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

The Chair

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: The Chair

#161

Post by pnathan »

tesseract wrote: post #158
pnathan wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the people I've dealt with who aren't in the tech scene, modifying a computer is black magic. Openness is... not desired. What they want is a consumer appliance. Like a TV. Didn't quite use to be that way. Computer users seemed to be at least a little geek, and wouldn't totally flip at installing a video card. At least in my experience. So I say, screw the closed systems, I'll keep my PCs and read source code, I…

It's not just about users being able to install video cards or whatever. You as a developer are going to have a harder time inventing the next email or WWW or Google or Netflix or Twitter, if your potential users are all using closed platforms rather than open ones.

Totally agree. I'm just observing there's a pretty big gulf between a non-techie and a techie when it comes to expectations of electronics.

Re: The Chair

#162

Post by jodrellblank »

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #74
bobz wrote: post #13

My favorite thing about Jobs: Seeing a man who actually DESERVES every ounce of his celebrity, clearly enjoying it so much. Nice piece by Gruber capturing the event, and my favorite flavor of Apple worship.

Did you actually say "worship"? I suppose you are right. It is more religious than evidence based.

If it was entirely evidence based and nothing else, I wouldn't be a fanboy, I'd just have the 'best available opinion to have'.

And where's the fun in that?

;)

Re: The Chair

#163

Post by jodrellblank »

Tom_Chippendale wrote: post #145

Just a note from a design nerd: it's a Le Corbusier LC3 chair. They're terribly comfortable.

It's interesting to hear you say that, but slightly depressing that it's four oblongs of leather coated sponge in a right-angle wireframe holder, designed in 1928 and selling for a thousand dollars.

It should be comfortable, and it should be more like $200 and out of copyright by now.

Where's the innovation in furniture that would make that chair look like technology from 1928?

Re: The Chair

#164

Post by [deleted] »

phil wrote: post #154
blub wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the modern desktop OS is patterned after the work of Xerox PARC. Second of all, that form factor was used before Apple introduced the Powerbook. Last but not least, best phone doesn't equal slab of touch-sensitive glass that drops calls when you hold it wrong. Touch screens in general aren't a great fit when it comes to phone use. If we're talking phones, models like the Nokia E52 beat the pants off of…

Can you find an example of a pre-PowerBook laptop that has a form factor with these traits? * Clamshell with hinge at the back of the case, not in the middle. * Keyboard at the back of the case. * Blank area in front of the keyboard to rest your wrists. * Pointing device centered in this blank area, with mouse buttons below pointer. There were earlier laptops with some of those elements, but I'm pretty sure the Power…

[deleted]

Re: The Chair

#165

Post by [deleted] »

stcredzero wrote: post #122

Good iPad apps can make the iPad feel not like a device running an app, but like an object that is the app. This sentence alone is worth reading the entire post. Subtract the parts of the sentence having to do with iPad, change good to great, and you get a universal truth. Great apps feel not like a device running an app, but like an object that is the app. Apply this to your user's content/data. A great X app doesn'…

[deleted]

Re: The Chair

#168

Post by mediaman »

emehrkay wrote: post #136
brisance wrote: post #35

One thing that drives me crazy is how each competitor focuses on one or two things, usually hardware specs, and use those things to extol its superiority over Apple's offerings. That's like a car maker homing in on horsepower or number of cup-holders to sell a car. If I were to run a tech company competing in this space, I would do the following: 1) Get rid of the nonsensical names. There's a good reason why car make…

*All luxury car companies' cars have letter + number combo names. Well, until you get to ultra-luxury, bently, aston martin, etc

True, but I think the model differentiation is more apparent from immediate visual inspection: for example, a shopper may not know any meaning behind BMW's 3 series, 5 series and 7 series, but it's obvious upon looking at it that 5 is a bigger car than the 3 and the 7 even more so.

Whereas computers are much more mysterious -- it's not always easy to tell which is better based on looking at it.

Also, cars are much more expensive, so a consumer is more willing to invest time in figuring out odd naming practices.

Still, I have to wonder whether even luxury auto makers would be better off with better naming.

Re: The Chair

#169

Post by alanfalcon »

easyfrag wrote: post #128
NickPollard wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The naming thing is such a big issue and I don't see why everyone just keeps on getting it so wrong. For an example, I bought a Sony Vaio laptop a few months ago. Great piece of kit and I love it, but trying to work out what to get was bewildering - there's 7 or 8 categories with single letter names - 'S-series, Y-series, Z-series, F-series' etc. What do they mean? Which should I be looking at? I had to scour through…

I'm not sure about Sony's Vaio line but a lot of computing/electronic manufacturers will build specific models for various chain stores, not sure why they do this but I guess it's to head off comparison shopping by consumers. Apple, of course, refuses to play by the rules of its retailing partners.

It's easy to offer a 110% guaranteed price match guarantee when you know most of your products can only be purchased at your store (never mind that the same model but for a different screw type can be purchased down the street for $100 less, it's got a different SKU).

I hate retail games like this.

Re: The Chair

#170

Post by dannyr »

rbarooah wrote: post #133
dannyr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why would a non-enthusiast buy an Android tablet based on the idea they they might get better over time, when iPads are good now?" The same way that people bought Android phones when it first came out. Not everybody wants Apple.

Some people for sure - like the 20% who buy MP3 players other than iPods, but most people bought Android in tbe beginnig because they couldn't buy apple or because apple was more expensive. Now, Android phones are genuinely competitive with the iPhone, but they got there because they had real advantages in availability and price from day one. Android tablets don't have those advantages.

Where did you get these stats?

There are a lot of people who prefer other products over Apple's in the same way that there are still a lot of people who still prefer a feature phone over a smartphone.

Post reply on HN