General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2210876



    by vulpinemac ·

    article root

All Comments

  • Author
    • #2843645

      And yet again I will argue that point…

      by vulpinemac ·

      In reply to Sorry

      Because the Palm Treo was more like the Blackberry than the current iteration of smart phones. Worse, the screen was not touch-centric but rather stylus-specific, unless you had decent fingernails.

      I’ll also argue that no model of iPhone has been bad as a phone, though Antennagate got a lot of media hype. While I admit I never owned an iPhone 1, my 3G (the second generation) had far fewer dropped calls than any cell phone I’d owned previously short of my first bag phone from nearly 20 years ago. Antennagate was grossly overblown because even Consumer Reports listed the iPhone4 as the best on the market with reception and call quality despite the fact that it could be forced to lose signal strength if held a certain way. Quite honestly, an antenna on the outside of the case is far more sensitive to signal than one hidden inside the case.

      Also, Apple has never been claimed to be the first with any one product type, but Apple has almost always been the first to make it popular to the general public. Why?
      I’ll tell you. Because Apple does the research and testing to make sure it works right and is easy to use before they release it. Why did the PDA fail in only 10 years? Because as intelligent as the idea was, the execution was too computer-like; it wasn’t simple and intuitive. Why do you hear almost nothing about netbooks today? Because it filled a perceived gap in the computing environment but the current style of tablets fills that gap better. I acknowledge that Apple wasn’t first (though the Newton did precede the Palm and Handspring PDAs) but Apple made the concept work better than any other existing product. Yes, RIM’s Blackberry is technically better, but even the people I know who have them hated how they had to use it. One of those users bought an Android with a slide-out keyboard and loved the convenience, but after nearly two years she’s quite adamantly opposed to the poor quality of the device itself (a Motorola, even) and has expressed her desire to revert to Blackberry.

      And that brings up my own personal gripe about Android phones–not the OS itself, though it is more technically oriented than it needs to be–but the quality of the hardware you find it on. You go to almost any carrier shop or place like Target and Walmart* and you’ll find 5 el-cheapo Android phones for every 1 quality phone. Based on customer satisfaction (even one of your own references if I remember correctly), most Android-branded phones are far below the iPhone in customer satisfaction and HTC is one of the worst at a mere 51% of its customers satisfied with their product.

      Apple may ‘copy’ others’ concepts, but Apple make it work right–which the others copy in return.

      • #2901134


        by yetanotherbob ·

        In reply to And yet again I will argue that point…

        So, does this mean that you agree with me that Apple is a successful marketer?

        Innovators do totally new things.

        Marketers make the new things available to masses of people. Palm did the innovation, Apple improved it a little, and marketed it a lot.

        I still see that as a net benefit for everyone, but the Android isn’t a iPhone clone, both are really just modified clones of the (Ultimatly unsuccessful) Palm.

        And win or lose, the soon coming Winphone will also contribut to the pool of available features. Eventually, even I will find a phone that is what I might think is the best of all possible. I don’t see such a phone yet, but the Android is the closest, to me.

        You appear to have reached the same, but for you that was an iPhone.

        I sincerely hope that both will look hopelessly inadequate in ten years time.

Viewing 0 reply threads