This is tangentally related, but I'm going to break my contract with Verizon after buying a Motorola Devour in March. I believe that Motorola and VZW have broken an implied promise to support my Android phone through the update cycle; it shipped with 1.6 and it appears that the powers that be have decided that it's not worthy of the engineering resources to get it up to 2.2, so it'll be at 1.6 forever.
I'm sorry, but a three-month old phone should not be obsolete. If I get a iPhone 4, I have every confidence that Apple will make every effort to ensure that subsequent iOS upgrades work on my phone until there's a legitimate technical reason to exclude it, not some bullshit profit/loss maximization algorithm.
The Android ecosystem will remain fragmented because every single phone+manufacturer+carrier combination requires a decision and engineering resources to upgrade. I could never recommend an Android phone to anyone but the anti-Apple hordes.
> If I get a iPhone 4, I have every confidence that Apple will make every effort to ensure that subsequent iOS upgrades work on my phone until there's a legitimate technical reason to exclude it,...
Kudos to Apple for doing this, by the way. I have an iPhone 3G and really appreciate Apple's efforts in keeping my device up-to-date.
Apple's decision to own the phone from end-to-end (sans AT&T) has proven to provide a high-quality experience to customers. It's telling that the only part of the experience that Apple doesn't own is arguably the largest pain point of the iPhone.
It's too bad that Android/WinMo answer to the OEMs, and not the other way around. If Compaq or Dell dictated upgrade policies for PCs the world would be a very different place.
My 3G became dog slow as a dog when I installed the software that was released alongside the 3GS. It has been ever since, through every following upgrade.
I noticed my 3G seemed to start getting slower, have more frequent "world has come to a stop" pauses right around when the 3GS came out. I wondered a bit if it was a conspiracy of sorts, something intentional Apple did to make the non-3GS models seem even slower than they were. Not sure, of course, or whether a coincidence. But it's interesting to hear at least one other person noticed this.
Here's a fun factoid: your iPhone 3G (and mine) will totally miss out on iOS4's multi-tasking. If Apple is better than Motorola/Verizon in terms of keeping older hardware up-to-date, it's not by much.
I imagine iOS4 multitasking on a 128mb device would be horrible. The OS has grown with every release; there's probably even less memory for apps to work with in 4.0. I think Apple would rather see complaints of not supporting the 3G rather than scathing reviews of how poorly it performs.
No updates for a 3 month old phone is quite a large difference from leaving a hardware-limited feature out of an update to a 2 year old device.
Another interesting point, the new iPhone 4 has 512mb ram, the 3GS and iPad have 256mb. A lot of people think it was strange to put only 256mb in the iPad.
Just wondering what sort of stuff the new iPhone 4 will get that the ipad will not. Hopefully it is just more memory for video related stuff, and will not hold back any new upgrades for the ipad.
Yeah but though I expect the iPad project was a closely guarded secret within Apple, iOS 4 likely wasn't, and the iPhone 4 was probably less of a secret than the pad. Why the iPad team didn't get any hints as to the amount of RAM to put in the thing is beyond me, especially as there are already reports of RAM-limitation issues on the pad (e.g. where iPhone 3gs Safari can keep half a dozen tabs around without reloading them all the time, iPad is apparently unable to)
Double-tangentially related. My contract with Vodafone (UK) is up for renewal soon and there's the HTC Wildfire, Nexus One, Desire, Legend, Tattoo listed on the website. Just to be clear, this is attempting to narrow it down to one carrier, one manufacturer, one operating system. How about a clear flagship model and a budget option rather than all this shitty confusion? Then maybe you'll have the engineering resources to keep the two or three models up to date.
This is similar to my laptop rant the other day. It's sad to see companies shooting themselves in the foot.
Agreed that they're making things way more complicated than they should be. As far as the parent poster, I have no idea why the Devour even exists; it's inferior to the Droid in every way. In your case the Nexus One is clearly the way to go; nothing else is significantly better spec-wise, and being Google's "official" model it's guaranteed to get updates first.
In your specific case, the only clear "dumb" redundancies are the wildfire and legend (the differences seem trivial). And yes, I agree, it makes little sense for HTC to be making such similar models.
The Desire is the flagship (to htc), the tattoo is the low-end budget and the legend/wildfire is mid-range.
All of the other models HTC makes seem to be due to deals with carriers/other companies. The Nexus One is a google-branded phone sans sense. The Sprint hero had changes from the regular due to Sprint. The last goes on.
I imagine HTC is somewhat forced into this position. They don't have enough market power, so if a carrier wants something different, they generally have to comply.
In the same vein, if you get an iPhone 4 you can every confidence that Apple will make every effort to ensure that innovative and competitive software will be rejected or removed from the app store. I'd say that's as much of a problem with iOS platform as older OS versions is with Android. If you want the same iPhone upgrade experience with Android, your best option is to get a Nexus One.
As a WinMo user, I've long accepted that the OEMs are terrible. My solution to this problem is make sure that whatever phone I buy has a strong hacker community around it so that I can unofficially upgrade whenever I wish. With my current phone, I flashed away from the stock ROM within a week and I upgrade every 6 months or so. In fact, I can even run Android on my phone even though it didn't exist when my phone was originally released.
>In the same vein, if you get an iPhone 4 you can every confidence that Apple will make every effort to ensure that innovative and competitive software will be rejected or removed from the app store.
This is just nonsense. Looks like your one of the "anti-apple hoard" the GGP was talking about. It's pretty well known why the 2%-3% of apps get rejected: using a private API, violating the agreement, violating laws (e.g. ignoring codec copyrights).
Name one single piece of "innovative and competitive software" that was rejected without a good reason.
"TechCrunch suspects, probably correctly, that apps for Google Voice are being rejected at least in part through AT&T's influence, since Google Voice lets you send free text messages and delivers cut-rate international calls on top of making phone numbers even more meaningless making it scary to AT&T in way like Skype VoIP over 3G." [1]
If you're trying to bypass the phone company that is using the phone as a loss leader of course you can expect that app to be rejected. Skype is approved though, afaik. Is that your only example?
Google voice is one of the most innovative apps? I've never even heard of it before today. Everyone I know uses Skype (which is on the iPhone, right?).
It's not a competitor to Skype. That's Google Talk. I don't think it's unfair to say that Google Voice is generally regarded as an amazing innovation in mobile phone arena.
And speaking of Skype, will they be allowed to do video chat on the iPhone 4? Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I wouldn't bet my house on it though.
Well I'm a consumer so I'm automatically qualified to comment. If Google voice were so innovative and amazing it would be something I wish I could get.
For example, I do wish I could have VLC, but it's pretty obvious why I can't. This is the trade off of controlling your channels. Apple can't just say "well, we let this app on and if people want to use it to watch 'illegal' movies, there's nothing we can do about it", since they very well can do something about it. Android, with their open architecture probably can't block things like VLC so they can't be held responsible for people using it.
> If Google voice were so innovative and amazing it would be something I wish I could get.
It is. When I posted my comment, Google voice was the main example I was thinking of (but certainly not the only one). The fact that you don't know about it is part of the problem. It'd easily be on the top of the app store lists if it was available. It just goes to show that because of Apple you don't even know what you're missing.
Your VLC example doesn't make any sense. You can watch whatever illegal movies (and illegal music) on your iPhone all you want using the built in software. You'll never get VLC, not because of anything illegal, but because "it duplicates functionality already existing in the phone". That's it.
Google voice is what? An implementation of VoIP? I wouldn't call that innovative, there are plenty of companies doing VoIP, none of which would ever be allowed on the iPhone because of carrier restrictions.
>You'll never get VLC, not because of anything illegal, but because "it duplicates functionality already existing in the phone". That's it.
Not true. Have you been in the app store? There are tons of apps that just duplicate functionality. There are several browsers and a few streaming video players.
> Google voice is what? An implementation of VoIP?
No, it's not. I could tell you spend the next 15 minutes telling you what it is or you could just look it up yourself on this thing called the Internet. Your purposeful ignorance here is not a good argument tactic.
The reason that Apple rejected Google voice was because of the "duplicate functionality" argument. Other apps don't prove anything except that they aren't threatening to Apple. As soon as an app exists that is, they just pull out one of these excuses and it's gone.
I did look it up before I posted. Voice IP with some functionality to turn your messages to text. Their not the first or only people to do any of these things.
It is a shame that they used "duplicate functionality" as the excuse, they should have just said "this is not acceptable under our AT&T plan".
Of course, if you have another other AT&T phone (Android, WinMo, Blackberry) you have no problem using Google Voice. The only way you can't use it (with a native app) on the AT&T network is if you have an iPhone.
Also, it's not VoIP from the phone like Skype is. It uses your regular voice connection and voice minutes and not the data connection. What it does provide is a portable phone number, free SMS, voice mail transcriptions, and a host of other calling features. It's the kind of innovative application you'd expect when you combine the cloud with smartphone technology. Apple just doesn't want you to have it.
Unfortunately, back to your original comment about why apps are rejected (private apis, etc, etc) is, unfortunately for you, not true. Lets say you want an app to control your PC bittorrent app from your iPhone? -- Forget it, also not allowed. I understand now allowing apps that put strain on the network or use private apis but rejecting innovative apps or app that hurt Steve Jobs sense of morality just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather have an open platform with a slower upgrade cycle.
No, you'll never get VLC because there's no point in it; the phone isn't powerful enough to decode videos in realtime unless (a) you use hardware decryption support or (b) they're the size of a postage stamp. The built-in video player supports all the codecs the hardware supports. I really can't think of any benefit to having VLC on a phone.
I would argue that in a conversation about app store rejection policies and specifically Google Voice that someone informing us that they have never heard of it wasn't doing much more than adding noise.
To anyone who has heard of Google Voice it's pretty clear that it's valid to put it forward as a innovative product. The level to which it's failed to permeated the broader public consciousness doesn't count against it at this stage in it's existence.
I'd say your response added just as much noise and introduced a degree of intolerance not necessary to the conversation. Let the non-helpful comments die a silent lonely death, no need to get haughty about it.
Here's a free app idea: I challenge you to make a chatroulette for iPhone 4's FaceTime. You can use twilio to connect the calls & even charge a little money through in-app purchases. The code should be a one-nighter & then you still have 5 days to get it accepted in the store.
My solution to this problem is make sure that whatever phone I buy has a strong hacker community around it so that I can unofficially upgrade whenever I wish.
This is awesome. Not because of any of the parent's points, but simply because we're living in a world where telephones have their own communities of hackers. How fast did that happen?
I still have a phone that does little more than make phone calls, and the best hackers in the world when it came out were barely able to get it playing "snake". And it's not a very old phone.
My general rule now is to not buy a tech product if it's not hackable. Even my wrist watch (a Timex Datalink) is running custom software to enhance its interface.
Oh come on. Blaming Android for Verizon/Motorola's failings (and your own in not realizing what everyone was saying was _the_ advantage of the Nexus One) as well as rapid technological progress is pathetic.
Do you even remember the stunt Apple pulled a few years ago where they dropped the price of iPhone from $599 to $399? Do you intend to ping pong between Apple and Android whenever they announce such decisions?
> Blaming Android for Verizon/Motorola's failings (and your own in not realizing what everyone was saying was _the_ advantage of the Nexus One) as well as rapid technological progress is pathetic.
His point is that, unless he buys a N1 maybe, he will never ever have any guarantees that his phone will be kept up to date for even 2 years.
Ok, so Apple haters blast Apple for keeping such a tight control and cheer when savior Google comes out with something "open", but when that openness is used by the vendors to do what they want instead of what Google wants it's not Google's fault? Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the reason Apple behaves as it does is to avoid exactly this problem?
You're pointing at something you think should theoretically be better and pointing fingers when it doesn't pan out, meanwhile the "evil" alternative is giving users a great experience.
Where am I attacking Apple in my post? I'm actually as much of an Apple fanboy as anyone else who stands in line at the Apple store waiting for hours for their product releases. And I've done that myself once.
But just because I love Apple products, it doesn't mean I cannot also defend Android when someone blames it for something thats not its fault. I love Google and Android for what they do too.
And yes, the openness leading to such situations is not Google/Android's fault. Just as much as an authorized gun salesman making a legal sale is not at fault when someone then uses their guns to go postal.
Also, the OP getting so worked up comparing support for a little known model of cellphone to Apple's flagship product is funny if not foolish.
I didn't mean you specifically were attacking Apple. What I meant, and what my point was, is that Apple is attacked for keeping control of it's platform, but now we see what happens when one doesn't.
Your gun analogy doesn't fit. Google doesn't control their distributor so the product they make may never see the light of day. It's not about someone using Google's free offering to injure someone, but rather taking it, making their own (inferior) creation and passing that off as Android.
I welcome competition in the space to be sure, but people screaming about Apple keeping control of their product (would you expect anything else from Steve Jobs?) are missing the point IMO.
I have an HTC EVO and the device does not come with video-chat out of the box. This is insane. As mentioned in the article, you have to install an app from the appstore, sign-up with an account, and then proceed to figure out that you can't actually talk to the person without holding down on the screen (note there is no indication of this while in video chat mode).
It's been a major pain trying to call my wife and tell her how to set all these things up before we can attempt a video chat.
I'd like to see Dan Hesse and his board of directors watch two HTC EVO noobs attempt to video-chat. It would be downright embarrassing.
Please, before investing millions of dollars with your front-facing camera make it at least work out of the box without having to jump through a dozen hoops.
Developer support is lousy too. Sprint has a library (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dhtsnvs6_57d2hpqtgr#3_Second...) that lets you access the front-facing camera, but you can't just test at runtime to see if it's there; once you include that library, your app will fail to launch on any non-EVO. So you have to distribute a separate app for the EVO, which is mostly going to be a nonstarter.
This issue will be fixed when Froyo comes out for it, Froyo includes front facing camera support in the sdk. HTC released this hardware knowing that the software would have to catch up.
This is very bad. Even my Motorola e1000 from 5 years ago had one touch video chat.
It seems that HTC can add hardware features faster than they can add the software, or they are taking the stance that the software should be third party, which has its own advantages and disadvantages, as pointed out by the article.
You would think that at the very least they would have worked with the two companies offering video chat to get stuff working easily.
Maybe this will all be sorted out in the next few months.
So you bought the EVO because of the video chat feature? Video chat is suddenly the most important thing a phone can do? Or does the Evo maybe have some other capabilities, that also used to be enticting (until the world learned that video chat is the only thing that matters).
Nothing against your desire for video chat, I just don't agree that having no video chat is "insane".
Also, couldn't somebody create a better app for video chat on the Evo?
Selling a feature that is known to not work is "insane". Nearly every time I've bought a gadget on the expectation that someday it was going to be great (Nokia N800, I'm looking at you), I've been disappointed.
Apple ships completed projects, many companies ship promises they never intend to fulfill.
"Android and iPhone fans will read the preceding paragraph very differently. Android fans will read it and say, “Exactly — give us the hardware and let developers figure out what to do with it.” iPhone fans will read it and say, “I can’t wait to get an iPhone 4.”"
This quote sums up my issue with Gruber. Everything for him revolves around being a fan of a product (in his case Apple products). I just want great products. Might be iPhone today, Android tomorrow, and Windows Phone next year.
I don't think being a fan of the iPhone doesn't mean you can't also be a fan of Android; they're not mutually exclusive (I have an Xbox and a Wii). That said, in 2010, there is a strong break between not only the fanbases, but in the guiding philosophy of either platform. I read this last paragraph, laughed, and thought, "This is why I read Gruber."
Salient quote from Stephen Fry: "So you can guess that I certainly do think design is important. But it doesn’t have to come from Apple. In fact, I wish to goodness it came from everywhere."
I don't think being a fan of the iPhone doesn't mean you can't also be a fan of Android; they're not mutually exclusive (I have an Xbox and a Wii).
Well heck, so do I, but I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of either.
Actually I try not to be a "fan" of anything. Describing yourself as a fan of something seems to be a way of making the rather dull act of liking something into part of your identity.
I think we're probably making too much of the word "fan", and that Gruber was just using it to indicate preference (as opposed to devotion).
That said, I'm a fan of Apple because I admire their work. I'm enamored with the substance of their products, and I could care less how ownership affects my image [Edit: more honestly, I try not to care]. (I actually think declaring myself a fan of Apple is a detriment to my image, especially in this forum. C'est la vie.)
Veering off-topic, and I don't mean to personally attack, but this exercise of limiting the ways in which your description is "dull" is completely futile, e.g., here you are engaged in making the rather dull act of liking not being a fan of anything into part of your identity.
What I'm trying to say is that I think your preferences will always be a large part of who you are, like it or not.
revolves around being a fan of a product (in his case Apple products)
How did you pull that from this article? He basically says, "I like things that are fully-baked," not, "I like Apple products."
I have been a "Mac Fanboy" for about 15 years, and it has always been about execution. I have no loyalty to Apple, but insomuch as they make better products than anyone else, I will unabashedly say that the competition is crap. If another company stepped up and made better products, I would start using those (and competition is great for the consumer).
Which is basically what you just said, except that you (as many people do) treat Apple as somehow special. I don't fully understand it, but I think that Jobs' often smug attitude turns people off to the entire company and their offerings. They see Apple as elitist-in-a-bad-way, and even if they are popular now they are somehow a fad. Which is fine, but in that case it would be more correct to say "I dislike elitist CEOs," than "(HP|Dell|Compaq)/(Windows|Linux)/(Android|Wince) is just as good as Mac/MacOS/iPhone." Because really, they're not and never have been (software compatibility complicates the Windows/MacOS comparison).
Cheaper maybe, but never just as good. (You can often spot the weaker competition by their extensive "feature" lists.)
Really, you're asking me how I conclude that Gruber is an Apple fan?
And if you've been a "Mac Fanboy" for the past 15 years, you haven't been a fan of quality. Until a couple of revs into OSX the Mac OS had been garbage. Mac OS Classic became a dog (it was great in '84).
If in '84 to the mid-90s you were an Apple/Amiga user. And then switched to Windows. And then switched back to Apple around 2002 then you may have a claim. If you didn't get the iPhone until the 3G came out, that's a good sign. If you never bought into the PowerPC being WAY faster than the x86 processors that's a good sign.
But in my experience, Apple "fans" are surprisingly not all that discerning when it comes to Apple products.
And let me be clear... the iPad is the best tablet on the market. The iPhone will be the best phone on the market again, starting next month (I give the nod the Evo right now). Altough I'll take Win7 as best desktop OS, and Google has the best web browser.
It's about looking objectively at each solution and technology. Not these weird claims that no one else does anything of merit, but Apple. The bozo bit gets set right when you say that, because there are several obvious examples of other companies doing good work.
I wasn't happy with MacOS from 8-ish to pre-X, but what was the alternative? I tried liking Solaris and IRIX (didn't ever use NeXT), but there was just nothing out there. Win 95b was a brief glimpse into a future where Windows didn't suck, but they promptly sat on their laurels with 98 and then slapped their userbase around with ME. I tried BeOS a few times, but it never really had any software and the Web wasn't big enough at the time for a lack of software to be okay. I installed Rhapsody when it came out, and then tried to run OSX Developer Preview for a few months before I had to admit that it still wasn't quite baked. Now I couldn't be happier, but I still occasionally try desktop linux and other mobile phones.
I won't say that Apple's products are perfect - the pinnacle of what can be done - just currently the best.
You could have used NT. I was using NT 4.0 and it was pretty darn good. It killed, and I mean killed MacOS. I mean, the delta was way larger than probably the delta between even Vista and OSX. It was really big. The fact that you stayed on MacOS I think says enough.
Fair enough. Although I would have stated that upfront (personal inertia). I was on the Amiga after it was no longer technologically the best platform. But I'd fully acknowledge that it was running on fumes at that point.
It's not hard to conclude that Gruber is an Apple fan. But that's not what ynniv was asking for clarification on. He asked how you justify saying that "[e]verything for him revolves around being a fan of a product..." when it seems pretty clear to most of us that Gruber intended to convey (and probably truly believes for himself) that everything revolves around being (or not) a fan of good and complete design. Even if the two seem synonymous due to current market conditions, that's not inherent.
You seem to be espousing a desire for good products that is similar to the viewpoint Gruber states in this post and others, but you say that his viewpoint isn't genuine. Do you believe that he's been duped by Apple into thinking their products are good, but that you're more immune to that? This needs elaboration.
I also think that in the paragraph you quoted earlier from Gruber, he was assuming that the Android and iPhone fans are fans because they identify with statements like the two he provided, rather than that they would identify with those statements because of their status as iPhone or Android fans.
"when it seems pretty clear to most of us that Gruber intended to convey (and probably truly believes for himself) that everything revolves around being (or not) a fan of good and complete design."
It's not clear to "most of us" (who is "most of us" anyways? Hackers? I don't think so. MacHeads, probably.).
Of course Gruber isn't going to say, "I think Apple is the best even when they're not." He couches his fanaticism in "good taste". And it just so happens that everything Apple does has good taste, and everything anyone else does, does not. Unless they subsequently get bought by Apple.
I don't know if Gruber has been duped, but when I see someone who believes a single company is universally good and their competitors universally bad, I get suspicious. Of course taste is taste. Someone might say that Coby is the pinnacle of consumer gadgets. No one makes better quality than Coby. You'd immediately flip the bozo bit on them, although maybe you'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I just find so little that Gruber says has any objective truth in it, which is why it is hard for me to respect him.
And lets be clear. On my personal blog, I can easily find a lot of really good products from a variety of places. I don't think Gruber has that capacity. For example, could you imagine Gruber saying a positive word about an MS product. For him a product is an MS product above everything else. Quality of the product is a secondary aspect of it. This is why Apple products all get passes. Their first Apple products, and then their quality comes next. And then he justifies the quality of Apple products.
"I also think that in the paragraph you quoted earlier from Gruber, he was assuming that the Android and iPhone fans are fans because they identify with statements like the two he provided, rather than that they would identify with those statements because of their status as iPhone or Android fans."
What does being a fan have to do with having an opinion? Again, his polarization of the world through his lens makes him susceptible to this form of thinking (whether using my or your interpretation).
At the end of the day Gruber is simply not informative, and its due to his fanatical fanboyism. I can pretty much write a Gruber post. I'll take a current Apple controversy. I'll tell you why Apple is right/better, and the competitor is worse. I'll take liberties with logic or common sense, but I'll drop nuggets of insider knowledge (and those are actually useful, and keep his blog from being a total waste).
But then again, I'm sure he's making a lot more money with his blog than I am with this random posting on HN.
"He couches his fanaticism in "good taste"." -- this is exactly it. It is fanaticism no doubt. Given enough variables, like there are here, making it taste good is clearly possible. I use and like Apple products, but trying to justify everything they do as being "good for the user" does no good imho.
I can name plenty. Apple and the iPhone are a couple. Google Search and AdWords, Visual Studio, and Mathematica are some others.
Are they perfect? No. Are the companies that made them flawless? No. But I can appreciate a product/company, yet not have my identity tied up with the product. I use an Apple product, but I'm not defined by that use any more than I'm defined by the fact that I use Sylvania light bulbs or Colgate toothpaste.
By the standards of the dictionary I have before me, then, you meet the minimum requirements for the word "fan" to be applied to you. It doesn't mention anything about wrapping your identity up in the target of your interest/admiration, nor does it mention anything about needing to believe that the target is flawless.
But that's good news, right? You don't need to get your hackles up when you hear the word "fan" anymore.
It should be obvious if you think about it, though: Would someone need to deny that Willie Mays ever made an error in order to be his fan?
"Would someone need to deny that Willie Mays ever made an error in order to be his fan?"
Yet Gruber does.
I'm glad you take solace in being a fan. Feel free to refer to me as an Android/WP7/iPhone/Nokia/Palm fan when it comes to mobile phones. Seems like a pretty worthless statement (I used to think I was just a Laker fan, but by your definition, apparently I'm even a Clippers fan!), but if it makes you feel better about Gruber and his characterizations and perspective, feel free to do so.
I figured it was you who needed some comfort, since your voluminous opposition hinged on the excessively narrow semantics you were imposing on him. I, myself, was able to just take the essay at face value. Amazingly, I was able to understand that paragraph even though I'm a fan of both phone systems he mentioned.
No, the "narrow semantics" you suggest were a summarization of Gruber's general approach, as I stated in my original post. And lets go back to Gruber's actual words again:
"Android and iPhone fans will read the preceding paragraph very differently."
He's clear to point out (a) that there are fans for each and (b) that they will read the paragraph VERY differently. Yet, both of us are fans of both. It seems that according to your definition we have a bit of a contradiction. Gruber never hints at the possiblity of a third way to read the paragraph -- or even the fact that each individual would read that paragraph and draw different conclusions based on a variety of factors -- being a "fan" not necessarily being the dominant one.
It's only a contradiction if you force a narrow interpretation.
If I read a paragraph, for example, that takes an issue from each gender's perspective, I know that they're painting with broad strokes and that they probably know about hermaphrodites but just didn't mention it.
I don't think someone needs to acknowledge chimeras every time they write something that assumes a person has one set of DNA.
Sure, it's fun to be Pedantic Man - the superhero whose power is that of being willfully obtuse - but I can read that paragraph and still think he's captured the two aspects of myself that are actively debating about the relative merits of the two platforms. And most people do develop brand loyalties. You and I are somewhat exceptional. I'll be the chimera; you be the hermaphrodite.
I get the sense that you'll say anything to prop up your hate, though. Go on ahead without me.
It's bullshit because daring fireball - like always - is employing deceitful marketing tactics (yes, I'm implying intent) to make claims that simply are not true (going beyond subjective statements).
Take the front facing camera. HTC Evo? I don't even know what that is! I have ALREADY made video calls with other skype users using my Nokia N900. Not only that, I sometimes do it over 3G, if I'm out of range of a wifi. Oh yeah, and it's all integrated into the normal phone experience - I don't have to launch a separate app just to make calls (how does that integrate with contacts?) Apple was not first. They restrict video calling to wifi and only through the apps they approve. They did it WRONG.
Do I sound harsh? Yes, probably. I think this is the only way for "daring" fireball to stop writing bullshit.
720p would be impressive over 3G. No, it is not that awesome. :P
Yes, you can't make video calls to your friends microwave oven - they'll need to use whatever protocol you are using. And yes, the N900 supports gtalk as well (although I haven't tried video chat with it myself).
I like how Gruber can take an idea that seems completely obvious to me, but when ever I try to explain the idea and the reasons behind it I come up short. I don't have good examples or details. I end up looking dumb. So I keep my ideas to my self.
Its kind of like he takes what my intuition tells me, and then takes the time to explain why and give examples.
Before you down vote me, this is a personal opinion. I can understand if you think I'm crazy. If you disagree with Gruber's view (and I have a few times), then in your view my intuition is wrong and his articles are contrived -- and this may be true.
You act like your the "first" to do something (or at least since the jetsons), then when someone calls you on it you fall back to a subtly different claim to be the "first to do it right" where right is a subjective opinion that can be argued with, but not an objective fact that can be disproved like your first claim.
It helps if you and your audience are both american and have little idea of what has been done and/or done right in telecommunications for years overseas. Then you can focus on the Android phone that introduced front facing cameras to the world last month as your benchmark for better.
Personally, I think video calling will be niche, but having a front facing camera will open the door to all kinds of cool 3rd party software like photo manipulation software similar to Photobooth on Mac OS X or the software built into the Nintendo DSi, or eye-tracking etc. This is where the policy that Apple only ships hardware that it finds a slick 1st party use for falls down. I have a video camera on my Macbook, only ever used for Photobooth and Skype, never video iChat.
The existence of a front-facing camera may fairly be considered a “catch up” feature on iPhone 4. But the ability to use the front-facing camera to actually make video calls is first on the iPhone.
I once saw a guy standing in the subway, looking on the floor, gesticulating like crazy. I though the guy was either drunk or mentally ill.
As I left the subway, I realized that the guy was holding a phone in his hand. I could glimpse on the display and saw another person gesticulating.
Apparently the guy was deaf and was talking in sign language in a video chat. On a subway, which probably had no Wifi. That was in 2007.
I was amazed by technology (and felt like an idiot for the snap judgement).
I wonder if I will be able to use the iPhone4 front-facing camera to do video over 3G here in Norway or if the iOS software will require a wifi connection. Anyone know? BTW, the US is really in a telecom-technical backwater. Cellphone users on the other side of the atlantic have enjoyed video conference calls on their handset for many years and over true 3G, not as a wifi hack. So the whole "'First to Do It' vs. 'First to Do It Right'" is kind of amusing as this is rather old outside of the US.
The first assumption in that article is wrong, the video is sent at the camera resolution (VGA) not the screen resolution. That's not only wrong, it's kinda stupid so maybe we shouldn't listen to him on the rest either.
Thanks for responding. This is supposedly a HD video clip taken on the iPhone 4, as you can see it is 1280x720. So the guy's estimate was conservative.
I'd go with A. If something does not exist, then nobody will expect it to, and apps are more likely to built with that limitation in mind. The reverse is Windows Mobile. Copy and paste does not work most of time (you can't even select webpage text in IE!), but everyone knows it's there so nobody cares to do something about it.
>I'd go with A. If something does not exist, then nobody will expect it to
Copy and Paste existed in smart phones long before the iPhone was ever released. It's something that existed and people expected in the iPhone from day one. (And since most of those phons had physical keypads, the UI mechanism for doing it was fairly intuitive)
I had a Nokia for several years. Two of my ongoing questions about it were: "Why can't I copy and paste?" and "What the heck is that keyboard button with a picture of a pencil on it for?"
I figured it out about a week before I switched to an iPhone.
> And since most of those phons had physical keypads, the UI mechanism for doing it was fairly intuitive
Are you joking? I never even realized my old E70 could copy/paste (then again, I never quite looked for it either, but it definitely wasn't obvious), and on more recent efforts for the Pre the copy/paste implementation is an utter disgrace. And yes, it does use the physical keyboard.
And the comparison each of you made showed the difference in mindsets once again:
People who like OSX/iPhones/etc. enjoy their stuff in the same way one enjoys a relationship—it's not a necessity, it's just useful and fun and beneficial. They may come to rely on it, but they won't expect anything of it that it can't do; they'll just figure out their own way of doing it that won't "hurt their relationship."
People who like Linux/Android/etc., on the other hand, demand things of their hardware and software, the same way you are demanded to work if you want to earn money. In the same way one optimizes a business, they will ruthlessly hill-climb toward efficiency, taking any new feature that provides even a 1% profit-benefit, as long as it has a less-than-1% working-time cost.
To put it another way, Apple users anthropomorphize Apple products, and thus have empathy/respect/admiration/etc. for them. Linux users objectify hardware and software, and do things to them (and require things from them) that would be considered sociopathic if done to people. Neither approach is "correct", mind you—software (Operating System software in particular) is a bit like a living thing, with needs and desires and the ability to cooperate with you, but it's also most definitely less "alive" than a real animal.
That's one way of looking at it, with which I disagree. I mean, which is more sociopathic: thinking you "can do better" while in a relationship, or valuing someone because she's here for you now? I can't speak for other Linux/Android users, but I don't personally think that Linux/Android is perfect or blow their competition out of the water. I've used friends' iPhones and there's loads to like, not least of which is the ability to play Bejeweled on the commute. :p But I use them and support them with my dollars because they were built on a foundation of ideals which I think should be encouraged. Hell, I bought a Freerunner (that OpenMoko phone) even though I knew it wouldn't serve me well in any capacity and that I wouldn't have time to enjoy hacking on it. I bought it as a gesture of support because I thought it was a worthy effort and I wanted it to continue. If they were still in business, I'd probably support them over the Android. To put it into perspective, that cost me about 1/5 of my monthly income at the time.
Going with the relationship analogy, isn't that like dating someone ugly and annoying because she has character?
So you are willing to have a worse experience and pay more for it for some ideology that ends up failing in the end anyway? Who are you arguing is more practical here? :)
Personally I think ideology must always bend to practicality or you end up with some really ridiculous results. I personally think Jobs wants to make the experience for the user the best possible. Not because he is benevolent, but rather because he is worried about what people will say about things he made. And in his case that takes priority over any open ideology that will actually result in a worse experience (that people will associate with him/Apple).
People we are talking about features on a consumer device -- these are not life changing events! No where near the level of importance you'd ascribe to choosing a life partner or a career.
So I propose you swap being single to being celibate in the metaphor.
Personally I'd choose the short term gratification route :) Although strangely I've chosen iPhone over Android...
The (original) Palm had well-executed cut and paste from the beginning. Of course it uses a stylus, but that also means much greater precision when selecting. Too bad that Palm stopped developing its original OS - I still enjoy my Treo, but will probably switch to the iPhone when it dies.
In another year or two Apple may provide the notification system of my dreams, but after three years I'm ready for anything that doesn't involve a button press, screen swipe, and passcode, just to checkif I have unread email.
The "bullshit" is just the claim that Apple always has the best implementation (sometimes they actually do, sometimes they don't). Nobody assumes that they are incapable of doing it in time.
Ultimately, it is an interesting marketing play, I suppose - the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" of marketing, maybe?
It may applies to large corporation, but I don't think that for Startups it applies. We want a mix of those two ways of thinking to
1) Get some features out to gain traction/user
2) Make sure it works and that the user experience will not be negatively impacted.
We have to learn from our mistakes and also learn from what our users want. For that we need to experiment even if it means refactoring / do things differently when we need to.
It's not startups vs big corporations. It's about the constraints on your ability to iterate.
You can't iterate on hardware the same way you do on software. If you're used to building the minimum possible thing that will work, shipping that, then gradually improving it day by day you are in for a rude awakening in the hardware business. You can't improve the hardware after it is out of your hands. All you can do is release a second piece of hardware that incorporates improvements. But you must charge all your customers over again, and not all of them will upgrade, and the whole process takes a lot of time and has a lot of friction.
You also can't iterate on a public API the way you do on an app. Once other folks have dependencies pointing to your API the cat is out of the bag. It is several orders of magnitude harder to deprecate an API than to release it. This is why, while iterating on software is good in general, you really don't have the option to reinvent your platform's basic copy-and-paste API too many times. It really pays to iterate internally until you get that right.
Excellent point, and one that I think many of us forget.
Also wanted to add that reputation and trust are extremely important in the hardware business (and the retail software business). Many people can buy Apple's next thing without doing much or any research about it, and without having to wait for reviews because they trust that Apple wouldn't subject them to a piece of crap, due to their track record. This is not something that can be said about many other companies, and it's an extremely valuable asset.
It also feeds their ability to create the "Reality Distortion Field".
They have this brand image where everything is slick, tight, usable and so forth. It is "just right". To release (using Grubers example) half baked copy/paste would have appeased a few - but it wouldn't be the "Apple way".
That's not a bad thing; it doesn't make their products bad (and actually makes most products awesome!). More importantly it's their brand niche and they do it well. In fact they do it like no other.
Are you serious? If developers and startup founders really think this way we need to do something about it stat.
Having amazing user experience and products that "just work" shouldn't be something that only Apple does. The fact that you think of something being slick, tight, and usable as a brand image makes me dizzy. Shouldn't EVERYONE strive for these characteristics? I know my startup does.
Woah. I hope I didn't come across as saying that. What I meant to do was reply to the GPs specific comments about this being a big corporate thing. It's not - most big cos don't do it. In the world of big co this is an apple thing.
Recently Gruber pointed out that just because you don't like something (in this particular case, the closed nature and strange policies of the App store) doesn't necessarily mean it's a fatal flaw that will doom a platform.
The incredibly illuminating example he used to demonstrate this? The crappiness of the Windows GUI:
It occurs to me that the App Store’s restrictions and control are to this coming mobile era what Windows’s inferior user interface was to the PC era: something that offends some critics to a degree such that they will insist for years, despite the success and popularity of the platform, that it’s a fatal flaw that will ultimately doom it.
So will "doing it first" doom Android and limit its growing success and popularity, or does he just not like things that aren't done "right"? I also think, like the Windows GUI, that you'd be surprised about how much what you think is "right" has to do with what you're used to.
The Japanese did video calls 7 years ago, some nokia phones have also integrated this without third party software and its very easy to use. Apple is not the first to do it right
> "I think many people have little understanding of the difference between Wi-Fi and 3G data — at least insofar as why a feature would work over one but not the other."
Easy: the difference is that 3G data is not an internet connection.
Sure, you can browse the web, but most 3G data package don't give you a public IP, so your phone can't be a server, and they tend to block many TCP and UDP ports. Your phone is effectively in a private network which has a very limited access to the rest of the Internet.
That, plus the fact that carriers make you sign a contract that forbid you to use their bandwidth in certain ways.
Google doesn't control all the stuff that all the different manufacturers and carriers are doing with Android so they cant enforce quality. But, Froyo has the front-facing camera in the SDK and Skype is working on their Android app. So, in a year or two Apple will be left in the dust when all these devices are capable of video-chatting with each other across different manufacturers and carriers, and with PCs and Macs and even with WinMos and Nokias, and who knows what else.
Apple has a pretty good headstart but they have to compete against a whole industry, they don't have a shot.
Apple had to do the copy+paste work because no one else could.
However, the could have put the front facing camera on without the software, since people can write apps to use. As for doing it right, I don't think an app that only works from iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 on WiFi is doing it right. Doing it right would to be able to Skype video call to anyone who has the app, be that on the Mac, Windows etc.
Also, if you think Apple themselves have to use all the hardware in the phone, then look at the gyroscope, Apple have no software that uses it.
Cutting edge is always jenky. I personally figure Apple basically kicks back while other people develop and test, and then they release once it's been tried and sorted a bit so they don't have to release jenky products.
If you really believe Apple spent 2 years developing and perfecting cut&paste you are crazy. They waited until they wanted to implement it. What their cue was, I don't know, but I have my suspicions.
I doubt Apple "waits", they prefer to limit them-self to a focussed feature set "done right". Apparently - the entire iPhone 1st gen was designed and developed by a very very small team. This helps consistency, and avoids having some parts of the team not knowing what another part is doing. If they then - like they did for the iPhone - start with a clean API and environment with future expandability in mind, you start out with a solid architecture on which they can build. The downside however is that the initial product has a very small/basic feature-set. Upside is, its core features are (mostly) "done right" and behave consistently. A ton of features, which the competition already has, are missing, but nobody uses them there because of complexity or weird behavior.
Copy-paste is actually a perfect example here. I have had many smartphones and PDAs (iPaq, Nokia communicator, Sony-Ericsson P910, P990 and a few others) - and in none of them I actually ever used the copy-paste (if it was there), or at least certainly not as much as I do now on my iPhone. Worst clipboard implementation I've ever seen was that when I copied text in a one application, apparently it was placed on the clipboard as UTF8 or Ansi text. No problem so far - but apparently, if your target app then only accepted ascii text - too bad, no copy-paste. Try explaining that-one to a normal user, good luck... I then prefer the focussed on core-features, "no clipboard" approach instead of a confusing, non-working or unreliable feature you end up not using at all.
Now I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I do have an iPhone (only Apple product I own). I'll be the last to say that it's perfect and everything is entirely "done right", but from what I've seen - from a user-point of view - it's without a doubt the best thing out-there. Yes there are on paper "better phones" with "more features" which are "more open", but whatever, it just works. On PC I might be considered a power-user, but my phone is a vital part of my life. I don't want to mess around on it too much - it has to simply work. I did consider buying an Android phone for the sole purpose of playing with it, but I simply don't have the time for that at the moment. I might still do this in the future, after having played with 1.5, 1.6, 2.1 and 2.2 on various models of friends - I have to say, I'm impressed by the technical improvements, but still - the user-experience is just horrible. There are some cool ideas, like the notifications - but the execution is mind-blowing irritating after a while. It feels to me as a linux desktop 10 years ago: editing your config file with vi is easy. Designed by an engineer, for an engineer.
"Give them brand new still-in-the-box iPhone 4’s and HTC Evos. Now ask them to make a video call to one another. With the iPhone 4, they’re going to be able to do it. "
How can the person with the iPhone make a video call to the person with the Evo, yet only one succeeds? Isn't it the case that for a call to be successfull, both parties need to be able to communicate?
For no obvious reason people buying Apples 3GS over the next year will not be able to receive such calls, nor make them with their back mounted camera.
Since you can't even call to the vast majority of other iPhones, you can guess how this competition would go if you had to show pictures of your newborn to your parents who only had a laptop computer.
So a big hurrah for Apple's sudden embrace of "open standards", as now maybe a 3rd party will bring this to us. Shame 3rd party software is by definition not as good as Apple stuff but I guess we'll just have to cope.
Why would the lack of a camera prevent you from wanting to receive a video call and see your newborn grandchild?
Why, when switching between the two cameras is highlighted as a useful feature for videoing your child playing, would only having one of them kill the deal completely. Am I missing something here? I did explicitly spell these reasons for why you don't need a front facing camera for video chat out in my previous comment but you appear to have missed it.
On open standards, are you really telling me that section of the keynote didn't seem odd? Did you consider that it perhaps was a shot across the bow of Google introducing an actual open standard using an actual open standard video codec rather than H.264? And that its implicit message didn't clash horribly with the fact that it won't work even with some iphones or any macs, even those bought after the introduction of the feature?
> Why would the lack of a camera prevent you from wanting to see your newborn grandchild?
Nothing, but then again it's already perfectly possible to collect and send videos using the current 3GS. What is not possible is video chat, because there is no frontal camera making chat not video. You might want to notice that Fring has support for video calls on the iPhone yet it's one-way only due to lack of front camera...
> Why, when switching between the two cameras is highlighted as a useful feature for videoing your grandchild playing, would only having one of them kill the deal completely. Am I missing something here?
That the main point of video chat is to see each other? The ability to switch to the back camera is a feature to temporarily show something to your correspondant. It's a nice feature to complement voice chat, but on its own it's pretty damn pointless and building a video chat application for a back camera makes no sense.
> On open standards, are you really telling me that section of the keynote didn't seem odd?
No.
> Did you consider that it perhaps was a shot across the bow of Google introducing an actual open standard using an open standard video codec rather than H.264?
h.264 is an open standard. And it's in fact part of the open standards used for facetime.
> And that its implicit message didn't clash horribly with the fact that it won't work even with other some iphones or any macs bought in future?
No and no.
First one, because older iPhones do not have frontal camera making video chat not an option. Second one, because it piggybacks on the 3G network for the establishment of the connection, macs don't have builtin 3G access so how could they have facetime?
Second one, would it be nice if iOS4 also had a regular iChat A/V client? Definitely, shame it doesn't. But it will likely get one, and there will more than likely be a Skype or Fring update using the front camera soon, but it's quite a far cry from the seamlessness apple demonstrated (and probably wanted to build) with facetime.
Obviously we're going to miscommunicate about open standards if you think standards like H.264 are open standards when they're not. Even Apple and Steve Jobs usually makes this distinction e.g. in Thoughts on Flash H.264 is referred to as an "industry standard" while all the web tech is repeatedly called "open standards".
Regarding video chat, we don't seem to be moving forward here. Do we agree that Apple has intentionally limited the software available to older iPhones? That it is actually physically possible to receive(!) video calls on a phone without a front facing camera, and that there is a market demand for it, both demonstrated by Fring having this feature on iPhone? (A quick google reveals many commenters first reaction to this feature in Fring is: why can't I use the camera on the back of my iPhone?)
> Obviously we're going to miscommunicate about open standards if you think standards like H.264 are open standards when they're not.
They are, by most (if not all) industrial definitions of open standards.
> Do we agree that Apple has intentionally limited the software available to older iPhones? That it is actually physically possible to receive(!) video calls on a phone without a front facing camera
Of course, why wouldn't it be?
> and that there is a market demand for it, both demonstrated by Fring having this feature on iPhone?
Not so sure about an actual market (other than fringe) on the subject, no.
I have to confess my bias upfront and say that I'm not a fan of John Gruber. He eloquently spins bullshit, constructing superficially supported arguments that don't bear any scrutiny at all. He is so far down the Apple rabbit hole that he seldom convinces anyone other than the already convinced (which, for historic reasons, includes much of HN).
In this case he's talking about video calling. Ignoring the fact that nobody is actually going to use video calling (it has come so many times on many devices. The Evo was far from the first device to implement it), let's humor his point.
So let's compare-
Apple iPhone 4 - video calling between iPhone 4 devices, only over wifi, using Apple's completely new, completely non-standard protocol. Apparently it "works great", at least for people using demo units at an Apple conference under controlled circumstances.
Evo 4G - Android device with a front-facing camera. Apps support it to talk on any network you want. Fring, for instance, allowing you to call Skype video users on pretty much anything including PCs. This is over wifi, or a 3G/4G connection that can support it.
Gruber has close to no experience with the iPhone 4G, and his entire experience with the Evo 4G is one reviewer's take. Nonetheless, that has made him an expert.
Is iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 calling considered done? Seriously? To me that barely qualifies as beta. It barely qualifies as alpha. There are a legacy of long existing, open video calling protocols, and many existing implementations. Only the truly faithful could call Apple's take done.
EDIT To draw from a comment I left elsewhere, here's an exercise for Daring Fireball supporters: Imagine, if you will, that Motorola just introduced their latest Android device, front-facing camera and all, called the iDroid. The iDroid comes with an easy to use, ultra-simple video conferencing solution, but it only works on wifi, and it only works between iDroid devices.
How, I ask, would John Gruber respond to that? Imagine that it's been tightly polished and all.
Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it.
How can you start off saying Gruber is awful for spinning superficially supported arguments, then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact.
Especially when the whole point of Gruber's article is that nobody uses video calling because it's a confusing and complex mess, and when it isn't so (e.g. skype) it gets used, and when iPhone 4 comes out it will get used a lot more.
So let's compare-
Apple iPhone 4 - instantly popular with millions of people using the exact same make and model with the same software within a few months. Video calling baked in as a single button visible on every phonecall, advertised as a primary feature, designed for easy use.
Evo 4G - Phone with camera on the front. Not such a one-off instantly popular hit. Video calling not possible until specific apps heard of, downloaded and installed, configured, then still different and more hassle to use than a normal phonecall. Other features vary by app.
And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever.
Video calls are available in any UMTS network (read 3G, without any extension) since they were deployed (i.e. early 2000). They do not involve any setup, just selecting "video call" instead of "audio call" when choosing contact and the phone number. To this day, any 3G phone with front-faced camera does support it.
Despite this, the adoption is near zero. I remember that I tried it once, just for the novelty and have quickly forgotten about it. Most people didn't even try it, despite the ad campaign by mobile companies.
So what makes you think, that when Apple comes with some features decades later, with many more limitations and complications (Am I on the wifi? Does the contact have iPhone? What it was called? Face-what?), that it will be more popular than zero-setup and seamless compatibility in billions of Nokias, Sony-Ericssons, Samsungs and LGs already shipped and used daily?
>then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact.
It was obviously a personal opinion. See, I'm not making a grand blog entry waxing poetically on why no one will ever make video calls, carefully creating a curated (word of the month) list of support blog and tweet entries to bolster my supposition.
I offered zero supports to my opinionn. I think you're missing a big difference there. I don't pretend that I have supports for personal opinion.
>So let's compare-
Apple is big and successful (biggest tech company...yet people still pretend that they're counter-culture supporting them. Funny, that). Therefore their "we're big and successful" gives them leave to build things only for their, to use the trite descriptive, walled garden?
"You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!"
Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical.
>And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever.
Obviously it will change. Gruber considers it "done right". I think it is done absolutely horrifically, and it is done in a way that is exactly the problem many people have had with Apple's actions.
Hmm, from the hours of 9am until about 6pm I can list off about 2 dozen people who I might actually call (girlfriend, dad, best friend, etc) who I know will be on a wifi network and are planning on buying iPhone 4's. You know why? Because between those hours they are at work. Guess what? I can also bet that around 8pm until midnight I can also call them, because they are at home, where they have wifi networks. And guess what? The other times, when they are on the go (walking around out in the world, or driving) are times I wouldn't want to video call anyway. People video calling in public is going to be the new nextel walkie-talkie feature; fucking annoying. Driving while video calling, well, hopefully I don't have to comment on that one.
This is NOT a perfect solution. Of course being able to do it over 3G or 4G would be awesome. As Steve Jobs said.. that will come. They are working with the carriers to make it happen. Why does the solution have to be perfect day one? Baby steps my friend. Do you not think Steve Jobs wants it to work this way as well?
You saying it's done absolutely horrifically is comical, not the other way around. To you, what makes it horrific, is the fact that it only works sometimes, not 24/7. That's pretty ridiculous.
Also, I must point out that when Apple releases something it usually IS done right. It usually is very, very close to finished. Apple polishes before they release, it's in their DNA. Steve Jobs is insane about sweating the details.
That sounds good in theory, but you're making an assumption that people want to make a video call with you at any time during the day.
Example: you're at work and your phone rings. Do you prefer doing a quick chat and get back to work asap or showing your face and doing a nice conversation? Same thing goes when you're outside and possibly at home.
The only time when this is going to work is when two people have previously committed to do a video call.
Again, I'm making an assumption too, only time can tell.
Video calling, over 3G, has been available for a long time now. One of the providers I know here in Austria introduced it sometime around 2003.
Nobody uses it, it's going to be interesting if Apple is able to change this but I highly doubt that.
Indeed. It's not done right. Which is pretty much the point.
Here's a exercise: Imagine that the Droid XIX came with video conferencing that was super easy -- a single button -- but it only worked on WiFi and it only worked between Droid XIX devices. How do you think Gruber would respond to that?
Do you think he would say "Yeah. That's video conferencing done right"
Yes, two dozen. At least a dozen friends, girlfriend, parents, co-workers, etc. It adds up fast.
It's done right from an experience perspective, which is the point Gruber was trying to make. Using the feature is dead easy, meaning it's done right. The example of the other phone he gave was not dead easy to use, it took the user hours to figure it out and when he did the experience was still awful.
If the feature worked over Wifi AND 3G/4G it would be EXACTLY THE SAME. No different. It's the feature itself we're talking about here, not when and where you can use it.
If you want to blame someone for the feature being held back point your fingers at AT&T. Or at least blame Apple for taking so damn long to jump ship and offer it to more carriers, but not for shipping a broken solution, as their solution is what looks to be pretty flawless.
Your exercise: I don't know what Gruber would say, but I can take a stab at it. I'd bet it would be along the lines of, "Good to see another feature in Android giving the iPhone a run for its money, competition is good." or "It's great Android can make video calls but it would have been better if they adopted the FaceTime standard so they could call iPhones as well".
>If the feature worked over Wifi AND 3G/4G it would be EXACTLY THE SAME
No it wouldn't. Having a protocol work over wifi is remarkably easier than having it work over 3G. The latter introduces clustering and latencies that you just don't have on any normal wifi. It's just as easy to assume that it is a bandwidth pig and is heavily susceptible to latency issues, which is why it is thus far limited to wifi.
Of course everyone else immediately started by making a solution work on 3G (and even edge), with wifi being a "nice to have extras" platform.
>I don't know what Gruber would say, but I can take a stab at it. I'd bet it would be along the lines of
When has Gruber ever said that? When the Android phones had dramatically better resolutions than the now almost intolerable iPhone 3GS and before, did Gruber ever commend that? In fact I believe the only time it even started to come up was when the iPhone 4 was an open secret and he knew it offered the new benchmark resolution, so suddenly competitive resolutions became a conversation point, but only from a "they're behind what is coming" angle.
How about Android notifications -- Gruber has defensively pushed back against the reality that Android has a dramatically better notification system. Yet, good for a laugh, he recently gushed that a notification expert from Palm (he was doing the "See Android was just a copy cat anyways" thing) was moving to Apple, clearly implying "So soon it'll get a better notification system than the notification system that was a non-issue just yesterday".
Gruber, to me, is like Republican talking heads of the worst kind. He filters information to see the world exactly the way he wants to see it to serve his agenda, which is to pimp Apple.
"You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!"
Yes.
Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical.
No.
This pushes to the point of being useful. It's not like WiFi is something you only have access to on Thursdays and in big cities, or that they think WiFi-only is what they want because that's best. WiFi only is a compromise.
For now you can have iPhone4 to iPhone4 via wifi, in future it will also be for 3/4G cellular, and for anyone else who implements their standards when that's available. Which I'm very interested to see what they've done about firewalls and NAT and central servers.
Good grief. I assume you must be talking about Market Cap and that just happened. If you look at how much money they make they are still dwarfed by MS and probably IBM, etc. as well.
>I assume you must be talking about Market Cap and that just happened
Indeed. Market cap is what gives companies weight to throw around. Apple is in a position where they can acquire a large portion of the industry, and where their actions cause tremors of fear. That's the impact of market cap.
Again with the spin. Apple didn't get where they are by throwing their weight around, causing "tremors of fear". They got there by out-doing everyone else 3 or 4 times in a row now.
Where do you come up with this stuff? You think Apple was "throwing their weight around" with the iPod? Before they released it, I think most people didn't even realize Apple was still around. With the iPhone? The smart phone market was barely worth paying attention to before they reinvented it.
EDIT: I took the troll's bait and got caught arguing with someone apparently arguing in the mirror, so apologies for adding to the noise. loewenskind has a long history on here for attacking strawmen instead of actual positions, polarizing their position (everyone not pro-Apple is a part of the anti-Apple hoardes, in loewenskind's opinion), and just generally acting as hero for the defenseless Apple. I didn't know that before being trolled.
>Again with the spin.
What spin? Are you for real?
I said that Apple is the largest tech company. Yes, the normal measure is market capitalization.
You then go off about how that just happened (so? Are we supposed to be talking about the past), but how it doesn't matter anyways. To which I mentioned that being so large allows them to throw their weight around. See the panic when there were worries that Apple would consume ARM.
Your whole argument is against nothing I've actually said, and you seem to be arguing for Apple of 2003. Well guess what, loewenskind, it's 2010. I'm here with reality, you're not.
And quit calling everything "spin" after you've thoroughly misrepresented the point.
>I said that Apple is the largest tech company. Yes, the normal measure is market capitalization.
And given that is a very recent development what possible relevance could it have on anything?
You seem to be claiming that Apple is doing an "old school Microsoft" when they literally just beat MS with market cap in the last couple of weeks. Things are going Apple's way right now because they're executing. No other reason.
>See the panic when there were worries that Apple would consume ARM.
I've seen rumors but no panic. Maybe panic from people who are desperate to see Apple fail (which at some point they will, as everyone does).
>Your whole argument is against nothing I've actually said, and you seem to be arguing for Apple of 2003. Well guess what, loewenskind, it's 2010. I'm here with reality, you're not.
No, I'm arguing about you calling people out for "spin" and then serving up a double helping of it yourself. With every post.
>And given that is a very recent development what possible relevance could it have on anything?
Extraordinary.
>You seem to be claiming
No. I'm not. You are extraordinary.
Look, I'm sorry that I looked at your sacred cow the wrong way. Yet everything you have said has been against a strawman. It's a bit sad, really, but I'm sure you'll have another go declaring that the slant of the apostrophe there means that I think Steve Jobs eats baby blood.
As much as executing so well that they've changed the industry several times? Surely even you realize how bias you are.
>No. I'm not. You are extraordinary.
Then what was the relevance in mentioning it? Throwing in random, unrelated facts into the conversation... just because?
>Look, I'm sorry that I looked at your sacred cow the wrong way.
My sacred cow? I don't even own an iPhone! I'm just not going to sit back and watch you blast others for spin that doesn't stroke your bias and spew it out yourself as fact.
>It's a bit sad, really, but I'm sure you'll have another go declaring that the slant of the apostrophe there means that I think Steve Jobs eats baby blood.
More spin from you. I've never seen a post from you on this site that wasn't taking some kind of cheap shot at Apple.
If you don't like Apple, I don't care. Don't buy their stuff. But don't vomit nonsense and misrepresentations all over the site that someone has to correct.
> Imagine, if you will, that Motorola just introduced their latest Android device, front-facing camera and all, called the iDroid. The iDroid comes with an easy to use, ultra-simple video conferencing solution, but it only works on wifi, and it only works between iDroid devices.
How, I ask, would John Gruber respond to that? Imagine that it's been tightly polished and all.
Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it.
----------
I love how you're using a hypothetical scenario in which Gruber would very plausibly praise the implementation in question in order to undermine his credibility. He has often pointed out when a competitor does something better than Apple does, or otherwise markedly improves on the status quo.
All you've done is create a gestalt which people who don't know any better will interpret according to their biases. Talk about arguments that don't bear any scrutiny.
>I love how you're using a hypothetical scenario in which Gruber would very plausibly praise the implementation in question in order to undermine his credibility.
Most who reads DF would come to a common prediction about how Gruber would have responded to that hypothetical. It doesn't undermine his credibility, but simply puts into context that he is, failing to have a better word, a fanboy.
> Ignoring the fact that nobody is actually going to use
> video calling (it has come so many times on many devices.
> The Evo was far from the first device to implement it),
> let's humor his point.
I just discussed video calls with some of my friends (we all work/have worked with mobile phone software). We agreed that it is one of the biggest technologies that the manufacturers have specified and implemented that _nobody_ has _ever_ used.
Now this article was the first time I read about iPhone 4 and video calls. I wonder if Apple is going to be the first one to have people actually using the feature. I mean it's not that odd a feature, people chat on Skype with webcams all the time.
Also kind of interesting that video call was one of the main arguments to spend billions to build 3G networks (at least here in Finland).. what.. almost 10 years ago? And IF this works for Apple, it's not going to use any of the technology built back then (not the 3G network and not the software specifications).
It uses a standard Internet protocol (SIP+SRTP) as they said in the keynote.
Skype actually does use a proprietary codec (On2 VP7, which Google hasn't released) in their Skype<>Skype video chat. Does Fring use that, or does it support 3G too?
In any case I'd see not using 3G as a major advantage for FaceTime, since H.264+AAC is much better than low-bitrate H.263 used in 3G.
>It uses a standard Internet protocol (SIP+SRTP) as they said in the keynote.
While it draws from a lot of existing standards, it embraces and extends. It isn't interoperable with anything currently deployed.
Which is interesting because one alternative world would have seen them introducing the standard a year ago, to be met by broad acceptance and compatibility at release. They chose not to do this, meaning that early adopters enter a very scarce world.
That would have given away their game with respect to the new iPhone. Also, until iOS 4 is released we can't really say how it's implemented/what it will interoperate with.
"The best thing that could happen for iPhone users would be for the Android and/or WebOS communities to start shipping apps that make iPhone owners jealous. Google Voice for Android is the best example so far." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/10/torrez-android)
I think it's a shame that you're attacking him for a counterfactual.
You went searching through the DF archives to find some damning praise and that's the best you could come up with. In each case you selectively chose what you thought was a compliment (protip: His friction comment was not a compliment), yet if you quoted the whole entry you would see that it's damning praise. A compliment sandwich wrapped around a "it's a second class platform" filling.
It's also interesting that the best you could find was from over a half a year ago.
Most criticism of Daring Fireball has to do with how it has turned so rabidly one-sided over the past few months. Gruber has somehow taken up the battle as a personal mission, now valiantly defending Apple against the evils of Google or Adobe. While before he did the whole "compliment sandwich around an insult" thing, now he doesn't even bother with that and it's instead just all criticism.
I expected you to move the goalposts. "Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it." He has complimented innovation, and in all those cases he did not "viciously attack it".
I'm disappointed that many of the comments on this thread have to do with the version of John Gruber in your head, and are attacking his character instead of his real arguments, as opposed to the arguments he makes in your imagination.
I didn't move the goalposts. We're talking about the now. Gruber is on a personal mission now to act as a one-man army against Google and, strangely, Adobe (the guy has a real hate on for Adobe that he suddenly developed once Jobs got his anti-Flash lean). The whole point of most DF complaints are that he went from being an Apple fan that wrote on technology to being an Apple fanatic that wrote critically about anything that threatens Apple.
I agree. Gruber is full of shit. Forward facing cameras on Nokia phones have been working on non-3g telephony networks for a while.
Saying that "it works right" between two iPhone 4Gs and limited to a wifi network, is like saying the AMC Gremlin is the greatest car in the world on a local track.
Do you like functional programming? One of the nice things about functional programming is that I can see right away what is being done with a collection. Map is applying or "mapping" some translation to the list to create a new one, filter is taking a subset of the collection that meets some criteria. In e.g. C you just have that big dumb for loop. You want to know what is being done to the the collection? Well, you're just going to have to read the whole thing. Every time.
The problem is that there are several different kinds of things you want to do to a collection, but in C you just have the for loop and have to keep writing e.g. filter every time you need one. Over and over.
Apple gives you the functional approach to multitasking: there are a handful of things you actually want to use multitasking for and they're all supported with the api. You're complaining that they didn't give you that dumb for loop so you could just do it all yourself by hand. Over and over.
Apple gives you a fixed set of functions that you can pass to map(). Other OSes give you chance to write your own functions that you will be able to pass to built-in map.
That's simply not the case. My analogy is exactly how I wanted it. What things do you want to do with a service? Run a background thread to completion? You can do that. You want to play music when your app is in the foreground? Covered. Want to receive notifications from the network? Check. What to do certain tasks at scheduled times? Affirmative.
Further, if I'm reading your code I don't have to go "Oh God, they started a thread. What do they think they need it for...", I can just look at what API you used and I know exactly what the goal was. Exactly the same advantage that map/filter/reduce/etc. have over a for loop.
It is basically: what do you want? This or that supplied function covers your need, you can pass it. Sorry, you can't make yours, what would you possibly want?
Honestly? I don't know right now. Maybe I will have earth-shattering idea next week or month, but I don't know right now. The point is, the original authors of map didn't try to envision what you are going to use map for, and provide enum for choosing an appropriate action. They allowed you to pass any function you want, doing whatever you want.
For example, when speaking about Android, the framework contains class that handles things like managing threads for you. You just plug-in the required functionality, just like you pass your function to built-in map. The boilerplate that you are arguing against is simply not there. Just like with map you know, that "this function will be applied for every item in set" or with filter you know "you will get new set containing items from original set for which the supplied predicate is true", you know that "this functionality will run in background". The accidental complexity of managing it is hidden; the functionality allowed is not fixed.
>This or that supplied function covers your need, you can pass it. Sorry, you can't make yours, what would you possibly want?
We've had concurrency and services for decades, we already know every general action you can possibly do with a service. No one is going to come up with some totally new novel use for a background service anymore than anyone will come up with a new general action to apply to lists. Everything you would ever want to do with a background service can be divided into about 5 kinds of tasks and those are covered. Full stop.
If you disagree then please describe some act with a service and I'll explain to you how that already fits in one of the 4 or 5 kinds of things people do with services. Proposing that some day, some where someone may come up with something that doesn't fit this mold is just hand waving.
You can have your app continue to run for up to 10 minutes after it's been closed, so it should be possible to use that time to keep your connection open. If no one has contacted you in 10 minutes then chances are they wont in the next 10 either so it would be better to switch to push notification and let the phone manage notifications.
Keeping SSH or IM connections open is an action of a well known use for servers; listening for updates. And that's covered in the API.
You're wrong. These are the same excuses that people always make for apple, that simplicity and functionality are mutually exclusive. This excuse seems to usually be made ONLY for Apple. Why can't they have their easy to use APIs but ALSO have the ability for real developers who want to write "that same for loop over and over", or who, you know, what to write something like an Instant Messaging application do so?
What are you talking about? What functionality does an instant message application need that isn't supported? It can get push notifications if someone sends you a message. You could even leave your app running for up to 10 minutes in the background waiting for updates if you wanted (which probably matches actual usage pretty well).
What you can't do is have your app sitting in the wait queue for data coming in over the wifi because that would mean the wifi card has to run constantly. Ask Android how quickly doing that can drain your battery.
You get AOL to add support for apple's push server into their Oscar protocol chain and I'll concede.
My battery lasts fine and I'm generally logged into IRC and/or meebo for most of the day in addition to the Google Talk that I leave signed in and my three email accounts that get updates. etc, etc. The battery woes are simply unjustified for the most part.
I couldn't find the article in 30 seconds, but I recall someone from Google, Android or one of the carriers (i.e. someone qualified to talk about it) who acknowledged the battery issue and pointed to exactly this as the culprit.
I'm sorry, but a three-month old phone should not be obsolete. If I get a iPhone 4, I have every confidence that Apple will make every effort to ensure that subsequent iOS upgrades work on my phone until there's a legitimate technical reason to exclude it, not some bullshit profit/loss maximization algorithm.
The Android ecosystem will remain fragmented because every single phone+manufacturer+carrier combination requires a decision and engineering resources to upgrade. I could never recommend an Android phone to anyone but the anti-Apple hordes.