[Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:36:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Then I guess 99% of phones are evil?
>
> 99% of phones? Certainly not.
>
> 99% of *cell* phones? Absolutely, yes. Service provider lock-in is one of
> the primary reasons I've never bought one.

Yes, that's what I meant :)  I thought we were talking cell phones here...

And OMG, you've never bought a cell phone?  Why are you punishing yourself  
;)  I suppose with the attitude you have towards them it would just raise  
your blood pressure carrying it around...

Your lack of experience with cell phones does not give any boost to your  
position...

>> I also have co-workers and friends  who use jailbroken iphones on other
>> GSM networks.
>
> In an allegedly capitalist society (or "mixed-economy with capitalist
> leanings" as the case may be), no one should ever have any reason to  
> devise
> or use such hacks for such a basic freedom as consumer choice.

Huh?  Why should verizon go out of its way to allow you to use its phones  
with other services?  Maybe you don't understand capitalism...

>> I could never do that  with most of my verizon phones.
>
> Verizon is one of the worst cell companies out there anyway.

[purposely ignoring]

>> Besides, who switches phone service  providers within the life of a  
>> phone?
>
> No one, but you're overlooking the *reasons* that doesn't happen:  
> contract
> lock-in and hardware that's not built to last.

Contract lock-in only happens if you want to buy a phone cheap.  If you  
absolutely don't want a 2-yr contract, you can pay full price for the  
phone.

These days, hardware is not built to last no matter what it is.  And it's  
because people don't *want* old hardware.  As a manufacturer, you have a  
choice:

1. build something that's more expensive, but outlasts its usefulness or
2. build something that's cheaper, may not last as long, but lasts at  
least until the next gen version is available.

And I like to buy things once and keep them as long as possible (my stereo  
has an input for laser disc to give you an idea).  But cell phones and  
computers change so fast that the hardware is obsolete before it's broken.

>> Not to mention that the two biggest  service providers are incompatible
>> with eachother, so you couldn't switch  between them even if you wanted
>> to.
>>
>
> If there's a fundamental difference in protocols (as opposed to the
> artificially-created incompatibilities), then yes, of course that's fine.

Yes, Verizon uses CDMA and AT&T uses GSM.  Different protocols, different  
chips required.

> However, outside the cell phone world, such situations are likely to  
> result
> in dual-use devices

There were some phones like that.  Nobody cared ;)

>>>> E. A die-hard Apple fan I know recently showed me his beloved iPad.
>>>> Accurately setting the text-cursor was nearly impossible. But that  
>>>> would
>>>> have been an incredibly simple fix: Use a screen that worked with a
>>>> stylus
>>>> or fingernail. There's millions of them out there. Even if that would
>>>> have
>>>> prevented multi-touch (and I don't know that it would or would not
>>>> have),
>>>> after using the multi-touch, I felt it added no real value other than  
>>>> a
>>>> "gee-whiz" gimmick factor. Stylus/fingernail support would have added  
>>>> at
>>>> least some real value.
>>
>> Your friend is doing it wrong.
>
> Well, I was the one using it and noticing that.
>
>> I can accurately set the cursor whenever I  want using the magnifying
>> glass.
>>
>> See an example here:
>> http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9781430231295/typing_numbers_and_symbols
>>
>
> That's nothing more than a workaround. How is that *not* worse than being
> able to just use the tip of your fingernail?

Be....cause... it's better?  At least I think it is :)  What if you don't  
have a long fingernail?  Even if you do have a fingernail, and are using  
an old-style screen that could detect the fingernail, it's probably going  
to be more inaccurate, and without a way to tune into the right position.

I've had two old-style touch screen phones before this.  They suck.  They  
break, require calibration, and require a stylus.  My samsung phone got to  
be so inaccurate that I pretty much avoided using the touch screen as much  
as possible.  I'll pay the price of lost accuracy when positioning a  
cursor in order to avoid having to pop out a stylus to press on-screen  
buttons.

And once you get used to it (the cursor positioning), it's fast.

>>>> G. A *phone* without tactile dial buttons is just plain wrong. What is
>>>> it
>>>> with Apple's long-standing war against tactile feedback? It detracts
>>>> from
>>>> usability and the only thing it adds is high-tech-gee-whiz-gimmick.
>>
>> What do you need tactile feedback for?
>
> See, now I just can't even fathom that kind of stance, so it's difficult  
> for
> me to argue against it. For me it's just a fundamental thing: With  
> tactile
> feedback > without tactile feedback, by a large degree.

ok then :)

>
>> You get audible feedback, and the  phone number buttons are extremely
>> responsive.
>> Plus, if you want to dial  without looking at the phone, you can use
>> voice-activation.
>>
>
> That hardly makes it better to not have tactile feedback.

I guess.  It doesn't really bother me to not have tactile feedback.

One thing I can say for the iphone, it's *very* reliable that when you  
push a button it registers.  So the assurance that "yes you are pushing  
the button" isn't usually necessary.  The sounds also help.

>
>> Blackberry tried a touch-screen with tactile feedback, it sucked.
>>
>
> Which is exactly why it's idiotic for Apple to make the entire interface
> touchscreen.  You do that and you lose tactile feedback and you can't  
> just
> hack it back in. If you took my Palm Pilot, replaced the  
> up/down/left/right
> and app buttons with touchscreen input, that would be a step *backwards*.
> You'd gain nothing but a questionable "cool factor", and the UI would  
> just
> simply be worse.

But PalmOS is not iOS.  I've had about 5 palms, starting with the palm  
III, and I like the apple interface significantly more.

>>>> H. What's there to protect the highly-prominent screen?
>>
>> The screen is made of pretty durable glass.  Like all touch-screen  
>> phones,
>> it's highly advisable to get a screen protector for it.  I don't get  
>> what
>> your problem is here, do you want a screen or not?  If you do, then what
>> possible way could a manufacturer design a destruction-proof screen?   
>> Put
>> little airbags around it in case you drop it?
>>
>
> Oh, please, it's not that difficult to come up with ways around it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Boy_Advance_SP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_phone

So you mean, it should fold?  You can just say that you know :)

Palm III also had a plastic cover.  I eventually left it off, it was kind  
of annoying.

Just a different style I guess.  Most smart phones have a outward facing  
screen these days, even the touch-screen ones.

Note that with a folding device, it's probably *less* durable because the  
folding part can break, and wires can more easily come loose.  Less moving  
parts == more reliable.

>
> Or a different approach:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC#Convertibles
>
> And other things can no doubt be thought up, especially if Apple is as
> clever as people claim they are.
>
> Or hell, a built-in or even just pre-packaged protector.
>
> This is *far* from an insurmountable obstacle.

No, but its *far* from a failed design also :)  Protecting the screen from  
breakage by having a hard cover detracts from the usability.  Besides, I  
think the phone is pretty darned durable, it's not a cheap feeling thing.   
I'm not going to throw it against the wall, but I wouldn't do that with a  
folding phone either.  I also have a rubber protective case on it too (but  
the screen is exposed).

>
>>>> I. I don't give a crap how thin they can make it. But Apple seems to
>>>> think
>>>> I should care. Heck, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on
>>>> something that I'll constantly feel I'm about to accidentally snap in
>>>> half. But that's exactly how I felt with the iPad.
>>
>> This is petty :)
>
> In and of itself, maybe. But thinness typically necessitates other design
> compromises, all for a "benefit" that is, as you say, petty.

What compromises?  What is it missing that could be there if it were  
thicker?

>> I can't speak for the ipad, but the iphone feels more  durable than any
>> phone I've had.  Maybe you'd prefer this phone:
>> http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100829/BIZ/708299922/1005/biz
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean. According to that it's even thinner  
> than
> Apple's stuff.

It's a larger phone, I thought that meant it was thicker.  I guess I  
didn't read it well enough.  Nevermind.

> But it does make me think of another thing: a perfectly flat rectangle  
> (with
> a touchscreen on the side against your head) is a rather awkward form  
> factor
> for a phone (and I have tried such phones, like my sister's Palm...umm,  
> the
> other WebOS one that isn't a Pre).

Pixi

> My phone is far more comfortable:
> http://www.uniden.com/products/productdetail.cfm?product=EXAI398

again, *shrug*.  It's pretty comfortable to me.

>> Note that the ipad directly competes with e-Reader devices, so they need
>> to appeal to those people too.
>>
>
> That still doesn't necessitate "as thin as conceivably possible".

It doesn't necessitate it, but it does score points with that crowd.   
People want a thin book-sized device to read all their books.

Now if only iBooks had some decent material...

>
>>>
>>> J. What happens when the battery gets old and won't hold a charge?
>>
>> When I was looking at getting a palm pre as a verizon customer, and I
>> discovered that palm pre doesn't support voice dialing, I mentioned I'd
>> just be switching to AT&T for the iPhone.  The Verizon guy identified  
>> the
>> battery issue as a reason not to get one.  So I looked up the details.   
>> I
>> think apple provides a $100 service to change your battery.  I don't  
>> know
>> the details, but I think they just swap out your entire phone.  If they
>> don't swap out your phone, that's crappy, but I can't complain yet  
>> because
>> it hasn't happened to me ;)
>>
>> $100 is pretty steep, but most phone batteries cost $40-60, so it's not
>> unreasonable.  I think by making the battery internal they can make it
>> more powerful and make the device smaller (sorry, some of us like the
>> small size ;).
>>
>
> I honestly find the vast majority of cell phones to be *too* small.
> Problematically so.  (And yes, I *have* used a number of cell phones,  
> even
> though I've never owned one) Small is obviously good to a certain
> point...but...well, only to a certain point. Sorry, but some of us don't
> like super-small ;)

You might like this:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Cm8MFqxWw&feature=fvst

I agree, smaller isn't always better.  But I mean smaller as in, if it was  
an external battery, then it would have to be larger than you would like.   
The iPhone size isn't too small.

>> I also have read if you don't care about your warranty or your warranty  
>> is
>> expired, you can buy an actual iphone battery online for about $20 and a
>> kit for $10 more so you can change it yourself.
>>
>
> Which only goes to prove that the typical $40-100 you mentioned above  
> *is*
> exorbitant.

Yes, I feel it is too.  They got you by the balls also, since if your  
battery is dead, you have one option.

>
> Furthermore, there is absolutely *no* excuse for a company pushing a  
> device
> that you actually have to *hack* just to change the damn battery.

Well, I think the excuse is the size.  Which doesn't fly with you, so I  
guess you're right.

>
>>>> That's a lot of issues for something that's supposedly well-polished.
>>
>> Wait, most of these aren't actual problems, but just design decisions  
>> you
>> disagree with.  In fact, only one is a bug (the iphone 4 antenna  
>> problem),
>> which has already been addressed.
>
> I didn't say it was buggy, I said it wasn't polished. A big part of  
> polish
> *is* having solid *design decisions*. Many people seem to think polish is
> just gloss, glitz and gimmick.

No, polish is making something behave the way it should behave.  This  
includes fixing bugs and usability issues, but not "designs you don't  
like."  For example, the cursor positioning is a usability issue that was  
solved by polish (I don't think it was in the original iphone).  Because  
you don't like the solution doesn't mean it's not finished in 99% of users  
minds.  I don't think anyone complains about that.

>
>> "I hate how they think they're so cool  because their devices are thin"
>> isn't even a problem, its just a form of  name calling.
>>
>
> My stance did *not* amount to that, and I've added another reason above.

Well, I did misunderstand your stance, but my point is that "thin is  
better" *is* a major selling point for most people.  Apple is trying to  
sell as many phones as possible, not as many phones as possible to Nick  
S.  It also diminishes the substance of your other arguments.  It appears  
that apple could make a perfect phone and you'd still not want it, which  
means the rest of your points could just be overblown gripes.

>> Note that for all these "problems" you mentioned, the iphone's good
>> features are *really* good.  Even the tiny details have thought put into
>> them.  One example: I listen to music at work with the enclosed  
>> headphones
>> (w/ mic and volume control inline on the wire), and I listen to it low,  
>> so
>> I can hear when other people want to talk to me.  When I get in the  
>> car, I
>> have to turn the volume on the iphone all the way up to normalize the
>> input to the stereo.
>>
>> I noticed that once I set the respective volumes, I didn't have to  
>> change
>> them -- the iphone knows the difference between the two headphone types
>> and auto-adjusts the volume to the last setting.  It's one of those
>> features that is trivial, but just make the iphone a pleasant  
>> experience.
>>
>
> Yea, I never said there wasn't anything good about it. Hell, I'll even  
> admit
> the iPad was a lot better than I expected. I'd still never buy one  
> though.
>
> Oh, I completely forgot, there's another iPad issue:
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/ipad-fails-networking-101-how-to-earn-it-a-passing-grade.ars
>
> The guy I know that has an iPad, he was at a hotel once where there just
> happend to be a bunch of other iPad users on the hotel's WiFi network. It
> brought the whole network to a crawl - slower than dial-up from what he  
> was
> saying.

I think they've fixed the network issues, but I'm not sure.  I remember  
reading articles about how some colleges banned ipads because they would  
take down the network :)  Definitely not a problem you want to have out of  
the gate, but this is a bug, it gets fixed.

>> I'll tell you a few things that I've found annoying:
>>
>> 1. I disabled downloading graphics in emails (as everyone should), but  
>> in
>> emails I know are not spam, I want to download the images.  There is no
>> button for that...
>
> Lack of basic settings, features or any sort of customizability.

I wouldn't go that far :)

Oh, one other thing that's annoying, but I think it's because of pressure  
 from the phone companies who want to charge you an extra $15/month for  
"enterprise access", it doesn't read ics calendar appointments unless you  
use microsoft exchange.  That is *extremely* crappy and pointless.

>> 2. A couple times, the phone had a hard time connecting to a wireless
>> network that it previously had no problem with.  It mistakes a bad  
>> signal
>> with a bad password, so it asks you for the password.  If you don't hit
>> "cancel" and just hit "ok", it forgets the password that it used to  
>> have.
>> I then have to go look up the password as it's some hex string.
>
> Lack of polish, and frankly, sounds downright rushed.

Yes, it needs polish here.

>
>> 3. The calendar app doesn't allow you to jump ahead quickly by months or
>> years.  This is annoying when setting a future appointment.  You can
>> quickly scroll via the day, they should give you wheels to do the month
>> and year also.
>>
>
> Very *blatant* lack of polish. Jumping by month/year is just plain  
> obvious
> for any calender app.

I know, right?

> It's exactly these sorts of appallingly *obvious* things that Apple
> constantly gets wrong anyway, and in fairly large quantities, that make  
> me
> say "Apple's sense of 'polish' is little more than gimmicks and graphic
> design." Showing attention to detail on one or two things here and there,
> but then utterly failing on the basics (consistently) - that's not  
> polish.

Well, it's just that they haven't got to it yet, or maybe they don't feel  
it's as important as other issues.  If something is 99% perfect and you  
want to point out the 1%, I guess you're entitled to it.  But if  
everything else out there is only 90% perfect, then it's just pointless  
griping.  It's a phone, it calls just fine (best in-call interface by far  
I've seen), it surfs the internet very well (best web browser experience  
on a phone I've had by far), and has lots of attention to detail.  The  
frilly petty stuff isn't what makes the phone bad or good.  My opinion is  
that the obvious stuff *does* work well, it's the niche stuff that has  
issues, and they are issues I'm willing to live with.

Compare this to my list of issues with Windows mobile 6, you will find  
they haven't even opened the polish can yet :)

BTW, I'm done with this, because I think it's getting way way too long :)

Good debate, see you on the next one.

-Steve