Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV

Comments Filter:
  • by Nimey (114278) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:25AM (#22623604) Homepage Journal
    You know you want to.
    • by Selfbain (624722) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:11PM (#22624184)
      Wouldn't iTreason be more appropriate?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by solar_blitz (1088029)
      Wow, that's funny, because the Woz was kind enough to visit San Jose's biggest Apple Store on iPhone's release date and talk to the people in line. I wish I was there just so I could shake his hand and get a photo.

      But hey, I totally get his reasoning. The Macbook Air was a disappointment for me, too. It belongs in Ripley's Believe it or Not moreso than a computer museum, what with such a small hard drive, etc... It was totally premature, imo - if they waited five more years, the MacBook Air might have re
  • Hum (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GodCandy (1132301) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:25AM (#22623606)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheMeuge (645043) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:28AM (#22623660)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pohl (872)
        And here I was thinking it had more to do with how much power the 3G chips consume, and how it would negatively effect how many hours you can get out of a fully charged battery. I'm shocked that Woz would be puzzled by this. He used to work with hardware, didn't he? Maybe he simply never did embedded hardware, and so it's out of the realm of his experience. But, shit, I'm just a programmer and I can understand that much.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Applekid (993327)
          TFA seems to indicate that his complaint is that he has 3G phones that last just as long as the non-3G iPhone... the fact that it takes extra energy isn't lost on him but rather it should have had 3G.

          To have it use 3G and maintain it's current battery life might have taken extra engineering to squeeze more energy efficiency out of it, or a slightly more energetic battery. Wozniak doesn't strike me as a "product-cycle schedule is more important that the hardware" kind of guy.
          • by hummassa (157160) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:17PM (#22624264) Homepage Journal
            or, to be clear: it spends more power, but during much less time, so the energy / byte ratio is lower than, for instance, EDGE. Most 3G phones I know don't load a page in the browser while you are reading another (the iPhone certainly don't), so, the battery would endure MORE if the iPhone was 3G.
            • 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:No questions (Score:5, Informative)

          by red star hardkore (1242136) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:44PM (#22624592)
          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.
          • Why is this a 5? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by juuri (7678)
            Sure the N70 gets comparable talk time at twice the thickness to the iphone. I used to have an N70, the battery in it is huge in comparison to what is in the iPhone.

            You may not agree with the reasons given and believe it is for marketing reasons, but this means you think Mr. Jobs is directly and purposefully trying to deceive the buying public when he said they were waiting for more efficient 3g chipsets. Why would he lie about such a thing if it were so easily disproved? He would risk his entire "believabi
            • Re:Why is this a 5? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by EastCoastSurfer (310758) on Monday March 03, 2008 @02:34PM (#22626040)

              You may not agree with the reasons given and believe it is for marketing reasons, but this means you think Mr. Jobs is directly and purposefully trying to deceive the buying public when he said they were waiting for more efficient 3g chipsets. Why would he lie about such a thing if it were so easily disproved? He would risk his entire "believability capital" on such a silly thing? This is highly unlikely as it is such a trivial thing for one to risk their reputation on, yet your "feeling" over rides any attempt at being logical about the real reason.


              Jobs does this so often there is a name [wikipedia.org] for it. He knows that he has a fairly large fan base that will believe anything he says, even when it screws them over. Look at the fiasco with the AEBS and TM or the keyboard issues on the MBP that they have finally attempted to fix after nearly a year. It will be a bad day for Apple if people are ever logical about most anything they sell.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by tfoss (203340)
            Your analogy is useless unless you compare a N70 +/- 3G. 3 days might've been a week w/o 3G.

            -Ted
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dfghjk (711126)
          I see you've bought into Steve's lies. Woz didn't, as he rightly observed that that the existence of a large number of 3G phones proves that it isn't so. I'm just a programmer, too, and I'm amused at how easily duped fanboys are.
      • Re:No questions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timster (32400) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:00PM (#22624034)
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eebra82 (907996) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:04PM (#22624082) Homepage

        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by djdavetrouble (442175)
          For starters, EDGE sucks on a phone that is intended for YouTube, Safari and mail applications.

          really? it doesn't seem to suck that much, or at all when I use my iphone. Its pretty damn fast.
          I do happen to live in the most densely populated, and cell signal covered area in the USA though.
          I am using T Mobile service also. YMMV.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Don't be stupid, 3G would've drained the battery much faster than the 2G support and since it doesn't have a swappable battery you would be left high and dry until you could recharge it. This is just Steve Jobs thinking like the true computing pioneer that he is. Duh. I mean, how the hell would you get around the battery issue without doing something crazy like making it user-replaceable? Who the hell is going to want to buy a spare battery for their cell phone of all things?
        • by Sancho (17056)
          Yeah, I really think that it was a battery life issue. I've heard that Steve Jobs is anal about usability (and rightly so!) and an iPhone with a battery life of 3 hours just wouldn't have cut it.

          Wifi on the iPhone was supposed to be a compromise. In some US cities, it's hard NOT to find an area with free Wifi. And in cities where the population density isn't so high, many places where you'll use an iPhone will have connectivity.

          That said, lack of 3G is what kept me from buying an iPhone. I live in a ver
          • Re:No questions (Score:5, Insightful)

            by node 3 (115640) on Monday March 03, 2008 @01:58PM (#22625518)

            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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by node 3 (115640) on Monday March 03, 2008 @01:49PM (#22625410)

          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:05PM (#22624098)

        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.

        I think the reasons were a little more complicated. While I fully agree that Apple likes to ensure that their fans purchase the same thing many, many times, I don't think that's what happened here. I honestly think they would have gone with a better network initially if they could, but that they couldn't get a provider with 3G support and willing to cave to all their demands initially. What you're suggesting is that Apple intentionally crippled a product that, if we recall from a year ago, was given a real chance of being the next Newton. I think making a phone was sufficiently important to Jobs that he wasn't going to dick around intentionally crippling it.

        We saw what he did instead - charge early adopters a tax for the privilege.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MikeyVB (787338)
          So the other 500 million or so people outside of the U.S. that do have 3G coverage don't count?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anubis350 (772791)
            Apple's primary market is the united states... Also, wasn't there a problem with a couple major 3g chipsets being approved by the FCC that iPhone skirted by being an EDGE based device?
    • Re:Hum (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dave420 (699308) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:33AM (#22623736)
      The iPhone didn't change the face of the cell phone market. It changed the face of the Idiot Bauble market by allowing them to buy a phone, but the most intense users of phones before the iPhone launch (corporate) still can't use the thing, so I fail to see how a non-3G phone corporate users can't use is changing the face of the cell phone market. Also, outside the US, the iPhone hasn't been as great a success. Most other countries already had phones that bested the iPhone on features (and price). The iPhone and the Air are just extrapolations of a game Apple didn't put into play. They're just using their clout to push things forward slightly, they're not launching new ways of thinking about existing products. They're playing the same game as everyone else, they just happen to have millions of grass-roots users screaming about their new products every time someone hears something new about them.
      • Re:Hum (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:00PM (#22624030) Journal

        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?

        • by King_TJ (85913) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:25PM (#22624362) Journal
          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.
          • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday March 03, 2008 @01:31PM (#22625162) Journal
            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.

      • by kellyb9 (954229)

        ...(corporate) still can't use the thing...
        Let me just preface this comment by saying I'm not a huge Mac fan, but I have to admit, this is one of the things I actually like about Apple. They're not stupid. They don't try to design one solution for everybody. The iPhone was never meant to be used on the corporate side... therefore, they don't support it.
      • Re:Hum (Score:4, Informative)

        by samkass (174571) on Monday March 03, 2008 @01:17PM (#22624984) Homepage Journal
        The iPhone didn't change the face of the cell phone market.

        The actual evidence contradicts your random opinions. According to Google and other web tracking sites, iPhone users search and browse the web between 2 and 10 times more than any other type of smart phone. That sounds like a game-changer to me.

        I bought the iPod Touch because I didn't need a new phone, but even that is a game-changer. Until you carry it around for a few days you don't realize how much you'd use it.
    • Re:Hum (Score:5, Interesting)

      by njfuzzy (734116) <ian@nOspAm.ian-x.com> on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:52AM (#22623930) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by molarmass192 (608071) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:23PM (#22624342) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • 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.

          This is a demand that I can't begin to understand. Don't you ever sleep? Can you not make it through a day on a single charge? Every cell phone I've ever had has had a removable battery, and not once have I ever felt the need to have an extra around.

      • Re:Hum (Score:5, Insightful)

        by smackt4rd (950154) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:37PM (#22624502)
        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?
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by roaddemon (666475)
        I've had an iPhone for 6 months now. It's my favorite tech gadget in a very large stable of tech gadgets. Edge sucks. Every time I use it I have flashbacks to my dial up days.

        You are actually the first user I've heard say that Edge is sufficient.
        • You are actually the first user I've heard say that Edge is sufficient.

          Read again. He was not saying EDGE is sufficient, he was saying it was necessary. And that is correct. Chipsets still use too much power ( a problem solved later this year) and 3G was not yet very widespread at launch (for instance, Denver had no 3G coverage - that is only in the last month or two starting to come online). That said...

          Edge sucks. Every time I use it I have flashbacks to my dial up days.

          EDGE is slow for browsing, but
    • by afxgrin (208686) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:15PM (#22624228)
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bkr1_2k (237627)
      US support for 3G networks is highly limited compared to that of Europe or Asia, as far as I understand. Why would Apple bother supporting a network that has only limited use in their primary target market? It seems fairly obvious to me why they didn't add 3G support for this first generation.

      I'll be surprised if any $2k-3k laptop changes the current laptop market. There are simply too many low priced laptops out there and the air doesn't really cater to what most consumers want right now.
    • I do however question the release of the iPhone without g3 support

      The iPhone could have been shipped with 3G, a built in GPS chip, a much louder internal speaker for better speakerphone/media playing without headphones, FM receiver, digital TV tuner, flash for the otherwise nice camera, slide-out qwerty keyboard, clickwheel on the back for eyes-free song changing . . . and on and on and on.

      Any or all of these things might be "nice to have" but every new chip/doodad they add is more space, weight, sucks

  • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:25AM (#22623610) Journal
    Well, Steve is just stating what everyone else is thinking! Everyone who isn't completely in love with apple, that is. Although apple has great products, they're not for everyone, and because of that, they lack certain features.

    For example, the macbook air isn't very good as a main computer, and the lack of 3G iphones has to do with battery life - Apple has chosen to offer certain features which are mutually exclusive with other features - I'm glad someone ... respectable ... is saying it!

    I know a girl who has apple everything. She wouldn't buy a music player if it didn't come from apple - and she has 4 ipods, and 3 apple computers. She likes things to WORK, and she likes them to look beautiful. So, she ** IS ** apple's target market.

    Me, on the other hand, I prefer other options - I LIKE figuring out how my gadgets work, and I like repairing them at home ... so if they're a little bigger (because they're not manufatured with VERY tight tolerances, like the ipod nano), then I'm okay with that.

    • by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:36AM (#22623782) Journal
      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.
      • . 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.

        I call BS. Apples don't "just work" any more than XP machines do. Wireless networking is hell if you want WPA encryption. What Apples do do is have more preloaded software. So, if you are considering the default software package, then sure. I have ha

        • by egomaniac (105476) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:39PM (#22624532) Homepage
          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?
          • For me, Trebuchet. The OS X firewall solution is too simplistic, so I had to install something that gave me tighter control of IPFW. After years of working with IPFW, scripts that work just fine on any other OS still don't seem to work correctly on OS X. The wrong rules get prioritized and I have to fiddle around in vi to get what should be a simple list of access rules functioning in a sane manner.

            Then, of course, there's the issue of EVERYTHING getting dumped into either /Applications or ~/Documents. I like to organize my software and documents, but (and this isn't really Apple's fault for the most part) if I try to organize these files so that they are sorted in a logical (to me) manner, many third party apps just stop working, and Software Update stops correctly locating Apple software for updates. Oh, and WHY does the dictionary app have to go in Applications root in order to be found by the context menu and various services? Apple designed around fixed paths decades ago. And yet we see so many fixed path issues persisting into 10.5!
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by gpalyu (995482)
              "For me, Trebuchet. The OS X firewall solution is too simplistic" Are you saying Windows Firewall is the ultimate firewall for Windows then?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fex303 (557896)
        This sums up my experience with 'the switch' exactly. I went from being someone who wanted to have control of exactly what my computer was doing and building my system to spec to someone who is happy to let OS X run the show 95% of the time.

        And to the grandparent poster: I've still upgraded the RAM and HDD in my MacBook, but it's nice to have a system where everything works so brilliantly. And for that 5% of the time when I'm not letting OS X do things for me, there's a great CLI and certified Unix ner

    • by 0racle (667029)
      [blockquote] the macbook air isn't very good as a main computer[/blockquote] Name a UMPC that is. Or one that was a hit really. [blockquote]and the lack of 3G iphones has to do with battery life[/blockquote] Other companies seem to be able to pull it off.
      • by 0racle (667029)
        Oh god damnit. Maybe I'll hit preview this time.

        the macbook air isn't very good as a main computer
        Name a UMPC that is. Or one that was a hit really.

        and the lack of 3G iphones has to do with battery life
        Other companies seem to be able to pull it off.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nevali (942731)
      [q]For example, the macbook air isn't very good as a main computer, and the lack of 3G iphones has to do with battery life - Apple has chosen to offer certain features which are mutually exclusive with other features - I'm glad someone ... respectable ... is saying it! [/q]

      I hate to burst your bubble, but everyone except the most rabid of fanboys (and I'll concede that the likes of Slashdot has a tendency for attracting them) has consistently said as much: if doesn't offer the features you require, don't b
      • by egomaniac (105476)
        Thank you, well said. To me this is equivalent to bitching about, say, the Mini Cooper. "But I've got three kids! This car is too small, which makes it completely useless to me, and therefore the manufacturers are idiots!"

        Not everybody has the same needs, and if the MacBook Air doesn't fit your needs.... then don't buy it. It's not like it's the only notebook Apple offers, or that Apple is the only company selling notebooks.
    • by failedlogic (627314) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:16PM (#22624236)
      This touches on a much larger problem for Apple ... they make throw-away gadgets and computers of increasingly lesser quality as they build up a user-base. They are in some ways becoming Dell by decreasing quality (for increased profit) as their sales volume increases.

      I think the quality of the iMac systems have gone down since the switch-over to Intel. I'm not tempted to buy one and would rather continue to use my G5 (not an option much longer) or buy a PC. I have to buy a whole lot of extra junk and throw it away after using it because Apple couldn't/wouldn't make a more affordable and expandable desktop. I'd like a better video card. I'd like a second hard-drive inside the system, ditto a better DVD burner. So when I replace the iMac with a PC, I don't need the HDD and burner enclosure. My LCD monitor (on the iMac), if I decide not to keep the iMac is utterly useless to me as I can't change it from computer to LCD monitor (there is a way, I'm not tempted or skilled enough to try).

      The iPod market is very much dependent on a throw-away society. My 5th Gen iPod's battery is supposed to last around 12 to 20 hours (can't remember the marketing lingo) but it has only ever lasted around 6 hours. I've replaced the battery myself with a higher life brand-name battery. Still same result. The shuffle, nano and the iPhone build on this idea of throw-away. I don't like the idea of having to send-in a cell-phone and not have access to it for a few days for Apple to change the battery. Hello?! for some people its their only phone. Calling 911, at the least, is going to be impossible!
      • by AstrumPreliator (708436) on Monday March 03, 2008 @01:51PM (#22625430)
        I agree on the build quality. The hard drive in my PowerBook G4 died back in November and I decided to upgrade to one of the new Intel Macs. Now the PowerBook was the first Mac I ever owned but I found it to be an extremely durable machine. With the amount of abuse I put it through I was thoroughly impressed that it was still working just perfectly, although it is dented in certain areas.

        So when I upgraded I decided to go with a MacBook, partly because I didn't want a 15" screen (my PowerBook was 12") and partly because I didn't want to spend a ton. Well I'm typing on my PowerBook right now as I had to send in my MacBook after some things went wrong. The exhaust fan is rattling, the hard drive was having really weird problems, and the white plastic case (which must be manufactured by Mattel) was developing hairline cracking. Now I understand that sometimes people get faulty components, but the case cracking was unacceptable. Furthermore their tech support (which I never had to deal with with my PowerBook) was terrible. You can only call their customer support for 90 days after buying it, and after being thrown around for a bit I drove to an Apple Store where you apparently have to make an appointment to get your laptop fixed. I finally called them again and told them to send me a box to send it to them. Between school, work, and a dying car it was rather infuriating to say the least.

        Perhaps the MacBook Pros are better, I don't know. But one thing is for sure, Apple has lost my business. I may prefer OSX for what I do but I'd rather make my own linux distro than buy another product from Apple.
  • All those comments could have come right from here. :)

    Personally I think the Macbook Air may sell well, because Apple's proven they can get users to suffer through all kinds of hardware deficiencies to get their software.
    • by Angostura (703910)
      That would be true, if the Air was the only or the cheapest laptop to come with OS X. But it isn't. From which we can conclude than Air purchases are actually from people who like the software but are willing to put up with additional hardware deficiencies for extreme portability.

      It's not my cup of tea, but if I spent most of my time in airports, shuttling between offices, I might look at it rather seriously
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Gay for Linux (942545)
        I'm interested in the air but not for OSX. I travel a lot, so the lightweight thing is cool. The deficiencies aren't a big deal. I can't remember the last time I used my current laptop's ethernet port, and the DVD player lies fallow most of the time. Why swap disks when I can download what I want to watch?

        The problem with the Air is that I don't know how I'd install XP on it, and I need XP for proper MS Office utils.
    • by nwf (25607)
      I wish Apple luck with the Air, but as someone who has owned at least 6 different PowerBooks and now a Mac Book Pro, I'd never get an Air. The lack of Ethernet and a non-replaceable battery are deal breakers for me. Apple has generally been very good at balancing features, cost and easy of use. Not here. Sort of like the Apple TV. What's the point? Both are so limited as to be nothing more than a toy.
    • by kellyb9 (954229)
      Personally, I think Apple users suffer through the software deficiencies to get their hardware.
    • Personally I think the Macbook Air may sell well, because Apple's proven they can get users to suffer through all kinds of hardware deficiencies to get their software.

      The MacBook Air is essentially a little over priced and a little ahead of its time. I wouldn't be surprised if this product sells well in Japan, since they have a very different mentality towards design and cost.
  • 3G (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dangerz (540904) <stuff@noSPam.tildastudios.net> on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:28AM (#22623654) Homepage
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dave420 (699308)
      I had to go for the Nokia N95 8GB because I needed 3G for work, and I wanted the AGPS and 5MP camera. I can't tether the iPhone to my PC and use it for work, as it just doesn't have the speed.

      I do love the iPhone's interface, but I don't see the point of having a Ferrari's dashboard on a Fiat Punto. I'd rather have it the other way round ;)
      • One of the reasons that I'm almost decided on buying an iPhone as soon as a 3G version comes out (and given that there's now a 16GB version) is that I already own an iPod Touch, and absolutely love it - but it frustrates me that when I'm out and about a lot of the features become useless due to the lack of any WiFi networks available.

        My boss has a Nokia N810 and an N95 (the original, not the 8GB). The N810 automatically detects the N95's presence and will use its 3G connection over Bluetooth with the min

  • He didn't really dump on AppleTV as a product. He just didn't like the 24 hour rental feature for movies.
  • by russotto (537200) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:34AM (#22623758) Journal
    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.
    • by dave420 (699308)
      You should check out the sales in other countries apart from the US. Not lookin' too healthy there.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)
        I thought Apple were crazy for launching a phone in the US. The US mobile phone market is incredibly hostile to manufacturers because the lack of standardisation encourages lock-in. If you want to switch networks elsewhere in the world, you just take your existing phone (maybe pay a nominal fee to get it unlocked) and pop a new SIM card in it. In the USA, you can only do that between GSM providers, and you are lucky to have two of them in the same area willing to unlock your phone.

        Looking at the iPhon

  • Ironically. . . (Score:5, Informative)

    by MistaE (776169) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:36AM (#22623780) Homepage
    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."
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:47AM (#22623908) Homepage
    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.
    • by metamatic (202216) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:59AM (#22624024) Homepage Journal

      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.

      Wait, you actually bought that garbage about needing the SDK restrictions in order to ensure network security? In spite of the fact that Nokia, Sony Ericsson, RIM, and all the WinCE handset makers have open SDKs which don't require application signing?

      • Yea and Symbian is a great OS to program within, The WiFi capabilities of the other smart phones are up-to-par, the other smartphones have a growing market share, everyone loves their UI... oh wait scratch that...

    • they're going to run the serious risk of having to play catch up with Google.

      They aren't even in the same class. Android (WHEN we even get a phone that supports it) will be great in bringing a better standardized platform to low-end phones. But the necessity to be adaptable for every possible kind of hardware hamstrings Android in comparison to a more focused phone that is free to pair hardware and software UI advancements, that will take place in higher end phones (not just the iPhone or phones from Appl
  • Make Air Cheaper (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nomen Publicus (1150725) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:51AM (#22623924)
    If the Air was half the price, they would sell shed loads. It's the kind of device that Apple might expect to sell two or three to a household. But at the current price, there may not be much demand.
  • So, Woz is just speaking his mind. Freethinkers get to do that once in a while... at least in this day and age, they don't burn you at the stake like a witch. Well, at least not literally - that's what the slashdot comment threads are for.

    I agree with him... Air is just hot air, and the iPhone without 3G data connectivity is reprehensible.
  • He'd be modded troll and flamebait for daring to impugn Apple's quality.
  • by DrDitto (962751) on Monday March 03, 2008 @11:57AM (#22623984)
    Woz thinks like an engineer. The majority of cellphone users don't know what 3G is and they don't care. What they do care about is a sexy, easy-to-use device that lets them easily play music, browse the web, make phone calls, and more. Other cellphones can also do this, but none is as sexy and easy-to-use as the iPhone.
  • by webword (82711)
    "Woz Takes Dump on iPhone" would have been much more funny as a subject line.
  • Apple gets heat because their products lack a few features that people want where as Microsoft releases two dogs, Vista and the new Office, and they largely get a pass. Yes there's some complaints but nothing like the venom Apple gets. The primary argument seems, "yes they're cool but they could be cooler so Apple sucks". Bizarre logic. The three biggest complaints on iPhone have been it's bundled to AT&T, no SDK at launch and no 3G. Well they addressed the SDK in under nine months which is reasonable,
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by clintre (1078849)
      "Apple gets heat because their products lack a few features that people want where as Microsoft releases two dogs, Vista and the new Office, and they largely get a pass. Yes there's some complaints but nothing like the venom Apple gets."

      Do you actually read /. ?
  • Air Sold Out (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday March 03, 2008 @12:19PM (#22624302)
    Although I saw several MacBook Air's at the local Apple store in my relatively (1M by the Census) small town, I also saw reports of it being intermittently being sold out in the larger markets. Hard not to call that a hit, unless they only built 5 of them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by s_p_oneil (795792)
      It's hard to believe that many people would buy a laptop without an optical drive. One of the primary uses for my laptop is letting the kids play games and watch DVD's in the back seat during long drives. (I see no point in spending hundreds on a separate device that's just for playing movies in the car.) When I use it, it's usually for work, but I've watched a few movies on it myself, and I wouldn't consider buying a laptop that didn't have that feature. The Asus EEE PC would be awesome for the kids if it
  • Woz (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lpangelrob (714473) on Monday March 03, 2008 @02:09PM (#22625676)
    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.
  • bad headline (Score:3, Interesting)

    by perdue (1153995) on Monday March 03, 2008 @02:22PM (#22625866) Homepage
    But CmdrTaco is hardly alone. From MacRumors.com's take [macrumors.com]:

    Ironically, Woz also relates how his comments on Apple may get taken out of context:

    [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.
    To that point, several journalists have picked up this story with a very negative slant:

    - Wozniak slams iPhone, MacBook Air [macworld.co.uk]
    - Woz finds flaws in Apple's latest offerings [smh.com.au]
    - Wozniak 'disappointed' by Apple iPhone [zdnet.com.au]
    - Former Apple founder vents over iPhone's pitfalls [scopical.com.au]

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...