next »

[perkiset]

Good lord the man is utterly disconnected.

"I think [we] clearly have a lot more variety than Apple has. There's really only one choice in the Apple world," he said. " I think the problem, if you don't have a minimum kind of standard [… is] the brand means nothing to the user. Our brand means something to the user. It means something to the developer. It implies a certain level of consistency and high quality, which I think is important for the Windows Phone."

IMO Ballmer gets more laughably bad for M$ every single public appearance. There's JUST GOT to be someone in that organization that can do a better job.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/12/ballmer_microsofts_brand_means_something_to_users_apples_not_so_much.html

[nop_90]

One feature that won't be present in Windows Phone 7 devices at launch is Copy & Paste, which Microsoft promises as part of a software update in early 2011.
WTF
Probably because it is based on WindowsCE which was designed to use a stylous.
WindowsCE had cut an paste ffs. But this should take only a few days to fix.
WTF have they been doing for 2 years.

Fuking windowsCE is a nightmare to program. It is basically a stripped down windoze with 1/2 the API missing.
Also I am not sure if this is changed, but it did not have a complete C/C++ std library.

Maybe because his bonus got cut in 1/2 he can not afford the control freak drugs Jobs uses.
His drugs are just really bad ones.

[perkiset]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around why C/C/P is so difficult. Why did it take Apple a year+ to get it out? Why will it be missing from W7? Does Android do it well? I have no idea. Seems like this would have been a top-line priority.

[lamontagne]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around why C/C/P is so difficult. Why did it take Apple a year+ to get it out? Why will it be missing from W7? Does Android do it well? I have no idea. Seems like this would have been a top-line priority.

My guess is because in the mobile world everything is touch screen. Now transport the c/c/p to a touch screen, where your finger not only replaces the mouse, but replaces the scrollbar as well. Now let's assume I have a window on a mobile phone with text as well as vertical/horizontal scroll. When a user touches the text area and drags how am I to know whether the user wants to copy/cut/or simple scroll the window to the right/left/up/down.

Android accomplishes this by you simply holding your finger down on certain text (like in text messaging) or specifically picking a "select text" from a menu in other things (like the browser).

Basically to solve the issue once and for all the phone would need a button specifically for copy, and one for paste. On a phone the key area is prime real estate so the payoff for misplacing another button with a copy/paste button apparently isn't worth it to the phone makers. You need to have a separate object or way to select/copy/cut/paste, trying to mix this feature with using hand gestures is difficult to nail down so that it's not confusing to the user and is consistent. The biggest portion of this that would be confusing is text selection as I said before, how do you know if a user is moving the window or selecting text. Even a solution like "if user holds down on text for 2 seconds we go into selection mode and when finger is moved we select text" wont work. The reason it wont work is because this is the same gesture to drag and drop an object into a trash can or whatnot.

[nop_90]

@lamontagne
You are over complicating things.
When the "edit box" is point of focus, cursor will be active.
While when scrolling, scrollbar active.
Android does have a "optical trackball" thingie, but I do not use it.

The oldest nokia phones have a cut and paste feature.
Really important for forwarding stuff like phone numbers, serial numbers etc.

[lamontagne]

@lamontagne
You are over complicating things.
When the "edit box" is point of focus, cursor will be active.
While when scrolling, scrollbar active.
Android does have a "optical trackball" thingie, but I do not use it.

The oldest nokia phones have a cut and paste feature.
Really important for forwarding stuff like phone numbers, serial numbers etc.

Youre assuming there will always be a text box when I want to copy and paste. By your logic it would not be possible to copy text from a page and paste it into a text message. That isn't something that is going to fly with todays phones. People expect copy and paste for any type of text (whether it be a javascript alert box, a webpage, a text message, an email), and they expect it to be a consistent thing, not based on where you are in the phone and not changed from app to app (copy and paste in any desktop OS is right click, copy, right click paste)...

[perkiset]

There it is. Yup, the problem is cut/copy when it's not an edit situation ... like take this text from a webpage etc.

[lamontagne]

yeah. the current solution is to do patchy type stuff (like in droid browser going to menu->select text)... but that may be diff for another app etc. The goal is to make it consistent and always the same, and companies who are the big players (google, apple, microsoft) understand that it's better to take the time and do it right rather than just find hacky solutions. But that's only good to a point, you don't want profits to dip while you're trying to think of the right solution.

Proof that taking the time and doing things right matters:

- Myspace vs Facebook. Remember all those myspace users? remember how people thought it would be around for years.. yeah, keyword here is "remember"...

- iPod vs Every Other MP3 Player. See Apple actually didn't get the mp3 player right. That fancy spin wheel is cool but that's not what set it off. Apple didn't get the MP3 player right, they got the DRM right. It is my guess that trying to apply these same DRM rules to everything they do will be their downfall.

- Google vs Other Search Engines. Jesus folks the whole pagerank algorithm isn't a revolutionary idea, it's common sense, but nobody else wanted to take the time to actually code a system that large and figure out the solutions to all of the little problems involved. So much easier to just crawl pages and use keyword density, keyword tag, and a very basic user interaction algorithm to rank results.

The tortoise always wins...

[kurdt]

- Myspace vs Facebook. Remember all those myspace users? remember how people thought it would be around for years.. yeah, keyword here is "remember"...

This has very little to do with "better solution". Facebook promised privacy (look at it now), cleaner interface and first it was "Myspace for not teenagers".

- iPod vs Every Other MP3 Player. See Apple actually didn't get the mp3 player right. That fancy spin wheel is cool but that's not what set it off. Apple didn't get the MP3 player right, they got the DRM right. It is my guess that trying to apply these same DRM rules to everything they do will be their downfall.

This I partly agree. Another thing that set of iPod was marketing that simplified the whole thing to "have 1000s of songs in your pocket" instead of "play MP3s where ever you are".

- Google vs Other Search Engines. Jesus folks the whole pagerank algorithm isn't a revolutionary idea, it's common sense, but nobody else wanted to take the time to actually code a system that large and figure out the solutions to all of the little problems involved. So much easier to just crawl pages and use keyword density, keyword tag, and a very basic user interaction algorithm to rank results.

Well first of all, pagerank algorithm isn't Google's idea, it's a principle applied from the academic world that's been used to rank research papers based on quotations and references. But it's not common sense either. It's as much common sense as the wheel. Of course you want to have a round thing that rolls, put hole in the middle and put two of them round things together with a stick and you got a device that can carry stuff for you... now if it was common sense, all search engines would have done it from the get-go. Google used the exactly same things like keyword density (still do) but they used those only as secondary factors.

Google's strong suite is their architecture which is bar to none. When Google as search engine and advertising platform dies, they will always have their architecture and that will take them a long way.

The tortoise always wins...

If he's lucky.. usually the tortoise always runs out of money before getting anything done. Check out case file Duke Nukem Forever - which is again scheduled to be released, made by a completely different team that might actually get it done.

Remember that the biggest fault Apple had in it's early days was that they took their sweet time to create "the perfect product". This time they took drained all the money and if "the perfect product" wasn't so perfect in the minds of the market, then the company was in trouble.

There is no secret of taking your time or doing "the agile thing" or whatever hype word you want to use. It's all about creating something other people want. The smartest people create something that other people want (iPad) and then bundle it with things that will create them extra profit if customers choose to use them (iTunes Store, Appstore, etc). It really doesn't matter if it takes you 1 day or 2 years to make the thing but if it's the longer option, you better have some financial backing ready. Also different people want different things, that's why Google is doing product the market wants and Apple is doing a product market wants. Their products do the same thing but they are catering a different markets.

[lamontagne]

This has very little to do with "better solution". Facebook promised privacy (look at it now), cleaner interface and first it was "Myspace for not teenagers".

Aka, they took the time and did it right...

This I partly agree. Another thing that set of iPod was marketing that simplified the whole thing to "have 1000s of songs in your pocket" instead of "play MP3s where ever you are".

which is DRM...

Well first of all, pagerank algorithm isn't Google's idea, it's a principle applied from the academic world that's been used to rank research papers based on quotations and references. But it's not common sense either. It's as much common sense as the wheel. Of course you want to have a round thing that rolls, put hole in the middle and put two of them round things together with a stick and you got a device that can carry stuff for you... now if it was common sense, all search engines would have done it from the get-go. Google used the exactly same things like keyword density (still do) but they used those only as secondary factors.

Google's strong suite is their architecture which is bar to none. When Google as search engine and advertising platform dies, they will always have their architecture and that will take them a long way.

Other engines could not just "do it from the get go". The technology required to do the things google did took some serious thought (which you have already said), meaning other search engines wouldn't have done it from the get-go. They would rather be lazy and get the engine up quickly than take the time to build an infrastructure the way google did. I don't think you're realizing how far we have come since google opened the doors. Google opened in 1998. That's 12 years ago. The average pc specs in that time would be:

400 mhz pentium II/600 mhz pentium III
64 MB sdram/128 MB sdram
4-10 GB HDD
Windows 95/98

Of course google used servers (actually if I remember google was one of the first to truly use multiple "average" machines rather than one big fat server) but regardless I would think that it still took quite a bit of engineering to do it the right way. Back in those days with those sort of specs it wouldn't have just been "oh lets do it from the get go". I would argue that the pagerank was common sense but nobody even brought it up because it seemed like such an impossible task with the technology at that time.

If he's lucky.. usually the tortoise always runs out of money before getting anything done. Check out case file Duke Nukem Forever - which is again scheduled to be released, made by a completely different team that might actually get it done.

Which is why I said:

But that's only good to a point, you don't want profits to dip while you're trying to think of the right solution.

[perkiset]

I disagree that the success of the iPod was due to DRM. In fact, I think that's been one of the things that's kept it from even broader acceptance.

The marketing notion was broad convenience and the message worked (1000s was, at the time, a game changing number). Second, the white headphones. Everyone wanted to know what (that guy) had ... There was nothing else like it at the time. The buzz was expertly created as counterculture, yet hipster. It was brilliant.

Then there's syncing. People were able to put their CDs into iTunes, instantly import them and take them anywhere. No other system at that time made the movement of data from the computer into a device so quick and simple. Playlists went, songs, album structure - it made the device experience almost as strong as a computer experience. Grandmas were able to take music with them.

I am totally behind the notion of the tortoise, and yet he does not always win. The tortoise analogy is, for a great deal of scenarios, the best way to go. But first-mover is a powerful advantage as well, provided that the first mover maintains the discipline to stay ahead. It's the lazy, ADD nature of the rabbit that loses the race, not just the diligence of the tortoise.     

[lamontagne]

But I would say it was only so "convenient" and possible to get those 1000's due to the DRM. Without the all in one platform it wouldn't have been a success no matter how much you could put on it and the all in one platform would not have been possible without the DRM. Without it the ipod is just another mp3 player where you still have to find a way to pirate/buy mp3's. Making it an all in one, only made possible via the DRM (if there was no DRM, many record industry people would not have allowed itunes to have their music). You can bet your ass that during that time when the RIAA was going after people for p2p they for sure would have gone after Apple for allowing piracy if no DRM was in place. Apple would have toppled too, sure they may be a giant NOW, but that ipod was their big bang, so during that time they didn't have nearly the weight they do now. Without the DRM the original ipod would have been just another mp3 player. Sure the other mp3 player creators would give you free gift cards to download mp3's from various sites and whatnot, but that's still too difficult, and people don't like difficult. The "quick and simple movement to a portable device" you speak of is all due to DRM, because if the music industry didn't have a way to get paid and ensure that files were not copied they would have taken a big shit on Apple.

I will agree that it being convenient was the major factor of its success. But I would say that without the DRM it would not have been so convenient.

[perkiset]

Either I'm not hearing you correctly of I don't get you.

The iPod was out early 2001. The iTunes store wasn't out till late 2003. Virtually everything available at that time for the iPod was either (my) music in the form of CDs that I scraped into iTunes, or music I had purchased otherwhere or pirated. The only thing that DRM might have helped at that time was Napster. So I guess you could make an argument that DRM pushed people towards Napster, which pushed people towards downloading MP3s into their iTunes ... but I think most people probably just scraped their own first.

How does the restriction of DRM enhance the experience of the marketing effort if, at the time of release and for the next 2 years, there wasn't even a digital store to make use of it?

[lamontagne]

The itunes store was opened on April 28, 2003. The ipod itself was launched on October 31st, 2001.
Now let's look at sales of ipods broken down quarterly over the years:



After 2003 (the itunes store) is when it really begins to grow. Now we can attribute the growth to various factors but I would say that the itunes store is the biggest factor. Sure in 2001 it may have been great for you, but was it a success yet?

I'm now leaning more towards a combination of everything we have talked about is the reason for success but that the itunes store was the heaviest of all the factors. I found an article over at macworld (for whatever their worth) listing the reasons they say the ipod was a success, and it seems to be a combination of what we have all said.

Sources:
http://www.macworld.com/article/53505/2006/10/ipodfive.html
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TotaliPodsSales_2008Q3.svg

[nop_90]

I disagree that the success of the iPod was due to DRM. In fact, I think that's been one of the things that's kept it from even broader acceptance.

100% correct. For that lamontage needs a history lesson.

Virtually everything available at that time for the iPod was either (my) music in the form of CDs that I scraped into iTunes, or music I had purchased otherwhere or pirated. The only thing that DRM might have helped at that time was Napster. So I guess you could make an argument that DRM pushed people towards Napster, which pushed people towards downloading MP3s into their iTunes ... but I think most people probably just scraped their own first.

In 1999 to 2001 era no one bought music. I can not remember exactly when kazaa,napster etc. came out. I remember it was before 911 .
A few years back there was a company named "creative". They made the "sound blaster" sound cards.
I can not remember exactly when they became popular. I was before Win95. I remember buying a sound blaster 16 and sticking it in a DOS computer.
Sound Blaster rocked, relatively cheap cards, amazing 16 bit sound. I also remember buying a 32 bit one and 64 later.

So now the scene was basically set. PC had amazing sound quality. More then most games at the time could handle.
You could get tons of MP3 off the net for free. All sorts of music that you could get for free.
Music you normally would not listen to, you would just DL and try it out. Just because you could.
But you had one problem, you could only play it on your PC.
Only thing you could either burn it onto CDs which was a pain in the ass.
My little brother in this regard was a pioneer. He got a huge ass stero, hooked up the sound card to it.
This think was fuking huge like 2K W. He had it set up in the basement. He would crank it, till the floor upstairs was vibrating, and the windows would shake.
Thinking back.
We lived in a "middle class" white nieghborhood. I think the reason why no one ever called the cops was because we probably had the reputation as being a family of highly intelligent nuts. Even when we where much younger we where making our own gunpowder, blowing stuff up etc. My dad was always involved in some lawsuit where he was suing someone who pissed him off. Usually he won. So probably we had a reputation as people you do not mess with.

Around 2000 Sound blaster started to get massive competition in the sound card market. Cheap cards coming in from China. Their solution was to make 64 bit sound cards. Then 128 bits etc. More and more insane amount of bits. Creative started to panic.

Ironically Creative was one of the first to make a portable MP3 player before ipod. You could plug it into this new USB thingie. Remember when USB was new ?.
Even more amazing was that the USB would charge it up. Its was really easy to use. Copy songs onto it, and then away you went.
Also with the USB thingie came flash disks. As a student/instructor, you had to take your files with you. You would work on something at home, have to take it to school, then back home again.
Carrying a zillion floppies just did not cut the mustard. Also the fuking things would get corrupted.
The flash drive was a god sent. I bought one.

I would always go to various puter shops and browse the new gadgets, shoot the shit with the sales guys. Talk to the techies.
The sales guys would talk to me providing there where no customers around . If there where customers around I would keep my mouth shut, I scared the customers .

Anyway one day I go to the shop. Sales guy shows me this amazing new flash disk by Creative.
Now knowing more about marketing, that Creative was able to sell any of these devices was amazing.
On the package it said something like, Flash Disk 128M with portable MP3 player.
I think at the time, a 128 flash disk ran for like $90, the creative one sold for like $150.
I bought it on an impulse, my thinking was it is only 50% more expensive then a normal flash disk, I wanted to check out the MP3 player.
Key thing is I bought it as a "flash disk".
Fuking thing was great, you could throw on it like 2-3 hours worth of songs.

Self image, as in how one views one self is very important.
Mistake that Creative made was they viewed themselves as a sound card company. Not as a sound provider company.
If apple would have viewed themselves as a "PC company", they would have been bankrupt by now.
Jobs viewed Apple as a computing device company. And he also saw an oportunity and took advantage of it.

Even as myself. I viewed myself as a meak, mild mannered person. I think I might have been that way when I was 15.
After I got out of the military, I wore a black leather jacket, surplus army boots (they where cheap and durable, my feet hurt if i wore normal shoes).
I remember people saying how they where scared to travel on trains, or buses at night. I was always perplexed.
Countless times I would be waiting for a train late at night. Some group punk ass kids would come up to me.
They would ask me for money, I would joke with them, tell them I would have none. They should give me money.
Then we would start shooting the shit. They would ask me, what gang I was with.
I would tell them WTF do I need a gang for. I just go places by myself. That seemed to impress them alot.
So I now have reached the conclusion that maybe my "self image" was incorrect

Also as a life lesson. Don't stick urself in a mental box.
As for the other shit, ipod is a hack. iphone is a hack. Android is a hack. lol