[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:52:15 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:02:57 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:22:32 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
>> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:24:07 -0400
>> > "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That works too, but doesn't warrant rants about how you haven't
>> >> learned how to use the fucking thing :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's *volume* controls, there doesn't need to be *anything* to
>> > learn.
>>
>> OK, so this is what you'd rather have:
>>
> [...single volume...]
>>
>> No, I think the current design, while not perfect, is *WAY* better
>> than a single volume.
>>
>
> No, that's not it at all. The problem is the *lack* of any master volume
> control whatsoever, not the existence of finer-grained volume controls.
>
> My walkman example was perhaps misleading.

There is a master volume control.  It has two volumes, on and off, and
it's called the silent switch ;)

>> >>
>> >> 1. ringer volume affects all sounds except for music/video/games
>> >> 2. Silent switch will ringer volume to 0 for all sounds except for
>> >> find-my-iphone and alarm clock
>> >> 3. If playing a game/video/music, the volume buttons affect that
>> >> volume, otherwise, they affect ringer volume.
>> >>
>> >> Wow, you are right, three whole rules.
>> >
>> > And each one with exceptions, the rules as a whole aren't
>> > particularly intuitive.
>>
>> They aren't?  They make complete sense to me.  You even admit that
>> it makes sense to have find my iphone play its alerts as loud as
>> possible.
>
> No, only the "find iPhone" one. The iPhone has no fucking idea what
> environment I'm in. I *definitely* don't want it screeching "PAY
> ATTENTION TO MEEEE!!!!" indiscriminately whenever it damn well feels
> like it.

When does it do that?

>> I contend that if you use alarm clock what it is for,
>> (i.e. waking you up) there is no problem there either.  Those are the
>> only exceptions.
>>
>
> Keep in mind, when I started talking "alarms" I didn't just mean "alarm
> clock". Pardon if I'm not completely up on official iTerminology.

All other alerts are silenced by the silent switch.  I don't even know if
that's the correct term for that switch.

I just discovered through testing that timer has the same feature as
alarm.  I find that incorrect.  If I have the silent switch enabled, the
timer should just vibrate.

In fact, I don't think there's a way to make the timer "just vibrate" in
any way.  That's counter-intuitive and I will agree with you on that one.

>> Besides, you don't have to "memorize" these rules, most of the time,
>> it is what a normal person would expect.
>>
>
> What a normal person does not expect is for the device to take the
> user's commands as mere suggestions.

At least in the case of alarm clock, the user has said both "wake me up at
this time" and "be silent."  Apple chose "wake me up".  The alternative is
that the phone stays silent, and you don't wake up.  Much worse.

>> > 4. If you're in the camera app then the volume button takes a
>> > picture instead of adjusting volume.
>>
>> I admit, I completely forgot about this one.  Simply because I rarely
>> use it :)  It was a gimmicky feature, and doesn't hurt anything, but
>> I find it unusable, simply because my natural inclination, being a
>> right-handed person, is to rotate the phone left to go into landscape
>> mode, If I want to use the button, my sequence is to rotate left,
>> then realize the button's on the other side, flip 180 degrees, then
>> realize my finger is in front of the lens, etc.  I think this is
>> essentially an orthogonal problem because there is no volume control
>> in camera, and that "feature" doesn't interfere with any other use of
>> the phone.  When I read about it though, I thought it was a good idea.
>>
>
> I can never remember which way I'm supposed to tilt the stupid thing for
> landscape photos. It *shouldn't* matter, but then when you go grab your
> photos (and videos!!) off the device you find the stupid thing decided
> to ignore the accelerometer and save them upside-down.

I have seen strange things there, sometimes a photo/video comes in rotated
(I see it pass by the Windows photo import preview), but then when I look
at the photo in Explorer, it's correctly rotated.

I have not seen it show photos or videos incorrectly rotated once
downloaded.

> As for buttons and such, the Zire 71 had a great design for the camera:
> Slide the face upward and the normally-protected lens is revealed,
> along with a "shutter" button (no need for modal "volume button"
> contrivances), *and* it goes directly into the camera program. So
> basically a real camera instead of a mere a camera "app",
> always trivially accessible, and always the same easy way. And yea,
> it's a moving part, but it *still* far outlasted the life of the
> (unfortunately non-replaceable) battery. *That* was brilliant design. I
> wish apple had copied it.

Hehe, they have something like that, the photo icon on the lock screen
slides up to reveal the photo app.  Yeah, it's not a hardware button, but
it does sound similar.

I have to say, this is one of the better improvements, especially with
those of us who have kids.

>
> It didn't have an accelerometer (this *was* a decade ago, after all) so
> it couldn't determine the current "tilt" and auto-rotate photos
> accordingly (like the iPhone *should* have been able to do), but it had
> an easy built-in "rotate photo" feature that even iPhone's built-ins
> won't do (at least not in any realistically discoverable way).

While viewing a photo, tap the screen to bring up the controls.  Click
"Edit" (upper right corner), then you can rotate the photo.  Don't think
you can do the same with a video.

Don't think I agree that an Edit button on the main photo viewing screen
is not realistically discoverable.

I will say though, like any UI, you have to get used to the mechanisms
that are standard.  One of the things that I didn't know for a while is
how to get controls to come up.  Generally that's a single tap in the
middle of the screen.  If you didn't know that, it would be difficult to
discover.

>> > Bottom line, they took something trivial, complicated it, and people
>> > hail them as genius visionaries.
>>
>> s/complicated/improved/
>>
>> This isn't really genius, nor is it unprecedented (iPhone is not the
>> first to control ringer and game/music volume separately).  It's just
>> common sense.
>>
>
> Ok again, clarification:
>
> Independently controllable ringer/game/music volumes: Good

OK, I get it now.

> Complete *lack* of any way to control *overall* volume: Bad

Well, there is the silent switch.  Which is a bit blunt, but it
effectively is a "master volume" with two levels.

>> So no, I'm not a MAC person, I'm a Unix/Linux person.  But Mac seems
>> to have done Unix better than Linux :)
>
> That was never my impression with macs. For example, I'll take even a
> mediocre linux GUI over Finder/etc any day. I don't understand why
> mac...*users*...inevitably have such trouble with the idea that someone
> could actually dislike it when it's (apperently) so objectively
> wonderful.

Finder could be better, but Nautilus sucks.  I'd rather use command line
than Nautilus.  And actually, I did :)

However, I think Finder is only usable once you force it to show you all
hidden files.  It pisses me off royally when an OS decides I don't know
enough to allow me to see hidden files.

At least on Windows, that was a setting in advanced options.  On MAC, you
have to use some obscure commands to enable hidden files, that I think was
pretty lame.

>> It was an example.  But it was one that I noticed right away coming
>> from Ubuntu with Unity.  Unity tries to be very MAC-like,
>
> That's why switched to Debian for my linux stuff instead of upgrading
> to the newer Ubuntus, and also why I'm not moving to Gnome 3. Too much
> Apple-envy for my tastes.

For my VMWare image for work, I chose Linux Mint with the default GUI, and
it works pretty well.  I like it better than Unity.

>> If I had to summarize why I like MacOS better than windows -- the GUI
>> is a complete GUI, and as good as Windows (unlike Linux),
>
> See I disagree with that. I like XP's GUI (with luna disabled), but I
> hate having to use OSX GUIs and OSX-alike GUIs (such as Win7). Linux
> GUIs are definitely clunky, but when they're not aping Mac or iOS then
> I can at least get by with them.

You may misunderstand when I say *complete* GUI, I mean you can do
everything with the GUI, and everything is seamless.  There is no run
"system preferences" for some settings, and "Compiz settings" for others,
like in Ubuntu.  Same as Windows, one place to find everything -- control
panel.

The style may not fit your tastes, and I can't really argue that point --
it's your taste that matters to you, not mine.  But my point is, it is
*functional* and can do everything I need it to.

>> I feel like I get the best of all worlds.
>
> Yea, but to get that, you have to use OSX as your *primary*
> environment, and stick with expensive iHardware. Might work for you,
> but those are all deal-breakers for me.

It's not what I would have chosen (at first), but I wanted to write iOS
apps, and Mac is the only way to do it (at least the complete thing,
including submission, but I admit I wasn't aware of marmalade).

It's one of those things where I reluctantly bought it, and started using
it, then was pleasantly surprised with the UI, and finally addicted.  I
hope Apple doesn't turn to shit, because I'll be upset if I have to give
up this experience.

But I must say, the expensive hardware (quad-core i7) kicks the pants off
of any other machine I've ever used.

>> And don't get me started on the trackpad.  I *hated* using my Dell
>> touchpad on my Linux laptop every time after I had been using my Mac
>> trackpad.
>>
>
> I always considered trackpads completely useless until I got my current
> Asus laptop. It's surprisingly usable in a pinch, and in fact I
> honestly couldn't believe how much they've improved (or that they
> even managed to improve at all). And yet I still go for my trackball
> instead whenever possible because it's sooo much better.

No, this is a multi-touch pad, not a synaptics touchpad (on most standard
laptops).  Way different. The best feature is the 2-finger scroll.  Don't
know how I lived without that!

And I've tried Apple's magic mouse, it sucks.  The trackpad is awesome.

>
>
>> The one thing I would rip out of OSX and throw against the wall is
>> the mail app.  Its interface and experience is awesome.  But it
>> frequently corrupts messages and doesn't properly save outgoing
>> mail.  Not good for a mail application.
>>
>
> I didn't have corruption issues with it, but I did find it to be rather
> gimped and straight-jacketed much like the rest of the system.

ech, I guess the corruption issues have been happening since OSX 10.6.
Many posts in the apple forums.

I guess mail doesn't get the attention it needs over at Apple.

Come to think of it, iCal kinda sucks too, I could live without that.

>> >> Interesting that's what you see as the defining point of that
>> >> story :)
>> >
>> > It's a story that always did stike me as odd: Here we have a grown
>> > man (one who was *well known* to be unstable, asinine, drug-soaked
>> > and frankly, borderline megalomaniacal) that's going around throwing
>> > tantrums, and largely because he doesn't understand "cover" or
>> > "case" or what obviously happens to plastic when you bash keys
>> > against it, and it gets interpreted by millions as "Wow, look how
>> > great he was!" I don't get it.
>>
>> Having amassed more money than US treasury, based on his ideas and
>> hard work, seems to suggest he was pretty successful :)  Not that I
>> completely equate money with greatness, but if success of a product
>> is measured by how well it sells, then he was very great.  Present
>> company notwithstanding, most people like apple products and think
>> they are good/best of breed.
>>
>
> He was a salesman. Their job is to sell people on crap.

Wow, have you ever liked anything in your life?  A salesperson's job is to
sell a product.  Whether that product is good or not certainly helps the
sale, and not all salespeople just sell no matter what.  The best salesman
tells you *not* to buy something because it doesn't fit you.  This doesn't
work when your job is to sell crappy stuff (you will not end up selling
anything).

> Successfully unloading broken freezers on eskimos and dog shit
> to...anyone...isn't really deserving of praise or appreciation or
> anything but condemnation.

Oh, I totally agree.  Fuck all those salespeople, I just cut out the
middle man and go to dogshitfreezers.com.  And they think I'm so stupid,
how's that commision check now?

>> I think if it didn't have a big apple symbol on the back, you would
>> be less inclined to try and destroy it :)  Just my opinion.
>>
>
> I'm sure most people would assume that, particularly since I dislike
> something that "everyone knows is undeniably great". I know there's no
> way I can ever convince anyone of this, but I don't do things backwards
> like that: I hate apple *because* I don't like their products or their
> business. The other way around makes absolutely no sense.

I think we probably are both a couple of pots calling each other kettles,
or... something.

> I'd love for apple to start putting out good stuff because...I *like*
> good stuff. Hell, I love the Apple II. And I loved Sherlock/Watson
> (part of what got me to try OSX). If I want to see apple destroyed it's
> because they keep putting out poorly-designed, overpriced, Orwellian
> bullshit and instead of dismissing it like in the 90's people are
> actually praising the shit now that it has a glossy finish and the
> name "Jobs". Oh, and because it sold well :/...which I always found to
> be a bizarre reason to appreciate anything.
>
> *I* think that people wouldn't be so quick to praise Apple's last
> decade of products if they didn't have "Steve Jobs has returned!",
> "Designed by Jobs!" attached. (And the iPhone 5 obviously still has a
> lot of Jobs legacy, esp since it's basically the 4S with higher specs.)

I think that's very wrong.  My reasons for liking apple products are
because they are good products.  I can explain my history if you want, but
I tend to think you won't believe it.

Truth is, people who don't like a brand will find a reason to complain,
and people who like a brand will find a reason to forgive.  It's the same
with D and any other product.

By all means, I don't think Apple's products are flawless.  Just less
flawed.

>> I have brands that I hate too due to prior experience too.  I'm sure
>> you would be able to find anyone who *hates* a certain brand of car
>> because they bought a lemon from them at one time, even though
>> statistics show there are *always* some bad apples (no pun intended)
>> in otherwise good products.  These can be badly designed single
>> products (*cough* Vista) or simply one instance of a product with
>> defective parts.  I think humans have a tendency to put too much
>> emphasis on anecdotal experience rather than scientifically detected
>> trends.  And I think the sometimes prohibitive costs of some of
>> theses gadgets plays a large part -- You aren't likely to go out and
>> buy another $200 iPhone, for instance, if your previous two broke
>> within a year.  Even though most people don't have that experience.
>>
>
> So therefore if someone argues against something popular, then it must
> be due to such a fallacy as that, because what's popular clearly must be
> good, right? Because those people who do like it must be liking it for
> purely objective reasons, right?

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying basing your perception of a
new product on your experience with another product from the same brand is
not always objective.  And that's not always a bad thing -- there's a
reason humans learn from their experience.  I never said what's "popular"
is good, that's BS.  I'm saying past experiences bias our decisions (all
of us, myself included).  I sure as hell will *never* buy another motorola
bluetooth headset again.

But this isn't fashion.  People don't buy shit electronics that don't work
just because they have a brand name.  At least not after two consecutive
failures.  Look at Microsoft.  They had extremely good brand recognition,
and a huge market share, as well as being basically the only pre-installed
OS on most PCs.

Yet, along came Vista, and you saw a huge decline in sales for them,
because it *SUCKED*.  Brand name doesn't help you if your products suck.
However, because of their brand, Vista didn't seem to impact the success
of Windows 7 (a great product IMO).

So while popularity isn't the cause of success, it certainly is a
reflection of it.

But let's face it, popularity is a huge market driver.  If people you know
like something, you tend to trust their opinion.  If people you aren't so
fond of like something, you may tend to dislike that thing.

Saying you don't like something because it's popular (not saying you are
saying that) is *still* an opinion driven by popularity!

For example, if you learned that the new iOS 6 has better integration with
facebook, a popular (but I'm pretty sure from past posts I've seen from
you, a revolting) service, are you a) less likely to like iPhone (and no,
I don't mean facebook like), b) more likely, or c) neutral?

If you didn't answer c, then you are letting your bias get in the way.
Period.

I personally will *never* sign up for facebook (sorry Andrei), and
therefore will never use facebook integration on my phone.  But it doesn't
make me less likely to like iPhone, because it doesn't impact me at all.

Now, if iOS suddenly *required* me to use facebook, that would be a
problem for me.

> You're arguing that most people are non-objective. If that's so, then
> the objective viewpoint would be an unpopular one. Kinda like "Apple
> products suck". Or is it that the "humans are often non-objective" only
> applies to negative opinions? People are always being objective when
> they say something positive?

Most people *are* non-objective.  It's very difficult to have a truly
objective view.  And you can't really measure everything objectively,
especially with something as broad as intuition or ease-of-use.

I just saw this *ridiculously* biased "test" of apple iPhone 5 vs. Samsung
Galaxy S III on durability.  I bet these people thought they were being
truly objective too...

http://youtu.be/bLW0HrVeoD8

-Steve