Interestingly the author wrote the following.
*******************************************************
It's also worth noting that, while many pundits (and a few users) have
complained
about the lack of third-party applications for the iPhone, it hasn't
stopped the device
from being wildly successful. The lesson here? While open is
important, it doesn't
seem to be a strong selling point for mobile devices. (Or, frankly,
desktop operating
systems either.)
*******************************************************
So for the author, it is not "open" that sells, but the usability that
sells. I have to
agree with him here even though I like things to be "open"
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 19:45 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> http://linux-mag.com/id/4213
>
> Interestingly the author wrote the following.
> *******************************************************
> It's also worth noting that, while many pundits (and a few users) have
> complained
> about the lack of third-party applications for the iPhone, it hasn't
> stopped the device
> from being wildly successful. The lesson here? While open is
> important, it doesn't
> seem to be a strong selling point for mobile devices. (Or, frankly,
> desktop operating
> systems either.)
> *******************************************************
>
> So for the author, it is not "open" that sells, but the usability that
> sells. I have to
> agree with him here even though I like things to be "open"
But aren't the two related?
Does open tend to HELP usability?
In the past the answer was not really, these days the answer is less
certain. Look at the progress "open" systems have made in usability.
Many would say they aren't yet there compared to the closed systems we
have, but they are getting damn close.
Oh, as as for the basis of the article being the iPhone. It's LONG been
known that the usability of Apple products isn't really that much better
then much of the competition. Apple is a master of MARKETING, not
necessarily usability. Don't get me wrong, their products are quite good
from the usability department, but if that were the only metric that
determined success Apple products would be nowhere NEAR as popular as
they are.
Apple has done the amazing thing of making their products sexy and
something everybody wants, even though they don't know why they want it.
Many people buy apple products to be "in", despite competitors products
clearly being better, and often come nowhere near to actually using all
the features. Usability is important, but for the masses, "cool" is at
least as important, and Apple has that down pat, for the moment.
On Nov 10, 2007 11:37 PM, Herbert Graf <spam_OUTmailinglist3TakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote:
> > While open is important, it doesn't seem to be a strong selling
> > point for mobile devices. (Or, frankly, desktop operating
> > systems either.)
>
> But aren't the two related?
>
> Does open tend to HELP usability?
I think yes. Open standard like Posix and TCP/IP does help usability.
> In the past the answer was not really, these days the answer is less
> certain. Look at the progress "open" systems have made in usability.
> Many would say they aren't yet there compared to the closed systems we
> have, but they are getting damn close.
I agree. Desktop Linux is now quite usable.
> Oh, as as for the basis of the article being the iPhone. It's LONG been
> known that the usability of Apple products isn't really that much better
> then much of the competition. Apple is a master of MARKETING, not
> necessarily usability. Don't get me wrong, their products are quite good
> from the usability department, but if that were the only metric that
> determined success Apple products would be nowhere NEAR as popular as
> they are.
>
I think for GUI operating system, Windows is actually quite good in
terms of usability. Not so sure of Apple, only used the old Apple
OS 9 for a while and was not impressed comparing it to Windows 95/98.
Actually I do not buy anything Apple or Sony (except cheap FM Radio)
since I feel I do not need to be "in".
> I think for GUI operating system, Windows is actually quite good in
> terms of usability. Not so sure of Apple, only used the old Apple
> OS 9 for a while and was not impressed comparing it to Windows 95/98.
>
> Actually I do not buy anything Apple or Sony (except cheap FM Radio)
> since I feel I do not need to be "in".
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> I think for GUI operating system, Windows is actually quite good in
>> terms of usability. Not so sure of Apple, only used the old Apple
>> OS 9 for a while and was not impressed comparing it to Windows 95/98.
Knocking Apple's usability based on OS 9 isn't far from knocking
Windows based upon WFW 3.11. Apple was *clearly* behind at that point
and I never gave them a second look until an OS X machine was put in
front of me a couple of years ago. A month later I was converted.
Two months later I bought my first Apple and never looked back. I
doubt I'll ever buy a Windows-only machine again, although I do
fantasize about the day when Adobe releases Photoshop and the rest of
Creative Suite for Linux - I could see myself going in that direction
when the time is right. One place where Windows definitely loses is
usability in console mode. Linux/UNIX blows DOS out of the water.
That's enough for me to not go back.
-n.
>>
>>
>> Actually I do not buy anything Apple or Sony (except cheap FM Radio)
>> since I feel I do not need to be "in".
>
> I agree on both of these :)
>
> --
> Ciao, Dario il Grande (522-485 a.C.)
> --
>On Nov 11, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Dario Greggio wrote:
>
>> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>
>>> I think for GUI operating system, Windows is actually quite good in
>>> terms of usability. Not so sure of Apple, only used the old Apple
>>> OS 9 for a while and was not impressed comparing it to Windows 95/98.
>
>
>Knocking Apple's usability based on OS 9 isn't far from knocking
>Windows based upon WFW 3.11. Apple was *clearly* behind at that point
>and I never gave them a second look until an OS X machine was put in
>front of me a couple of years ago. A month later I was converted.
>Two months later I bought my first Apple and never looked back. I
>doubt I'll ever buy a Windows-only machine again, although I do
>fantasize about the day when Adobe releases Photoshop and the rest of
>Creative Suite for Linux - I could see myself going in that direction
>when the time is right. One place where Windows definitely loses is
>usability in console mode. Linux/UNIX blows DOS out of the water.
>That's enough for me to not go back.
I have both Mac and Windows systems (as well as
linux). I use Windows where I *have* to, such as
for PIC and PCB development work. I use the Mac
otherwise. Stuff just works. Life is too short
for Windows.
> On Nov 11, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Dario Greggio wrote:
>
>> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>
>>> I think for GUI operating system, Windows is actually quite good in
>>> terms of usability. Not so sure of Apple, only used the old Apple
>>> OS 9 for a while and was not impressed comparing it to Windows
>>> 95/98.
>
>
> Knocking Apple's usability based on OS 9 isn't far from knocking
> Windows based upon WFW 3.11. Apple was *clearly* behind at that point
> and I never gave them a second look until an OS X machine was put in
> front of me a couple of years ago. A month later I was converted.
> Two months later I bought my first Apple and never looked back. I
> doubt I'll ever buy a Windows-only machine again, although I do
> fantasize about the day when Adobe releases Photoshop and the rest of
> Creative Suite for Linux - I could see myself going in that direction
> when the time is right. One place where Windows definitely loses is
> usability in console mode. Linux/UNIX blows DOS out of the water.
> That's enough for me to not go back.
Agreed. OS9 was a child's toy compared to OS X. OS9's only purpose
in this household was that it was what my wife's original Mac had on
it, meaning I wasn't asked constantly to do silly "tech support"
things on her machine. It just ran, and did everything she wanted it
to do.
Once OSX came out, I became a convert.
Finally, the only OS where you have a really good graphical interface,
and also can pop open a terminal and use just about any open-source or
other Unix command-line tools, without dual-booting, or other
silliness. The addition of Parallels VM means that a full copy of XP
can be launched for those few misguided applications that still are
only available for Windows. (MS Visio comes to mind.)
Apple's computer products (not their phones and their iPods and
things) aren't about being in the "in" crowd, these days -- they're
about powerful usability. Reading the posts on this list about the
engineering tools, it sounds like a lot of tool vendors are ignoring
the Apple market though, but creating a glut of compilers and board
design tools for Windows. There's a market opportunity there for one
of them to either go cross-platform or direct to supporting Macs and
leaving the rest of them in the dust... but haven't seen it happen yet.
On Nov 12, 2007 12:06 AM, Chris Smolinski
<csmolinskiKILLspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
> I have both Mac and Windows systems (as well as
> linux). I use Windows where I *have* to, such as
> for PIC and PCB development work. I use the Mac
> otherwise. Stuff just works. Life is too short
> for Windows.
>
Which means that you still have to use Windows no matter
how you think diferent. ;-)
And Apple now thinks the same as Intel (use x86 CPU). ;-)
And Apple dropped "Computer" from its name.
Apple now is more a music/mp3 company.
Maybe one day they will drop Mac computer.
And Apple does not really support OpenDarwin so it closed down.
Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
a niche.
Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
>
> On Nov 11, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2007 12:06 AM, Chris Smolinski
> <.....csmolinskiKILLspam.....blackcatsystems.com> wrote:
>> I have both Mac and Windows systems (as well as
>> linux). I use Windows where I *have* to, such as
>> for PIC and PCB development work. I use the Mac
>> otherwise. Stuff just works. Life is too short
>> for Windows.
>>
>
> Which means that you still have to use Windows no matter
> how you think diferent. ;-)
>
> And Apple now thinks the same as Intel (use x86 CPU). ;-)
>
> And Apple dropped "Computer" from its name.
> Apple now is more a music/mp3 company.
> Maybe one day they will drop Mac computer.
>
> And Apple does not really support OpenDarwin so it closed down.
>
> Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
> a niche.
>
> Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
No matter what a computer fan boy say, computers are a niche product.
Most people still use things like pencil and paper.
Cedric
On 11/12/07, Cedric Chang <EraseMEccspam_OUTTakeThisOuTnope9.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
> > a niche.
> >
> > Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
>
> No matter what a computer fan boy say, computers are a niche product.
> Most people still use things like pencil and paper.
;-)
Let's refine what I say.
For electronics engineers, no matter what Mac OS X fan boys say,
it is only a niche. Windows is still the platform of choice. In certain
areas of high end IC design, Linux/Solaris is the platform of choice.
Where is the area of electronic engineering that Mac OS X is the
platform of choice?
> On Nov 12, 2007 12:06 AM, Chris Smolinski
> <@spam@csmolinskiKILLspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
> > I have both Mac and Windows systems (as well as
> > linux). I use Windows where I *have* to, such as
> > for PIC and PCB development work. I use the Mac
> > otherwise. Stuff just works. Life is too short
> > for Windows.
> >
>
> Which means that you still have to use Windows no matter
> how you think diferent. ;-)
>
> And Apple now thinks the same as Intel (use x86 CPU). ;-)
>
> And Apple dropped "Computer" from its name.
> Apple now is more a music/mp3 company.
> Maybe one day they will drop Mac computer.
>
> And Apple does not really support OpenDarwin so it closed down.
>
> Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
> a niche.
>
> Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
Moreover, Greenpeace ranks Apple dead last in 'environmental friendliness'!
>On 11/12/07, Cedric Chang <KILLspamccKILLspamnope9.com> wrote:
> > > Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
> > > a niche.
> > >
> > > Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
> >
> > No matter what a computer fan boy say, computers are a niche product.
> > Most people still use things like pencil and paper.
>
>;-)
>
>Let's refine what I say.
>
>For electronics engineers, no matter what Mac OS X fan boys say,
>it is only a niche. Windows is still the platform of choice. In certain
>areas of high end IC design, Linux/Solaris is the platform of choice.
>
>Where is the area of electronic engineering that Mac OS X is the
>platform of choice?
>
>Xiaofan
> At 08:49 PM 11/11/2007, you wrote:
> >On 11/12/07, Cedric Chang <TakeThisOuTccEraseMEspam_OUTnope9.com> wrote:
> > > > Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
> > > > a niche.
> > > >
> > > > Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
> > >
> > > No matter what a computer fan boy say, computers are a niche product.
> > > Most people still use things like pencil and paper.
> >
> >;-)
> >
> >Let's refine what I say.
> >
> >For electronics engineers, no matter what Mac OS X fan boys say,
> >it is only a niche. Windows is still the platform of choice. In certain
> >areas of high end IC design, Linux/Solaris is the platform of choice.
> >
> >Where is the area of electronic engineering that Mac OS X is the
> >platform of choice?
> >
> >Xiaofan
>
> Designing marketing brochures, of course. ;-0
>
Ah I see. That is now changing as well since now Adobe is more
interested in Windows than Mac OS X.
And our Tech Communication team here are using Windows
with the Adobe tools to create the manuals and marketing
brochures, not Mac OS X.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:49:54AM +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On 11/12/07, Cedric Chang <RemoveMEccTakeThisOuTnope9.com> wrote:
> > > Anyway, no matter what Mac OS X fan boy say, it is only
> > > a niche.
> > >
> > > Xiaofan (who use Windows at work and Linux/FreeBSD at home).
> >
> > No matter what a computer fan boy say, computers are a niche product.
> > Most people still use things like pencil and paper.
>
> ;-)
>
> Let's refine what I say.
>
> For electronics engineers, no matter what Mac OS X fan boys say,
> it is only a niche. Windows is still the platform of choice. In certain
> areas of high end IC design, Linux/Solaris is the platform of choice.
>
> Where is the area of electronic engineering that Mac OS X is the
> platform of choice?
Rarely are any of these a platform of choice. They are almost always a
platform of necessity.
To chime on this thread again (and hopefully this time closer to the
original topic), I think the reason openness doesn't show as a major selling
point for devices is that at this point it's merely an abstract concept. In
time, as meaningful applications are developed on open mobile platforms,
these apps will contribute to the platforms' success, even when their raw
"openness" may not.
Give this a few years for mobile app designers/developers to do their thing
and the climate will be entirely different. Even the iPhone is opening in
the coming months. As the phone becomes less "phone" and more "mobile
device" these third party apps will become major selling points. The fact
that the word processors of 20 years ago were totally closed platforms
wasn't such a negative when there were few interesting applications for the
PCs of the day.
> http://linux-mag.com/id/4213
>
> Interestingly the author wrote the following.
> *******************************************************
> It's also worth noting that, while many pundits (and a few users) have
> complained
> about the lack of third-party applications for the iPhone, it hasn't
> stopped the device
> from being wildly successful. The lesson here? While open is
> important, it doesn't
> seem to be a strong selling point for mobile devices. (Or, frankly,
> desktop operating
> systems either.)
> *******************************************************
>
> So for the author, it is not "open" that sells, but the usability that
> sells. I have to
> agree with him here even though I like things to be "open"
>
> Xiaofan
On 11/12/07, James Nick Sears <EraseMElistsjamesnsears.com> wrote:
> To chime on this thread again (and hopefully this time closer to the
> original topic), I think the reason openness doesn't show as a major selling
> point for devices is that at this point it's merely an abstract concept. In
> time, as meaningful applications are developed on open mobile platforms,
> these apps will contribute to the platforms' success, even when their raw
> "openness" may not.
Thanks for going back to the original topic. Sorry about my Mac OS X
rant.
I think you have a good point here.
By the way, by Open, I think there are two meanings.
One is open standard, open specifications/API or even open source.
The other is kind of pseudo industrail standard or defacto standard.
> Give this a few years for mobile app designers/developers to do their thing
> and the climate will be entirely different. Even the iPhone is opening in
> the coming months. As the phone becomes less "phone" and more "mobile
> device" these third party apps will become major selling points. The fact
> that the word processors of 20 years ago were totally closed platforms
> wasn't such a negative when there were few interesting applications for the
> PCs of the day.
>
Still I think Apple is different. Jobs does not believe in openess and
he is perhaps right on this since the slogan of Apple is "to think
different". After pusing out the Mac clones (buying one), he
seems to succeed on that frount. So Macs will still have a niche
but will remain a niche.
Oops but hopefully this is not considered a rant for Mac fans.
"Open" anything in a phone is currently not much of a
selling point, since very few phones are "open." I think
apple is in a much better position to open up the iPhone
than other phone vendors that have even more proprietary
architectures...
I find the Mac platform somewhat more "open" than the PC
platform, sort of. At least it comes with software development
tools (C and java compilers, and a bunch of open source utils.)
(OTOH, the PC has a lot more third-party tools, and more of a
"third-party" mentality; I think it's easier to become part of
the "closed" part of PC development...)
(put another way, the iPhone seems to be a mere business
decision away from being an "open" platform, while many
competing products have further to do, not really having
any "applications environment" at all to open up.)
On 11/12/07, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfwEraseMEEraseMEmac.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> > going back to the original topic.
>
> "Open" anything in a phone is currently not much of a
> selling point, since very few phones are "open." I think
> apple is in a much better position to open up the iPhone
> than other phone vendors that have even more proprietary
> architectures...
I think Symbian OS based smart phones comes with
pretty open APIs. Nokia has also some great sources
on their software development using Java or native C/C++.
It is not open enough but I think Nokia and other Symbian
based smart phones are still open enough for the developers.
Not so sure about Windows Mobile based ecosystem.
> I find the Mac platform somewhat more "open" than the PC
> platform, sort of. At least it comes with software development
> tools (C and java compilers, and a bunch of open source utils.)
> (OTOH, the PC has a lot more third-party tools, and more of a
> "third-party" mentality; I think it's easier to become part of
> the "closed" part of PC development...)
Visual Studio 2005 Express is now free. Cygwin/MinGW can
help porting Linux/Unix software to Windows.
But yes I agree Mac OS X is pretty close to Unix (FreeBSD),
more closer than Windows.
Still for majority of the open source projects, Linux is the first
priority to support, followed by Windows and then perhaps
Mac OS X. For example, gputils/sdcc/gpsim all have Windows
ports. mspgcc supports Windows first and then Linux. AVR GCC
supports Windows/FreeBSD first and then Linux. I do not
see many people using Mac in these lists.
Actually I am not so sure if gpsim works for Mac right out of
the box or not. Piklab may support Mac OS X now, not
so sure if if it is that strightforward though. It actually has
a Windows console version now for piklab-prog.
> It is not open enough but I think Nokia and other Symbian
> based smart phones are still open enough for the developers.
But they make up a very small minority of the actual phones
out there, right? "smart phones" are such a tiny niche to
start with...
> Still for majority of the open source projects, Linux is
> the first priority to support, followed by Windows and
> then perhaps Mac OS X.
I could argue that Windows SHOULD be the first priority to
support, and people don't for "religious reasons." Gratuitous
incompatibility is annoying (perhaps unavoidable in GUI apps?),
but I thought what Cadsoft did with their first Mac EAGLE offering
was a sort of ideal compromise - offer a linux/X application
compiled to run in the Mac environment. I'm a little worried
that their next release will have a native mac version; I'm not
sure there's enough of a Mac EAGLE user community to justify or
support such an effort.
> I am not so sure if gpsim works for Mac right out of
> the box or not.
I found my efforts to get gpsim working under 10.3.9 sufficiently
painful (GUI library dependency hell) that I have not tried again
now that I'm running 10.4. But the CLI utilities work ok. (a sad
example of the difficulties of open source. In theory, I could just
recompile and run. In practice, it needed LOTS of libraries to be
imported, and some of them conflicted version-wise with what the
local mac environment seemed to need. Likewise, getting gerbv
compiled required downloading over a gigabyte of unlikely software
including TeX and Ghostscript. Sigh.)
On 11/12/07, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfwspam_OUTKILLspammac.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> > It is not open enough but I think Nokia and other Symbian
> > based smart phones are still open enough for the developers.
>
> But they make up a very small minority of the actual phones
> out there, right? "smart phones" are such a tiny niche to
> start with...
Even for Nokia's own Series 40 based phones, I think there
are quite good free tools and documentations. They are
getting quite "smart" as well. My wife's one year old
Nokia 6280 is certainly quite powerful. {Quote hidden}
>
> > I am not so sure if gpsim works for Mac right out of
> > the box or not.
>
> I found my efforts to get gpsim working under 10.3.9 sufficiently
> painful (GUI library dependency hell) that I have not tried again
> now that I'm running 10.4. But the CLI utilities work ok. (a sad
> example of the difficulties of open source. In theory, I could just
> recompile and run. In practice, it needed LOTS of libraries to be
> imported, and some of them conflicted version-wise with what the
> local mac environment seemed to need. Likewise, getting gerbv
> compiled required downloading over a gigabyte of unlikely software
> including TeX and Ghostscript. Sigh.)
>
Platform difference is a problem. Actually it is even a bit difficult
across different Linux distros (often Autotools problem).
I agree TeX dependency is quite annoying. From the very beginning
I played with Linux (Slackware 3.5), I chose not to install TeTex. Now
I just install it since the HDD space is anyway cheap.
>Apple has done the amazing thing of making their products sexy
>and something everybody wants, even though they don't know why
>they want it. Many people buy apple products to be "in", despite
>competitors products clearly being better, and often come nowhere
>near to actually using all the features. Usability is important,
>but for the masses, "cool" is at least as important, and Apple
>has that down pat, for the moment.
Not just for the moment - they always have.
I remember stories about the very early days of 'personal computing', when
potential customers would come into the store 'wanting Visio', the
spreadsheet program. What they didn't know was that they needed this PC to
run it on, with the result that salesman were making money hand over fist by
the time they had augmented the sale of a copy of Visio with an Apple II,
monitor, printer, and a dose of consumables in the form of floppies, paper
and printer ribbons.
> >So for the author, it is not "open" that sells, but the
> >usability that sells. I have to agree with him here even
> >though I like things to be "open"
>
> Yeah but ...
>
> Last week the 'Gadget Show' pitted the iPhone against a Nokia N95, and quite
> frankly the Nokia won hands down.
>
> The Nokia camera is 5MP and has a flash and can do video, against the iPhone
> 2MP, no flash and no movie.
>
> The Nokia seemed to have better keyboard accessibility and was more
> ergonomic to use.
>
> The popup keyboard on the iPhone seemed to popup over the field they were
> attempting to fill in.
>
> And the Nokia was cheaper IIRC ...
>
> Oh, and the iPhone seems to need a special connector to fit non-apple
> headphones ...
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10475028
>
So it is the Apple brand that sells for iPhone in your opinion? As far
as I know, iPhone is quite good in terms of usability. N95 is not bad
and we have people who use it and like it. But Nokia does not have
a brand like Apple.
Apple iPod beat Creative Lab more on the design, not really on sound
quality. In terms of usability,iPod is also better.
Apple is kind of like Sony. Here in Singapore Sony enjoys good support.
So even Canon camera is more popular in other places,
Sony is better recognized here. So does Sony Erickson phone.
I used to think Sony is of some good quality so I bought a Sony
LD/VCD player (produced in Japan). The first month I rented an
LD, pop it in the tray and enjoyed the movie. It just did not pop
out. So I had to open the screws and get the disk out. The service
was good and the Sony servicemen came to my house and collect
it (it was considered a rather higher-end model at that time
--1998). It was fixed. But after one year warranty, the same
symptom came back. So I gave up.
Of course this is only a single accident. But still nowadays,
Sony is no longer equal to high quality. I near Panasonic
is better.
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 09:16 +0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >Apple has done the amazing thing of making their products sexy
> >and something everybody wants, even though they don't know why
> >they want it. Many people buy apple products to be "in", despite
> >competitors products clearly being better, and often come nowhere
> >near to actually using all the features. Usability is important,
> >but for the masses, "cool" is at least as important, and Apple
> >has that down pat, for the moment.
>
> Not just for the moment - they always have.
I can't agree with that. Apple computers were not "cool" in any way, at
least in the earlier days.
Actually even now I don't think many would rate their computers as very
"cool". The "cool" that can be applied to their computers comes from the
bleed over of their consumer products.
Remember, "cool" for the masses is a MUCH different animal then "cool"
for the "technically inclined". :)
> Actually even now I don't think many would rate their computers as very
> "cool".
The original imac made a style statement it wasn't to everyones taste
but it was certainly a welcome break from the boring beige. IIRC the
iMac predates the first iPod.
> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 09:16 +0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> > >Apple has done the amazing thing of making their products sexy
> > >and something everybody wants, even though they don't know why
> > >they want it. Many people buy apple products to be "in", despite
> > >competitors products clearly being better, and often come nowhere
> > >near to actually using all the features. Usability is important,
> > >but for the masses, "cool" is at least as important, and Apple
> > >has that down pat, for the moment.
> >
> > Not just for the moment - they always have.
>
> I can't agree with that. Apple computers were not "cool" in any way, at
> least in the earlier days.
>
> Actually even now I don't think many would rate their computers as very
> "cool". The "cool" that can be applied to their computers comes from the
> bleed over of their consumer products.
>
> Remember, "cool" for the masses is a MUCH different animal then "cool"
> for the "technically inclined". :)
I agree with you on the last sentence. My wife has a taste more similar
to the masses than I (technically inclined). She called me that the MCU
IC samples "balck spiders with many legs". She is now using my PocktPC
as a electronics dictionary since I could not find a electronics dictionary
for her Nokia 6280 with bigger enough vocabulary.
Still she thought the original iMac and the Cube were cool some years ago.
But then when she saw the price, she felt that it was better to buy her
some other things. ;-)
For the new Macs, she likes the big screen and the mouse.
And she thought the iPods are much more cool than the Creative MP3s.
She also thought that PSP is cooler than NDS.
On Nov 13, 2007 7:32 AM, peter green <RemoveMEplugwashKILLspamp10link.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually even now I don't think many would rate their computers as very
> > "cool".
> The original imac made a style statement it wasn't to everyones taste
> but it was certainly a welcome break from the boring beige. IIRC the
> iMac predates the first iPod.
>
I did not quite like it but my wife thought is was better than the PC at
that time. Again she did not like the price. Apple's price in Singapore
is normally more expensive than in USA.
farcite.net> wrote:
