MobileMe is Apple's new service that provides a load of services for OSX and the iPhone for $99 per year. It looks like they've not only dropped the ball but sat down on it to ask where it's gone. You'd have to be a gullible twat to sign up to such a service. Let me explain why...
The services include:
- Continuous push synchronization for email, contacts, and calendars
- Online access to your mail, contacts, and calendar
- Photo-sharing through MobileMe Gallery
- 20GB of file storage that mounts as a drive on OS X and that includes public file sharing
Now, hang on a minute, Apple. I think you might find that Synchronisation and get-me-anywhere applications have been done. About 2 years ago. By Google and others. For Free. I know this because I'm using it now. You twats. So, rather than pay $99 EVERY YEAR, how about using the following (by non-fly-by-night corporations, I can assure you)...
- Use GMail for synchronisation of email, contacts
- Use Google Calendars for synchronisation of, erm, Calendars
- If you want that info downloaded onto your iPhone for when you have no signal, I can guarantee that Google will be producing a Sync application for the iPhone, after all there are already free apps that do it for jailbroken ones.
- Online Access is already done by Google apps.
- Photo sharing with Flickr or Picasa. Do you really need a new tool to do this?
- File storage wise, you can have 50GB with ADrive and I am sure that there are more of these services I don't know about.
So all you're really buying is OSX integration and Apple's design. But what about the stuff you DON'T get. It doesn't really say how all these things above integrate with the rest of the web, furthermore, are Apple going to charge you for new features? when google added Geotagging of photos, that came for free.
It's like being mugged and I can imagine loads of Fanboys doing it. It's such a shame.
Comments
Rather than slag off Apple (which is too easy), I'll agree with this by saying that moving to Gmail was one of the best things I've ever done. I now have fully synced email across my phone, work and home using the IMAP and phone app. It also does all sorts of clever things integrating with Picasa, Blogger, Docs and gCalendar.
...oh, and so far its automatically picked out over 15,000 spam messages in the last month...about a 99% hit rate, as opposed to Thunderbirds ~25-30%.
Calendar is an excellent tool, and I'm slowly converting everyone I know onto it (a quick count shows that I have 10 other peoples calendars shared). The text reminder option is a godsend, and effectively runs my life for me now...I don't need it to sync it up with anything else..my phone is with me most of the time, so a well timed text makes sure that I have everything to hand.
It is slightly worrying that a large proportion of my online footprint is now within Google domain (blog, email, calendar, photos, videos, documents, maps), however;
1) Its free
2) Its reliable
3) Its secure (the issue I had when it was under my own control)
4) It just fucking works everywhere
Interesting thing on the new iPhone...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365347,00.html
American contracts are going up, and it's still tied to a single carrier (and still O2 in the UK), so the big expensive contracts will be going nowhere I guess...
It's been done before by Apple as well. This is just a re-branding (and slight extension) of .mac which has been around for years.
I've never been a subscriber; it just doesn't seem worth the money, given (as you say) you can get all the stuff it offers for a lot less elsewhere. On the other hand it's a bit short-sighted to call them a bunch of twats for offering a service you, personally, have no need for. Plenty of people do use, and like, the service, and there'd have been an outcry if they'd discontinued it.
It's also worth remembering that nothing google offers is a free service; you don't get to be that big, rich or successful a company by offering things for free. It's true that the contract you enter into with them doesn't involve financial outlay from you, but they do get things in return for the services they offer (targeted advertising, vast amounts of user-profiling and marketing data.) Those things might be things you're more willing to part with than cash, but they're not nothing, and personally I try to limit my use of google's services because their data gathering, tracking and correlation makes me at least as uneasy as any government ID card scheme. I'm not saying they're evil or that you shouldn't use them, I'm saying that there are (non-financial) costs involved, that should be considered.
As I mentioned in the other thread, details on the new UK iPhone contracts are out; they're more or less unchanged, except for the addition of a new, £30/mo one at the bottom end, which has so few minutes, no-one in their right mind would go for it.
Hmm. A friend who was following WWDC more closely than me (ie, at all) has suggested that third party iPhone apps won't have access to sync services, which is relevant in two ways:
1: It would mean that there won't be a google sync app.
2: It would mean that Apple are a bunch of twats.
I've just been having a look at how much screen real-estate is taken up by advertising on various google products;
GMail - about 6-7% when reading mail (sidebar),2% in the inbox
Calendar - none
Docs - none
Picasa - none
Blogger - none
Maps - varying, depending on search criteria
YouTube - varies, depending on channel, but upto 30% on branded channels
So Gmail is their biggest advert whore in the list, mainly with the targetted adverts when you open a mail. Most of their other services are advert-free (at the moment). YouTube is a bit weird, as some videos have no adverts at all, others have tonnes (mainly branded channels). The Marketing data is a moot point, as I more than suspect Apple (one of the most successful marketing companies on earth, you could say) will be collecting data on usage/users.
I see you've posted up since I worte this with a potential "feature" of the new iPhone...no comment here :-D
I don't think it's a moot point. I wasn't making a comparative point, and I wasn't trying to make mobileme sound more attractive (having already pointed out that I didn't think it was worth the money.)
My point was that by signing up to google's whole product suite you're pretty much consenting to everything you do with your computer being subject to scanning, logging, tracking and correlation by a largely unaccountable third party. I'd be nervous about that whoever it was, but right now, google are in a better position to gather, maintain and interpret that information than anyone (including most national governments.)
A lot of people are fine with that, and that's cool. Google's product line is certainly compelling, and it's hard to argue with the financial cost. It's also true that Apple also gather the same sort of information (hell, they probably have a data-sharing deal with google, given their relationship) All I'm saying is that it's not free.
Apple are a bunch of twats for offering a service that no-one needs. If you're already signed up to .mac, then fair enough but to rebrand it as this new thing that's going to be revolutionary.
As for Sync, I am not sure that's true. My iPod Touch already Syncs with GMail. For it to not Sync with other systems like Google Calendar would be just mental.
Eitherway, third party apps DO have access to the Push technology, where information is set to the device from the server, so I can only imagine that Google will write their own Mail/Calendar/Reader/Docs/Photos application using a gears-like system for offline reading. Write their own Sync services.
As for adverts, I appreciate that is sort of a cost but I'll just check to see if they've taken any cash from my wallet. No? No. Also, to have something against Google for data collection is a bit like having a go at Schools for using Computers: yes, they do it but as long as they stay within the legal guidelines, it's ok. Are you going to stop using your credit card or shopping in supermarkets? Or perhaps buying anything online? If you're worried about data collection, I'd stop doing all of those things.
Pity I can't afford an iPhone 3G because it's now at the sort of price/tech level I'd like to get one! :) This isn't really about the super 3G iPhone but about MobileMe.
If you want google integration there is android coming that would probably do it best of all.
Everyone and their uncle is making copys of the Iphone some of which look like they might well be better (though it's always hard to tell without the thing being more than a set of features and marketing blurb) one of them will do one with android I would imagine
I'm waiting for Android. It's going to be bloody marvellous and I won't have to jump through a firey hoop to develop for it.
On another note, the R&D director here at DT is one of the 4000 iPhone developers and he confirms that anyone can develop push applications, so anyone can make a Sync application.
Really, I think there's a few different things this is about.
Firstly it's about mobileme, which I think we're all in agreement is of no use to us. It's spending money for things we can get for free.
Secondly it's about me thinking you call people twats too easily. I'm not disputing that Apple's corporate policies are decidedly twatish on occasion (as are pretty much any big company's,) but we're talking about offering a service that people (albeit uninformed, non-technical people) want, for 100 bucks a year. I just don't see what you were so offended by; when I saw the announcement, I just filed it away with the gazillion other products in the world that I wouldn't pay for.
And thirdly, it's about people's perception of google services being free, which they are not. I'm don't want to get into an argument about whether that cost is better or worse than a financial one (because it's not measurable,) or even whether it's worth it (because it's subjective.) I was just making the point that it's there. Possibly it came across as more aggressive than I intended. I wasn't looking to get anyone's back up.
Well, if google can write a sync app then I'll be a happy man. Nothing would make me happier than a direct sync between my google calendar and my iPhone (rather than going through two intermediary steps, as I have to now.)
Google already have a pretty good iPhone web-interface, but it has no provision to edit events, which just doesn't cut it for me.
I'm offended that Apple are charging for a service that should be free. It's like selling bottled air. It's already free elsewhere in so many guises, charging for it is twattish.
I've not paid any cash for Google services. That makes it free in my book:
Every single service I use (water, electricity, TV, phone, mobile, AA, Sainsburies, Nectar, Tesco, Asda, Amazon, Play, Overclockers, HMV, Zavvi, LloydsTSB, First Direct, HSBC, HM Government...) collects data and makes use of that data. All of them do. Even Sweeney Todd's Pie shop will be collecting data on what pies sell well and which do not. I had the 30th Anniversary Today and no doubt that will be counted somewhere.
It's a cost of doing business, all business, any business
You can then quite rightly state that NOTHING IS FREE. Nothing at all. A man gives you a £5 note in the street. That's not free. You've had to stop and receive it. That time could have been spent generating revenue. It's not. Stopping for a few seconds to collect the £5 is the cost of doing business.
So, nothing is free. We can't use the word anymore, it's deprecated and outmoded. Cost is hidden everywhere. By your reasoning no service is ever free. However, every business incurs this cost of data collection. So, it's sort of a modern world offset that everything incurs. If it is such then why include it as a cost at all? There's no point mentioning analytics and data collection because it is a ubiquitous facet of the modern world. When we say free, we talk about not requiring currency, any offset costs have to ignored or we'd spend our lives counting minutae.
My back's not up, I'm cool with a discussion on this. I've strengthened the big points for those who wish to skim read (not you) and come up with a half-arsed reply that will inevitably be off topic. I'm not shouting or anything. ;-)
OK - so it's true that everything in mobileme is available for free from other sources, but to get it, you have to sign up to half a dozen different services, having evaluated what's available, then figure out how to set up synchronisation with the various software packages on your machine (which is never as straightforward as you might like) before you even get started. Sure, for you and I, that's not hard and probably even qualifies as fun, but there's a lot of people out there (and remember, we're talking about Mac users,) for whom 50 quid a year sounds like a bargain to not have to bother. They sign up with one username, which is also their email address and everything just works; their photos automatically sync from iPhoto, their contacts from their apple address book, and their email details from Apple Mail. They can even one-click publish a web-photo-album from iPhoto. As for charging for it, it took time and money to develop that nice user experience, and there's infrastructure required to support the it. I don't begrudge them making some money back on it, if people think it's worth the cost. Maybe I'm too forgiving.
As for the definition of 'free.' I guess we'll have to disagree. Personally, if I'm giving up something that is of value to me (in this case my privacy,) in exchange for something, then I don't consider that something to be free irrespective of financial transfer. I guess that if what you're giving up is not of value to you - or you don't feel you're giving it up - your conclusion might be different.
I'm not disputing that all business involves gathering data, or that a lot of the companies and services I use do so. Most of that data (such as pie sales) is non-personal; it tells no-one anything about me to know which is Sweeny's most popular pie, some of it can be tied to me and is used in customer profiling and targeted advertising - there's also the risk that that data can be stolen and used in even less palatable ways. It's another cost of living in the modern world, and just like with the financial cost, you have to evaluate whether that cost is acceptable to you for the service you're getting. Google gather a fairly unprecedented amount and depth of information about people, which, personally, I feel is a fairly high cost. Conversely, they offer some great services, and I can see why people are prepared to exchange data about themselves for them, especially in the absence of any more concrete cost; I'm certainly not saying that it's definitely a bad deal. Just that it is a deal; not an unqualified freebie.
Odd, you're forgiving of Apple for charging creating a technoidiocy charge but not of the rest of the world for taking away your privacy. How strange.
I don't think he is. Reads to me that he's making the choice as to what he finds worth spending on for the convenience it returns.
£50 vs some privacy for streamlined syncronisation.
Both are valid choices depending on your opinion of what's worth more. The other option is to do neither and retain your £50 and your privacy.
I would bet money that apple are doing exactly the same inforaping that anyone else would do with this package all your data is flowing through their servers and is being indexed with anything else they happen to know about you like your Itunes and what things you've looked at on their websites the content of any non encrypted emails details of your photos etc etc. You're just paying them money for the privilege.
I had a long clever reply to Baron but EMW said it better. And shorter.
What he said.
That doesn't change my point that it comes down to what you you're prepared to pay for the service.
£50 + inforaping vs inforaping makes the decision easier between the two.
/agree Baron
That's exactly what I was trying to say.
Ok, so given that every transaction in your life is:
Gas + inforaping
Electricity + inforaping
Paying taxes + inforaping
TV + inforaping
Car insurance + inforaping
Banking + inforaping
House insurance + inforaping
Weekly shopping + inforaping
Shopping online + inforaping
Buying new tech + inforaping
Arranging mortgage + inforaping
Living in the UK + inforaping
Is it really worth mentioning inforaping anymore?
Woot when people ask me what I do for a living can I tell them I'm a professional inforapper?
I'm proud of you guys. I haven't said a single word against Apple in this one, and yet you've come to the conclusion that they (and pretty much every other company in the world) forcibly fuck everyone (probably anally, and without lube), with the added bonus that Apple nick your wallet afterwards.
You've all come so far... *sniff* I feel I've taught you all so well.
Also, Dwain is apparently an info-rapper, which sounds both awesome and geeky at the same time...is that a bit like Eminem doing binary or something?
Inforapper, excellent! Dwain, you are an inforapper.
Pete, it's just mobileMe. That's all. Apple make FABULOUS PRODUCTS!. I love my iPod Touch and if I could afford the 3G iPhone (16G, Aggro, is a fine choice), I'd be down there like a shot. It's by far the best handheld device. I've seen OpenGL 3D on it now and it is a great deal more powerful than the PSP. I can well imagine playing games on it. A simply awesome machine.
You should hear my Sun/Microsoft/Mozilla/Linux vitriol.
Well, no its not really. It's their insistance on creating walled gardens with hardware/software/services.
Case in point. Gill has recently bought a new mp3 player...she wanted something;
1) Cheap
2) Robust
3) Small
No.1 immediately precludes a new iPod (which she currently as, old generation thing, and not suitable for the gym). After fiddling with my Zen Stone she decided that it would be fine for what she needed. They are cheap, easy to use, and come with a number of exercise-friendly accessories (armband being the main one). As an added bonus you can get it in shocking pink :-(
...tries to upload music from her PC, and of course everything bought from the iTunes store won't work on it, as its got Apple-only DRM (Freeplay, which Apple have been extremely reticent to give out to other companies, which sort of means that the "free" bit is mainly a lie). The main way round this is to burn the music off to CD, then re-rip it...hows that for user-friendly? Music that someone has legally bought, yet has to jump through hoops to use how they want...
...and don't give me any bullshit about "its not Apples fault, they have to use DRM"...there are plenty of more open DRM mechanisms out there that are cross-platform, or they could open up their DRM to other manufacturers. Apple insist on using just theirs, and thus forcing users to use Apples products.
So I don't really care if Apple can make diamonds from my shit (probably not, but they may well be able to encase it in white plastic). Until they get over their insistance on ringfencing their hardware with their software and their services, thus shoe-horning people into doing it their way or no way, they can go fuck themselves (which they probably do every night anyway).
...while I'm at it, Microsoft and Hotmail is just as bad. You can't use POP3, so once you've been tricked into using their service, its a bloody nightmare to swap out to a better service. Makes me glad I took up the trick of using a forwarder years ago when I started using email, rather than go directly to the account.
Is it really worth mentioning inforaping anymore?
Yes, because, just like financial cost, different companies and different services incur varying levels of this cost. Google's is high. I'd contend higher than any other company in the same space (remember that google is, ultimately, one of the leading analytics companies in the world with an enormous number and breadth of data-collection vectors, who happen to use that expertise to do a sideline in web search and other services,) and certainly higher than, for example, running your own mailserver and keeping your calendar details on your own machine rather than someone else's.
And, to avoid any misinterpretation, this is not a criticism of google or of their customers. They have a business model. It works well for them, and for the millions of people who use their services. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that just like you pay a financial premium for using Apple hardware/software, you pay an informational one for using google web-services.
Personally, I think there are cases where both are a good deal - I use a fair amount of Apple hardware, and I use a fair amount of google's services - and cases where I'm less convinced.
remember that google is, ultimately, one of the leading analytics companies in the world with an enormous number and breadth of data-collection vectors, who happen to use that expertise to do a sideline in web search and other services
Hmm - on re-reading that, there might be a touch of hyperbole at work, but you get the point, I hope...
While I'm at it; Pete's highlighted another cost that services might incur; vendor-lock in. And just in case it sounds like I'm down on google and loving Apple, I'm going to agree with him. It's an area where Apple are simply appalling. It constantly pisses me off, and I use my Apple kit in spite of it, not even remotely because of it. I flat refuse to use the iTunes store out of principle (the DRM is easily removed, but I'm voting my wallet,) and I've been extremely critical of some of their policies with the iPhone (see this blog post, I wrote a while ago.)
What it comes down to is that as a technical person, I'm smart enough to (usually) avoid Apple's attempts to bind me to their systems. Most people aren't, so they fall for it. Not cool: a prime example of Apple twatitude.
Conversely, google are usually very good at interoperability, and letting you get your data back out of their systems again using nice, open standards that anyone can read.
Edit: Ahem... added the link.
Edit 2: But, as Rob says, it's hardly unique to Apple. Most companies will get you with vendor lock-in if they can. It's a question of figuring out when/where it's too pervasive to avoid, and where it's worth it for the service in question.
@Aggro... Personally, I think there are cases where both are a good deal - I use a fair amount of Apple hardware, and I use a fair amount of google's services - and cases where I'm less convinced.
Dont' say that, I can't argue with that. ;-)
Now for Pete, who's emotion is getting the better of him...
...and don't give me any bullshit about "its not Apples fault, they have to use DRM".
No, they made a deal and took a choice. That deal and that choice allowed a very quick opening up of legal digital downloads for others to follow. That was 5 years ago and billions of downloads back. They're not an open source company, but neither is Creative (who are royal cunts, by the way and I don't see you VETOing them), nor is Microsoft, nor Sun, Google, etc etc.
As much as I think DRM is essentially flawed, you can't have a go at them for trying to bring a product to market without having their arses sued off them. They were the first big boys to do it and it was brave.
Until they get over their insistance on ringfencing their hardware with their software and their services, thus shoe-horning people into doing it their way or no way, they can go fuck themselves (which they probably do every night anyway).
Are you going to get rid of Microsoft products? Perhaps sell the Wii? Never buy a PS3 or XBox 360? You've gone a bit over the top here, you're accusing Apple of things every company is guilty of. Are you going to not use any technology at all? The Sony PSP is another good example of something that should have been more open and generic. But you bought one.
I don't like vendor lock in either and Apple is bad but so is every other company so avoiding apple because of it is mental.
There is a world and a half of difference between a games console and an mp3 player.
1) Games are sold as "for the Xbox/Wii/PS3". Its right there on the box. They are open and honest about it. Its ultimately upto the developer which platform the game is available on. Music is not branded as "exclusively for the iPod!". I don't think bands are that stupid...
There is also the technical consideration...consoles contain different hardware, and developing a game for 1 is a different workload to developing for another. A musician, however, does not have to record multiple tracks to be compatible with multiple music players. Shockingly bad comparison you've given there...
2) The Creative Zen Stone has no DRM at all...none. Zip. Zilch. You don't even need special software to upload music to it. It uses a completely open standard, that of USB mass storage. I bought it for that very reason.
3) Apple could either;
a) Open up Freeplay for other companies to use
b) Use a more open source DRM system themselves
c) offer conversion from their DRM to another more open one (Sony did this with ATRAC within SonicStage)
However they persist in using one that only they use, and shockingly only they sell. Once you've bought from the iTunes store, in effect you are shoehorned into using them, unless you want to lose your legally bought music, or go through the rigamarole of removing the Apple-exclusive DRM from the music you bought for your personal use.
4) The PSP uses MP3 as a music format, and mp4 as a video format. UMD was offered as a film format to anyone who wanted it, its just that it turns out not many people did...thats the way with a lot of Sonys proprietary data formats...in fact it looks like they may have finally got their first win ever with Blu-Ray. For console games see above.
5) I use Microsoft as there is pretty much no alternative. Apple is bollocks for gaming, and their hardware is utterly overpriced for it. Linux is not a viable alternative. Give me a viable other option and I will consider it...
Apple is like one big fly-trap...you're pulled in by the sparkly things, and before you realise you can't change service provider, or risk losing out. And thats shit.
1) Why not have open format for games like they do for music? Most of the work is in art and content, not engine. Sorry, you're wrong. If it was that much work then games companies would never be able to afford to release anything.
2) Does the Zen Stone have its own music downloading service? No. If they did, they'd have some sort of DRM for you to hate.
4) The PSP is a generic processing device and could have been very much more but Sony decided to lock it down. You can see this by typing 'Hack PSP' into Google.
So, you're only gripe is Apple's DRM and iTunes. Sounds a bit OTT for hating an entire company. A company that built an OS on Linux. A company that's more than a year ahead of other device makers. It's remarkably short sighted. A better view would be to buy a 3G Iphone 2, jailbrake it and do with it as you please. Most of my bought music is from Play. I burn it and upload same as you. So, hate the whole company because of iTunes? COME ON! You must be kidding, mate.
You just seem very selective about what you think is reasonable and what is not. It's not well reasoned, it's an Apple hate machine that is spun around a very small part of their business. You don't seem to hate others in equal amounts:
There's just three. MS have a whole library of evil things they've done, including Windows ME.
Admit it, they're all as bad as each other and shunning one for something they're all guilty of is not very logical. It's myopic company hate.
Ok, I was a bit harsh back there, sorry about that. I'm surprised at the lack of cold-light-of-day thinking when it comes to Apple.
Most of the work in games is the engine, the fact is that most of the companies use middleware to skip this very complex step and not incure the cost and risk of developing their own engine.
I also hate Apple for promoting a "better than you" elitist culture. I also detest Apple for selling overpriced, over-hyped hardware. I find them vile for assuming how I want to use a product, and then locking me into that choice. I detest Apple for simple design choices such as integrated batteries in large, expensive items, rather than replaceable ones. As an added bonus I find their forced link-in to services repugnant. Its the complete package.
On top of that, the iPhone is simply too large for me to actually consider buying. It's utterly over-designed for a phone. Ditto the iTouch... I'd rather have a phone that can easily do texts and calls, and an mp3 player that plays music. I have both here on my desk, for a fraction of the price, half the overall size and weight, and with the added bonus that both are robust as fuck.
Should consoles go down the universal build? Probably yes, however it has its own inherent issues that eventually lead to the PC market, where all hardware is different, trying to run the same games. Developers like consoles as its a standard platform. I'd love to see a game you can pick up off the shelf that will work equally well in all consoles, however ultimately that would mean that all new consoles either release at the same time, or have upgradeable sections, thus removing one of the main benefits of them...
The PSP is a games console, same as any other, and ultimately meets the same rules. You can go and unlock any hardware you want (I believe that the xBox can also be unlocked).
So the Stone not being linked into a proprietary music store is bad? Oh noes...I shall have to go and use one of the many other stores that exist other than iTunes that uses the WMA format. I think that probably counts as fredom of choice!
I'm surprised at the lack of cold-light-of-day thinking when it comes to Apple.
Its OK Rob, its not your fault...I think its something Apple put in the shiny plastic coating...
Your raking through a whole load of stuff there, cowboy!
iPhone 3G is not just a phone and if you think it is, you're missing the point. Odd, for a technophile. Why carry 6 or 7 gadgets around?
iPhone 3G = Mobile Internet + Phone + Games Console + MP3 Player + movie player + portable applications player. In one device.
Think of all the shit you have to carry without it. A laptop, a PSP (if your laptop is like mine and really old), a phone, an mp3 player. etc etc etc. All the stuff that goes with it, power leads for X devices, chargers, batteries etc. Separate games, DVDs. It goes on. Not for me. 1 cable, 1 pod, 1 charger for overnight.
You need a phone. You got a phone. You need an MP3 player. You got one. That doesn't mean the iPhone is overpriced, it just means you don't need it. There's a difference there. If you needed online access from anywhere, if you needed GPS, if you needed locational services, if you needed your email on the go, if you needed to watch video podcasts easily or BBC iplayer on the go, if you needed to keep notes and play games and so on. You don't. I do.
When looking at the device, you need to judge its price on all the things it can do, not just what you need. If purchasing then you need to way it up but you can't just give a blanket 'too big, overpriced' when you don't use the extra functions.
Other points conceeded (elitist, integrated batteries, Stone store, Consoles, PSP).
I think the open console idea is a dead end it just leads to the PC, the whole point of a console is it has fixed hardware. This means any game past or future written for it will work, and companies can optimise for the hardware knowing that every machine will be the same.
If you change that, as several people have suggested in the past Denis Dyak of silicon knights is the last person I remember public advocating this line, you end up with compatibility problems.
In theory you should be able to pick up any pc game and it would just run on the machine as it is an open defined universal platform (more or less). In practice it doesn't work that way some machines have better hardware than others, so games that take advantage of that won't work on lesser machines or machine that lack some newer more fancy bit of hardware that is new like say physics accelerators or even back in the day 3d accelerators.
Plus even within a rigorous spec there is more than one way to skin a cat, look at PC graphics cards back in the day when there were more companies than nvidia and ati there were no end of issues with people doing things slightly differently on their card causing games not to work, have hideous artefacts, or require work arounds. Nowadays since everyone designs either to nvidia or ati it's less of an issue but it still pops up now and again with a game that runs horribly on one of the two hardware lines.
I don't think we'll ever see a universal console for the reasons above and also monetary reasons they cost an awful lot to develop and what is the incentive if everyone and their uncle can make one. Most of the hardware vendors make their money off the games (with nintendo being the exception) if there is no platform lock in there is no licence money to the hardware vendors so they have no reason for subsidise the hardware, cost goes up and then you are back to a pc again where building something decent sets you back a grand or so.
@pete LOL, nice.
"iPhone 3G = Mobile Internet + Phone + Games Console + MP3 Player + movie player + portable applications player. In one device."
Integration isn't always a good idea it can lumber you with a substandard version of what ever it is you want plus it makes the integrated device bigger more cumbersome and lower battery life etc. Like camera phones they are totally rubbish compared to the real thing.
In that list above I can see phone and internet fine maybe mp3 player but games console is going a bit far it can't compare with a dedicated portable console like a psp or ds, and as a movie player it's passable but the screen is really too small for anything other than casual use (at least for my mind maybe other people can get by on a tiny screen)
I don't think it's a replacement for all and sundry of portable devices it does a few things well but the rest it can't compete with a dedicated device.
So its not really a phone, is it? So don't market it as one. Its a PDA.
Agreed I don't need 95% of the features of one, and probably never will (and I'd question the sanity of anyone who needed to watch video podcasts).
While I'm a techhy geek, I also believe quite strongly in suitability for purpose. I see the iPhone and iPod as not suitable for purpose. I don't see most Apple products as suitable for purpose...
I think the plan for the rest of this thread is I'll say something, and simultaneously EMW will say the same thing in far more detail :-D
I think the plan for this thread is for pete to talk about a key point or idea then I will post almost synchronously on that same topic though being more loquacious and in greater depth. This exploring the same intellectual ground in a less concise manner over several sentences.
While you're gobbling each other's knobs, I'll carry on, shall I? I'll conceed the point on gaming.
So, moving away from the iPhone in general and now onto portable computing.
As for the definition of phone, it's changing. It's now a multimedia device. I watch all sorts of video on my iPod, episode of West Wing, Yes Minister, feature films and yes video podcasts. Like short news items on pop culture, oddities or even actual news. Ever seen boing boing TV? Ever wonder if you're actually being left behind? Most phones out now play MP3s and have a camera. Also, you may have noticed, they don't require a line to a telegraph pole. Alexander Graham Bell would be disappointed that you call the thing you carry a 'phone'.
It's absolutely suitable for purpose, making calls and integrating a load of devices together. Cameras aren't the best, true but there are times when you want a quick snap of something and not have to lug the camera around like Hawkins. As for gaming machine, time will tell.
Phones are not changing definition...people are just cramming useless shit on them. As Matt rightly points out it puts additional strain on the battery (a key area where advances have not kept apace with processor developments), and as I've already pointed out, you can't do much with that battery in Apple-world.
My phone has a camera and plays mp3's. I use neither feature as they are sub-standard, and I have (in the case of the camera I own much older) gadgets that do a far superior job. I would much rather spend a sensible amount of money on a dedicated item to do a job properly, rather than a large amount of money on something that does it badly.
PDA's have been capable of much that the iPhone can do for years. I had a shitty little second-hand PDA which could;
1) Play games
2) Display video
3) Bluetooth to a phone for online connectivity
4) Touch-screen/note taking/handwriting recognition
I bought it as I thought it would be all cool and useful, but its not really. I've had a PSP, and used it for travelling with to entertain me on trains. Turns out watching films on a small screen with headphones on isn't great.
Writing notes on a small screen isn't that great...its slow and tedious. If I have to take notes on something I'd far rather take the hit of taking a laptop, and live with the weight gain for a full-size keyboard and a screen thats not going to strain my eyes. Either that or I'll take an analogue solution (which is how I still work in meetings).
To quote Ian Malcolm "Just because you could, it doesn't mean you should". As Matt has already pointed out the convergence of existing tech in the iPhone leaves you with an overweight item, poor battery life (and once again no option to replace that limited charge-cycle item), with a feature list that is of no use for most people. I don't subscribe to the concept that "if I have it I might use it". I buy something that I have need for.
I'm completely un-worried that I'm being left behind. I don't have a "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude. Why the hell would I want to turn my life into an arms race?
LOL, the fact you think old PDAs do the same as iPhones is funny. Didn't think your old PDA had 3G, nor GPS. Spore is being released onto the iPhone. That in itself is extraordinary. It doesn't do any of its functions badly, not as well as dedicated devices, sure but not badly. That's overstating the case.
It's not keeping up with the Joneses, it's taking an active interest in all the technological world has to offer. It's relentless but it's not a race.
When I say "being left behind", it's more a philosophy of thought. Incapable of accepting that you don't need 10 devices when one might do the job adequately. A CARRIAGE WITHOUT A HORSE? Unable to see that the next step for 'phones' is actually VOIP. Being left behind because you've set yourself in a certain mode of thought and it's not going to change. You don't seem to see the benefits, the possibilities of opening up this new technology. GPS+Fast Mobile Internet, is that not even remoting fascinating?
The thing with having separate devices is you can leave the ones you don't want at home, with an integrated device you have to lug the whole thing with you and live with the compromises of the design.
Take camera phones, they use the cheapest sensor lack the fairly sophisticated processing systems that a modern digicam use they and just to make matters worse they have really crap optics. Even a cheap nasty digicam is better than an equivalent camera phone and probably always will be.
Most of the mp3 players in phones suffer from the some same issues they use fairly lousy audio circuitry, in this case since the iphone is a dedicated mp3 device I would imagine it's not bad but almost all the others are not worth bothering with, cheap generic mp3 player like the little one byrnie had on our world trip will kick the arse of any mp3 player phone on the market.
I like having a phone that is small as possible since I carry it everywhere so small and dedicated is optimal if I want internet or what ever I take a camera or a laptop or what ever.
You've got a point there.
What about having a device that can connect everything with GPS and the internet? Don't you find that intriguing? The possibilities!
Pete, on keeping up with the Joneses: 2 x GeForce 7800 GT? ;-) (kidding)
If I needed a GPS I would have gotten one years ago. Its not new tech...its just Apple shoehorning existing features into one item.
I don't need 10 items...full stop. I certainly don't need one item that does all 10 featues sub-par.
GPS+Fast Mobile Internet, is that not even remoting fascinating?
umm...no? I'm quite aware I spend too much time online as it is...I quite enjoy heading to the gym and know that I am completely uncontactable. I'm well known for keeping my phone on silent, and picking up the messages and missed calls a couple of days afterwards. I have no desire to be online and contactable constantly.
Also, its not new...there have been 3G phones with GPS for a while now. Nothing Apple have done is new...they are just shoe-horning existing stuff into a single, over-engineered, clumbersome object. Jack-of-all-trades, master of none.
Ok, all points well made.
I argue purely for selfish reasons. I want to challenge my established ideas on things and the best way to do that is find someone who will challenge it.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion all! :-)