Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV

AcidAUS writes "Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak heaped less than lavish praise on the company's iPhone, MacBook Air and Apple TV products when visiting Sydney this morning. Wozniak said he was puzzled by the lack of 3G support on the iPhone and that he didn't believe the MacBook Air would be a hit."

tag: omgtreason

You know you want to.

Re:tag: omgtreason

Wouldn't iTreason be more appropriate?

Hum

I am an Apple user and thus somewhat bias. I do however question the release of the iPhone without g3 support. I also believe that it needs a removable battery so that I could keep a spare.

On another note no one can say that the iPhone did not change the face of the cell phone market. I can't say if the new Air will do the same thing for the notebook market or not.

No questions

I do however question the release of the iPhone without g3 support.

I don't. The reason is so blindingly obvious, it takes a superb amount of fanboyism to ignore:

Apple released a non-3G iPhone, to ensure that everyone who buys the first iPhone for $500, will buy the iPhone3G for $500, a year later.

Re:No questions

Because there is SO much free space inside the iPhone case for large extra chipsets. And AT&T's 3G network is well enough built out that the average user can expect 3G performance to be better than EDGE performance a significant majority of the time. And there are no independent tests confirming that 3G chipsets available in 2007 used much more battery power even when just making calls.

Not.

Re:No questions

Apple released a non-3G iPhone, to ensure that everyone who buys the first iPhone for $500, will buy the iPhone3G for $500, a year later.

That doesn't sound like Apple at all, does it? For starters, EDGE sucks on a phone that is intended for YouTube, Safari and mail applications. It makes as little sense as putting FIAT tires on a Lamborghini. Secondly, Apple's top of the line products usually equip the latest hardware. Just look at their computers and software products.

There is probably an entirely different reason Apple "chose" not to include 3G.

Re:No questions

There is probably an entirely different reason Apple "chose" not to include 3G.

Yeah, and that reason is pretty obvious once you think about it. This was Apple's first phone. They basically started from scratch, and didn't know ahead of time what sort of choices would be better than others. By all accounts, the iPhone was barely ready for show at MWSF '07, and just barely ready for roll-out in June.

Apple felt it was better to get the parts they had working, working well, than it was to start adding whole new parts into the mix. While I would definitely like 3G, I'd rather have EDGE + the iPhone that's out now than 3G + delayed iPhone + lowered battery life + other aspects of the phone being less finished.

I also don't buy the "other 3G phones don't have battery problems" argument. The chips themselves don't lie, and they *do* require more power. You can't beat physics. What you *can* do is make the necessary concessions. Such as using less power on the rest of the phone, or using aggressive power management, or using a larger battery, or using EDGE chips most of the time and switching over the 3G on demand, etc. But in all of those cases, it would *absolutely and without question* diminish some other feature of the iPhone, making it larger, or later, or less powerful, or more laggy, etc. If the biggest complaint about the iPhone is that it uses EDGE instead of 3G, then given all the other great features of the phone, it's more than a fair trade, *especially* since a 3G iPhone is inevitable.

As for the battery being non-replaceable, the real question for me is, had the iPhone had a removable battery, would I have caved in and bought one by now? And the answer, for me, is a resounding 'no'. This means such an iPhone would have been larger or had a smaller capacity battery, and would have been structurally and aesthetically less solid. In other words, a whole lot of lose for absolutely no win.

Re:No questions

On a windows smartphone with 3G, you've got much better data rates.

The funny thing about that is that, when it comes to loading a page, the iPhone on EDGE generally shows you the finished page before a 3G phone does. Even though the data is retrieved faster, the actual presentation of the final page is slower. Even more, the iPhone actually shows you a fully desktop-like version of the page, just as it would look in Safari, sans-flash.

So not only does an EDGE iPhone load pages faster than a 3G otherphone, the pages look better as well.

And the tables tilt even further in the iPhone's favor with the interface itself.

Really, the only thing you miss out on not having 3G is when tethering the phone to a computer to use its internet connection (something the iPhone doesn't even officially support anyway). This *is* important to some people, but undoubtedly not for the overwhelming majority of people.

Re:No questions

I have a two and a half year old Nokia N70 which is one of the oldest 3G phones on the market. I still get over 3 days between recharges. I use my phone quite a lot for web, games, talk and text and as I said, I get 3 days. I don't believe this 'battery life' explanation for 3G on the iPhone, I agree with the poster who said it's for marketing reasons. I mean, look at the iPod photo... It's capable of playing video if you install iPod Linux, yet Apple said it wasn't powerful enough and that's why they didn't include an option for it. Yet, one year later they release the iPod Video. It's BS.

Re:3G (well-implemented) takes LESS energy...

Except that even basic housekeeping functionality eats lots of power when in 3G mode.

When in a 3G service area, battery life is affected significantly compared to in a GSM service area, even if all the phone does is idle nearly the entire time.

My AT&T Tilt seems to eat through battery at least twice as fast in standby if it is in a UMTS service area than it does when in a 2G GSM-only area, or when I force it into GSM mode for improved battery life.

The iPhone is an extremely thin device - there is no way they could have implemented 3G with the current crop of 3G chipsets without either making the device much thicker or reducing battery life significantly, both more "non-Appley" traits than slower data service.

Disclaimer: This applies to 3G GSM, aka UMTS. 3G CDMA2000 (aka 1xEV-DO) doesn't carry the same battery life penalty in comparison to 2G/2.5G cdmaOne/CDMA2000 - Partly because the base modulation scheme has not changed significantly. If Woz is a Verizon or Sprint customer he won't see much battery penalty for an EV-DO phone. Something about UMTS makes it very hard to optimize for power efficiency compared to CDMA2000, even for the CDMA experts at Qualcomm. (UMTS uses a CDMA modulation scheme, but with different parameters and a completely different protocol suite than CDMA2000.) UMTS is notorious for bad battery life/handset heat generation, even when implemented in a Qualcomm chipset such as the MSM7k series.

Re:3G (well-implemented) takes LESS energy...

My wife also owns the phone and one of our friends...

That sounds like a good deal. Is it hard to get health coverage for her slave?

Re:Hum

I'm going to blow my mod points, and comment on this instead... The reasons for releasing an EDGE iPhone are strikingly obvious to me, and I know others have seen the same two things: First: The simple fact is that at the time of the release, AT&T 3G coverage in the US, the main market for the iPhone, was very low. Even months later, it is still spotty at best. Coverage was just not ready. Second: Apple has also been very clear that, at the time of the release, 3G chips were battery hogs. Remember that this device has a hugh, bright screen with the added power draw of the touch interface, a powerful processor, all while barely thicker than the thinnest phone MOTO offers (the SLVR). Adding any more power drain would have meant making it thicker (less appealing) and slightly more expensive by adding a bigger battery. All this leads to an obvious conclusion: The first generation iPhone *needed* to be EDGE, not 3G. That gave them time for 3G coverage and power drain on 3G chips to catch up with their needs. From what I am hearing, that process is going well. I think Apple will release a 3G iPhone when it is ready, though of course timed to maximize revenue. (Plus, let's be fair, if they released it too soon, people would have bitched about being ripped off by the original. Some companies just can't win.) Also, honestly, who here has an iPhone, and thinks the EDGE speeds are slow for what they use them for? The only pain I experience is trying to use Google Maps with the satellite or hybrid mode , in a lower coverage area where bandwidth takes a hit.

Re:Hum

I have an iPhone and the EDGE connection is fine. Yeah, it could be faster, but let be honest, I ONLY use EDGE for Maps and the odd web request while in the car (not when I'm driving of course). I'd say 90% of the time the phone is tapped into WiFi somewhere and that's plenty fast. I can see 3G being a draw for some, but that alone is not going to be enough for me to upgrade. I have to agree with the removable battery though. It would be nice to always have one in the cradle ready for a swap out.

Re:Hum

I think they're just following the same old "ipod" strategy. (which has worked so far) They keep adding incremental upgrades to the device, and get to charge you $400 for each new one. Why not keep that up, if people keep falling for it?

lack of touchscreen...

The MacBook Air needed to have a touch screen. Then I could finally use a laptop that's not a fucking giant block of electronics as a replacement for my clipboard.

They should call it the Breeze or something. And put a low power mode for writing notes. The battery needs to squeeze out 8 hours for the device. It can be slower, that doesn't matter, it just needs to be a replacement for a clipboard.

There needs to be a mode on it called "scribble" or something, where the screen fills with a blank, lined or graph paper-like background, colour selection bar at the top, maybe a clear-screen quick button, a snap-to function for making quick hand drawn graphs, and IM support so you can reply with handwritten IMs, send notes, etc. It makes IM more personalized, and reduces the easily intercept-able plain text messages.

Make a version that's reasonably cheaper, maybe a low-colour display, flash memory storage, slower processor... but again, it's designed for taking notes. Maybe some web surfing as well. The advantage needs to be long battery life to get through an entire day of work or school without having to recharge it or plug it in.

Now I've shared the angst I've had pent up over electronics for the past 5 years. Somebody do something with this. Otherwise I'm just going to make it myself.

Re:Hum

Most other countries already had phones that bested the iPhone on features (and price).

I've played with an iPhone and it beats any other phone I've seen on interface hands down. Outside the US, however, it is far too restrictive. People here in the UK are used to cheap phones supporting 3G (my three-year-old one does, and it was free with the cheapest contract I could find). We are used to being able to install third-party software (I installed the Google Mobile Maps thing last night, for example, and have a third-party file manager which makes copying large collections of photos via bluetooth much easier than the built-in one). We are also, sadly, used to phones with horrible UIs. Being asked to trade a lot of features and a crap UI for fewer features, no way of adding the missing ones, a (much) higher price and a better UI is not the compelling.

I looked on eBay last night, and the N95 goes for about half the price of the iPhone. In terms of features, it is far ahead of the iPhone. Would you pay twice as much for a better UI and fewer features?

re: Would you pay twice as much for better UI ?

I think your question really hits the nail on the head, actually. When people buy Apple products, they're almost *always* doing so specifically because they're willing to "pay more for a better UI". And yes, part of that inherently means "fewer features".

Did the iPod become a huge success because it had the "most features for the dollar"? Hardly! It didn't even have a lousy built-in FM radio tuner! The beauty of it, though, was the overall form factor and UI functionality. While China and Korea were cranking out cheap little generic MP3 players with tiny buttons and single line LCD displays, Apple came along with a player that was easy and actually *enjoyable* for people to manipulate. I remember when I first bought a 2nd. generation iPod, I'd hand it to reluctant people who said "I don't know how to use one of these things!" - and within seconds, they'd get a big grin on their face when they realized how that scroll-wheel let them move through the menus. The whole thing just had a "satisfying" feel to operating it, and even to simply holding it in your hand comfortably.

Mac OS X is much the same way. It's a visually satisfying OS, as well as one that most people find relatively "friendly" to use once they give it a chance. If your only (or main) concern is having the most possible options to tweak/modify, then OS X isn't for you. Many aspects of the UI are chosen for you by Apple's designers, and you'll have to buy 3rd. party tools (that often destabilize the system or fail when updates come along) just to force the changes. On the other hand, MOST of us just want an operating system that's stable, looks good out of the box, and does the things we need it to do. OS X seems to accomplish all of this quite well.

I see the iPhone as yet another device in this vein. Some phones really cram in too MANY features, and it just makes the menus hard to navigate. Most cellphone users can't even tell you what some of the options do, or at least how to get to them on their phones. The iPhone does a pretty darn impressive job of making it easy to access the things you really might want to use on your phone, while leaving out a lot of the confusion. (EG. If I want to call forward my number to another number, I don't have to to remember that my carrier uses * and some 2 digit code to turn forwarding on, and another such code to turn it back off. I simply tap the "Call forward" option on the iPhone menu and key in the destination number for it. I then slide the switch to either "On" or "Off" and it's done.) And obviously, the web browsing experience blows away most of the competition. It's the first of many "Smartphones" I've had where I can surf "normal" web sites and actually read the content properly.

Re: Would you pay twice as much for better UI ?

The iPod is a single-function device. It plays music, and it plays music well. It was competing with things like portable tape and CD players that did the same thing less well, and multifunction digital devices that likewise did it less well. The Mac is a multifunction device. Apple includes a lot of the things that everyone wants/needs, but I don't know any Mac users who use Apple software exclusively. If OS X could only run Apple software, it would still do 70% of what I need it to do, but the remaining 30% would be a deal-breaker. The same is true for most people - and the real problem is that the 30% is different for almost every user.

The iPhone is only a success in markets where mobile phones are treated as single-function devices. In the US market, this is the case. In the rest of the world, it isn't. The iPhone is like OS X: It does 70% of what I want it to do, and it does it very well. Unlike OS X, I can't add the remaining 30%. In contrast, the iPod does 100% of what I want it to do - it plays music. As someone who owns two Mac laptops and an iPod, I am not interested in the iPhone until it is available in an unlocked form.

3G

While I definitely do miss the speed of 3G, all the other features of the iPhone made it worth it. I came from the Cingular 8525 and while it was an ok phone, all the apps on there seemed like they were made for a computer. Tiny buttons, slow response times and nothing worked well together.

The thing I like about the iPhone is while it does have a lot of apps, all of them were made for a phone. MMS is stupid not having, but I knew that when I purchased it. Hopefully it's just a firmware update.

Overall, it's a pretty good phone and I dont regret buying it.

Woz's notebook is already here...

It's called the MacBook Pro. I'm sure he has a few. The Air isn't for him.

And of course everyone wants 3G on the iPhone. Judging from the sales, it's not a fatal flaw.

Ironically. . .

Woz also states in the same interview [macrumors.com] that he's tired of reporters taking his comments out of context and making him look like an Apple-hater.

Quote: "[Jobs] calls me and he says he doesn't like something that I was reputed to have said. But he gets it out of context. A reporter's seized on a comment and strung along with that. I'm very positive on Apple, but I'll also point out things that could be better, or aren't the way I'd like them to be."

Apple's biggest mistake with the iPhone

When Google announced the availability of the Android SDK, Apple should have seen that as a shot across their bow. It's just not occurred to them that if Android really works out in the real world the way that their slimmed down OSX does, that they're going to run the serious risk of having to play catch up with Google.

Apple should have released an SDK for the iPod Touch that gives full access to the system on both the iPod Touch and iPhone when the iPhone is not on a cellular network. A certification process for the code that interacts with a cellular network is one thing, but all of this rumored crap about the restrictions should have been dispelled by Steve Jobs announcing it as a general SDK open to everyone.

All it's going to take to kick the iPhone squarely in the balls is for someone to make a very sleak Android-based phone that has no developer restrictions on it. People are going to write good software for Android, and then Apple is going to have to convince casual users why they should pay for a phone that doesn't have all of the cool features and add-ons that are free or cheap for Android.

Woz

My wife and I listened to his book (oddly named iWoz) while traveling in Alaska. He's brilliant, and so is Jobs. They're brilliant in different ways, though. Steve Jobs has an innate ability to know in advance what the consumer will like (and he's right most of the time, and wrong sometimes. See 1st generation Apple TV, the G3 Cube, etc.). Woz had (and presumably, still has) an innate ability to make it work with what he's got.

Which is why I understand Woz not seeing where the Air will fit in today's market. It's not quite a part of his skillset. He's still a genius.

Re:I'm glad SOMEONE is saying it...

I'm on both sides. I used to hate Apple for the same reasons that you prefer non-Apple products: I like to feel like I have control and figure out how things work, etc. However I got a Macbook Pro for school to go with my PC I've had for ages. The fact is, I don't use my PC anymore because as much as like messing with things, I'd rather they work 99% of the time and I'm willing to sacrifice the nerdiness and wasted time getting things to work in order to successfully use my comp when I need to. Of course, I was running XP but I cannot deal with it any more. I was trying to use it again yesterday, I don't know how I used Windows for my whole life until now. Nothing works! Everything crashes, games just choke to the point of hard shutdowns being a requirement despite having enough processing power, RAM, video card power etc (I invested a lot into my system). I just can't deal with it anymore because I feel like kicking the thing everytime I turn it on. Ideally, I'd move over to Linux and although I've tried a few times, it's always delegated to a secondary OS because it still can't support everything 100% without tons of excess effort. However Linux at least combines stability with the nerdiness factor, after using Windows for years thinking getting things to work proved my 1337ness, I realized it was just that Windows couldn't handle shit and I was proving my 1337ness but for no real reason.. getting things to run that a normal user may have trouble with is good, but it's also pointless. I know this probably reads like a troll but it's the absolute truth from my perspective and I'm only saying it in response to the parent who has similar views to my old self.

Re:I'm glad SOMEONE is saying it...

I call BS. Apples don't "just work" any more than XP machines do.

I concede that Apples are not perfect machines the way many fanboys claim they are, but I strongly disagree that they have as many problems as XP machines. "Just work" includes things like not having to resort to Google every time I want to find an infrequently accessed setting or command, which I find myself doing embarrassingly often on XP and Vista. They're both horribly laid out, and completely different from one another with respect to how to perform many common tasks.

OS X, even after a decade of dedicated Windows use, makes far more sense to me, and obviously to many others. It's clearly a personal matter, and you might not share the same opinion, but you can't deny that many people feel OS X is easier to navigate.

Wireless networking is hell if you want WPA encryption.

Wait... what? I've got WPA encryption on my network. The user experience was: OS X told me that the network required a password and prompted me to enter it. I entered it. And presto, I was hooked up to the network. Where exactly is the "hell" part?

What Apples do do is have more preloaded software. So, if you are considering the default software package, then sure. I have had to split my time equally between OSX and XP, and I spent far more time fiddling getting stuff to work in OSX.

What exactly did you have to fiddle with on the OS X side of things to get it to work?