5 ms·

While smartphone processors remain slow enough to require Apple's ingenuity to integrate hardware and software in order for a great experience to be possible -

by 10ren 18y ago

While smartphone processors remain slow enough to require Apple's ingenuity to integrate hardware and software in order for a great experience to be possible - we'll happily pay extra for it. But when processors become fast enough, so that the same experience can be had without being as clever or integrated as Apple, we'll turn to other attributes. Manufactures will standardize the internal interfaces, so supplies can compete with different mixes of attributes of the components, and phone manufacturers can pick and choose to create a phone for their market and price-point: the PC compatible of iPhones. Of course, when processors are that fast, you'll be able to run windows XP on it, and all the software that runs on that platform. Moore's Law says it's inevitable.

berntb 18y ago
Good luck using apps on mobile phones that got their UIs designed for 17"++ screens. But seriously, you might have a point considering how Apple's iPod franchise has suffered the last year. :-) OTOH, Nokia, the Asian mobile phone makers and Microsoft... hard competition.
- 10ren 18y ago
  Screen real-estate is an issue, though Windows XP has been wildly popular on netbooks with small screens. Has Apple's iPod franchise suffered in the last year? Or are you being sarcastic? Well, your "good luck" is sarcastic, and you've included a ":)", so I think it is. But I'm really not sure. It seems that the rate of growth has been slowing for a while, but the sales are still growing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Sales I'm sorry, I'm sure you usually do write clearly, but your poor communication in this particular post requires too much needless work to decipher. I've never seen such a comment on hackernews before.
  - berntb 18y ago
    I am not really a good communicator in natural languages; I do comment well. I was probably a bit sloppy, since I found the end of your original post a bit funny. Both because the iPhone already runs a cut-down variant of Mac OS (some APIs are nut supported, etc) and also because the earlier Windows mobiles had problems when they had too Windows-like UI.
    - 10ren 18y ago
      I think it's fair to say that iPhone runs an OS that is related to Mac OS - but it's not really fair to say it is a Mac OS, since you can't run Mac OS apps on it. (That is, maybe it is a Mac OS, from an implementation point of view, but not from a usage-as-a-platform point of view.) If you could run Mac OS apps on it, then that would increase the value of the iPhone platform in proportion to all those apps. The reason I mention Windows is just because it has many more apps on it, and in this sense, it increases the value of the platform more than Mac OS. But the problem isn't in getting Mac OS to run on it (that's easy). The problem is that it isn't fast enough. It's not even fast enough to run Java or Flash apps (both Sun and Adobe wanted to port them, but Apple said no - I am certain this is because the user experience couldn't be very good, because too slow. And user experience is what Apple is great at, and what people buy it for). I should say that this is no criticism of Apple - they've done an astonishing job of getting performance out of a slow processor, and it's the kind of thing that impresses me very much. Sadly, that skill isn't needed when the processors get fast enough - for example, at one time Woz worked miracles to make the Apple work; and across the street Bill Gates went through contortions to squeeze a programming language into 8K. But today, neither Apple desktops or Bill Gates struggle for minimal implementations. And that's what's exciting to me about the iPhone as a platform - it is that time again, when those skills are valued. It's just that sadly, it won't last, according to Moore's Law. Why do you think that the reason earlier Windows mobiles failed was because the UI was too Windows-like? Screen real-estate is a problem, but it's not that hard to change a UI. Consider: what Apple can do, others can copy. There are many possible reasons for a tech failure, and, forensically, it's hard to know for sure what they really were - but one reason is that processors were tremendously less powerful just a few years ago. PS: I don't want to pick at typos, but I read your "APIs are nut (sic) supported" as "API nuts are supported", thinking that you meant "nuts" as a slang for the internal connections (like plugs, sockets etc). But I realize you just meant "not supported".
      - berntb 18y ago
        Sigh, yes I am of course aware of the speed limitations. I agree, Moore's law will probably work well for mobile phone-sized devices. The point is still that "traditional" computer UIs don't work on a phone sized screen; the XP applications (you talked about originally) just needs to be rewritten. Which would take away much of the advantage of getting XP on them. I read enough reviews of the early Win mobiles that I won't even want to try. But maybe a head mounted display/EyeTap could work for full-sized apps? (I guess I should run this through a spelling checker, but I won't bother, since you say you don't want to pick at typos...)

by 10ren 18y ago

berntb 18y ago

Good luck using apps on mobile phones that got their UIs designed for 17"++ screens. But seriously, you might have a point considering how Apple's iPod franchise has suffered the last year. :-) OTOH, Nokia, the Asian mobile phone makers and Microsoft... hard competition.

10ren 18y ago
Screen real-estate is an issue, though Windows XP has been wildly popular on netbooks with small screens. Has Apple's iPod franchise suffered in the last year? Or are you being sarcastic? Well, your "good luck" is sarcastic, and you've included a ":)", so I think it is. But I'm really not sure. It seems that the rate of growth has been slowing for a while, but the sales are still growing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Sales I'm sorry, I'm sure you usually do write clearly, but your poor communication in this particular post requires too much needless work to decipher. I've never seen such a comment on hackernews before.
- berntb 18y ago
  I am not really a good communicator in natural languages; I do comment well. I was probably a bit sloppy, since I found the end of your original post a bit funny. Both because the iPhone already runs a cut-down variant of Mac OS (some APIs are nut supported, etc) and also because the earlier Windows mobiles had problems when they had too Windows-like UI.
  - 10ren 18y ago
    I think it's fair to say that iPhone runs an OS that is related to Mac OS - but it's not really fair to say it is a Mac OS, since you can't run Mac OS apps on it. (That is, maybe it is a Mac OS, from an implementation point of view, but not from a usage-as-a-platform point of view.) If you could run Mac OS apps on it, then that would increase the value of the iPhone platform in proportion to all those apps. The reason I mention Windows is just because it has many more apps on it, and in this sense, it increases the value of the platform more than Mac OS. But the problem isn't in getting Mac OS to run on it (that's easy). The problem is that it isn't fast enough. It's not even fast enough to run Java or Flash apps (both Sun and Adobe wanted to port them, but Apple said no - I am certain this is because the user experience couldn't be very good, because too slow. And user experience is what Apple is great at, and what people buy it for). I should say that this is no criticism of Apple - they've done an astonishing job of getting performance out of a slow processor, and it's the kind of thing that impresses me very much. Sadly, that skill isn't needed when the processors get fast enough - for example, at one time Woz worked miracles to make the Apple work; and across the street Bill Gates went through contortions to squeeze a programming language into 8K. But today, neither Apple desktops or Bill Gates struggle for minimal implementations. And that's what's exciting to me about the iPhone as a platform - it is that time again, when those skills are valued. It's just that sadly, it won't last, according to Moore's Law. Why do you think that the reason earlier Windows mobiles failed was because the UI was too Windows-like? Screen real-estate is a problem, but it's not that hard to change a UI. Consider: what Apple can do, others can copy. There are many possible reasons for a tech failure, and, forensically, it's hard to know for sure what they really were - but one reason is that processors were tremendously less powerful just a few years ago. PS: I don't want to pick at typos, but I read your "APIs are nut (sic) supported" as "API nuts are supported", thinking that you meant "nuts" as a slang for the internal connections (like plugs, sockets etc). But I realize you just meant "not supported".
    - berntb 18y ago
      Sigh, yes I am of course aware of the speed limitations. I agree, Moore's law will probably work well for mobile phone-sized devices. The point is still that "traditional" computer UIs don't work on a phone sized screen; the XP applications (you talked about originally) just needs to be rewritten. Which would take away much of the advantage of getting XP on them. I read enough reviews of the early Win mobiles that I won't even want to try. But maybe a head mounted display/EyeTap could work for full-sized apps? (I guess I should run this through a spelling checker, but I won't bother, since you say you don't want to pick at typos...)