Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPhone 4

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 159 posts

Re: IPhone 4

#111

Post by blasdel »

danudey wrote: post #109
blasdel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Gruber is anything but colorful -- his whole aesthetic is dour gray

People go to his site for the words, not for the site. A flashy design would be distracting, and for someone who (IMHO) writes as well as he does, anything that takes away from that is impractical. It's the same reason he'll link to images or videos or sound clips, but he never posts them directly on his site.

But his writing is the same way -- he's gotten to the point where he spends more time sneeringly mocking Apple's detractors than fellating Apple.

He wrote a bunch a while back about how Apple needs an equivalent rival like Nikon/Canon. It would sure make his writing a lot more interesting -- they've now got a Dreamworks to their Pixar in Android, but that's just giving Gruber more insubstantiative shit to sling.

Re: IPhone 4

#112

Post by allwein »

ergo98 wrote: post #92
[deleted] wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I != the other person. It was a simple, obvious observation. In the same way that a writer for the right wing press isn't going to suddenly question conservative values.

The grammar nerd in me is desperately wishing that you had written this as "The other person != me".

Re: IPhone 4

#113

Post by allwein »

doron wrote: post #85
Lazlo_Nibble wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between getting acceptable manufacturing yields on a 300ppi+ iPhone-sized screen and a similarly-dense iPad-sized screen.

I am sure there is,but can it be done? If it is possible, then its inevitable future design iteration, and worth the wait, because i suspect it will come soon, or am I wrong?

I don't think he's questioning the "inevitable future design iteration", but rather the characterization of withholding such a screen from iPad 1.0 as a "dick move".

Re: IPhone 4

#114

Post by pohl »

chc wrote: post #81
elbrodeur wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a designer, Helvetica Neue (even without italics) is a huge step in the right aesthetic direction. His original point was not so much about the font, but about the platform. He lays the groundwork, showing that the platform was higher resolution and therefore it made more sense for a font that displayed better at higher resolutions to be used. I think it's a valid point and a great critique -- how is it contradict…

The contradiction is in praising them for their attention to detail in how that made a feature and then pointing out a problem with the very same feature that can best be described as a lack of attention to detail.

How is that a contradiction? Can't they be both better than others at attention to detail as a general rule while also not being perfect at it?

Re: IPhone 4

#115

Post by chc »

pohl wrote: post #114
chc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contradiction is in praising them for their attention to detail in how that made a feature and then pointing out a problem with the very same feature that can best be described as a lack of attention to detail.

How is that a contradiction? Can't they be both better than others at attention to detail as a general rule while also not being perfect at it?

In general, yes. They might have careful attention to detail in general but show less attention here or there. But in this case, the feature that they're paying such close attention to is the same feature they messed up.

Re: IPhone 4

#116

Post by pohl »

samaparicio wrote: post #93

I for one am getting tired of all this undeserved attention to things that don't make a difference in anybody's lives. This iphone doesn't make anybody more productive, more empowered, more effective, less frustrated. It doesn't free up time for anybody and doesn't do anything new. In fact, I just wrote the complete opposite of Gruber article: a comparison of the GREAT things that are unique to iPhone and to Android…

Blogging about the hype only constitutes more hype. Your actions are at odds with your intent.

Re: IPhone 4

#117

Post by astrange »

jws wrote: post #48
axod wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it's like saying "Ford pay so much detail to every part of their cars, it's amazing the level of care put into each and every model" and later saying "Of course Ford did forget to include wheels on this particular model"

Or maybe "Of course Ford did forget to include tail fins on this particular model". I don't think I've seen oblique, sans serif type used in an iOS user interface. Content, sure, and Helvetica is there for you, but this is the system user interface font. I think the clarity demanded of the system user interface argues against the subtle change afforded by slanting the font. Oblique sans serif fonts are generally sort…

> I don't think I've seen oblique, sans serif type used in an iOS user interface.

The system font in OS X (Lucida Grande) doesn't have an italic style either.

Re: IPhone 4

#118

Post by chc »

jsz0 wrote: post #100
ergo98 wrote: post #76

Even though this is the Haus of Gruber (why, exactly, does everything he post get FPd here? Confirmation bias, perhaps?), I'll take my downvote suffering- >In fact, Apple seems very confident regarding everything it decided for the original 2007 iPhone Except multitasking in apps. Actually, scratch that, except apps altogether. Two major shifts in direction. Of course Gruber led into that talking about hardware. Ther…

His quote makes a lot more sense in context: * In fact, Apple seems very confident regarding everything it decided for the original 2007 iPhone. There are no new buttons, or even moved buttons. The Retina Display is emblematic of the iPhone 4 as a whole, both hardware and software: the same fundamental idea as the original iPhone, but clarified. It hasn’t really changed so much as improved — like the same picture in…

The only part of his comments that really amounts to negative criticism is about the glass back.

He isn't hard on Apple about the missing italic face in the same way he is about e.g. Microsoft's errors (he basically treats it as a regression for Apple to fix), and it's a gross distortion to characterize his verdict on the antenna as "This could be a fatal design flaw." Almost every mention of the antenna issue is cushioned with soothing positivity. He repeatedly states his belief that reception only drops when your reception is lousy to begin with, and overall he seems to think it's likely that the issue will be helped by a software patch, or maybe a small hardware fix. The "fatal design flaw" angle is brought up very briefly, immediately said to be unlikely, and then further softened by reiterating his belief that the issue doesn't affect your reception that much anyway.

I mean, I like Gruber. He's a good writer and has a lot of interesting insights and I actually value his opinion, but you'd have to be stark raving mad to read his blog and think, "Wow, this guy is kind of hard on Apple."

Re: IPhone 4

#119

Post by madh »

blehn wrote: post #56
cmelbye wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current Macbook Pro trackpad button is a dream to use, they've found the perfect amount of pressure required to click in my opinion.

It's definitely a subjective thing, but I think it just sucks. I set my machine to "tap-to-click" within a few minutes.

I find that two finger and three finger (and even four finger) gestures are pretty awesome.

Re: IPhone 4

#120

Post by apu »

mrshoe wrote: post #8
awa wrote: post #4

Is it only me who finds the flat sides and glass back "aesthetically" unpleasing... The 3GS looks a tad better to me than the 4 (ofcourse they aren't deal breakers, but wanted to know since Gruber seem to like them)

I think the iPhone 4 gives the original iPhone a serious run for its money in the industrial design department. The 3G and 3Gs weren't even close, in my opinion. A rounded blob of plastic isn't very exciting.

Except this is exactly what was said about the iPhone when it came out -- that it was amazingly designed.

If good design is supposed to be timeless, how can once-beautiful pieces of design now be considered as "rounded blob[s] of plastic" that "isn't very exciting"?

This is the kind of fanboyism that really turns off a lot of us.

Thought experiment: if Apple came out with a new phone with the exact design of some previously maligned older phone, I'd be willing to bet that most Apple fans would immediately claim that this "new" design is amazing and perfect and all the other superlatives that are pitched about...

Post reply on HN