Linus: You Can't Trust Apple's Performance Claims

[1_rick]

It was, however, the first modern smartphone (large capacitive touchscreen, easy-to-use interface, powerful internet and media apps).

The HTC TyTN, which had all of that except a large screen, would like a word.

 

[Aurelius]

The HTC TyTN, which had all of that except a large screen, would like a word.

Eh, as a 2006-era Windows Mobile phone I wouldn't say it lives up to that criteria. The OS at the time really did feel like Microsoft was trying to shoehorn as much of the desktop experience into a phone as possible, practicality be damned... and this was still the era of hobbled mobile web browsers and crude media playback. The TyTN was fine for power users, but it was never going to set the public imagination on fire.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I don't know many people who think the iPhone was the first smartphone. It was, however, the first modern smartphone (large capacitive touchscreen, easy-to-use interface, powerful internet and media apps). Ditto the iPod; it wasn't the first MP3 player, but it was the first all-around good MP3 player (actually portable, easy interface, fast transfers, ample storage).

the iPhone may or may not have been the first to make it to market, but it was by no means "revolutionary". The whole market was evolving into candybar phones with big touch screens and intuitive interfaces. Apple just got to market first.

As far as mp3 players go, I still maintain that the iPod was one of the worst alternatives out there. No idea why it became so popular. It had an awful user interface in that stupid click wheel, and embedding everything in proprietary XML databases requiring syncing with iTunes rather than just being able to play files simply dropped on to the device was just plain obnoxious.

I would have taken something like one of the Creative Zen 100 out of 100 times. The only reason to go with an iPod was because it became ubiquitous and was integrated into everything (cars, players, etc.) As a player there were plenty better options out there that were on the market before the iPod.

 

[DukenukemX]

The "Fisher Price" iMac (I presume you mean the first iMac) effectively saved the company. It certainly had its limitations, but it sold well precisely because it wasn't a generic beige tower. People still have fond memories of it.

If that saved Apple then the joke gets funnier.

PowerPC did have some advantages over Intel chips, but only in some scenarios... and yes, the architecture and its partners (IBM and Motorola) fell behind. My first Mac, a PowerBook G4, was slimmer, faster and longer-lived than comparable Windows machines at the time; this was before Intel unveiled Centrino and finally started taking laptop CPUs more seriously.

From what I remember the G3 and G4 were faster, especially when at the time Intel's Pentium 4 was a bad product. But Intel never gave up on the Pentium 4 and upgrade it multiple times. By the time Intel introduced the CoreDuo is when Apple started to lie about the PowerPC performance, much like today with their ARM based M2's. I still have a PowerBook G4 and good luck getting Linux running on it. I also have an old Pentium 4 laptop and with Linux I can absolutely use it.

I don't know many people who think the iPhone was the first smartphone. It was, however, the first modern smartphone (large capacitive touchscreen, easy-to-use interface, powerful internet and media apps). Ditto the iPod; it wasn't the first MP3 player, but it was the first all-around good MP3 player (actually portable, easy interface, fast transfers, ample storage).

Nope, smart phones had that before Apple. The difference is that Apple did it better, and touch screens weren't capacitive while the iPhone was. Except Apple also didn't have a removable battery and a SD card slot. Also Apple had a proprietary charging cable.

You do know Wozniak left Apple's hardware design relatively early, right? It's pretty well-known that Woz was responsible for the Apple I and II, and that Jobs only had a peripheral involvement. And while Jobs wasn't directly designing computers, there's no question that he heavily influenced designs from the Lisa onward. Part of what made Apple's products so good in Jobs' heyday was that he gave Jony Ive focus and tempered design dreams with practical/marketing realities.

Steve Jobs was an asshole and the Apple II was probably the computer that propelled Apple.

the iPhone may or may not have been the first to make it to market, but it was by no means "revolutionary". The whole market was evolving into candybar phones with big touch screens and intuitive interfaces. Apple just got to market first.

The market had that years before the iPhone. I'm not happy about Apple's influence in the smart phone market, including the candy bar design.

 

[Aurelius]

the iPhone may or may not have been the first to make it to market, but it was by no means "revolutionary". The whole market was evolving into candybar phones with big touch screens and intuitive interfaces. Apple just got to market first.

As far as mp3 players go, I still maintain that the iPod was one of the worst alternatives out there. No idea why it became so popular. It had an awful user interface in that stupid click wheel, and embedding everything in proprietary XML databases requiring syncing with iTunes rather than just being able to play files simply dropped on to the device was just plain obnoxious.

I would have taken something like one of the Creative Zen 100 out of 100 times. The only reason to go with an iPod was because it became ubiquitous and was integrated into everything (cars, players, etc.) As a player there were plenty better options out there that were on the market before the iPod.

I have to disagree to an... er, degree.

I remember the smartphone market at the time very well. Windows Mobile was still largely in glorified PDA territory. There were some attempts to consumerize smartphones, such as the BlackBerry Pearl and Nokia N95, but even then those were ungainly beasts. Hell, Symbian phones would even pester you for connection types every time you wanted to do something online. The market wasn't really on its way as the competing phones that followed were clearly reactionary. Google shifted Android's early focus from a BlackBerry-alike to capacitive touch. RIM rushed the BlackBerry Storm to market because Verizon wanted an "iPhone killer." Nokia showed off a multi-touch concept and pushed the XpressMusic 5800 out the door. Palm went back to the drawing board and put out the Pre with a former Apple exec as its CEO; Microsoft rolled out Windows Mobile 6.5 as a stopgap for more finger-friendly touch.

As for the iPod, I'm not sure you're in touch with what everyday people want, quite frankly! The click wheel was great — you could rapidly scroll through a large collection with a smooth movement. The UI was plain, but easy to understand and consistent. And yes, iTunes locked people in, but it also meant that syncing was easy and fast. As in actually easy, not power user "you need to understand file hierarchies" easy. You plug in your iPod, and 10 seconds later that new album is loaded without having to click around.

The MP3 player market in 2001 was bad. The Nomad Jukebox had 5GB, but it was as big as a CD player, had a terrible UI/syncing experience and took ages to transfer over USB 1. Archos and others had similar problems. There were flash players, but many of them had so little capacity that you had to pick which few albums you'd take with you. The initial iPod was somewhat niche since it only worked with Macs and needed FireWire, but the beauty of it was that you could focus on... listening to music. You could grab your MP3 player and rush out the door knowing it had all your music, and that it would fit into your pocket.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

As for the iPod, I'm not sure you're in touch with what everyday people want, quite frankly! The click wheel was great — you could rapidly scroll through a large collection with a smooth movement. The UI was plain, but easy to understand and consistent. And yes, iTunes locked people in, but it also meant that syncing was easy and fast. As in actually easy, not power user "you need to understand file hierarchies" easy. You plug in your iPod, and 10 seconds later that new album is loaded without having to click around.

See, I always found it unnecessarily convoluted to deal with, rather than the simple solution, which would have been to plug it in, wait for a drive letter to appear, and drag and drop your files onto it. None of the forced convoluted XML library shit.

I absolutely hated the iPod experience when I had one. (actually it might still be around here somewhere, The only reason I bought it was because it integrated with my cars head unit at the time, and when I got rid of that car, I stopped using it. No idea what happened to it)

But that thing was the goddamn bane of my existence. I hated it so much.

 

[LukeTbk]

As for the iPod, I'm not sure you're in touch with what everyday people want, quite frankly! The click wheel was great — you could rapidly scroll through a large collection with a smooth movement. The UI was plain, but easy to understand and consistent. And yes, iTunes locked people in, but it also meant that syncing was easy and fast. As in actually easy, not power user "you need to understand file hierarchies" easy. You plug in your iPod, and 10 seconds later that new album is loaded without having to click around.

Could be a creature of habit or that Itunes got complicated later on, but I always found the Itunes interface and the idea of syncing (as if the default mode would be to ever want to delete music on my computer if I deleted it on my very limited storage device) and the implementation of it to be much harder than the simple file-folder hierarchy, to this day I have an hard time using it.

Maybe easier to sync, but to just put music on it not starting from a CD. The hardware was superbe quality once you had your music on it

 

[Axman]

Also a reminder that Apple won't let you download an ad blocker and won't let you install other web browsers unless they are built on their WebKit

FYI Brave on iPhones blocks most ads natively.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

FYI Brave on iPhones blocks most ads natively.

You won't find me putting Brave anywhere near any PC or Mobile device of mine after their long string of fraudulent and unethical behavior.

 

[westrock2000]

“Clearly you can tell Apple makes horrible products BECAUSE they are successful. iPod? Horrible! iPhone? Worst quality of any phone! MacBook Air? Outperformed by laptops that cost 1/4 the price. Mac’s literally have zero parts you can upgrade yourself.”

There is an inverse of the reality distortion field. And most victims are not aware of it’s existence. But it is very powerful.

 

[drutman]

Jobs was successful because he took throwaways from other companies and made them work.
Xerox had the mouse and I believe the software GUI but didn't see the potential.

 

[Red Falcon]

“Clearly you can tell Apple makes horrible products BECAUSE they are successful. iPod? Horrible! iPhone? Worst quality of any phone! MacBook Air? Outperformed by laptops that cost 1/4 the price. Mac’s literally have zero parts you can upgrade yourself.”

There is an inverse of the reality distortion field. And most victims are not aware of it’s existence. But it is very powerful.

Yep, it's called propaganda marketing, and Steve Jobs was a master of it.
Apple has simply continued to ride on the techniques of his legacy, and amazingly it continues to work.

At which point you should ask yourself:
Who is the real fool? The fool that leads or the fool that follows?

 

[michalrz]

I thought this would be Torvalds discussing architecture features
Meanwhile here's that kid again

 

[Aurelius]

Yep, it's called propaganda marketing, and Steve Jobs was a master of it.
Apple has simply continued to ride on the techniques of his legacy, and amazingly it continues to work.

At which point you should ask yourself:
Who is the real fool? The fool that leads or the fool that follows?

Marketing isn't the only thing. Otherwise Apple wouldn't have had some failures, including during Jobs' era (G4 Cube and iPod HiFi, anyone?).

Besides, a good company not only makes a quality product, but knows how to communicate the value of that product. Too many tech brands get mired in specs or vague lifestyle promises. Jobs not only had a clear vision of what he wanted the iMac to be, he explained it very clearly to the public: it's a cool, easy way to get online. The iPod? A thousand songs in your pocket. You get the idea.

There's nothing "amazing" about it — it's that the everyday person just wants to know how a product will make their life better. They're not fussing over clock speeds or access to a raw file manager. They just want to know their laptop will last the entire workday on battery, or that it'll be fast enough to juggle lots of browser tabs and work apps. And that's what frustrates some enthusiasts. They want it to be about the numbers, but that's not how it works in practice.

 

[Red Falcon]

Marketing isn't the only thing. Otherwise Apple wouldn't have had some failures, including during Jobs' era (G4 Cube and iPod HiFi, anyone?).

Besides, a good company not only makes a quality product, but knows how to communicate the value of that product. Too many tech brands get mired in specs or vague lifestyle promises. Jobs not only had a clear vision of what he wanted the iMac to be, he explained it very clearly to the public: it's a cool, easy way to get online. The iPod? A thousand songs in your pocket. You get the idea.

There's nothing "amazing" about it — it's that the everyday person just wants to know how a product will make their life better. They're not fussing over clock speeds or access to a raw file manager. They just want to know their laptop will last the entire workday on battery, or that it'll be fast enough to juggle lots of browser tabs and work apps. And that's what frustrates some enthusiasts. They want it to be about the numbers, but that's not how it works in practice.

So in other words... it's about the marketing.

 

[kac77]

I have to disagree to an... er, degree.

I remember the smartphone market at the time very well. Windows Mobile was still largely in glorified PDA territory. There were some attempts to consumerize smartphones, such as the BlackBerry Pearl and Nokia N95, but even then those were ungainly beasts. Hell, Symbian phones would even pester you for connection types every time you wanted to do something online. The market wasn't really on its way as the competing phones that followed were clearly reactionary. Google shifted Android's early focus from a BlackBerry-alike to capacitive touch. RIM rushed the BlackBerry Storm to market because Verizon wanted an "iPhone killer." Nokia showed off a multi-touch concept and pushed the XpressMusic 5800 out the door. Palm went back to the drawing board and put out the Pre with a former Apple exec as its CEO; Microsoft rolled out Windows Mobile 6.5 as a stopgap for more finger-friendly touch.

LG Prada came before the iPhone technically.

As for the iPod, I'm not sure you're in touch with what everyday people want, quite frankly! The click wheel was great — you could rapidly scroll through a large collection with a smooth movement. The UI was plain, but easy to understand and consistent. And yes, iTunes locked people in, but it also meant that syncing was easy and fast. As in actually easy, not power user "you need to understand file hierarchies" easy. You plug in your iPod, and 10 seconds later that new album is loaded without having to click around. The MP3 player market in 2001 was bad. The Nomad Jukebox had 5GB, but it was as big as a CD player, had a terrible UI/syncing experience and took ages to transfer over USB 1. Archos and others had similar problems. There were flash players, but many of them had so little capacity that you had to pick which few albums you'd take with you. The initial iPod was somewhat niche since it only worked with Macs and needed FireWire, but the beauty of it was that you could focus on... listening to music. You could grab your MP3 player and rush out the door knowing it had all your music, and that it would fit into your pocket.

Even though I hate Microsoft with a burning passion the Zune walked all over the iPod. It supported a lot of different video formats. You could plug it in and just copy your files over like a normal person instead of "syncing". Syncing was anything but easy and fast. Heaven help you if the syncing process messed up. The file system on an iPod looks like a mass murder crime scene. I actually got my father an iPod and after the annoying syncing experience on a PC, he ditched it for a Zune and loved it. I also had the Nomad Jukebox as well it didn't take long at all to copy files over.

 

[Aurelius]

LG Prada came before the iPhone technically.

People like to claim it beat Apple to the punch, but not really. It was a "full touch" phone, but it was always intended as a basic cellphone and was never going to evolve. The original iPhone didn't have third-party apps, but it was a smartphone in every other respect and was clearly built to grow over time. I'd credit LG for taking a chance on a touch-centric phone, but Apple's work was far more ambitious.

Even though I hate Microsoft with a burning passion the Zune walked all over the iPod. It supported a lot of different video formats. You could plug it in and just copy your files over like a normal person instead of "syncing". Syncing was anything but easy and fast. Heaven help you if the syncing process messed up. The file system on an iPod looks like a mass murder crime scene. I actually got my father an iPod and after the annoying syncing experience on a PC, he ditched it for a Zune and loved it. I also had the Nomad Jukebox as well it didn't take long at all to copy files over.

I'm not so sure. The Zune PC software was something of a mess; it looked cool, but navigation was rough. It made iTunes look straightforward. Drag-and-drop is nice, but I had great experiences syncing my iPods back in the day (I was already on a Mac by then, mind you). I also wasn't a big fan of the original Zune's controls and interface — the iPod click wheel still made it easier to scroll through large lists. The second-gen Zunes and the Zune HD were considerably better (I tried both for a while), but by then the iPod touch existed.

The Zune's biggest problem was really that it was a "me too!" product. It was Microsoft (or specifically, Steve Ballmer) admitting that it missed the boat on MP3 players and getting into the market years too late. Something we'd see happen again with easy-to-use smartphones, touch-friendly tablets, wearables...

 

[DukenukemX]

I'm not so sure. The Zune PC software was something of a mess; it looked cool, but navigation was rough. It made iTunes look straightforward. Drag-and-drop is nice, but I had great experiences syncing my iPods back in the day (I was already on a Mac by then, mind you). I also wasn't a big fan of the original Zune's controls and interface — the iPod click wheel still made it easier to scroll through large lists. The second-gen Zunes and the Zune HD were considerably better (I tried both for a while), but by then the iPod touch existed.

The Zune's biggest problem was really that it was a "me too!" product. It was Microsoft (or specifically, Steve Ballmer) admitting that it missed the boat on MP3 players and getting into the market years too late. Something we'd see happen again with easy-to-use smartphones, touch-friendly tablets, wearables...

Apple's iTune's sync was meant to deter people from using other sources of music on their devices. Apple really wanted people to buy their music from their store. All imported music on the iPod was converted to Apple's format which was stupid. I don't know about Zune but on my Windows Mobile and SymbianOS devices I just dragged and dropped the MP3's and was done. I had a SD Card that was large enough to contain most of my music collection. I still remember walking into Radio Shack with my Nokia Ngage and immediately have the store clerks jump on me to sell me a new phone, which this was before the iPhone and smart phone market boom, and I whipped out the NGage and played the Monty Python movie in front of them. The customers in the store went nuts and wanted to know what phone could play movies? The answer was none. While the Ngage was the least ergonomic design for a smart phone, it wasn't the only Nokia device that ran SymbianOS. Not only Apple wasn't the first, they were the least convenient. Apple tried to buy Audion to make iTunes and failed, so instead they bought SoundJam MP Plus and converted that into iTunes. Not only that, but before the iPod you had the Rio PMP300 which was released 3 years before the iPod and seems to have taken a lot of design queues from. Apple was never the first in any industry, but their colt following likes to believe they've done it first and better too.

 

[Mchart]

The rio was garbage. You can shit on the iPod all day long but it was first to market with actual decent storage capacity and battery life well before everyone else.

This is why it was successful despite how shitty iTunes was.

 

[Darunion]

I remember my zune battery life being trash after the 1 year mark. It ended up just staying plugged in at my desk at work.

My ipod nano 6th gen (the one that is just a giant clip) is probably my favorite music player ive owned. Simple, holds enough and i can just clip it to my shirt to listen. Battery is finished but when i plug it in it still works today.

 

[Furious_Styles]

The rio was garbage. You can shit on the iPod all day long but it was first to market with actual decent storage capacity and battery life well before everyone else.

This is why it was successful despite how shitty iTunes was.

Agreed, it is one of the few Apple products I've ever owned.

 

[DukenukemX]

The rio was garbage. You can shit on the iPod all day long but it was first to market with actual decent storage capacity and battery life well before everyone else.

This is why it was successful despite how shitty iTunes was.

I wouldn't know if the Rio was garbage since I've been playing all my music on smart phones since 2004. You can argue that the iPod was better, and it maybe true, but it certainly wasn't the first. I would still rather have an mp3 player due to the convenience of just drag and dropping music. This was the Napster age and having iTunes convert all you music was painful. Much like the iPhone, it was thrown into an existing market that Apple threw their own flavor into. While people were carrying around iPods and their flip phones, I had my HTC Magician filled with my music. I'm sure there were devices that played music better than the iPod, but that didn't matter with Apple's branding. Apple depends on their deception to gain their mind share, so it shouldn't shock anyone that Apple has deceptive advertising. Apple seems amazing to people who have no idea about current technology. This is why I knew at some point Apple would start fudging benchmark numbers when they inevitably start to lose against AMD and Intel... again. The same people who think Apple was the first to make a smart phone and portable music player are the same people who will believe that the Mac Studio with M2 ultra is going to be 6X faster than anything. Apple was pointing out the M1 Ultra but there is no way it's faster than anything for the past 3 years by 6x. Those same people also don't look at benchmarks.

 

[LukeTbk]

The rio was garbage. You can shit on the iPod all day long but it was first to market with actual decent storage capacity and battery life well before everyone else.

This is why it was successful despite how shitty iTunes was.

In 1999 the personal jukebox from Compact had a 4.86 gb drive with 10-11 hours of battery life, if you look at the price, size of it and interface versus an Ipod there were more variable than that. Same for creative large capacity (6GB)-good battery life models of 2000 pre-ipod.

I wouldn't know if the Rio was garbage since I've been playing all my music on smart phones since 2004.

Rio must have been almost dead by 2004, must have been quick to fill a HTC magician with music was it not some 128mb type of storage ? Back in those days, either a discman (4-5 700mb cd of mp3 was seen a good collection back then), a very small amount of music, a music player with an hdd or an expensive flash solution were the only options if I remember correctly.

 

[Mchart]

I wouldn't know if the Rio was garbage since I've been playing all my music on smart phones since 2004. You can argue that the iPod was better, and it maybe true, but it certainly wasn't the first. I would still rather have an mp3 player due to the convenience of just drag and dropping music. This was the Napster age and having iTunes convert all you music was painful. Much like the iPhone, it was thrown into an existing market that Apple threw their own flavor into. While people were carrying around iPods and their flip phones, I had my HTC Magician filled with my music. I'm sure there were devices that played music better than the iPod, but that didn't matter with Apple's branding. Apple depends on their deception to gain their mind share, so it shouldn't shock anyone that Apple has deceptive advertising. Apple seems amazing to people who have no idea about current technology. This is why I knew at some point Apple would start fudging benchmark numbers when they inevitably start to lose against AMD and Intel... again. The same people who think Apple was the first to make a smart phone and portable music player are the same people who will believe that the Mac Studio with M2 ultra is going to be 6X faster than anything. Apple was pointing out the M1 Ultra but there is no way it's faster than anything for the past 3 years by 6x. Those same people also don't look at benchmarks.

I had the very first iPod that was with Windows 2000 compatibility. It was basically drag and drop. I'll point out that MP3's worked on the iPod just fine. Not sure why I keep seeing people say it was AAC only.

Literally all I did when I got my first iPod way back in 2002 was install iTunes on my Windows 2000 box. (Already had Firewire on my Soundblaster card, so that wasn't an issue) Drag and drop my massive MP3 folder into iTunes. Sync. Done. Everything minus a few archaic file format songs I had worked. Although I did end up ripping my entire CD collection using iTunes so I could get them in ALAC format. The only common format the iPod didn't support was FLAC, that and I recall some mini-disc snobs complaining about the iPod not supporting the mini-disc file format (I forget the name) as if they would ever have moved on from their mini-disc players anyways.

 

[LukeTbk]

It was basically drag and drop

What you describe that follow is the least drag and drop affair I can think off, what could be less drag and drop than having to install itunes, have a specific music folder and a sync process to the iPod ? At least back then people full library would have probably fit on the device, 80GB hard drive being large one in 2002.

To that point if you would have deleted some music of the PC hdd would you have had a thought in your mind, oh will it on the next sync delete it on the ipod or reput them on the drive ? Do I have to think-do anything to avoid that ?

 

[Mchart]

What you describe that follow is the least drag and drob affair I can think off, what could be less drag and drop than having to install itunes, have a specific music folder and a sync process to the iPod ? At least back then people full library would have probably fit on the device, 80GB hard drive being large one in 2002.

To that point if you would have deleted some music of the PC hdd would you have had a thought in your mind, oh will it on the next sync delete it on the ipod or reput them on the drive ? Do I have to think-do anything to avoid that ?

I'm guessing you never used iTunes.

Again, you can drag any folder you want into iTunes. You drag the folder (Can be nested folders as well) with the MP3's into iTunes. They are now added. You hit sync.

Yes, I guess you have to hit the sync button so it's not 100% just 'drag and drop', but you're being silly acting like that's some massive step.

Management of your library - That's a different question. That has nothing to do with how easy it is to initially sync and get music onto the iPod/iPhone though.

In fact - It was easier back in 2002 to do this then it is now because ever since they added Apple Music it's become a nightmare to try to use iTunes to also manually manage music files on your device.

 

[LukeTbk]

Yes, I guess you have to hit the sync button so it's not 100% just 'drag and drop', but you're being silly acting like that's some massive step.

Well you have to install Itunes as well (which is one of biggest difference between just drag&drop or not), I only used modern version of Itunes and got into sync trouble affair.

I am just not sure what other step could exist to make it less drag and drop than what you described (what do you think people having in mind when they say that it was not, if not having to install a program and use a sync like feature)

Management of your library - That's a different question. That has nothing to do with how easy it is to initially sync and get music onto the iPod/iPhone though.

Seem to me that it does a little bit, you have to manage it (into itunes or which folder you put in sync mode, etc...), if you do not do it right will it not delete or reput music at one point, it is easy to setup if you want a single big folder to be 100% sync all the time with the device I would imagine.

 

[Red Falcon]

I have to disagree to an... er, degree.

I remember the smartphone market at the time very well. Windows Mobile was still largely in glorified PDA territory. There were some attempts to consumerize smartphones, such as the BlackBerry Pearl and Nokia N95, but even then those were ungainly beasts. Hell, Symbian phones would even pester you for connection types every time you wanted to do something online. The market wasn't really on its way as the competing phones that followed were clearly reactionary. Google shifted Android's early focus from a BlackBerry-alike to capacitive touch. RIM rushed the BlackBerry Storm to market because Verizon wanted an "iPhone killer." Nokia showed off a multi-touch concept and pushed the XpressMusic 5800 out the door. Palm went back to the drawing board and put out the Pre with a former Apple exec as its CEO; Microsoft rolled out Windows Mobile 6.5 as a stopgap for more finger-friendly touch.

As for the iPod, I'm not sure you're in touch with what everyday people want, quite frankly! The click wheel was great — you could rapidly scroll through a large collection with a smooth movement. The UI was plain, but easy to understand and consistent. And yes, iTunes locked people in, but it also meant that syncing was easy and fast. As in actually easy, not power user "you need to understand file hierarchies" easy. You plug in your iPod, and 10 seconds later that new album is loaded without having to click around.

The MP3 player market in 2001 was bad. The Nomad Jukebox had 5GB, but it was as big as a CD player, had a terrible UI/syncing experience and took ages to transfer over USB 1. Archos and others had similar problems. There were flash players, but many of them had so little capacity that you had to pick which few albums you'd take with you. The initial iPod was somewhat niche since it only worked with Macs and needed FireWire, but the beauty of it was that you could focus on... listening to music. You could grab your MP3 player and rush out the door knowing it had all your music, and that it would fit into your pocket.

This is exactly what I remember in the mid to late 2000s.
As much as we all want to hate on Apple, the iPod was revolutionary in terms of sales, and the iPhone transformed the mobile market into what it is now.

Blackberry is dead, Palm is dead, PDAs are dead, Windows Phone is dead, Symbian is dead - and all have been for years now.
Even modern flip phones are running Android 9.0 or above.

Also, the Blackberry Storm was a complete POS, sluggish, and beyond underpowered, even for its era.
Good riddance.

the iPhone may or may not have been the first to make it to market, but it was by no means "revolutionary". The whole market was evolving into candybar phones with big touch screens and intuitive interfaces. Apple just got to market first.

It was revolutionary in terms of sales and innovation that the likes of Blackberry and other "premium" cell phone and PDA options at the time did not possess.
Normally I would agree with you, but this is revisionist history at best and is the pure opposite of what I remember in 2007 when the original iPhone debuted.

As far as mp3 players go, I still maintain that the iPod was one of the worst alternatives out there. No idea why it became so popular. It had an awful user interface in that stupid click wheel, and embedding everything in proprietary XML databases requiring syncing with iTunes rather than just being able to play files simply dropped on to the device was just plain obnoxious.

I never liked it either, but the average person was attached to it in ways that I didn't see with individuals and technology in the early 2000s.
The marketing, and large storage capacity, simply worked for the average individual.

The iPod was never meant to be attractive to individuals like us.

I would have taken something like one of the Creative Zen 100 out of 100 times. The only reason to go with an iPod was because it became ubiquitous and was integrated into everything (cars, players, etc.) As a player there were plenty better options out there that were on the market before the iPod.

Same, but again, marketing and all that.
Hearts and minds, and Steve Jobs was a master of that type of manipulation - the sales numbers back that statement up.

 

[DukenukemX]

This is exactly what I remember in the mid to late 2000s.
As much as we all want to hate on Apple, the iPod was revolutionary in terms of sales, and the iPhone transformed the mobile market into what it is now.

The iPhone made the smart phone market worse. Before the iPhone it was common to remove the battery, along with SD Card slot and headphone jack. Slowly over time the market mimicked Apple's iPhone and we are not better off for it. It's getting harder to find new phones with these features, and the replaceable battery is impossible. Also the slide out qwerty keyboard is dead other than some rare and expensive examples.

Blackberry is dead, Palm is dead, PDAs are dead, Windows Phone is dead, Symbian is dead - and all have been for years now.

Blackberry died because they didn't use Android until much later, and their ultra security policy made using their phones difficult. PDA is dead, but honestly the PDA was just a tablet, so it just got renamed. Windows Phone is dead for the same reason Internet Explorer died, because Microsoft did nothing with it.

Even modern flip phones are running Android 9.0 or above.

Mostly because Android is open source and free.

It was revolutionary in terms of sales and innovation that the likes of Blackberry and other "premium" cell phone and PDA options at the time did not possess.
Normally I would agree with you, but this is revisionist history at best and is the pure opposite of what I remember in 2007 when the original iPhone debuted.

Sales don't make something revolutionary. Apple just has better brand recognition than Nokia and HTC. Nobody knew about smart phones until Apple made one, even though they existed for many years before. Also the PDA wasn't a phone, just a thick tablet.

Hearts and minds, and Steve Jobs was a master of that type of manipulation - the sales numbers back that statement up.

Steve Jobs is long dead but Apple's sales are better than ever.

 

[paradoxical]

The iPhone made the smart phone market worse. Before the iPhone it was common to remove the battery, along with SD Card slot and headphone jack. Slowly over time the market mimicked Apple's iPhone and we are not better off for it. It's getting harder to find new phones with these features, and the replaceable battery is impossible. Also the slide out qwerty keyboard is dead other than some rare and expensive examples.

My iPhone has 1TB of storage faster than any SD card, and the only reason we had to remove batteries on the old phones is because the battery life was shit. My iPhone lasts 2 days on battery and I don't have to carry around extra batteries like I used to.

Headphone jack I do wish they had but it's really not that big of a deal. I just bought a tiny DAC/amp that measures better than anything on an android or iPhone (according to audiosciencereview) and run my Sennheiser IE800S IEMs off of it.

Saying the iPhone made the smart phone market worse is absolutely hilarious. Of course, you know this and are surely just saying it for fun and to get a rise out of people.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Blaming Apple for the entirety of the smartphone market is absurd. As if other manufacturers don’t control anything.

Are you saying that Apple is in control of all of Android OS then? Since apparently they control all of Androids hardware design, including at least 6 discrete designers/manufacturers. We should notify Google.

As far as the rest, it’s in vogue to hate on anything you don’t like. While ignoring everyone else’s tastes and preferences. And when that’s too many people, just call it a cult. So we can remove the idea of subjective opinion or that other human beings are rational.

 

[Red Falcon]

The iPhone made the smart phone market worse. Before the iPhone it was common to remove the battery, along with SD Card slot and headphone jack. Slowly over time the market mimicked Apple's iPhone and we are not better off for it. It's getting harder to find new phones with these features, and the replaceable battery is impossible. Also the slide out qwerty keyboard is dead other than some rare and expensive examples.

I agree, and certainly so by 2016 with the mimics of iPhones.
Samsung and the like should have stood on their own instead of catering to the masses.

Blackberry died because they didn't use Android until much later, and their ultra security policy made using their phones difficult. PDA is dead, but honestly the PDA was just a tablet, so it just got renamed. Windows Phone is dead for the same reason Internet Explorer died, because Microsoft did nothing with it.

Blackberry was too rigid with their OS, policies, and weak hardware.
PDAs were not tablets, they were effectively what would become smartphones with stylus and lacking a cellular modem.

The closest thing to tablets in the 1990s and 2000s were laptops with swivel displays.
PDAs were no where near the size of tablets, and in fact they were normally far smaller (though somewhat thicker) than modern smartphones - I know because I used and supported them back then.

Mostly because Android is open source and free.

Agreed.

Sales don't make something revolutionary. Apple just has better brand recognition than Nokia and HTC. Nobody knew about smart phones until Apple made one, even though they existed for many years before. Also the PDA wasn't a phone, just a thick tablet.

Fully agreed.
Popular does not equal intelligent nor good.

Steve Jobs is long dead but Apple's sales are better than ever.

He was the catalyst that started what Apple would become what it is now.
Again, neither intelligent nor good, just another soulless megacorp.

 

[1_rick]

Are you saying that Apple is in control of all of Android OS then? Since apparently they control all of Androids hardware design, including at least 6 discrete designers/manufacturers.

You say this like many of the major Android smartphone makers don't slavishly imitate Apple. Especially some of the Chinese ones who heavily skin Android to look like iOS.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

You say this like many of the major Android smartphone makers don't slavishly imitate Apple. Especially some of the Chinese ones who heavily skin Android to look like iOS.

Cool. So Apple controls everything they do? They should own all of that IP and be getting kick backs because they own and control them?

 

[1_rick]

So Apple controls everything they do?

I mean, someone who wasn't paying attention might interpret it that way, even though I used a phrase that would indicate otherwise.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I mean, someone who wasn't paying attention might interpret it that way, even though I used a phrase that would indicate otherwise.

Right. So what responsibility/control does Apple have over other corporations?

And gains what benefits, assets, etc as a direct result?

 

[DukenukemX]

My iPhone has 1TB of storage faster than any SD card, and the only reason we had to remove batteries on the old phones is because the battery life was shit. My iPhone lasts 2 days on battery and I don't have to carry around extra batteries like I used to.

The battery was replaceable because batteries are a wear item. They eventually go bad and need to be replaced. What Apple and now Android phone manufacturers do is slow down your phone so you don't notice the battery is bad. There was a whole lawsuit about it. My Moto X4 also lasts for 2 days on battery. I also forgot I have a Motorola G7 Plus that I put LineageOS 20 and it's been running all week without a recharge. I haven't used it but still has 50% battery. I'm kinda waiting for Hello Mobile to release my phone number to T-Mobile. Huge ordeal that nobody has a solution for.

Headphone jack I do wish they had but it's really not that big of a deal. I just bought a tiny DAC/amp that measures better than anything on an android or iPhone (according to audiosciencereview) and run my Sennheiser IE800S IEMs off of it.

The fact you need to carry a DAC to do what a simple headphone jack does is just silly. I could get a Bluetooth keyboard for my phone and carry it around, but it wouldn't be as portable if it was just built it.

Saying the iPhone made the smart phone market worse is absolutely hilarious. Of course, you know this and are surely just saying it for fun and to get a rise out of people.

No I mean it. When I was looking for a replacement for my Moto X4 I was honestly pissed off. My first requirement is I want LineageOS support, so I go by this list. The f(x)tec pro1 would be my first choice, if it wasn't so hard to find one. I seriously miss my Desire-Z. Because of Apple, the entire industry went with the Candy Bar design trend that Apple started. I still hate typing on the touch screen. The second requirement is a SD Card slot, which is a lot harder than you think. You can forget about the Google Pixel phones, because none of them have it. Samsung is off my list, just due to them locking the bootloader like assholes. Again, another Apple influenced feature by literally taking away control over your device. Also a lot of their newer phones also don't have a SD card slot. Even Xiaomi doesn't have an SD Card slot. My choices are limited to Motorola and LG, and for whatever reason if it has an SD Card slot then it has a headphone jack too.

So yea, modern phones suck and they suck because of Apple. When I had Windows Mobile phones, I was able to constantly update the OS. You think roms started with Android? That was a thing with Windows Mobile. Slide out qwerty keyboards are still better because you don't obliterate the screen while typing, and I still stand behind that. You could argue that Apple made a better UI, but Android has had a better UI since forever. Android still does, and you can fight me over it. I still remember how long it took Apple to get the ability to multitask on the iPhone, a feature that Windows Mobile had as well as Android. iOS didn't have widgets for a long time, and I believe they copied the Android status bar too. Every iPhone I get my hands on is a hunt for apps since nothing is organized by default. I gotta hunt for the app, and look in folders which is not something you deal with on Android. Searching is the best way to find an app on iPhone. Took Apple forever to allow you to transfer files without the need for iTunes. Took Apple forever to allow you to do stuff on iOS without needing iTunes.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

So yea, modern phones suck and they suck because of Apple.

What control does Apple have over other corporations? Last time I checked, Google, Samsung et al are rivals. And you know are literally separate companies with different interests.

 

[DukenukemX]

What control does Apple have over other corporations? Last time I checked, Google, Samsung et al are rivals. And you know are literally separate companies with different interests.

Apple sells more devices than any individual phone manufacturer, with maybe the exception of Samsung. If Apple takes away a feature and still sells devices, then that's a green light for other phone makers to do the same. That's the problem with Apple in that they take away features. Modern smart phones are boring because nobody dare tries something new that Apple isn't doing. Why add features that increase the cost to make the device? Especially when some features like storage you can charge way more for because there's no expandable storage? The smart phone market before the iPhone wasn't like this. Everyone had a removable battery, but soon after the iPhone now nobody has a removable battery. It's the same reason I blame Nvidia for pushing technologies like DLSS because Nvidia is the market leader.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Apple sells more devices than any individual phone manufacturer, with maybe the exception of Samsung. If Apple takes away a feature and still sells devices, then that's a green light for other phone makers to do the same. That's the problem with Apple in that they take away features. Modern smart phones are boring because nobody dare tries something new that Apple isn't doing. Why add features that increase the cost to make the device? Especially when some features like storage you can charge way more for because there's no expandable storage? The smart phone market before the iPhone wasn't like this. Everyone had a removable battery, but soon after the iPhone now nobody has a removable battery. It's the same reason I blame Nvidia for pushing technologies like DLSS because Nvidia is the market leader.

Again. What control does Apple have over other manufacturers?

In ‘Murica we have this belief in something called “personal responsibility”. Blaiming someone else is called: “making excuses”.

Your last two posts are coward posts not blaiming the individual manufacturers for their own personal decisions.