iPad

[Thompson]

BTW Another weakness of the App Store approval process:

This has been there from 7th April and still is. In a normal system, the developer should be able to issue a fix as soon as possible, or at least disable this update. Or maybe they can, but just didn't do that?

How did you get a screen grab?

[Sleepdance]

Lock+home button at the same time.

[toblix]

WARNING

You are only allowed to use that key combination if you are a certified Apple developer.

[Thompson]

How is anyone supposed to know that?

[JonCole]

I think it's fairly clear that I was comparing the Zune to its iPod contemporaries, not to a device that hadn't been invented yet. And I was specifically making reference to your complaint that about the iPad's contemporaries failing. Your point being that their failure would only be because they were inferior machines, not because of Apple marketing hype helping them dominate the market. And how frustrating it is for you to keep seeing the 'tech nerds' not realise that.

I feel like you're overemphasizing my points... Apple will be more successful due to their marketing, but they will also be more successful because their execution will be that much better, as well. The simple fact that they're using low-powered hardware to achieve limited goals at a very high level of quality shows their prowess at targeting average consumers - most people don't give two shits about what specs a machine has, rather how easy it is to use and how good it feels to use it.

Don't get me wrong, the Apple marketing machine is powerful. But it wasn't always powerful... the early generation iPods didn't have tons of advertising muscle behind them. But there's a fairly distinct reason that the iPod succeeded among contemporary fledgling MP3 players and other formats like MiniDisc - usability.

[Jayel]

I don't think iPods were easier (or harder, to be fair) to use than the competition. but I've seen the same argument many times and wondered how it came about. Then I saw this. This study has been repeated multiple times because it's so unbelievable.

so anyway, IMHO iPod was successful primarily because it looked so sexy. It boosted the apparent usability of the device, and probably it helped it cross the tech device boundary and become a fashion statement.

[Scrobbs]

I don't think iPods were easier (or harder, to be fair) to use than the competition. but I've seen the same argument many times and wondered how it came about. Then I saw this. This study has been repeated multiple times because it's so unbelievable.

So...the conclusion was that designing the interface so it IS better and easy to use is good and worthwhile, but the apparent beauty of it will have more of an effect? Did I read that right?

[Jayel]

Yeah, pretty much.

[SiN]

Okay, so when the first iPods came out they were successful for more than just their sexiness. The screen was a big deal. The competition had the shitty non-backlit 3-line blocky LCD screens, if that. iPods had the best "skip protection" at the time... they came with 32megs of RAM for streaming ahead. This also meant better battery life. They were smaller than the competition as they utilized one of the first 1.8" drives on the market.

They could do all this because iPods were expensive as hell. They could price them highly because Apple knew the fanboys would buy them, and relied on word of mouth.

To say that iPods were only successful because they're sexy is a bit silly.

Also, I have not one but two Zunes. These are the first-gen flash ones. I'm fine with the interface, but the build quality is awful. Very cheap feeling plastic, and the controller isn't always responsive (especially when clicking near the edge of the pad).

Say what you will about Apple and iPods, but they've always built quality hardware.

The Zune HD is a nice piece of tech no doubt, but it's too little too late. Wiki says ZuneHD was released Sept 2009, two years after the debut of the iPod touch.

Mo

[Jayel]

sin: i hope your post is not a direct reply to me, because i never meant to say that ipods weren't feature-rich (i was only focused on usability), nor did i say that they were successful only because they're sexy (read my 2nd last post again if you don't believe me).

[ThunderPeel2001]

Okay, so when the first iPods came out they were successful for more than just their sexiness. The screen was a big deal. The competition had the shitty non-backlit 3-line blocky LCD screens, if that.

Sorry, but that's utter rubbish. The Creative Labs Jukebox was released a full year before the iPod and had a similar screen. There are plenty of other examples.

To say that iPods were only successful because they're sexy is a bit silly.

Can't say I agree with that, sexiness is an important factor when buying things (or it can be). The CL Jukebox was NOT sexy in the slightest.

Say what you will about Apple and iPods, but they've always built quality hardware.

Which generation of iPods was it that scratched so easily, again?

The Zune HD is a nice piece of tech no doubt, but it's too little too late. Wiki says ZuneHD was released Sept 2009, two years after the debut of the iPod touch.

Who said anything about the Zune HD?

I'm not pro-Microsoft and I'm not anti-Apple, and I'm sure you're right about a lot of what you say, I just don't like it when generalisations are thrown around as facts... especially when people are saying how "great" Apple are. They're just as bad as any company.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I feel like you're overemphasizing my points... Apple will be more successful due to their marketing, but they will also be more successful because their execution will be that much better, as well. The simple fact that they're using low-powered hardware to achieve limited goals at a very high level of quality shows their prowess at targeting average consumers - most people don't give two shits about what specs a machine has, rather how easy it is to use and how good it feels to use it.

And that just brings me back round to the Zune. Microsoft have bad PR, Apple have good PR. The Zune was better than it's iPod contemporaries (IMO), but it takes more than a good product to sell well. Hell the iPod didn't REALLY take off until it allowed PC compatibility in 2003, if I understand correctly.

Don't get me wrong, the Apple marketing machine is powerful. But it wasn't always powerful... the early generation iPods didn't have tons of advertising muscle behind them. But there's a fairly distinct reason that the iPod succeeded among contemporary fledgling MP3 players and other formats like MiniDisc - usability.

As someone who used the iPod's competitors back in 2001, I can't say I completely agree with that. The iPod's interface was nice, but not revolutionary.

[Patters]

Who said anything about the Zune HD?

I mentioned that I wanted one, though they weren't available in the UK.

[JonCole]

This argument feels pretty damn old at this point. This is my parting shot, because I just feel like anything past this is going to be a waste of time.

- Say what you will about Microsoft PR, there are many reasons that Windows 7 has sold nearly 100 million copies in this short of time and I can guarantee you that two of them are quality and marketing.

- You're often conflating your word (interface) with my word (usability). Usability amounts to more than just the interface. Battery life, software, hardware design, and such also contribute to usability. iTunes may not be heralded as the most reigned in, optimal program now, but back then it was fairly progressive.

- I never said the iPod's interface was "revolutionary". I don't have much use for hyperbole like that. Looking at the very example you present, most contemporary MP3 players look like a total mess. The simple fact that Apple boiled down the interface to fewer disparate buttons was a huge step in the right direction at the time.

- You bring up the iPod's compatibility with Windows in 2003... regardless of how good Apple's PR is, have you considered the fact that people were probably more comfortable buying a product with a four-year pedigree than an untested device in 2006?

Anyways, sorry for the wall of text, just had a lot of points to address there. When it comes down to it, though, I honestly just think that Apple deserves their success even if marketing drives the brunt of their sales. Microsoft has both the resources and the experience to put a good marketing push out on any product they'd like (note my previous example, Windows 7, and other things like the Xbox 360). I think I've only seen quality advertisement for their Zune Pass stuff in the past year or so, but beyond that nothing else supporting the Zune. If they'd only have faith in their own product, I'm sure other people would too.