Why Apple's iPhone is like a 1981 IBM PC

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Mar 29, 2008.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 601

    DMann

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    10023
    #2
    Evolution

    This requirement, too, will change as developers ease into this environment.
     
  3. macrumors member

    jakealdred

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester england
    #3
    haha theres always something to compare somat to
    -jake
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    SkippyThorson

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Location:
    Utica, NY
    #4
    Very interesting read, thought there were a lot of good points. Aside from the PC comparison. :rolleyes:
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    #5
    Is it me or should they rename the "MacBytes" to "MacBites?" Are there ever any positive articles in there? Any articles that say things like, "users expect when they do too many things at once that something won't work -- Apple has said "enough" make everything work!" and to do that, they limit background processes to thing they insist run in the background, like the iPod music's, e-mail or receiving a phone call?

    Besides, I was pretty sure the iPhone didn't have 128MB RAM... I don't know where I might have read that...
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Arvada, Colorado
    #6
    Wow negative

    Let's remember that it's not a computer....it's a phone. So please don't expect it to do EVERYTHING a computer does. I realize it's a major technology changer but expecting it to do everything under the sun is a bit much.
    Why are there so many negative articles about the iPhone and not other "smart" (I call them dumb) phones??
     
  7. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #7
    On background processes:
    The problem with that is that a lot of devs won't use the processes correctly and will end of draining the battery constantly. He even addresses that at the end of the article:
    If I were Apple, I wouldn't either as I've seen what certain devs do on OS X (ex. Onyx).

    Exactly. Despite what people say, everyone wants it to be the world's smallest and most useable computer. On other "smartphones," I find it interesting that they complain that the iPhone won't run 3rd party apps in the background when the Palm OS doesn't either. I'm not sure about Windows Mobile 6 though.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    winmacguy

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #8
    I posted it because it was an "informed" opinion about the iPhone.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    chickenninja

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Location:
    inside my skull
    #9
    there are ways around having no backround running apps, for instance you could integrate a web app into your native app to store your information in an online "session". and you could have your native use :apple: brand apps for background tasks and alerts. but this issue is nothing to fuss over, well have background apps in the future, if not on a native level then on a sand boxed partitioned kinda thing. and i think online connectivity will provide a treasure trove of unforseen potential that will make backrounds apps look like a merry-go-round.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    I don't know, to be honest he's talking out of his ass, saying that Apple banning multitasking and networking is bad, when tests have shown that to be correct.

    Comparing it to the PC is reasonable though, Apple now is like the IBM of the 1960's/1970's.
     
  11. macrumors 601

    DMann

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    10023
    #11
    Apple is now like the IBM of the 1960's/1970's? Perhaps you are referring solely to the current state of the iPhone. Even in its current state of limbo, the iPhone's capabilities are potentially superior to those of archaic PCs. Apple's own apps do run in the background, are capable of preemptive multitasking, and run within a true OS X environment.

    To avoid an onslaught of battery drainage, this initial requirement is necessary, but will sooner than later be lifted as developers devise apps which demand less power when idle. In less than one year, the iPhone has exceeded most users expectations, and is evolving at a decent pace. Of course, Pwnage will be there those who want more stuff right now. Overall, the potential for this platform is staggering, and has only just begun to unfold. I really don't blame Apple for their gradual approach and their attempt to avoid unnecessary condemnation, i.e. "battery life sucks." The upcoming months are sure to be good for all.
     
  12. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    IBM of the 1960's/1970's had very high margins, were very successful and had a large market share (well that isn't entirely true for Apple), they were secretive (they kept System/360 secret for years), innovated when it mattered (e.g. the first integrated product line), but certainly not always. They also had a massive influence on the rest of the computing world.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    DMann

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    10023
    #13
    Ibm

    From this point of view, yes. Wonder if Apple would also be so gullible as to lease a new operating system (QDOS) from a young Seattle-ite who only seemed to have one to sell to them.
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Location:
    Earth
    #14
    I think Apple is still on a learning curve with the iphone- they never made a phone before and it's rather good one for a first shot.
    If I recall correctly an article about the development and design process of the iphone, Apple did really struggle and almost couldn't launch it back in January 2007-Remember? With the SDK they did what they should have done back then but couldn't deliver due Apple's standards- I personally have rather a stable phone that doesn't do everything than one that could do everything when it's not crashing.....
     
  15. macrumors 603

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    Wrong, its a smartphone. Its a mini computer - thats what all other smartphone OSes do.

    The iPhone is clearly immature to handle what other s/p can.

    If your want a basic phone, get a $20 on contract phone. If you want something better, get a feature phone, if you want the high end phone, that is a smartphone. All existing smartphones have enough guts to emulate 8bit consoles and computers, to give an example. Clearly, smart phones are more than a mere phone.

    Apple compare iPhones against existing smart phones. Therefore, Apple consider iPhone a smartphone ( otherwise they wouldn't compare against such phones ). Also, in MWSF, Jobs compared iPhones against smartphone sales in the u.s. Again, more evidence that Apple think iPhone as a smartphone.

    Run / install applications. Smartphones are mini computers, no doubt about it. To think otherwise is sheer ignorance.


     
  16. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Well it was that or buy an OS from stoners. At least MS wore suits, so it wasn't too hard a choice.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Marky_Mark

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    And they turned up for the meeting, which is more than Gary Kildall did. He might not have been on a day off as legend suggests, but he still made an error of judgement by not being there to meet with the world's largest computer manufacturer that day. So, frankly, it was a bit of a shoo-in by all accounts.
     

Share This Page