Originally posted by dukestreet
Yes, overall on some points the iPod wins, but the killer is this
Thanks to its 98 dB signal-to-noise ratio, the Zen sounds better than the iPod.
That's not good for the iPod, Apple is going to have to update theirs and that's good. Competition is a nice way of getting better equipment.
D
Originally posted by Nipsy
In case you haven't seen the pattern before:
Apple R & D and Industrial Design make something that is damn good
The rest of the world tries to copy the design without getting sued
The rest of the world releases a product which is almost as good, at a lower price point
Those with a strong sense of design or ergonomics or ease of use continue to buy Apple
Those who pinch pennies, or don't care about the ergonomics or UI or design buy the competition
Newton = Palm (although timing is off)
MacOS = Windows
iMac I = eMachines
iMac II = Gateway
iPod = Zen
MacOSX = XP, Gnome, etc.
Originally posted by Cappy
You have some points on most of these but one is way off. The Palm was a better design. It was smaller and made sense for the market it was intended for. Too many people wanted it to do other things that third parties have tried to fulfill and then criticize Palm for not providing. The Newton while quite advanced featurewise never had the hardware design it needed to be successful.
Originally posted by Nipsy
I think the Newton was meant to replace a legal pad, and the Palm was meant to replace some Post Its.
Originally posted by Nipsy
I agree to a degree.
I think the Newton was meant to replace a legal pad, and the Palm was meant to replace some Post Its.
But the whole question remains, would we have Palm without Newton?