More on the iPhone
Read More About: Computers/Internet, Technology, Video,
SHARE THIS POST
This is…incredible.
The aspect ratio in this following video is messed up, but the glimpse you get of this device is breathtaking.
P.S. Do you think it’ll run that fast on Cingular’s slowish network?
Man. I want one of these.
But it’s from Apple, and Apple Inc is evil incarnate.
You’re thinking of Microsoft.
No I’m not. If Apple had the market share that Microsoft has, we’d all be paying double for everything. And working in salt mines or being fattened up for Apple executive dining tables.
If Apple had the market share that Microsoft has, the world would be a better place, the hungry would be fed, wars would be a thing of the past, all women would be beautiful and all men would have four-hour, nine-inch erections — without the aide of chemicals.
If Apple had the market share that Microsoft has, the secrets of the universe would be revealed, there would be universal health care and we all would have a life expectency of 200 years.
If Apple had the market share that Microsoft has, we would have all been running Windoze ’98 back in 1986, like I was on my Apple-][-GS.
Much like the trouble I have with the conservative mindset, I have difficulty understanding how so many people could be so wrong, so ignorant, so Mac deprived.
It’s so sad to see so many cursed souls, doomed, deceived by the demons of Microsoft and IBM, when I know the only path to true enlitenment and prosperity is through the temple of Apple — the record company and the computer gods.
Holy crap, Mark! Four-hour erections?? Is that USB 2.0 compliant?
dpu: I hear you. Today I think I heard that Cingular (Apple’s sole iPhone carrier) is changing it’s name to (wait for it) AT&T.
Well.
We all know that the telephone company killed Kennedy. And now … they’ve partnered with Apple.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
“If Apple had the market share that Microsoft has, we’d all be paying double for everything.”
Perhaps. But I’d bet more like the difference between a Lexus and Ford. In every respect.
Oh, and the world would have saved like a gazzilion dollars and countless manhours trying to get a stable, secure operating system that worked as advertised (nice jobs program for engineers, anyway).
In the future, Microsoft Windows will be the textbook example of why unregulated market forces aren’t suitable for a post-industrial age.
Dude, it’s firewire — naturally.
In the future, Microsoft Windows will be the textbook example of why unregulated market forces aren’t suitable for a post-industrial age.
True, some things a a natural monopoly, and it make sense to not have either competing standards or open standards. But it must be remembered that only the rich can afford an Apple because they are not open standard. They are out to make a lot of money, and they have a very successful marketing campaign that poses them as the upstarts and the guys fighting the man, when in fact they are a bunch of litigation-crazed plutocrats run by a (wait for it) maniac.
My first computer was an Apple. I couldn’t afford to stay on that particular treadmill, so I switched to the People’s Computer. Less reliable, sure, but less reliable is better than no computer at all, which was the choice the shareholders at Apple gave me.
It should also be remembered that the PC, too, would be extremely reliable if Microsoft followed Apple business practices. But then the majority of those now using computers would be without computers.
So, Apple sucks. They serve the Man, and not the People. Down With Apple!
I suffered mightily early in my career because of the high cost of Macs (they are no longer “only for the rich” and OSX/Unix is, in fact, open source). But I think that the relatively higher cost has had as much or more to do with the Microsoft monopoly than any decision by Apple executives.
Look, all corporations are out to make money. The question is always, are they also out to create a better product or service. My experience has been that executives and entrepreneurs who are in it for the former but not the latter (there are way too many); usually achieve little. In Bill Gate’s case, he succeeded by monopolizing an enormous emerging market (and made more money than God) but created a lot of harm and expense in the process, because he wasn’t the product visionary that Jobs is.
The story of how he accomplished that and the third-rate quality of the successful product proved to me that the marketplace was insufficiently regulated to make it truly competitive.
But I think that the relatively higher cost has had as much or more to do with the Microsoft monopoly than any decision by Apple executives.
Okay, how come? Keeping in mind that I’m old enough to own a magazine with the first Mac ad, which included endorsement by Bill Gates, with a photo of him wearing a red Apple shirt, and pledging that Microsoft would write programs for it, including Excel, which was only available on the Mac for a year or two.
Macs were overpriced and underpowered back when Apple dominated the computer market. They were the author of their own declining market share, and it was purely because of the greed and arrogance of those running the company, including Jobs (see Accidental Empires by Robert X. Cringely). The company screwed the original Mac owners several times, and many gave up on them. High prices drove many potential customers into the arms of the Wintel consortium, and software developers responded by writing software for the more lucrative market.
Microsoft’s monopoly was more created by Apple than by any other group, including Microsoft.
ps – screw politics and religion. Software platforms are where the real passions come out.
“Software platforms are where the real passions come out.”
Ha! That’s a fact.
But I’m not passionate enough in my disgust with Windows dominance to argue that Apple behaved well back in the day – just that Mac OS was always the better product. I will say that Gates’ success in getting manufacturers to run (none open-source) Windows helped to make PCs comparatively cheap.
“ … and pledging that Microsoft would write programs for it, including Excel, which was only available on the Mac for a year or two.”
One more thing I’ve noticed – MS Office for Mac runs better that MS Office for PC. Go Figure.
My Dad, who wrote mainframe stuff when they took up a whole building, hated GUI altogether. He had the sound of a woman screaming whenever 3.1 booted.
Here’s a bucket of cold water from the NYT.
The piece from the Times is David Pogue’s second article on the iPhone (I linked to an earlier review).
My favorite part:
Hee.