoop Dogg to Kim Kardashian to Dwayne Wade to Mr. Cartoon to Tony Hawk....it stored your pictures, contacts and information in the cloud (just like Android does now) so that when you got a new device and signed in, your data would sync back down.......Hiptop/Sidekick OS was truly a pioneering system, MUCH more so than anything Apple have ever done.

So what happened? Microsoft bought the company and spectacularly fucked everything up. Half of Danger left after the acquisition, the other half were split into working on different projects, Danger's back-end server system became the basis for that god-awful KIN device, and then in 2009, they pissed of the existing userbase with a data outage where lots of people lost some or all of their information from the servers (something that NEVER happened prior to the MS acquisition).

Some of the people that were on the Danger team during the glory days are now at HP/Palm. I expect a few people probably are at Apple. But the most interesting people - including UI designer Matias Duarte - are now at Android. That's how I knew Android was going to the best OS even before any hardware was released - because the Microsoft acquisition of Danger had already happened and so many talented people had left and gone to Google.

So, no good smartphones before the iPhone? WRONG.

 

[Pittsey]

I don't agree.

I don't think there was a good smartphone before the Iphone. I also think it depends on the definition of smartphone. I had phones that would browse the web, I had phones that you could store documents on. I had phones that supported email and IM.

But none of those phones brought it in one simple package. None of them were as well designed as the iphone. None of them (as far as as I know) had a touchscreen interface like the iphone. Something that is common on all phones now. The app store is completely different and far more advance than the sidekick days.


I also can't be bothered to type or reason any further. It's not what I visit here for. But... I think Apple needs to be given some credit for what they have done, as far too much Apple bashing goes on.


The only downside of an Iphone when compared to a sidekick is they are no longer as easily hacked. So no more sexy pics hacked from sidekicks....

 

[Casey]

That's the thing....the Sidekick DID bring it in one well designed, simple, package. The only thing it didn't have was a touchscreen interface - but by that definition, Blackberrys are not smartphones either and I'd disagree with that too.

The App store really isn't that different from the Sidekick catalog. Yes, it's "more advanced" in the same way that anything designed in 2007 and improved upon over a few years is probably going to be more advanced than something designed in 2002 and improved upon over a few years, but the functionality is still almost identical. You click on a shortcut, it takes you to a list of available applications sorted by category, you click on one, it tells you the description of it with a screenshot and a price, you click buy. The information about your purchase gets saved to your account. Simple.

 

[masta247]

Touchscreens were common in PDAs and these Palmtop-smartphone crossovers but were rarely capacitive and didn't have as "thumbable" touchscreen interfaces.
Symbian was a full phone OS and had multitasking since always, which means post-2000 Nokia phones had it. Actually Symbian wasn't that shitty at some point and some of their smartphones were very successful. It's not a bad system but performance was a problem.
But yes, Symbian was (and still is) the most popular smartphone OS in Europe that was there way before Iphone and offered bigger functionality but isn't as great performance-wise.

 

[Pittsey]

If I say brought it to the masses would you agree? lol

 

[Flipmo]

No Pittsey, we shall never agree. Off to the abyss with you!

 

[ARon]

Bringing something to the masses isn't really innovating or pioneering. You just have good marketing.

 

[Casey]

If I say brought it to the masses would you agree? lol

I'd say define "masses". They sold millions of them - albeit nothing compared to how many iPhones and Androids are sold in this days and age, but we're living in a different era now.

Arguably the Sidekick brought smartphones to the masses more than the iPhone did, based upon how many people had smartphones prior to that, compared to after. I'd even argue the Blackberry did the same, because I remember shitloads of people having those prior to the existence of the iPhone.

And what about Windows Mobile? Sure it's such a joke now that they had to scrap it and create a new OS from scratch, but half my family had WinMo devices back in 2004 and 2005, and I'm not just talking about technologically inclined people either.

The iPhone didn't bring smartphones to the masses. It brought smartphones to a new "class" of people. The trendy people, the hipsters, the people in their 20's and early 30's (teen demographic was almost exclusively Sidekick and Blackberry from '07 to '09, only the iPhone 4 has begun to change that somewhat). A very vocal and marketable demographic.

Anything else is pure Apple marketing and hyperbole. Every year they scream out about how "new" and "revolutionary" what they are doing is, when the truth is that it is anything but. Their fanboy army repeats their key buzzwords ad nauseum, and history remembers things with a skewered distorted vision of what was actually happening because people actually believe the arrogant disingenuous garbage that comes out of Steve Jobs mouth.

 

[masta247]

I agree with Casey, although I've never experienced the Sidekick and it wasn't even available here so from my perspective it was Iphone that brought smartphones "to new classes of people" who never needed smartphones before that. Apple creates artificial needs, they are experts at it.
Truth is, if people really needed mp3 players they would've bought an mp3 player before Ipods were released, if someone needed a smartphone they would've bought a WinMo/Symbian phone before the Iphone was relased, same with tablets and ipads. I agree that they were in some means innovative and did their job trying to reach the whole mainstream - with marketing but also with their theoretically fool-proof and simple software and design. I just wouldn't agree that they were pioneers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from that the Galaxy Tab got a pretty favorable review from GsmArena. There's also a comparison with Ipad.
Samsung P1000 Galaxy Tab review: Expanding universe - GSMArena.com
They dislike the price tag and screen mostly. Visible ghosting (probably SLCD used).

 

[Pittsey]

^^^

Don't think the tab appeals to me. If it was half the price it would though.

 

[S O F I]

So in short I agree that Apple are innovative but they in no way pioneered any type of device. They just work with already existing ones to make them more appealing and mainstream.

In short, Apple works with existing products (that failed MISERABLY in the market), makes them more user-friendly, more productive, more intuitive, more appealing, and able to cater the use of the product to the casual consumer and the business consumer.

The way you word it seems like what Apple did/does is a simple task. If it was, everybody would be doing it.

Same with Aron's idiotic statement (no offense, you know I like you no homo). If it was all marketing, everyone would be putting all their money into marketing budgets and making their devices appear cooler and sexier to the consumer.

 

[S O F I]

Especially IT people are annoyed that people are satisfied with Apple and buy their products if there are cheaper and technically better things. There are many negatives to it as a whole because it makes the market for electronics go wrong way sometimes.

Creating a successful technological product is a business, not a high school science competition. IT people are annoyed because they're short-sighted. They only see specs and hardware. Much more goes into putting a successful product into the market. Selling a phone is not like selling a washing machine or a vacuum cleaner. Anyway, you know all this stuff, I just like to point it out again and again and again.

Also, I'm interested in the last sentence. It implies that for example, Apple would create a device, like the iPhone, and then the market would go crazy for it and the IT guys at other companies with much better innovations would go and be like "Oh fuck, we have shit that is so much better but consumers are going crazy for this gay shit so we have to dumb down and follow Apple's lead and create stupid shit."

??

But no, really, elaborate on what you mean. I'm curious.