Apple Announces the iPhone (and it does look fabulous)!

[David Franklin]

I didn't look into doing the whole drag thing which I think would be hard for reasons posted by DF. Would still IMO come down to software though.

For the example I gave, you cannot implement dragging using software. Because the hardware will report the same value for two different movements, so you can't tell those movements apart. End of discussion.

I cant think of any otherway a touch screen would work other than a series of matrixes.

Funny, because I've heard of at least one other implementation. And I thought you were the expert on touch screens...

[Lee Bartholomew]

For the example I gave, you cannot implement dragging using software. Because the hardware will report the same value for two different movements, so you can't tell those movements apart. End of discussion.

Funny, because I've heard of at least one other implementation. And I thought you were the expert on touch screens...

Care to comment on what the other implementation is?

Im no expert but did spend a lot of time looking in to the problem I had and how they work.

To be honest I might have mis interpreted your example because it didn;t really make much sense.

[David Franklin]

Care to comment on what the other implementation is?

There are four implementions described here: http://www.trolltouch.com/faq.html. I'd say the last 2 are fairly clearly not matrices.

The actual one I was thinking of, however, (and there were definitely ye-olde screens like this) is having some kind of conductive film with sensors at the corners. You then pick up the signal caused by someone touching it. Or you have 2 layers of film arranged so pressing on the top layer causes contact with the second one. By applying different potentials to the corners, the voltage at the point of contact with the second layer determines the position. Neither of these techniques will work well with multiple contacts.

To be honest I might have mis interpreted your example because it didn;t really make much sense.

I obviously pitched the explanation a bit high...

[straycat]

I obviously pitched the explanation a bit high...

Don't worry - I found it very clearly explained & fairly easy to understand ('fairly' because I'm far more of a software man than a hardware man)

[frodo]

The iPod came before the iTunes music store. It innovated by being the first to use a 1.8" hard disk inside a MP3 player. It was smaller and lighter than the equivalent competition.

I'm not sure using a 1.8 in disk counts as as that much of an innovation.

While more innovative than Dell say being the first to include a 750Gb desktop hard drive, it is somewhat a matter of degree. The use of smaller and bigger hard drives was going to happen anyway - the real innovations were by Toshiba / IBM etc.

There were smaller MP3 players, perhaps even the odd one with an IBM Microdrive, but they were the first with that particular balance of size and capacity.

At the same time, they vastly improved the usability of music players. This is something that many IT professionals seem to miss. "If I can use my MP3 players with its dozen strangely labelled buttons, why can't everyone?"

I think that is the biggest difference they made.

It was also striking how many companies thought an audio device had to look/act like an earlier audio device of a earlier generation, especially for PC audio players.

User interface books had picked up an the inappropriate metaphor thing but ITunes was the first major desktop player I saw that took that up and comprehensively ditched the metaphor, and rethought it.

Which music player had a scroll wheel like the iPod?

Sadly - It will be another 15 years before I don't have to choose between a removable battery and a 'Click Wheel' (my well pre-IPod Rio 500 had a excellent scroll wheel).

[StokeBloke]

Steve Jobs is still the man! !

[Lee Bartholomew]

Steve Jobs is still the man! !

Advanced loads. Now we have a scroll wheel on it and a pair of head phones.

[straycat]

Advanced loads. Now we have a scroll wheel on it and a pair of head phones.

Could someone change this record? I think it has a pretty bad scratch - anyway it keeps sticking

[Lee Bartholomew]

To be honest I don't mind macs. I used to have an imac (till the graphics went and I had no option but to turn it in to a fish tank).

There was an argument that I supported a few years ago, that was that macs were better than PC's for design, music and video. Now days I really don't think that is the case as the gap has decreased due to the PC market being so strong.

I do still admire Apples marketing department. They already have masses of people wanting a product that none of them have actually held in their hands or been reviewed.

I can see Apple moving out of the computer market in the future and concentrating on their little gadgets. (On a by note, who ownes a very high percentage in shares of the computer division of Apple? Microsoft!!)

[ducasi]

On a by note, who ownes a very high percentage in shares of the computer division of Apple? Microsoft!!

I don't see their name on this list...

Microsoft used to own a small percentage of Apple – it was part of a deal settling a copyright issue where Microsoft had taken code from quicktime and used it in their own video system. They sold those shares as soon as they were able to.

(Oh, and Apple doesn't have a "computer division" that could be separately owned by anyone.)

[straycat]

To be honest I don't mind macs. I used to have an imac (till the graphics went and I had no option but to turn it in to a fish tank).

Got any piccies?

I'd have thought the fish would need more light, but I'm curious about this.

There was an argument that I supported a few years ago, that was that macs were better than PC's for design, music and video. Now days I really don't think that is the case as the gap has decreased due to the PC market being so strong.

That was always a strong pro-Mac argument, and it still holds good, but the gap, as you say, has narrowed considerably. Where the gap has widened, if anything, (Vista excepting, which I know little about) is in useability terms - Apple were always ahead of the game on that score, and have done nothing but strengthen their lead since OSX first came out.

I do still admire Apples marketing department. They already have masses of people wanting a product that none of them have actually held in their hands or been reviewed.

It's impressive - although people do have a solid foundation to base their expectations on - namely the excellent design and useability of the iPod, plus the demos of the iPhone, which were stunning.

I can see Apple moving out of the computer market in the future and concentrating on their little gadgets. (On a by note, who ownes a very high percentage in shares of the computer division of Apple? Microsoft!!)

I hope not - because my main interest is in their computers. Their computer market is still a mainstay though, and especially given the tie-in between their computers and their gadgets, I think this is very unlikely to happen - at least in the short-to-medium term.

As for MS owning a large chunk of shares - yes. This happened at a time when Apple were in some serious difficulty - and interestingly enough, MS jumped in to help bail them out, both financially, and by prioritising the best version of Mac Office they'd ever done (by miles) ahead of the corresponding PC version... which was utterly unheard of.

I believe a large part of the reason was because they were treating Apple as their main R&D department, and they didn't want their favourite ideas company to bite the dust (their own R&D really isn't up to much, historically speaking). They don't want Apple getting too big, either, but they certainly wouldn't want 'em gone...

[ducasi]

There was an argument that I supported a few years ago, that was that macs were better than PC's for design, music and video. Now days I really don't think that is the case as the gap has decreased due to the PC market being so strong.

I agree that the publishing/media/education niche that Apple were in a no-longer important. Now Apple can compete in almost every market due to having a very strong product that beats much of the offering from Microsoft.

I do still admire Apples marketing department. They already have masses of people wanting a product that none of them have actually held in their hands or been reviewed.

C.f. The Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony Playstation 3 and Nintendo Wii before they came out.

Oh and Vista, the longest suicide note in history.

[David Bailey]

I can see Apple moving out of the computer market in the future and concentrating on their little gadgets.

Apple used to use iTunes simply to sell iPods - but I suspect, with 2 billion downloads, the iTunes business is looking reasonably attractive in itself. The iPod sales are about 70 million units, so I think it's reasonable to assume that iTunes and iPod businesses are at least comparable in size.

As for the iPhone, for $599 a unit I imagine that's effectively the way a lot of people will upgrade their iPods - to iPhones. Although the 8Gb maximum iPhone memory may be an issue for some people. So it's certainly reasonable to assume it'll similarly be a good business to be in.

As to how this will affect Mac sales, who knows - but yes, Apple may well transform itself into an entertainment-device company rather than a computer company in a few years' time.

[killingtime]

As for MS owning a large chunk of shares - yes. This happened at a time when Apple were in some serious difficulty - and interestingly enough, MS jumped in to help bail them out, both financially, and by prioritising the best version of Mac Office they'd ever done (by miles) ahead of the corresponding PC version... which was utterly unheard of

Actually I think it was because if Apple went under then Microsoft would have no competition (except Linux, which wasn't considered a business market) at the time they were undergoing scrutiny on their monopoly. They already said "look, Apple are our competition!" if they went under then MS could have well undergone the division that was discussed.

[killingtime]

As to how this will affect Mac sales, who knows - but yes, Apple may well transform itself into an entertainment-device company rather than a computer company in a few years' time.

Of course, entertainment devices and computers are a bit of a blurred line anyway now-a-days. If all people want to do is surf the web and download their photos they could probably use a Wii to do that. At least a few set top boxes run on embedded Linux and the power required to run web pages compared to, say, decoding HD video is trivial (though we might see more chip specialisation in the future).

So yes, they might become more of an entertainment-device company but then a computer, as we see it now, might just be something you use at the office anyway.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Have been out of the mac scene for awhile but AFSIA most of the hardware (memory, pci, agp cards ide devices etc) are compatible. Main difference seems to be in the OS, Processor and the fact that the mac is less fixable?

Has been awhile (ran G3's) so someone correct me if im wrong (and im sure you will) .

The main prob for the mac is that very few people own them. You ask 100 people on the street what Apple does and you will prob get more people saying iPods than PC's (a few prob saying their a record comp too).

I would consider a mac if they were cheaper, Looked nicer (i know this is going to be questioned, but there are some really nice pc cases out there), were more supported, and if they were in use with the work that I do.



The fish tack Imac is in storage (minus fish). have a few photos about but they would need scanning.

Im not the only one to have done it though. I got the idea of a website awhile ago. tried googling it (there was a how to) but could not find. Found this though. http://www.theapplecollection.com/Co...um/index.shtml

[ducasi]

Actually I think it was because if Apple went under then Microsoft would have no competition (except Linux, which wasn't considered a business market) at the time they were undergoing scrutiny on their monopoly. They already said "look, Apple are our competition!" if they went under then MS could have well undergone the division that was discussed.

No, the story is more complicated than that...

Apple had Microsoft over a barrel – their code had been found inside Microsoft's product. At the same time Apple were feeling the pinch.

Apple persuaded Microsoft to publicly invest in Apple (in return for a number of non-voting special shares) and commit to producing continued versions of Mac Office. There were doubtless other parts of the deal that were never made public but probably included some cross-licencing and handshakes over other potential litigation.

As I say, when they could, Microsoft sold these shares.

All this was about 10 years ago – a very long time in the IT business.

[Lee Bartholomew]

I remember it happening when i was working for a graphic company. Don't ever remember the outcome though. thought MS still owned them. Learn something new every day.

[straycat]

Oh and Vista, the longest suicide note in history.

I'm about half-way through the 'cost-analysis' report referenced from this link... and to be quite honest, I can barely believe what I'm reading. This is INSANE!!!

I have no words

[Lee Bartholomew]

I'm about half-way through the 'cost-analysis' report referenced from this link... and to be quite honest, I can barely believe what I'm reading. This is INSANE!!!

I have no words

You have ob have more time on your hands than I do.

Only glanced over the link as busy today. about copy protection? They said the XP one would kill off the PC.

There are copies of Vista doing the rounds already.