In article <140620082241206569%roger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, roger
<roger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mac Evangelicals, that's where. Some upperclassmen in my dorm were
> telling me that the iPhone was more like a computer than a telephone,
> and that it will be able to do things that we can't even imagine right
> now. They told me that the iPhones' guts is going to be just like a
> Cray was back when it was drooled over. And yeah, the apps might have
> to be cut down a little, but it'll still be able to do the same kind of
> stuff - like a phonograph turned into an iPod. So you're telling me
> they're full of B.S?
Yup. This thing is NOT a 'jesus phone' as the media started calling it.
It's a great tool, mind you, designed with enough differences from
common phones to make it stand out in many ways.
Yes, it's got some great computing possibilities (some of which it
already shows in the included programs). But 'stuff we can't even
imagine right now?' That's really overstating it -- just go look at the
list of software available for PDAs and smart phones. Those are the
kinds of apps people will want and use.
That it has the foundation of OS X in it is supposed to sound
impressive, but it's im****tant largely for developers. The users won't
see it.
iPhone's guts like a Cray? Come on, this thing has got PDA-like
computing power! Look, it's got a tiny power source which Apple isn't
trying to drain quickly, and it processes slow enough that it doesn't
heat up even as much as a x386 processor -- if it uses little power and
doesn't heat up, how intensive is it going to be?
Lots of apps will be simpler developed for iPhone, partly because of
what's already there and partly because it isn't working like a
computer, so yes, apps are going to be considerably pared down from
similar programs on computers. No one is going to be converting a
computer program by removing parts they won't need -- they'll take the
same ideas and build from scratch.
I have no idea how 'a phonograph turned into iPod' can mean something.
Yes, they are full of BS. Far too much reading from excitable media
publishers, far too much exaggeration (remember, this is a big deal
largely because of how well Apple has built a first-off product for a
competitive industry) and far too much materialistic focus.
Suggest to them that being accurate might be a skill to develop.
As an aside to that, these newsgroups have a single advocate of the
iPhone that routinely says the same kind of things -- how amazing it
is, how it's going to revolutionize the industry, how it can do
anything and is far better than every other device ever made, etc.
Apple didn't just invent everything -- they took a lot of existing
phone tech, some tech from other industries, created a few new parts,
and then focused on a particular user type and build a device they
thought would be perfect for that user.
The fact that they focused on one type of user rather than trying to
build for a broad every-type usage is an Apple distinction -- it's both
the reason that people say this device is perfect and that others
complain at how inappropriate it is for them. They're both right,
they're just extrapolating their reactions to include other people, and
they shouldn't. The iPhone is a fantastically great device if you
happen to be one of the people for whom its features are appropriate.
All you need to do is consider the features smart phones have today,
including iPhone, and decide which ones you would use.
Other people can review how im****tant the device is on a global scale,
or to the cell industry, or as an embedded-OS X tech development -- but
none of that will help you figure out if you should get an iPhone.
|
