I hate apple!

Stoke

prowla wrote: »

Yes, I lived through the 90s when Apple lost its way (and meandered on with an obsolete system), and the only choice was which brand of Windows PC to get.

Contrast that with (a) the 80s, where there were lots of options in a vibrant home computing market, and (b) now, where we have Apple, Linux, UNIX as viable desktop systems.

So yes, the 90s were a relatively dull time in computing.

Perhaps I could remind you that the iPod is not just an MP3/portable music player; it also runs apps. In fact my kids have iPods and hardly use them for music.

So labelling it as just an MP3 music player is rather missing the point.

Yes, I know that there are other brands of music (MP3 and other formats) player, but I said that the iPhone has a built-in iPod and is compatible with the iPad; picking up only on the MP3 aspect ignores its other capabilities.

In my case, I used to have a (very nice) Nokia phone and an iPod, but I consolidated them into a single iPhone. (I already had a load of apps for my iPod, so the decision was quite straightforward.)

I also replaced a physical TomTom sat-nav with the app on my phone. It works fine in the car and I've got it with me all the time.

As for alternatives to the iPod (either just as a music player, or taking into account its other capabilities), what are there? Sony? Microsoft? Creative (or have they gone)? iRiver (I did consider an iRiver back in the 80s)? Windows Phone (I have one; it is rubbish!)? Android (I also have one of them, and it's a bit clunky and Samsung's batteries are awful)?

Me, I'll stick with my confused and clumsy view of the world...

I never said you had a confused and clumsy view of the world, I said your previous post was confused and clumsy... and it is. Sorry to say it pal.

Firstly, you sound like someone who actually knows what they're talking about. You also sound like someone who is totally and utterly fixated with Apple. I'm getting a sense that you absolutely hate Microsoft?

Your comment about viable desktop systems... you've missed one, Windows? For the majority of home owners, Windows is a perfectly reliable desktop system. Me personally, I prefer Linux distros because I'm a developer so I like the flexibility it offers however I would never give my mum a laptop with Ubuntu on? I have to use Windows at work and that's fine, but I also have a laptop with Ubuntu on, which is great. I can target my development for both platforms and easily discover bugs and other issues I might come across. I don't like Windows but I'm happy to use it. You sound like someone very bitter about the fact Windows is still, unfortunately, the most popular OS on the planet (Excluding mobile OS's). Let it go. It's happened.

The 90s were relatively dull if you were completely anti-Windows and avoided Microsoft at all costs, which I'm getting from you. If you had a PC, you were able to access some of the greatest PC games ever made. Some of the best original software came out in that decade. Windows 95 was a bag of !!!!. Windows 98 wasn't much better. That doesn't mean the software you could get didn't make them worth having. If anything, the invention of Xbox's and PS3's has killed one of the greatest industries, PC-gaming. Quake, Doom, Half-Life, Blake Stone, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, are just a few of the excellent games released in the 90s for PC. Unfortunately there's no going back. Consoles now dominate and that's the end of it.

Sorry I'm confused. You said one of the reasons you had an iPhone was because it had a built-in iPod? You're now saying that an iPod is not an MP3/portable music player, it runs apps? The iPhone was released before the iPod Touch with app functionality. I assumed by calling it an iPod and stating your iPhone had one, you were referring to the original functionality of an iPod which was a dedicated music player. If you're referring to the fact it can also run apps, then your remark is a complete non sequitur.

I merely labelled it an MP3 player because of your comments regarding the fact your iPhone contains an iPod. I assure you, I haven't missed the point.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the iPod/iPhone is compatible with your iPad? You mean they synchronize data with each other? Or you can control one device from the other? Perhaps you could explain.

Your very nice Nokia phone probably had an MP3 player built-in. In fact Nokia were the first to release a phone with an MP3 player, and that was about 12 years ago. I remember having a Nokia 6600 back in 2004 which featured a sophisticated MP3/Music player with a graphic equalizer and various other cool features. I had dozens of albums on it. Oh and it had apps, being Symbian it had thousands available. This was a few years before the half-eaten fruit company came up with their revolutionary new device which apparently did things that no other device did, even though the reality was that everything it did, had been done... better.

Again, regarding Sat Nav, my 6600 in 2004 was compatible with bluetooth GPS dongles which meant it was possible to convert it into a genuine GPS sat nav device. Nokia then released their own powerful sat nav software which is also free to use and compatible with all their newer devices which have GPS built-in. I believe the first of these devices is the N95, released months before the original iPhone.

prowla

Ok; I'll attempt to respond to the comments in your rather cluttered post....

Stoke wrote: »

I never said you had a confused and clumsy view of the world, I said your previous post was confused and clumsy... and it is. Sorry to say it pal.

Well, as you've just shown, everybody is capable of making a post which appears to someone else to be confused and clumsy.

Stoke wrote: »

Firstly, you sound like someone who actually knows what they're talking about. You also sound like someone who is totally and utterly fixated with Apple. I'm getting a sense that you absolutely hate Microsoft?

To your three assertions: i. Yes, ii. No, iii. No.

i. Well, I do work in IT and have done for more than a quarter of a century; I've worked in quite varied environments and with many computer systems.

ii. Nope I am not fixated with Apple; I simply think they make the best product on the market. This is not a starstruck fixation; as I explained I have Windows, Android, Blackberry and Apple smart phones; the Apple is the best. Similarly, I have Windows, Linux, UNIX, and Apple computers; for a desktop the Apple wins.

iii. Nope, I don't absolutely hate Microsoft; I think Windows 7 is an excellent desktop OS and Windows server does a pretty good job for business. I will admit to hating Windows 8, though; it is like Windows 2 reincarnated. (Yes, I used Windows 2 in the 80s, alongside a Mac SE!)

Stoke wrote: »

Your comment about viable desktop systems... you've missed one, Windows? For the majority of home owners, Windows is a perfectly reliable desktop system. Me personally, I prefer Linux distros because I'm a developer so I like the flexibility it offers however I would never give my mum a laptop with Ubuntu on? I have to use Windows at work and that's fine, but I also have a laptop with Ubuntu on, which is great. I can target my development for both platforms and easily discover bugs and other issues I might come across. I don't like Windows but I'm happy to use it. You sound like someone very bitter about the fact Windows is still, unfortunately, the most popular OS on the planet (Excluding mobile OS's). Let it go. It's happened.

The context of the comment was as alternatives to Windows; as I mentioned above, I think Windows 7 is rather good. I too use Ubuntu daily (in a VM on my Mac, and also Windows, incidentally); I also support Red Hat Linux, and UNIX systems commercially.

I use Windows daily and connect to Exchange systems; I am also Server 2012 trained.

I am prepared to use whichever tool is best or most appropriate for the job, and for me personally the best home desktop is a Mac running OS X.

Where I need Windows and Ubuntu, I can supplement my Mac by running them in VMs.

Stoke wrote: »

The 90s were relatively dull if you were completely anti-Windows and avoided Microsoft at all costs, which I'm getting from you. If you had a PC, you were able to access some of the greatest PC games ever made. Some of the best original software came out in that decade. Windows 95 was a bag of !!!!. Windows 98 wasn't much better. That doesn't mean the software you could get didn't make them worth having. If anything, the invention of Xbox's and PS3's has killed one of the greatest industries, PC-gaming. Quake, Doom, Half-Life, Blake Stone, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, are just a few of the excellent games released in the 90s for PC. Unfortunately there's no going back. Consoles now dominate and that's the end of it.

I never really got into computer games; I wasn't prepared to invest my time learning the controls of a system which was designed to waste my time. So the whole console vs. PC thing is moot at best, and for me an irrelevance.

Contrast the 90s with the 80s, where there were different brands of computers with their own OS's; it was very much a hobbyist market, which included Apple, Atari, Commodore, Acorn, Be, CP/M, MSX, Amstrad, Tandy, DOS, OS2, and others. By the 90s, Windows had pretty much become the de-facto standard, most other brands dropped out, and Linux wasn't yet about (though there were some PC UNIXes, such as Xenix and SCO).

The only choice in the 90s was which brand of beige box running Windows you wanted to buy. ("You can have any colour, so long as it's beige.")

Yes, I know about Windows 95, 98, Me, and so-on (I still have media & licence keys and remember HIMEM and suchlike!), but they were still putting lipstick on a chicken.

I'm not particularly bitter about Windows, but I am ambivalent to it; I use MS Office, including Visio and Project, and they require Windows; I let the necessary apps dictate my OS selection.

Stoke wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused. You said one of the reasons you had an iPhone was because it had a built-in iPod? You're now saying that an iPod is not an MP3/portable music player, it runs apps? The iPhone was released before the iPod Touch with app functionality. I assumed by calling it an iPod and stating your iPhone had one, you were referring to the original functionality of an iPod which was a dedicated music player. If you're referring to the fact it can also run apps, then your remark is a complete non sequitur.

I said the iPod is not just an MP3 player; it plays movies, and supports apps; therefore the iPhone being a combination of a phone and that (and a camera) is entirely the point.

I don't know why you would assume that in talking about the iPod I would have restricted it to only the music playing capabilities (though yes I do know the original just played music, as I still have a older one with a text b&w LCD display).

What makes it good is that it is the prime example of the convergence of the different technologies.

Stoke wrote: »

I merely labelled it an MP3 player because of your comments regarding the fact your iPhone contains an iPod. I assure you, I haven't missed the point.

I don't believe that at any point did I say that the iPod is just a music player; the point is that the marrying of a phone and iPod includes the apps too, as opposed to just MP3 music (and other music formats), as I said.

I also used to take a PSP on the train to watch movies on; I'd have to copy a movie or two onto a memory stick for the next day. The iPod Touch replaced that.

Stoke wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the iPod/iPhone is compatible with your iPad? You mean they synchronize data with each other? Or you can control one device from the other? Perhaps you could explain.

The apps are compatible (often, unless specifically designed for the larger display), and one purchase on iTunes allows install on both.

The user interface is consistent across the two; you learn to use one, you've learned to use the other.

Songs & movies you save to one you can save to the other by the same method (iTunes) and without conversion.

You manage them using the same tool and/or logging in to the same app store account.

I'm sure I could add to the list of compatibilities between the two sibling products.

Stoke wrote: »

Your very nice Nokia phone probably had an MP3 player built-in. In fact Nokia were the first to release a phone with an MP3 player, and that was about 12 years ago. I remember having a Nokia 6600 back in 2004 which featured a sophisticated MP3/Music player with a graphic equalizer and various other cool features. I had dozens of albums on it. Oh and it had apps, being Symbian it had thousands available. This was a few years before the half-eaten fruit company came up with their revolutionary new device which apparently did things that no other device did, even though the reality was that everything it did, had been done... better.

I've had several Nokia phones, and at least some did have an MP3 player, but not enough memory to store loads of songs.

My last Nokia (apart from the godawful Windows phone) was a 6700, which I view as a design classic.

(When you say the half-eaten fruit company, I'm sensing hostility towards Apple.)

Other companies may have had niche products which delivered certain functionality, but Apple made it all work coherently; I'm not sure whether the preceding product did it better; for me the iPod nailed it (I had a Creative MP3 player and a Sony Discman for portable music; I also still have an excellent Sony Walkman Pro cassette recorder).

Stoke wrote: »

Again, regarding Sat Nav, my 6600 in 2004 was compatible with bluetooth GPS dongles which meant it was possible to convert it into a genuine GPS sat nav device. Nokia then released their own powerful sat nav software which is also free to use and compatible with all their newer devices which have GPS built-in. I believe the first of these devices is the N95, released months before the original iPhone.

But what I said was that I had a TomTom sat-nav device in the car. I was very happy with that, but it was a hassle getting it out, plugging it in, getting updates (which are chargeable), and so-on. When I decided to replace it, the TomTom app was the obvious first choice, and it works well.

Therefore, in summary, my iPhone has replaced: (a) a Nokia phone, (b) an iPod for music, (c) an iPod for apps, (d) a TomTom sat-nav, (e) a PSP for movies.

Oh, and of course, it also does email - nothing special about that, but just that same unit which does all of the above has that covered too.

For me, given where I was, the iPhone is just the best product on the market.

prowla

P.S. I'm not sure about the insistence that people must be either "fixated with" or "absolutely hate" something.

Opinions don't have to be so polarised - what's up with just liking or disliking something, or being pleased or disappointed with it?

almillar

Therefore, in summary, my iPhone has replaced: (a) a Nokia phone, (b) an iPod for music, (c) an iPod for apps, (d) a TomTom sat-nav, (e) a PSP for movies.

replace the word 'iPhone' with 'any modern smartphone'. You didn't even mention the camera.
Also iPods don't do apps. iPod Touches do.

prowla

almillar wrote: »

replace the word 'iPhone' with 'any modern smartphone'. You didn't even mention the camera.
Also iPods don't do apps. iPod Touches do.

Sure - I thought about mentioning the camera (stills and movie), but decided not to because every phone does that. :-)

Which other phone runs Apple apps?

iPod Touches are iPods.

Stoke

prowla wrote: »

Sure - I thought about mentioning the camera (stills and movie), but decided not to because every phone does that. :-)

Which other phone runs Apple apps?

iPod Touches are iPods.

Is there something particularly superior about Apple apps? I'm not an expert in Apple products but wasn't their mapping software the one that sent people to Salford Rugby Club if they asked to go to Man Utd's football ground?

Apple. Think Different... location that is.

Stoke

Sorry, it sent them to Sale United Football Club. My bad, at least they were watching the same sport

Transformers

I think you'll find loads of stories of TomTom, Garmin etc sending people on dubious routes - that's more a software issue with interpretation of data rather than a reason to damn a whole brand.

Stoke

Transformers wrote: »

I think you'll find loads of stories of TomTom, Garmin etc sending people on dubious routes - that's more a software issue with interpretation of data rather than a reason to damn a whole brand.

I'm merely pointing out that Apple maps gained a reputation for being rather poor at first. So I was asking what he felt was so special about Apple apps...

prowla

Stoke wrote: »

Is there something particularly superior about Apple apps? I'm not an expert in Apple products but wasn't their mapping software the one that sent people to Salford Rugby Club if they asked to go to Man Utd's football ground?

Apple. Think Different... location that is.

Well, in my case, I already had Apple apps for mine and my kids iPods, so they were just sitting there in iTunes waiting to load onto the phone.

I also mentioned that I bought the TomTom sat-nav; don't know about the Apple one.