Three years ago Apple announced the iPhone. While people were generally speaking impressed, there were the naysayers. Competitors, people who generally dislike Apple and so forth. Usually their arguments regarding the crappiness of the iPhone related to some features it was missing. Nokia famously quipped that iPhone is not going to get anywhere because it does not have 3G. Others complained that the camera had too little megapixels. The complaints about the iPhone have continued to this day, but the arguments change as iPhone becomes more capable. But all the time there are some features that the iPhone is lacking, and therefore the device sucks.
Yesterday Apple announced the iPad. iPad is thought to be Apples answer to netbooks, the small and inexpensive laptops. And the complaints have already started: the screen-resolution is too low, it's just an oversized iPod touch, no multitasking etc. etc.
What all these complaints fail to understand is that Apple and the devices they make are not about the specs, they are about experience. Every Mac-user is familiar with the pointless comparisons PC-users do to show how much less equally equipped PC would cost when compared to a Mac. Yeah, maybe, whatever. But fact remains that I'm more productive on a Mac, and I get more enjoyment from my computer than I would get from a PC. Even if that PC might have few megahertz more than the Mac had.
Same thing with the iPhone. So it didn't have 3G. What do you use 3G for? Well, MMS-messages and web-browsing. Fact was that no-one used MMS, and iPhone had world-class email-client instead. Web-browsing? Web-browsers sucked on phones, so 3G went more or less useless. iPhone was order of magnitude better at web-browsing than those 3G-phones were.
But, instead of focusing on the actual web-browsing experience, the nay-sayers focused on the feature (or, lack of it).
iPad does it again
It seems that the cycle is repeating with the iPad. Nay-sayers are focusing on some indivual specs, as opposed to thinking about the experience as a whole. Yeah, the screen-resolution is pretty ordinary. But still, early comments regarding the screen in actual use are overwhelmingly positive. Words like "crisp" and "stunning" are being thrown around. What would higher screen-resolution give? It would mean that the CPU and GPU would have to push more pixels around, and that would mean either that
a) performance would suffer
b) battery-life would suffer since CPU and GPU would have to be more powerful
c) size and weight would suffer, if they wanted to have more powerful GPU and CPU while retaining the battery-life
and in addition:
d) the price would be higher
And we need to remember that the device will be running apps designed for that screen (or for an even smaller iPhone-screen), as opposed to the situation we have with netbooks, where it runs software designed for apps that will use all the screen-real-estate they can get. iPhone and iPod touch manage just fine with screens that have a lot smaller resolution that the iPad has.
One common complaint is that iPad is "just an oversized iPod touch". Maybe, but is that a bad thing? As Scott Forrestall said: "The bigger screen allows use to have apps that are not just a little bit more powerful, but order of magnitude more powerful". And looking at the product-video available at apple.com, the apps that run on the iPad are A LOT more powerful than apps running on the iPod touch or iPhone. Hell, they have iWork running on the iPad! The performance and the screen of the iPad really make it possible to run apps that would simply not work on the iPhone. iPad can really replace a laptop for many people.
One other complaint is that iPad does not multitask. Now, how would you use multitasking? The most common use-scenario seems to be apps that stream audio, like Spotify. So you can't run Spotify on the iPad, while doing something else with it. But the solution to this is really simple: iPad is not a replacement for iPhone or iPod touch. So why not run Spotify on your iPod or iPhone, and use iPad for the other task? I mean, you will most likely have your iPhone in your pocket, am I right?
The problem Apple has
The thing is that people are Apple's competitors are used to discuss technology in terms of features. Computers are sold by underlining the amount of megabits and megaherts they have. And in many ways that applies to really personal technology as well, like phones. Sure, Apple does the same where they have to: they talk about the specifications of their computers, because in there they might actually mean something. But that does not really apply to these "post-PC" products, like smartphones and iPad. Who cares how many megabits or megahertz your phone has? Notice how Apple never tells details about the amount of RAM or the CPU that is inside their phones?
Same thing is happening with the iPad. Apple does not talk about those things, because they are irrelevant. What matters is how well those products actually work and how much use and enjoyment the user gets from them. And THAT is the area where Apple really delivers. But the problem is that many people, and even many journalists and experts are still stuck at the idea of staring at the specs, and using them to determine the quality of the product. iPhone sucks because it didn't have 3G, and iPad sucks because some netbooks have higher-resolution screens. People, you need to look beyond the specs! The product-video Apple posted tries to get their message across: that the actual use is what matters, not the specs. It just happens that "better user experience" is not a feature that you can really list in a spec-sheet...
Apple has been trying to change the rules in this area for years, and while they still have a long road ahead of them, I think they are making progress.
The exception to the rule
There is one exception to the "let's not talk about specs"-mantra that Apple is repeating: The iPad's CPU is designed by Apple. Now, they aren't really shouting this from the rooftops either, but they surely are not keeping it a secret. The message is clear: Only Apple can deliver an unified product. They have for years talked about how only Apple creates the hardware and the software. Apple is now taking that to a whole new level by designing their own CPU's. The CPU inside the iPad is designed for this product, and the software on the iPad is written for that CPU. That allows Apple a level of freedom their competitors simp0ly do not have. They use chips made by one company (usually Intel) and they use software written by some other company (usually Microsoft). Only thing they do is slap those parts together and call it a day. There's very little product-differentiation between PC-manufacturers. When you have seen and used one PC, you have seen and used them all.
Same thing will happen with these "slate-PC's". Steve Ballmer already demoed few in his bug-ridden CES-keynote. Those devices were running Windows 7, an OS that was designed primarily for normal computers. The UI was not smooth, and the product was to be released in 6 months or so. They used CPU's from Intel, CPU's that have to cater to lots of different markets and products. iPad is running an OS designed for the iPad, using a CPU designed for the iPad. And the iPad will be available in 2 months. And even though the iPad will be available before it's competitors, it did not feel like a half-baked product, quite the contrary! It was smooth, refined and finished.
I feel sorry for Steve Ballmer and his customer.
Showing posts with label Nokia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nokia. Show all posts
On Technology and gadgets
Technology is weird. Or rather, people get weird when it comes to technology. I would say that people that are more in to technology (read: geeks) get even weirder.
I have a confession to make: I'm a Mac-user. In fact, I'm unashamed Apple-fanboy (not the fanatic kind, but still). It seems to me that Steve Jobs knows what I need before I know it myself. End-result is that I have spent quite a lot of money on Apple-hardware. I might take a picture of the retail-boxes (which I have kept, naturally) just to show the magnitude of my commitment.
I have no desire to "convert" other to the Mac, and I have no problem suggesting people buy a PC if that's the computer that serves them best. I use products made by Apple because they click with me.
Why am I telling you all that? Because all Mac-users are familiar with the "Mac vs. PC"-arguments. Usually what happens is that some PC-user starts whining "Why did you buy a Mac, when you could get an equivalent PC for less?!". Usually what follows is a list of specifications of a Mac, compared to similar specifications of a PC that costs less. And since the PC has similar "specs" while costing less, it means that the Mac is overpriced, right?
Is it just me, or is this totally wrong way of discussing these things? How many of us buy our cars (or whatever) by staring at it's specifications, and then determining how good or bad those cars are? Is Audi "overpriced", because Skoda with similar specs costs less? For some reason people are more than willing to pay premium in other products, but when it comes to computers, we should all race to the bottom for that "best deal". Paying premium for a premium-product is considered to be "dumb".
As the saying in Finland goes: poor people can't afford cheap things. Sure, I could get the computer with rock-bottom price. But I would end up with a computer that is less enjoyable to use. And I use my computers for several years. So I might save few euros, but I would get less enjoyment from the computer. The computer would feel cheap, it would have all kinds of strange glitches, it would have gaudy design... I don't know about you, but my enjoyment and happiness is worth something.
iPhone is the perfect example of all this. People who do not own an iPhone like to mention all the features some other phone has that iPhone lacks. Usually those features are totally useless thingies that look good on paper, but offer very little actual usefulness in the device. It's too bad that you can't list "better usability" in a list of paper-specs.
One common argument is that the camera on the iPhone sucks because it has less megapixels than some other cameraphone. Regardless of the fact that amount of megapixels has very little to do with the image-quality of the camera. Or how about removable battery? How many carry spare batteries around? I don't know anyone who does that. But since iPhone does not have that feature, we apparently desperately need it.
People seem to forget that features are a means to an end, not end of means. My Nokia E71 has a lot of features. But those features are so crappy that I don't use them. iPhone might have less raw features, but people actually use those features because they actually work. How many actually surfs the web with their phone? Yeah, iPhone-users seem to be the only ones who are doing that. In fact, I do most of my web-surfing with my iPod touch.
So what brought all this up? Well, we are routinely presented with new phones that are "iPhone-killers". Nokia N900 is one such phone. If I recall correctly, it costs a bit more than the iPhone, but not majorly so. But as far as price goes, they are in the same ballpark. And people are saying that it's better than the iPhone since it has more features (like megapixels....).
Yesterday I finally played around with one for 10 minutes. It feels pretty solid and good in your hand, but not as good and solid as an iPhone. The user-interface is not as obvious (the salesperson had to instruct me on how to do various things, whereas iPhone is obvious to everyone). The UI had some glitches, and animations were not smooth. And it doesn't have nowhere near as many apps as the iPhone has.
So what exactly am I saying here? What I'm saying is that N900 is no iPhone-killer. That fact occured to me the moment I picked it up on my hand, and it was confirmed when I used it. Sure, it might have all kinds of nifty features, but using it was not as enjoyable as using iPhone/iPod touch is. It's like they cut corners and settled for less here and there. And end-result is a phone that looks good (very good) on paper, but is still not as good as the iPhone in actual use.
Another "iPod-killer" is the Motorola Droid, an Android-phone. Again, a good phone on paper. But it seems that the battery-cover has a tendency to pop off. So users are resorting to taping the cover shut. And then they wave their taped-together phone and proclaim it to be an "iPhone-killer".... Dudes: not like this. Not like this....
Of course both N900 and Droid are probably very good phones on their own right. But that still doesn't mean that they are iPhone-killers. And the fact that every phone is compared to the iPhone is quite telling....
Like most things in life, computers and gizmos are more than sum of their parts. Apple understands this, others (including those who whine how "overpriced "Macs are) do not. They just throw together a device with certain features, and then assume that it can compete with the iPhone, or Mac, or iPod.... But that's not how things work. It's amazing how multi-billion dollar companies fail to understand this fact.
I think the thing Apple has and those other companies lack is Steve Jobs. It has been said that Apple designs their products for Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs alone. And Jobs is a ruthless perfectionist. And when Apple introduces a new product, it has been designed for Steve, but it just happens that millions of other people will also find useful.
How do other companies design products? They have comittees and focus-groups. They do market-surveys to come up with features users want. End-result is a product that looks, feels and behaves like a product that is designed by a committee, for a committee, and that's what is it.
The net has been filled with rumors that Apple will introduce a tablet-computer (like an oversized iPod touch or something) in the coming months. And they are releasing it because Steve wants such a device, not because marketdroids say that such device would sell well. I don't really see a need for that device, but I bet that when they introduce it, I will instantly realize that I absolutely need it. That there is a tablet-sized hole in my life, but I just don't know it yet.
I have a confession to make: I'm a Mac-user. In fact, I'm unashamed Apple-fanboy (not the fanatic kind, but still). It seems to me that Steve Jobs knows what I need before I know it myself. End-result is that I have spent quite a lot of money on Apple-hardware. I might take a picture of the retail-boxes (which I have kept, naturally) just to show the magnitude of my commitment.
I have no desire to "convert" other to the Mac, and I have no problem suggesting people buy a PC if that's the computer that serves them best. I use products made by Apple because they click with me.
Why am I telling you all that? Because all Mac-users are familiar with the "Mac vs. PC"-arguments. Usually what happens is that some PC-user starts whining "Why did you buy a Mac, when you could get an equivalent PC for less?!". Usually what follows is a list of specifications of a Mac, compared to similar specifications of a PC that costs less. And since the PC has similar "specs" while costing less, it means that the Mac is overpriced, right?
Is it just me, or is this totally wrong way of discussing these things? How many of us buy our cars (or whatever) by staring at it's specifications, and then determining how good or bad those cars are? Is Audi "overpriced", because Skoda with similar specs costs less? For some reason people are more than willing to pay premium in other products, but when it comes to computers, we should all race to the bottom for that "best deal". Paying premium for a premium-product is considered to be "dumb".
As the saying in Finland goes: poor people can't afford cheap things. Sure, I could get the computer with rock-bottom price. But I would end up with a computer that is less enjoyable to use. And I use my computers for several years. So I might save few euros, but I would get less enjoyment from the computer. The computer would feel cheap, it would have all kinds of strange glitches, it would have gaudy design... I don't know about you, but my enjoyment and happiness is worth something.
iPhone is the perfect example of all this. People who do not own an iPhone like to mention all the features some other phone has that iPhone lacks. Usually those features are totally useless thingies that look good on paper, but offer very little actual usefulness in the device. It's too bad that you can't list "better usability" in a list of paper-specs.
One common argument is that the camera on the iPhone sucks because it has less megapixels than some other cameraphone. Regardless of the fact that amount of megapixels has very little to do with the image-quality of the camera. Or how about removable battery? How many carry spare batteries around? I don't know anyone who does that. But since iPhone does not have that feature, we apparently desperately need it.
People seem to forget that features are a means to an end, not end of means. My Nokia E71 has a lot of features. But those features are so crappy that I don't use them. iPhone might have less raw features, but people actually use those features because they actually work. How many actually surfs the web with their phone? Yeah, iPhone-users seem to be the only ones who are doing that. In fact, I do most of my web-surfing with my iPod touch.
So what brought all this up? Well, we are routinely presented with new phones that are "iPhone-killers". Nokia N900 is one such phone. If I recall correctly, it costs a bit more than the iPhone, but not majorly so. But as far as price goes, they are in the same ballpark. And people are saying that it's better than the iPhone since it has more features (like megapixels....).
Yesterday I finally played around with one for 10 minutes. It feels pretty solid and good in your hand, but not as good and solid as an iPhone. The user-interface is not as obvious (the salesperson had to instruct me on how to do various things, whereas iPhone is obvious to everyone). The UI had some glitches, and animations were not smooth. And it doesn't have nowhere near as many apps as the iPhone has.
So what exactly am I saying here? What I'm saying is that N900 is no iPhone-killer. That fact occured to me the moment I picked it up on my hand, and it was confirmed when I used it. Sure, it might have all kinds of nifty features, but using it was not as enjoyable as using iPhone/iPod touch is. It's like they cut corners and settled for less here and there. And end-result is a phone that looks good (very good) on paper, but is still not as good as the iPhone in actual use.
Another "iPod-killer" is the Motorola Droid, an Android-phone. Again, a good phone on paper. But it seems that the battery-cover has a tendency to pop off. So users are resorting to taping the cover shut. And then they wave their taped-together phone and proclaim it to be an "iPhone-killer".... Dudes: not like this. Not like this....
Of course both N900 and Droid are probably very good phones on their own right. But that still doesn't mean that they are iPhone-killers. And the fact that every phone is compared to the iPhone is quite telling....
Like most things in life, computers and gizmos are more than sum of their parts. Apple understands this, others (including those who whine how "overpriced "Macs are) do not. They just throw together a device with certain features, and then assume that it can compete with the iPhone, or Mac, or iPod.... But that's not how things work. It's amazing how multi-billion dollar companies fail to understand this fact.
I think the thing Apple has and those other companies lack is Steve Jobs. It has been said that Apple designs their products for Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs alone. And Jobs is a ruthless perfectionist. And when Apple introduces a new product, it has been designed for Steve, but it just happens that millions of other people will also find useful.
How do other companies design products? They have comittees and focus-groups. They do market-surveys to come up with features users want. End-result is a product that looks, feels and behaves like a product that is designed by a committee, for a committee, and that's what is it.
The net has been filled with rumors that Apple will introduce a tablet-computer (like an oversized iPod touch or something) in the coming months. And they are releasing it because Steve wants such a device, not because marketdroids say that such device would sell well. I don't really see a need for that device, but I bet that when they introduce it, I will instantly realize that I absolutely need it. That there is a tablet-sized hole in my life, but I just don't know it yet.
Nokia
Some time ago Nokia announced that they will be closing the cell-phone factory in Bochum, Germany, and moving the production to their plant in Romania. Lots and lots of Germans got angry (and who can blame them?). And now, the Finnish part of Attac has called for boycott against Nokia.
Now, while I understand the annoyance of Germans over the issue, I don't understand the issue Finnish Attac has over this issue. I mean, this is not a case os simply closing down a factory, this is about closing down a factory in one place, and moving the production (and lots of jobs) to some other place. Knowing that, and knowing that Attac opposes that move, it begs a question: Does Attac feel that Germans deserve these jobs, while Romanians do not? Why else would they oppose this move?
Now, while I understand the annoyance of Germans over the issue, I don't understand the issue Finnish Attac has over this issue. I mean, this is not a case os simply closing down a factory, this is about closing down a factory in one place, and moving the production (and lots of jobs) to some other place. Knowing that, and knowing that Attac opposes that move, it begs a question: Does Attac feel that Germans deserve these jobs, while Romanians do not? Why else would they oppose this move?