gdgt

I feel a lot of times that Apple is encouraging a culture of "less is more" to the general public, and this keeps the general public from growing with the technological advances in today's tech. I've mostly encountered Apple users that put aesthetics above functionality, preferring a device for how "cool" it looks/makes them look than how useful it actually is. My main problem with that is that it seems to me that technology should make you a smarter, more capable person, not a less capable one. I don't want "magical" devices, I want smarter ones. I don't want to wait 3-4 generations of a device for it to be fully functional. Technology is not about baby steps, at least it shouldn't be.

I think the problem with Apple products is functionality vs simplicity. They try to make their products as simple as possible for more of the general user to use even if it means dumbing down interfaces and then completely entrenching themselves. But in doing so, they have to make sacrifices, which means lost functionality.

I think with the hardware business, you have to be more careful in what you're doing, since there is more to lose than if you were a purely software business. You have to come at a product from multiple fronts, which include both hardware and software, so it's at least double the work of a software business. Although there's seemingly less competition (there's only one real tablet out there right now), it's a harder point of entry and with consumers so fickle about devices, you have to get so many things right out of the gate or risk losing mindshare and being completely overlooked, look at Palm.

I'd love technology to take leaps and not baby steps, but in reality it's hard to see how much business sense that would make for a company unless there's a large enough group or people ready to follow it at breakneck speeds.

I see what you're saying. But even there (in Tablet computers), I find Apple dumbing down the definition.
According to experts (Read: Wikipedia), a tablet computer is "a complete computer contained entirely in a flat touch screen that uses a stylus, digital pen, or fingertip as an input device instead of a keyboard or mouse." The iPad is not a tablet computer, as it is not a complete computer. Rather, it's a media device that depends on a real computer to function. But Apple has commanded the term to the point where realistic and viable definitions of the tablet have become moot points when discussing the iPad. I don't want giant steps either, but a good gray area would bring a stable, yet forward-moving market.

I think that, out of all computer companies out there, Apple has it the easiest. They know exactly what the software requirements are and they don't depend on others to make a profit. They have no software licenses to pay to others and they have no hoops to jump for their devices to be distributed, as they have their own stores.

I think that HP buying Palm is only the beginning of what other hardware makers are going to do/should do: Have creative control over both software and hardware, and rake in the profit.

Technology must serve people's life, not the contrary. This is what MOST (= not you) want and Apple is probably the only company which understand that well and deliver products accordingly.

You say the contrary because you know technology, but I bet you have another point of view in other domain you don't master. Would you like having to know how an engine actually works to be able to drive a car?

You are not the target for Apple's products, but many are, including tech-saavy people as me who consider that it is nice to be able to simply use your computer without having to know all details under the hood.

"According to experts (Read: Wikipedia), a tablet computer is... "

Come on: encyclopedia are not supposed to define what things MUST be, but what they actually ARE. Call the iPad whatever you want and update wikipedia accordingly to take this new kind of device into account.

So you're telling me that I don't want technology to serve people's lives? Wow, that is a ballsy statement, considering I never said that. You must tell me about these mind control powers of yours (/s).

I know technology, yes. I know how an engine actually works. I know that's not the point you were trying to make. Let me ask you thins, Should you get a new car because your current one has a built-in alternator? Or, Should you take your car into the mechanic (genius bar) because you can't be bothered to learn where the windshield fluid goes? The most common reason I hear people buying Apple computers is because they don't get viruses.

In my statement about tablets I say "a tablet computer IS", not what it MUST be, so I don't get what you're getting at. And I don't consider updating the meaning of terms in Wikipedia my business, there are smarter people than me out there who can do that better than me. I don't think though that a term should be changed just to fit with what one computer company says it should be, I don't think it's smart editing, IMO.

I use Windows 7, and before that Vista. Trust me, the "it just works" mantra applies to Windows computers just as much. My wife, who doesn't even knows what a registry is, uses a netbook with Windows 7. She simply uses the computer, and knows none of the details about it. That's not a compelling argument in my (or my wife's) case. I believe many more prefer Windows XP, according to the numbers.

While technology has made life easier and faster, it still remains a relatively undiscovered country for the general public.

I don't know what you want, but you say "She was clueless about the acceleometer in it. My stereotype on the typical iProduct was reinforced"

What do you means by "clueless about the accelerometer" and by "stereotype on the typical iProduct"?

What should she knows about the accelerometer in order to be able to use the iPad? And WHY should she knows anything about accelerometers?

Mose people are clueless about technology and I don't see the problem. People should not have to understand technology to use it. They should not have to understand what is a 3G network or flash memory.

Apple's iPad is a device people can just use, including the accelerometer and the 3G connection without knowing anything about it. As you probably use your TV or washing machine.

This is the reason why Apple's products are so successful currently.

You say: "While technology has made life easier and faster, it still remains a relatively undiscovered country for the general public."

But technology should not be something you need to discover, unless you are interested in knowing how things work, which is not the case for most. Technology should just be there to make the life easier for everybody.

She didn't know she could turn the iPad sideways and it would adjust the image. Her eyes almost popped out of her head when I did it.

I understand your position on this, but I respectfully disagree. What I meant by technology being an undiscovered country is that people are mostly unaware of what technology can do for them. In the case of my coworker, she was unaware that you could turn the iPad sideways and use it that way. While I agree that we don't need to know how everything works, I have a hard time finding the correlation between that and the success of Apple products. If that was the case then the iPod shuffle would be the most successful mp3 player ever, but it is in their more complex devices (like the iPad and iPhone) that Apple has found the most success. I also believe that maintaining the general public unaware of what a product does or how it works is part of Apple's marketing plan. That's why they can slap an S on a nearly identical product, enable video recording and sell it as a new product. Apple depends on the ignorance of people in order to sell their upcoming product. That's also why the 1st Gen iProduct buyers also become its beta testers.

The iPod shufffle is too simple and has too much limitations: this is not a good example of a typical Apple product. The iPhone and now the iPad are good examples of Apple's "philosophy".

I don't agree that Apple try to keep people unaware of what a product does (look at apple.com­/ipad... you have a lot of information about the iPad features), but I agree that Apple try to hide complexity, which is a good thing.

But I fully disagree with you when you say that the purpose is to keep people ignorant in order to be able to sell multiple version of the same products to the same people.

All manufacturer think that you have to pack as many features as possible into a product because people want features. This is just wrong: people want features that works perfectly without having to configure this or download that.

Apple is the only company which make no concession to usability. Copy and paste in iPhone OS is a good example: this feature was added later into iPhoneOS 3 and the result is that Apple comes with the best implementation.

And the 1st gen beta test is just BS. Apple may have issue with 1st gen products as any manufacturer. Arguably more issue (but don't think it is the case), but you must consider that Apple 1st gen products often bring new industrial design on the table while other manufacturer most often just use standard components/design which are obviously more robust.

All-in-one computers, capacitive touch screen, unibody aluminium enclosure, ultra-thin laptop: Apple is extremely strong in industrial design and you should be grateful that this company pave the way for other manufacturer on many aspects.

One question: what would be the state of IT technology today should Apple / Steve Jobs never existed?

You may not like Apple's way of doing things, but I bet a IT world without Apple would be a lot less fun.

So you're telling me that Apple releasing a smartphone without 3G, multimedia messaging, copy/paste -all features that other smartphones have had for years- is a good thing for the users? They did that to spare us the confusion of sending a picture over he edge network I guess. I believe that, like Apple, many more companies have many things that they have paved the way for the computers we have today. But, some restrictions within Apple have made it a bit lob-sided to my liking. When you talk about the industrial design that Apple has brought... well, sure, it has its merits.

I was somewhat confused when you mentioned that Apple products don't "need to configure this or download that", because, if I remember correctly one of the main selling points from Apple is the App Store, which, contrary to what you said, requires a lot of downloading different apps and a lot of configuring them. Take the Orb app for instance. It should be a simple app to use, just put in your info and boom! it should work. But NO, it doesn't just work. You can't connect it to your TV and get a video feed from it. When I asked Orb why such a simple yet necessary feature wasn't implemented, they said that it was Apple's restriction, not theirs.

What I meant by different versions of the same product I was talking about the different selling points used as "new" features by Apple. First, it was the iPod + Phone + Internet thing, which Nokia had implemented a while back. Then it was 3G (which was old technology by then), then... Video!!!(which my Blackberry got as part of a firmware upgrade, no need of a hardware uprgade). Apple touts new, breakthrough features that aren't really new, Copy/Paste worked just as great in other smartphones, so why the wait? They can put a video camera on an iPod nano but not in an iPad or an iPad Nano (iPod Touch)? It takes 3 generations of a phone to get something as simple (and as old) as multitasking? How is Apple revolutionary...? Oh, that's right, they're revolutionary cus they said so... Steve told us so. First sign that the iPad was gonna lack basic features was when I saw the word "magic" in its ads. Clean and simple: the iPad is a giant iPod Touch, it's not a tablet.

Well, you have you opinion and I have mine, which is fine.

But facts are that iPhone is a HUGE success and iPad seems to he huge as well (hopefully you will not deny this). Which just mean that supposed missing features are not that important for many... maybe Apple's product bring something different than just features?

But I agree: if your feature check list is what is most important for you when purchasing such device, you should avoid Apple's product.

I still feel like these sorts of explanations are just a positive spin on excuses. Don't get me wrong, the iPhone is a great device but there are caveats.

Having to wait 3 years for ridiculously basic functionality isn't a feature or learning experience, it's a deficiency.