181–190 of 342 posts
Disagree, although it was wrong for Job's to misquote Samsung. Regardless, just because Samsung's tablet sales are "smooth" rather than "small" that doesn't mean that it's selling particularly well. It's not. Nor is the Xoom. I mean c'mon, honestly how many people do you know who own a Galaxy tab or a Xoom? Or anyone who is even really looking forward to buying one? And now how many people do you know who own an iPad…
Disagree, although it was wrong for Job's to misquote Samsung. Regardless, just because Samsung's tablet sales are "smooth" rather than "small" that doesn't mean that it's selling particularly well. It's not. Nor is the Xoom. I mean c'mon, honestly how many people do you know who own a Galaxy tab or a Xoom? Or anyone who is even really looking forward to buying one? And now how many people do you know who own an iPad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter? Are you disputing the claim? Do you think that people care more about the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete than aesthetics?
Depends on which group you look into. The social level who can afford to buy apple? Most likely not that many. Those who can't afford to change the laptop if it breaks (or who would find this to be a major expense)? Yeah, I can believe that.
A Toughbook costs more than a comparable MBP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." This was plainly an exercise in ridicule by Jobs.
Of course you realize how easy it is to apply that quote to completely absurd things, e.g. the Flat Earth Society or pretty much anyone who has reached the ridicule stage. It gets significantly harder as you go along (ignored, ridiculed, fought, victory), and the first two are relatively easy... It's basically a rallying cry for the severe underdog (which I don't think Android is in this case).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose the article talks specs because in the keynote the specs of the competition were being dissed. Reap what you sow. Actually, the one spec that REALLY matters to me is resolution of the front facing camera. A smooth tablet is a nice gadget, but I really NEED a skype capable device for my mum, so that she can chat with her grandchildren. It seems the iPad 2 is actually losing out in that spec comparison.
Honestly? That would have to be a really crappy camera if it wasn't good enough for basic video chatting. You wont even notice unless the resolution is lower than the resolution of the device (highly unlikely).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." This was plainly an exercise in ridicule by Jobs.
I seem to recall the iPad being pretty roundly ridiculed as 'just a big iPod touch' no USB, no flash, etc. etc, and I hear plenty of ridicule from the Xoom crowd. What's the rule in this situation? Does the one who ridicules first lose, or the one who ridicules the most?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose the article talks specs because in the keynote the specs of the competition were being dissed. Reap what you sow. Actually, the one spec that REALLY matters to me is resolution of the front facing camera. A smooth tablet is a nice gadget, but I really NEED a skype capable device for my mum, so that she can chat with her grandchildren. It seems the iPad 2 is actually losing out in that spec comparison.
I do not know anything about the quality of either device's cameras, but I do know resolution is not the way to measure camera quality. That applies even more to measuring how Skype-capable a device is. For Skype on an iPad, one could even argue that any resolution over 1024 by 768 is overkill.
The other end of the chat might be on something else than an iPad. (Also I say Skype, but Facetime might be an option in some cases, too).
Completely agree. I'm not exactly an apple fanboy, but I do love my iPad, and there isn't yet a competitor's device I'd want to replace it with (although I'm hoping BlackBerry's will change that). If he had come out and given all the ways that the iPad 2 is better than the iPad, I'd have been impressed. But spending half the time criticising competitors just came across as the kind of tacky tactic that really shouldn…
Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." This was plainly an exercise in ridicule by Jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it so hard for you fanboys to say something like "Lying is wrong and he shouldn't have done it" and just leave it at that? No bullshit, no qualifications, no Gruber-style excuses, just a simple condemnation of someone doing something wrong.
You've been here for 1,466 days, and you didn't realize that this might not be the way to move a debate forward on HN? Please try harder not to call people names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple? If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they ar…
Design, in this case, is mostly a matter of taste. Having said that, I prefer design of VAIOs over Apple Macbooks for example. Newer HPs are good too.
The designs of other companies appear to be aesthetic or functional primarily without regard for the other: design the look of the object and then fit as much functionality in as possible, or the opposite, get as much functionality as possible, and wrap it in some plastic. In either case there is little interaction between form and function, and often complete neglect between one or the other.
And even in the great case where both are considered, say Sony's line of VAIOs (I formerly owned a VAIO desktop), the build quality is low, or semifunctional (opening the case on my VAIO was a pain).
As others have noted, ThinkPad's may be the best counter example. They are extremely utilitarian. Their good looks, in my opinion, comes from their purely functional approach.