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

John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#91

Post by Tichy »

fh wrote: post #78
Tichy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard that they exclude the oldest iPhone from OS 4, and I thought iPod Touch would be on the same technical level as the oldest iPhones. Why does Apple exclude the old iPhones?

AFAIK it's a combination of the hardware not being good enough, and Apple not really trying to optimize for those devices (they'd be happy if you bought a new one). The iPod Touch went through several iterations, just like the iPhone; the latest iPod Touch is actually a bit higher specced than the latest iPhone.

I didn't know that there are still updates to the iPod Touch.

Would be interested in sales numbers of iPods since the iPhone emerged.

Granted, I bought one, but only as a development device because the iPhone is too expensive.

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#92

Post by andreyf »

watty wrote: post #49
andreyf wrote: post #36

Take the current URL from your PC web browser and push it to your device, over the air. If it’s a web page, it’ll open in the Android web browser; if it’s a Google Maps URL, it’ll open in the Android Maps app. Meaning that now, not only can spyware pop up porn on my parents' home computer, it can also push porn to my kid sister's cell phone? Ditto for apps... I imagine spyware is a thing of the past for most Googlers…

Isn't there going to be security with this feature? I don't think any app/website can send remote commands without having your credentials. If spyware has your kid sister's Google credentials, pop-ups are the last of her worries.

Do you seriously think most GMail accounts are never used on a computer which has spyware installed? You must be joking...

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#93

Post by ericd »

m_eiman wrote: post #30
mootymoots wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, the initial sync, like an initial time machine backup, would take an age to sync wirelessly... I'm thinking post that though, walking into my network and syncing latest updates, even without my prompting

Agreed, I can't think of any good reason not to allow sync over wifi (or over 3g for that matter, if I'm on a flatrate plan).

Because the 3G infrastructure is overloaded as it is without multi-gig downloads?

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#94

Post by jodrellblank »

viraptor wrote: post #85
frederickcook wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the PC market, Apple competes on quality, Microsoft (with hardware manufacturers) competes on price. This is the world Ballmer imagined for the smartphone market, but when Google knocked the floor out by giving away the OS (or even paying the carrier a cut of the search revenue), there is no place left for Microsoft to position itself. Unless Windows Mobile is a vastly superior product to Android (and how likely i…

There is a place left for MS. Complete windows domain / exchange / current-telephony-OCS-or-whatever-it's-called-today integration. Automatic profiles, policies, security, calendar and contacts migration. There are loads of companies which would be happy with "locked to the domain" company smartphones, because they already have the backend ready (AD and Exchange). Blackberry can provide a lot of those features, but n…

Activesync can do almost all that now. Exchange, calendar, contacts, policies, security (not profiles or telephony).

And iPhone has very good activesync support.

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#95

Post by mambodog »

mbreese wrote: post #86
sketerpot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the early 2000s. I devoutly hoped that Linux would get widely used in some way, even if it never really took off on the desktop. I wanted open source to be fairly common and well-accepted, and not just something that weird people wrote and talked about on Slashdot. And hacker-friendly open-source Linux-based smartphones would be great, but that was just too implausibly awesome to even hope for. I wanted pl…

What is really funny is that we never really hit the year of Linux on the desktop. I mean, this has been speculation for years... Will this be the year that Linux really starts to make in roads in the Desktop market? For the most part, the answer has always been no. Redhat and Novell/Suse have all but left the desktop (commercially, not counting Fedora). Ubuntu has all but taken over the desktop Linux market. Overall…

Also, don't forget Chrome OS: Diet Linux on the Desktop (okay well, desktop as positioned vs. Linux for servers)

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#96

Post by brandonkm »

endtime wrote: post #52
sausagefeet wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you find the UI to be pretty. From the stuff I saw it looked very hacked together and disgumbled. I'm looking forward to seeing an actual phone though. I have no interest in switching (I just got an Android based phone and love it) but I'd like to see what the actual user experience turns out to be.

Aesthetics and UX are definitely linked; as you say, it's really hard to evaluate either until one can actually get a feel for the navigation, etc. But I think that as long as the UX is coherent, the visuals will be there.

The wm 7 ui is typography based with minimal visual flourishes and virtually no icons.

Its very different than any mobile ui out there. I really enjoy the experience on my zune hd and that's a preview of what wm 7 will be based around. From what I've experienced (people who have never seen this type of ui before), people seem to be intrigued and curious by it. If the mobile team at microsoft is paying attention to details in the way the zune team did leading up to the launch of the zune hd, then a lot of doubts people have about this platform will be gone.

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#97

Post by dave1619 »

riobard wrote: post #62
dave1619 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't Apple let flash play in the browser but just not allow flash apps into the Appstore? I think users wouldn't mind that.

Then people would build Flash apps and just run it in browser and bypass App Store all together. If that happens, not only does Apple give the control to Adobe (and have to rely on Adobe to support iPhone Flash plugin, which is absolutely not what Apple wants), it also loses the benefits of charging 30% of the revenue if the apps would have been sold in App Store. It's worst situation for Apple.

I know Apple doesn't want to support a flash plugin and was burned by Adobe in the past, but with Android supporting flash now Steve Jobs has less excuses to tell users why they can't view flash on websites. Most users won't understand why they're Android friends can access flash sites, but they can't. Apple could work with Adobe to get a flash plugin on the iPhone, they just don't want to.

Also, people can make flash apps in the browser and that's fine. It wouldn't hurt AppStore sales, cause native apps would be better.

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#98

Post by dave1619 »

juanefren wrote: post #58
dave1619 wrote: post #12

It appears to me the biggest news from google I/O was the release of flash on android, just a couple weeks after Steve Jobs says it wasn't practical. Google just didn't demo it and give a release date several months away, but they delivered it (with reports of folks getting 2.2 pushed already). Seems like Apple needs to reconsider their position on Flash... already.

I up-vote this, you are specifying what does it appears to you. I also agree with you, it is true that probably flash isn't the future from the web, but at least is part of the present.

Thanks. Yeah flash isn't the future, but it's difficult to ignore so many sites with it, especially now that Android can view them.

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#99

Post by earl »

eavc wrote: post #38
jackowayed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interface just isn't as nice overall. It gets the job done, but it's not as intuitive or pretty as the iPhone's player. Also, the vast majority of people have their music in iTunes. The fact that they can't just plug in the device and tell iTunes to sync might be a turnoff

The vast majority?

anecdote: friends and family have spent at least 20 thousand dollars on music in itunes. The people who even know alternatives exist are only tech people and they don't spend much money on music.

Re: John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts

#100

Post by catch23 »

watmough wrote: post #18
jackowayed wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the N1 isn't even a very good substitute. Although people who buy iTouches love all the apps and the ability to browse the web whenever they have WiFi, in the end, they're buying an mp3 player. They're buying it so that they can listen to music. Not only is the N1 much more expensive, but it also has a much worse music-playing interface. Until someone fixes the Android music player or writes their own (luckily, a…

You wrote: Although people who buy iTouches love all the apps and the ability to browse the web whenever they have WiFi, in the end, they're buying an mp3 player. They're buying it so that they can listen to music. I'm not sure you're correct. I have a simless old iPhone, equivalent to an iPod Touch, and it runs apps exclusively. It has barely been used for playing music. In fact, the beauty of apps means the hardwar…

You and others on HN are probably not the target for the iPod Touch. Just spend some time with my sister and her friends and you'll quickly see that a bunch of them have iPod Touches and most of them are just used for playing music (with a few games here and there)

My sister also has an iPhone, but she's not really tech savvy enough to download apps and actually use them. She's downloaded a few apps, but most of the time she just uses her iPhone as .... a phone.

Post reply on HN