topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Thursday June 26, 2025, 2:29 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 106next
1026
Living Room / Re: Can we compare file transfer protocols?
« Last post by JavaJones on December 13, 2010, 08:06 PM »
Are you willing to pay for a solution? If so, then virtually "perfect" options exist in e.g. Dropbox (commercial), Sugarsync, or one of the many other multi-sync/backup solutions. Many of them do pretty much exactly what you're describing, in a seamless, easily setup, easily updated way, that generally handles conflicts and autoupdates well. No other system I'm aware of is going to be as seamless as that. That's probably why they can charge for their quality of service. ;)

- Oshyan
1027
Well said Darwin! For me it's nothing to do with a "team" or cheering for a particular product or anything remotely like that. I would be happy to leave Apple and their products and customers alone if they'd do the same. But they, their customers, and the press seem to like to talk a lot about how great they are, and when there's a lot of talk about something being the bee's knees that I don't think is even really the bee's anus, I feel compelled to speak up. ;)

It's a basic fairness drive I think; I see it as "unfair" that Apple gets this "free pass" as Darwin put it, while other companies do things that are arguably equally as good, or better, but don't get nearly the level of coverage and respect.

Meanwhile the principles that Apple is supposedly built on are violated constantly by Apple themselves when it suits them. Yes, ease of use and design are king, except when rights management, selling of accessories, or other business interests of Apple's take precedence. USB on iPad? Heck no, we need to sell these cable dongles! And that would be fine, after all pretty much any company puts profit first, what's galling about it is that Apple seems to maintain their "usability first" reputation despite repeated - and sometimes egregious - betrayals of that principle.

- Oshyan
1028
Living Room / Re: Can we compare file transfer protocols?
« Last post by JavaJones on December 12, 2010, 11:50 AM »
+15 for f0dder's comments. VPN is not a "file transfer protocol" per se, so you need to consider what you'd use along with it for file transfer, e.g. "Explorer", which as he pointed out is highly problematic for non-local data. rsync may not be the easiest thing to setup, but it's the most directly applicable to what *seems* to be your scenario (based on the few details provided thus far).

- Oshyan
1029
You're still really not getting it. You're still repeating "they get one that's the least headache for them", and I'm debating whether that's even really true. I guess it's "least headache" if A: your demands are extremely low (which in this hypothetical users case they may be, at least to start) and B: you are willing to accept the Apple way and all its limitations (which this hypothetical user is likely to be). The problem is that there are still issues, inconsistencies, *bugs*, which really do detract from the user experience. Many have been mentioned in this thread, but continually ignored. Why?

If you move files from one place to another and folders with the same names are overwritten without asking and without backup, can you really say this is OK, or that average users could never run into this? This is *still* a problem, or at least it was until very recently: http://www.mac-forum...lace-lost-files.html And this is only one example. Want another? How about the fact that the button on all windows that will often minimize/roll-up the window is a fricking + sign. This makes no damn sense, intuitively speaking. Not to mention the fact that it does different things depending on the app: http://www.davidalis...c-os-vs-windows.html So much for Apple's legendary UI consistency, right? Can you still say with a straight face that Macs are intuitive or "least headache"?

Ignoring the + button is a learned behavior to work around a UI issue. The same thing happens on Windows. Neither platform is currently genuinely superior. It's all about learned behaviors, what one is used to, and what values of a UI one prioritizes. I prioritize intuitiveness, functionality, customization, and power (not necessarily in that order). What do Mac users prioritize, and what do these issues of Mac UI design say about those priorities and how they're reflected in design decisions on Apple's part?

- Oshyan
1030
Announce Your Software/Service/Product / Re: Bitcoin
« Last post by JavaJones on December 11, 2010, 12:48 PM »
I heard about this project a few months back and it both fascinated and disturbed me. The system aspects are, as you say f0dder, fascinating. But what it says about our current monetary system (which I already knew, but which this system exemplifies by providing a somehow functional alternate system) is kind of uncomfortable. I was also really surprised to see how many people were participating and willing to, as others have said, use their computer cycles to "do no useful work". It did/does seem like a bit of a waste in some sense. But it's definitely an interesting "experiment" at least. I don't see it ever becoming practical and widespread, but I'm glad they're doing it!

- Oshyan
1031
Living Room / Re: Need Help Finding a Domain Name
« Last post by JavaJones on December 11, 2010, 12:39 PM »
For some reason morewaffle.com strikes me as brilliant. If I didn't have a self-imposed ban on buying more domain names that I don't have an immediate need for, I might just grab it. :D I think it's the multiple meanings (literal, figurative, etc.) that appeal to me somehow...

- Oshyan
1032
Living Room / Re: Fast Food: Ads vs. Reality
« Last post by JavaJones on December 10, 2010, 02:03 PM »
Oh I certainly don't expect honesty from "actors" in a system that assigns little or no value to it. Our economic system values profit and growth above virtually all else. The ends tend to justify the means. So yeah, of course advertisers are dishonest. I just don't like it. :D

- Oshyan
1033
Living Room / Re: Fast Food: Ads vs. Reality
« Last post by JavaJones on December 10, 2010, 01:19 AM »
Fair point. But I personally *am* often disappointed at the disparity between what's depicted and reality. Because even if I know what I like (or think I do), I don't have fast food nearly often enough to keep a proper memory of what it's really like, and I do order based on the menu and pictures. I don't believe that I'll get what's pictured, yet I still have to use the pictures to judge! Not to mention that most fast food places don't list all ingredients (e.g. pickles, mustard, ketchup, onions) that I may not like, so I have to judge by the pictures. :P

I guess what bothers me really is that the picture doesn't just suggest an aesthetic quality, it also *suggests* better product and, hence, beter taste. Thing about the lettuce even in those photos. It looks like good lettuce! What you usually get are a few shreds of iceberg lettude, maybe a pale tomato with a little white/green at its center, etc. The picture suggests it will taste better than it does. Like I said above, I guess if you eat fast food more than I your idea of the reality of what you're getting is a bit more clear. Me I know I'm going to be disappointed, I just don't know how much until I get the thing. ;)

- Oshyan
1034
Living Room / Re: Fast Food: Ads vs. Reality
« Last post by JavaJones on December 10, 2010, 01:09 AM »
I guess that's a matter of, er, taste. Hehe. Most of the fast food I've ever enjoyed has been discontinued or changed over the years (or maybe my taste has changed?).

- Oshyan
1035
I don't really see any "interesting questions" in that article, and I'm not sure on what basis one can yet decide what Mr. Assange "deserves". I do not suppose his motives are entirely virtuous, nor that Wikileaks may be a totally public-interest group. But neither have I seen much evidence to suggest otherwise, except broad and serious accusations with 0 details, much less proof, from someone who *founded and runs a competing site*. Let's not forget that anyone willing to do what these people are doing has to be, yes, dedicated, yes perhaps a bit fearless, but also quite often *a bit nuts*. The Cryptome guy certainly sounds so.

Assange deserves his day in court, and to be considered innocent until proven guilty (and let's remember the charges are not related whatsoever to the validity of the Wikileaks venture).

Wikileaks deserves to continue publishing information of significant interest to the public until and unless the good done by that starts to be outweighed by any negatives caused. So far there are little or no truly negative consequences that I'm aware of. None of the scare mongering predictions of governments worldwide have come to pass yet, that agents will be exposed and killed, that the leaks are "putting peoples lives at risk".

Wikileaks is showing that the people and organizations we have entrusted with maintaining the structure of our society and the sanctity of our lives and rights have abused that trust, time and again. *Those* people, those who have already demonstrated repeated, flagrant, and egregious abuse of trust must re-earn that trust. Their immediate protests fall on deaf ears for me, and until Wikileaks shows a similar disregard for the trust of the public and the power they hold in their hands, I'll continue to appreciate what they do.

- Oshyan
1036
Living Room / Re: DDOS Ethics
« Last post by JavaJones on December 09, 2010, 11:50 PM »
I gotta go with Stoic Joker here. It's hard to play "fair" with nasty people who really never were playing by the rules. They're *trying* to set the game up so that the other side - we the people - can't reasonably "win". If we play by their rules forever, they'll keep rewriting them until we're essentially units of consumer capital, existing simlpy to continue inflating wealth for an elite ruling class. Sure, this sounds extreme, but it's clearly the end result of where we're headed, if unchecked. And who, pray tell, is going to provide those "checks and balances"? And with what means and methods? Revolution! :D

- Oshyan
1037
Living Room / Re: Fast Food: Ads vs. Reality
« Last post by JavaJones on December 09, 2010, 11:37 PM »
I think it's debatable whether giving poor people even cheaper crap food is a public service, but it's definitely well intentioned, so that's good. :P

I find it very interesting that people have come to simply accept the drastic difference(s) between what they are promised and what is delivered. This happens all the time with marketing, not just with fast food (although it may be particularly bad there since the quality of food is lower, relatively speaking). If you think about it, in a way we're being "lied" to constantly, we live in a society where we're saturated with marketing, with promises that will never be lived up to. But we're all pretty much OK with that. You'd think we'd be freaking out or rioting or *something*... but we just quietly take our crappy burger that looks nothing like the picture, and eat it without a peep. We're numbed I tells ya!

- Oshyan
1038
Post New Requests Here / Re: IDEA: Movie Mode
« Last post by JavaJones on December 09, 2010, 11:12 PM »
Yeah, I figured the "always on top" bit would take care of the pop-ups. But fair enough. I guess a better way to say it is *I'd* find a more general version to be useful. But I don't want to hijack your request thread. :)

- Oshyan
1039
Hehe, glad my thoughts resonated with some of you. I'm particularly curious what people think of the idea that a certain level of positive "feel" (from things like UI, industrial design, aesthetics) can overcome potentially large negatives in *actual usability* (especially long-term and/or non-surface usability). I really feel like Apple's products *are* often easier to use *at first* but the longer you have and use them, the harder it gets because you want to do more and more stuff, or if you ever want to deviate from your usual pattern you're locked in. The iPhoto issue is a perfect example. And I think by that time people are maybe so used to Apple and the positive things about it, that even though negatives start showing up, their existing investment kind of biases their overall perception. Thoughts? Agree, disagree?

I mean the simple fact that we can point out a high number of flaws in *normal* - not high-tech, geeky, or advanced - usage scenarios says to me that there must be some kind of "cognative dissonance" going on here, eh?

- Oshyan
1040
It's not that treat users like idiots, it's more that Apple NEEDS to retain its closed system.  Without the closed system, Apple will not be able to do most of the things it does.

I continue to believe this is *not* the case and have yet to see compelling evidence to the contrary. Apple could, if they desired, provide the "best of both worlds". In some senses they do, with a BSD-based OS and a shiny GUI on top of it. But their consumer electronic devices are much less accessible than that, and they are where you actually see most of these restrictions. But they're *not* necessary to maintain the user experience or anything. Tell me, what value is there in renaming all audio files copied to an iPod to obscure file names with 0 useful info, and messing up the Id3 tags? How does that help the user, how is that necessary to make the iPod or iTunes experience better? It isn't. Just one example. There are tons.

In other words I think "Target" may be right on, er, target... :D

I also don't think that file management on Windows is any more "necessary" than on a Mac. What you're probably seeing is different levels of users, of user demand, and of productivity requirements. There are plenty of Windows users I know who don't organize their files, ever. They have messy computers. But I would argue actually that Windows users who don't bother with file management are inherently likely to have more easily accessible files, from an objective standpoint, than Mac users. At least on Windows there are good predetermined organizational structures that fit most people's basic needs (Docs, Pictures, Music, etc. and now on Win7 the handy Libraries). On a Mac almost *everyone* has a messy computer, even more "power users". Period. This is because, as others have said, the tools for organization are crap, and all the Mac apps try to organize data in their own proprietary way. iTunes wants your music where it wants it, same with iPhoto. Try to find your iPhoto photos with another photo app. Good luck. So as long as you're doing it Apple's way, yep, you're fine. But think about this: maybe the reason people *don't* do this stuff isn't just because they don't want to, but because Apple makes it *hard* to do so. One time installing an alternative photo management app and trying to find your iPhoto archive and finding out it's either impossibly lost, or none of your data transfers over, and you can bet you'll never try that again. And it gets ingrained in the culture, because all Mac users over time get trained to work this way and accept it as natural and teach others the same, until nobody expects anything different. It doesn't make it better and it doesn't mean it's necessary for the value that they do indeed provide (nice UI, ease of use, etc. - theoretically at least).

And yes, this is precisely because Apple think their way is best. Because of this attitude and the inherent laziness of most computer users, people - especially Mac users - tend not to bother with file management at all (and I'm not talking about advanced stuff here like changing OS files). This is why Apple can get away with issues like the "2+2=2" problem which, frankly, is inexcusable. Yes, few people actually use file management for anything but *finding* files on Mac (as opposed to *moving* files), but that doesn't mean they should experience unexplained data loss if they do! Apple's attitude sucks.

What keeps coming up in these threads is interesting for me though: almost everyone, whether Apple user or not, tends to equate Apple with "easy to use" and "pretty" and "nice UI", etc. But I wonder quite often whether that first aspect, "easy to use", is really true, or if perhaps there is some level of "shiny" that overcomes most people's ability to see unintuitiveness. Quite frankly I feel this really may be the case. In other words if a device has a sufficiently smooth, slick, *cool* UI, it will give the strong impression of being "intuitive" even if it is not, or is only partially so. In fact I have run into many concrete examples of this, certainly not just in Apple devices. There are many good examples already in this short thread about Apple specifically, and there are tons more I've come across. How can anyone say with a straight face that Apple's devices are "intuitive" given comments like Nosh's about simple file management and re-use? Sure, you could say that's an "advanced" use, but then you really need to be clear that Apple's products are "intuitive to a point" or "intuitive for easy stuff". Which I guess is great, but a lot less of an accomplishment. Basically we're back to the "most Apple users are idiots" thing - they do a good job of making things easy for people who know nothing and don't want to learn anything. Is that good? Maybe.

And then all you may be getting down to is: remove enough flexibility and function and it's easier to make things intuitive. If that's Apple's secret, then I'm not interested in knowing it. It's not revelatory, and not where I want to see computing going. Then again some classic wisdom of design says that removing all but the most vital elements is the way to the best design, so what do I know. Apple certainly has that down to an art. Everything they do handles a narrow problem set with a high degree of polish, and then you hit a wall. Just pray you fall within that narrow problem set that the system is designed for and that you *never grow beyon it*.

- Oshyan
1041
Living Room / Re: Unbelievable 3D Holograph (on 2D surface) from Zebra Imaging
« Last post by JavaJones on December 09, 2010, 02:22 AM »
Saw these a few weeks back. Blew my mind. I want some!

- Oshyan
1042
Post New Requests Here / Re: IDEA: Movie Mode
« Last post by JavaJones on December 09, 2010, 02:17 AM »
Would it not be easier to have something that mutes all apps but the foreground one (movie player) and is "always on top"? Seems that might also be fairly easy to code and more generally useful.

- Oshyan
1043
Post New Requests Here / Re: IDEA: Detect and warn when any key is stuck
« Last post by JavaJones on December 07, 2010, 02:13 AM »
Actually I have this problem crop up occasionally with several keyboards on several different systems, desktop and laptop alike. I don't know that it's actually hardware-related, or if it is it's potentially widespread and certainly intermittent. So I too might find such a utility to be useful.

- Oshyan
1044
Living Room / Re: A NAS server for my home
« Last post by JavaJones on December 06, 2010, 06:42 PM »
No specific product recommendations from me, but a few warnings. 1: I've had bad luck with Seagate external drives, but good luck with Western Digital. 2: Bad luck with a Lacie RAID-in-a-box device. Multiple drive failure, poor support.

Just my 2 cents, anecdotal evidence at best.

- Oshyan
1045
Developer's Corner / Re: How to program for all 3 platforms at once
« Last post by JavaJones on December 05, 2010, 05:39 PM »
It sounds like one of the languages commonly used in web development (PHP, Python, etc.) would be appropriate for your needs, but note that this then requires either A: a web server to run the app installed on the user's system (you could bundle your own server if you want, but this would certainly need to be optional and lightweight) or B: running the app off a remote server that you host.

If you want something compiled natively for each platform, not running in a web browser, I think going the route of straight C/C++ and using a cross-platform UI library like Qt might be best. It depends also on which languages you do already know...

- Oshyan
1046
Living Room / Re: Five Reasons Why People Hate Apple
« Last post by JavaJones on December 02, 2010, 04:59 PM »
Sorry, but no, I'm specifically *not* talking about knowledgeable computer users here. I am talking about people who, for example, plug their iPod into a friend's computer, maybe thinking (not entirely unreasonably) that they can have some of their friend's music (issues of copyright aside!). If it then syncs and wipes out their music, well that is *not cool* and *not intuitive*. No maybe it *does* properly warn them, I don't know I've never run into this, but it's still a pretty wretched practice. Likewise with the completely unnecessary renaming of files by iTunes. Every other media system seems to do fine with the built-in tags of most media files. iTunes, on the other hand, wants to do it in its own proprietary database, subject to corruption, hard to transfer, and certainly near impossible to export to another media system should you ever want to migrate. Of course this is just one of the ways they use to keep people locked-in, but I think it's pretty hard to argue this as a benefit to the consumer, it's clearly done almost solely - if not solely - for lock-in purposes.

And yes I agree things at Apple are getting a bit more complicated. :D Soon they may reach the limit of what they can do within the bounds of their market's knowledge level and their ability to and/or interest in handling support, etc. Hm... Maybe there's an inherent "stupidity level" beyond which Apple will have a hard time growing its features and functionality. Interesting thought.

- Oshyan
1047
General Software Discussion / Re: Fastest Audio Converter
« Last post by JavaJones on December 02, 2010, 04:27 PM »
BonkEnc? http://www.bonkenc.org/
Personally *quality* is more important than raw speed for me, but I guess when you're converting from one lossy format to another it may not be the primary concern as much is already lost.

- Oshyan
1048
Living Room / Re: Five Reasons Why People Hate Apple
« Last post by JavaJones on December 02, 2010, 04:25 PM »
See, look at these last 8 posts or so. HOW is this considered intuitive, problem-free, etc? Are these problems that only people trying to do "weird" stuff run into? Not necessarily! And none of these things are *necessary* for maintaining the integrity of the Apple ecosystem, they're only necessary if you want to exercise fanatical control. It's hard for me to believe that people swallow the Apple line of "simpler, better" given issues like these that I hear about *all the time*...

- Oshyan
1049
Living Room / Re: Five Reasons Why People Hate Apple
« Last post by JavaJones on December 01, 2010, 06:55 PM »
I honestly don't think it's actually that hard to do this though - to leap frog Apple and everyone else. It just takes either A: picking a device category that no one has really made *the* device for yet or B: figuring out a pretty major innovation or other differentiator in an existing category.

One real-world example of this might just be Microsoft's Kinect, actually. They are apparently doing really well in sales right now, and this despite the fact that the current software line-up for it is not that great. They have at least one "killer app" (the dance game), some actually rather nice and innovative hardware that looks decent, and a good existing ecosystem (Xbox). Granted Nintendo did *similar* stuff already, and Sony likewise just debuted theirs (and it's doing alright as well), so maybe it's not quite a good example, but it's close, as close as MS has had since the debut of the XB360 itself.

Another random idea might be to revolutionize the home oven or even the refrigerator. Totally outside of the realm that Apple and most other device manufacturers are in right now, but if you make either one of them more like a computer, their expertise come to bear. Imagine an oven with recipes built-in, Internet connectivity for updates of course (and remote start/stop if you want), a nice easily cleaned touch screen, built-in internal temp sensors (wireless, just press into your roast and the oven detects it), self-cleaning, etc, etc. None of this is particularly difficult or high-tech for the computer industry, but if any such oven does exist today, it probably costs $5000 or more. Ridiculous. A PC manufacturer ought to be able to do something like that, say based on Android, for maybe a $500 premium on the base oven cost, $1000 at most. This is really just a random idea, so it might be silly or impractical, but it just shows that there are plenty of unfulfilled tech needs that might not be *that* hard to tackle.

But let's consider a more normal, perhaps more realistic possible example. Remember this is off the top of my head so it's not likely to be a genuinely *great* idea, but hopefully it illustrates that even with a minimum of real thought you can come up with possible ways to really differentiate a product, *provided* you're willing to spend the time and money and focus in the right areas, primarily user experience (which encompasses industrial design).

Let's say you wanted to revolutionize the desktop computer space, something that really hasn't been done yet (even by Apple), and especially not in the PC market. OK, so how do we do that. What do modern consumers (who aren't already Apple customers) want in such a device? Well, they want good hardware (easy), nice design (slightly harder, but still easy - just hire Lian Li's people :D), an operating system that works with the majority of software out there, they want a well-setup and intuitive user interface with a good suite of existing and functional tools (e.g. iLife and/or iWorks), and they want good user input functionality, plus great connectivity with all their other devices, the Internet, etc.

Now how many of those are already covered by one or more existing vendors? Good hardware? Yep, plenty of that out there. Good industrial design? Less so, but there are some pretty nice all-in-one or small form factor machines coming around from PC manufacturers, not to mention the obvious Apple iMac and Mac Mini systems. Operating system? Win7 and OSX are both decent, with their own sets of quirks, etc. Windows is more broadly compatible. User Interface? Here's where it starts to get less clear. Many people would argue OSX is a better, more seamless UI than Win7. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, but if nothing else OS X is out because Apple won't sub-license it. So we're left with Win7, which is not so bad (or Linux, but that's out for compatibility reasons for now).

I think something most of us would agree on is that Win7 is not necessarily setup out-of-the-box for the best user experience, so it could do with some expert tweaking of settings. Simply *not* installing a bunch of trialware/adware/crapware is a huge step up from many PC manufacturers these days too, but we're still nowhere near revolutionary territory. How about nice alternative shells and/or themes? Could be some real value there, depending on how they're configured. How about a carefully selected and/or customized suite of software, freeware, open source, and even commercial, to handle all your computing needs, e.g. a highly capable and easy to use (simple) media player, music player, music store, etc, etc, etc? Pick things based on merit alone, not marketing deals and payola. How about pre-installed, pre-configured, well-documented, and clearly available enhancement utilities like FARR (maybe a simplified version, kind of like the Firefox "Awesome Bar" or Google Chrome's address bar), or having Everything (search) installed and available by default, or Circle Dock. Yes, these are all potentially complex programs to setup, and sometimes to use, but you pick based on ease of use, and you *do the configuration for the customer*. Setup good defaults, extend CircleDock to automatically add items to it perhaps, etc. What we're talking about here is basically creating a DC-user-tweaked system *out-of-the-box*, but with a focus not on power but on intuitiveness and ease of use. If you took something like Everything and replaced the default Windows search box, it would have the intuitiveness needed *and* the speed and capability. Just a small example, and I thin it's hard to understand just how powerful this could be if done right, but I'm confident that if the focus were on intuitiveness and ease of use, a good team of people with broad awareness of great tools like the DC community, could really put together - in essence - a great "slipstreamed" OS install.

Still, not revolutionary. What about the input device? Here I think is where the real magic might happen. There was a whole discussion on DC about this a while back, so I won't bother repeating the details here. But long story short, there is great potential in various permutations of touch screen, tactile feedback, and other technologies, to create a new, more intuitive, more powerful, faster and more precise input system from various technologies mostly already developed. It would just take a good amount of in-depth testing and research to really make something great, just like Apple put lots of research time into Apple's famed "click wheel".

So what's the end result of all this? A user gets a beautiful computer, they open it up and it's well packaged and attractive (think Apple packaging but less pretentious?), it has a paper copy of the Eula, with a 1 page simplified real-English version (gasp!). The computer itself is small, sleek, attractive. They plug it in, it requires minimal wires (maybe just power cord - use wireless Internet, pre-paired bluetooth input devices), they turn it on, it boots quickly thanks to an optimized services and drivers list and appropriately timed/delayed startup software options. It doesn't ask for security software immediately because it already has a good, low resource option bundled in (free, won't nag them). It has shortcuts on the desktop to only what they need, or no shortcuts at all if that's determined to be the most intuitive approach and instead apps pinned to the task bar, or maybe CircleDock comes up by default, or some Welcome Screen, or whatever. But the bottom line is it's easy.

Then they want to listen to music, for example. They easily find a clearly labeled Music system, it has a library with some included music, maybe Creative Commons or some singles from major artists, the music has a clearly associated player and it opens to an intuitive music management and playback system, with an integrated store (yes this could even be a tuned Windows Media Player, but could be something else like SongBird too). They go to buy some music, the process is easy and seamless, using merchants/processors they're familiar and comfortable with (e.g. Paypal, Google Check Out, whatever).

Now they want to write a document. They find that a fast, efficient, and intuitive word processor is included, with all commonly used functions easily accessible. Maybe this is Office 2010, maybe it's Libreoffice, maybe StarOffice, maybe something else, but the focus is on efficiency, intuitiveness, and the brand/publisher doesn't matter. It "just works". They save and their default is set to commonly-used and cross-compatible formats - maybe it prompts them asking whether they're distributing the document solely for viewing, or want others to be able to edit it (PDF vs. DOC/ODT output), or maybe it asks if they want to publish to the "cloud" (Google Docs or whatever). It's all built-in.

Now obviously, with the mention of Google Docs above for example, this requires making some choices for the user about what services and software to go with. But that's entirely the point. Set them up with their photos using Picasa and pointing automatically to Picasa Online and they don't have to worry about figuring out where to put their photos. It may not be the single best option for everyone, but it will work for the majority of people very well. This is what such an experience is about. Not marketing partners and adware or trial versions, it's about giving people the tools they need to do what you know most people want to do, quickly and easily.

And all of this of course goes through your fancy new input device, a combination of keyboard, mouse, touch pad, multi-touch, pen input, and more.

Ok, it's all very theoretical and maybe the benefits don't seem huge, but then if you told someone a mere 3 years ago that Apple was going to create a touch-screen phone with nice design and a great UI and a few nice new features (e.g. visual voice mail) and end up ruling the market only 2 years later, when other phones had things like front-facing camera, physical keyboards, and a lot more going for them, people probably would have laughed. Even more so before the success of the iPod, which was really one of Apple's first majorly successful forays outside the core computer market and into "devices". Before the iPod, who would have believed Apple could do this? Much less *how* they did it. How many of us still look at the iPod and go "Why was *that* so successful when these other devices supported 10 times more formats, had no DRM, had FM radio built-in, didn't have overpriced accessories, had bigger capacities for less money, etc."?

The point is these things are often more than the sum of their parts, so even though what I've described above may not sound that impressive, especially to DC veterans who are used to setting all this up from scratch (and it may even sound restrictive in itself - I mean who wants to have their office suite chosen for them, right? :D), nonetheless this is a part of what's appealing about Apple's products: they "just work", out of the box, everything is there and integrated. This is *totally possible* to do on a PC platform base, with the right mix of software, hardware, and services.

Create an excellent user experience, even if it's "cobbled together from lots of customizations to existing systems", and it will impress people. Bundle it with a great ecosystem of services and media, in an attractive package, and then market it well, and you've nailed it. Granted those are a lot of things to get right, but the key is that most of those are well within the capability of today's device giants. Marketing is often the hardest part! But I think companies just don't focus on those kinds of products and experiences. Apparently they'd rather have 20 similar - but slightly different - models, for example. Apple's line-up is simple, clear, powerful, and appealing because of all that. Someone else can do it too, and should.

- Oshyan
1050
Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google
« Last post by JavaJones on December 01, 2010, 05:57 PM »
I'm sorry, but based on the past quality of Joe Wilcox's articles, I aint going to bother. Is it really worth it mouser, or just more ranting from a blowhard? This guy switches his opinions 10 times a day, based - it appears - on whatever will get the most views to his articles and generate the most controversy.

- Oshyan
Pages: prev1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 106next