Hmm, here you go, Raybo and Czachorski. This is for you – as mentioned, it wasn't enough to
show you why it was idiotic nonsense. No, you demanded that I spelled it out for you while spoonfeeding it to you in small bites.
I'm willing to bet, though, that you will either try red-herrings, strawman argumentation, or simply ignore valid argumentation –*how else can you keep up the apologetic appearences …
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1015259&cid=25594953
I was asked about Opera not being allowed on the iPhone yesterday. My immediate gut reaction was that Apple was being a douche. All my instincts cry out that programmers should be able to put anything they want out there and let the market decide.
Really? Let's see how he qualifies that. I know – I already read the post, and he doesn't. No, on the contrary it's simply pure retorics as to pretend that he at first thought something and then later "saw the light" (i.e. an intention to give the following thoughts more weight). Yes, it's rhetorics 101.
I got to thinking about it though. To the best of my knowledge, there is no global preference in place to set which apps respond to which data sources. What I mean is, when I click on a link in an email, Safari opens the page. When I click on a phone number in google maps, an email or a web page, the phone app opens it. Same thing for music, podcasts, videos, etc. You get the idea.
Yes, and with a choice of different browser, it would be the same. Only the user would have chosen a different browser.
This is your premise to say what you say in the following paragraph, but alas, already now the contours of a logical leap is forming.
This keeps the phone simple, intuitive and predictable.
Partial conclusion. This is were one injects the notion, that if there are any other options, any other choice it will not be simple. But that is logical leap that has no bearing on reality. This is a problem since the entire argument is based on this false premise.
All the other apps I install are all for doing some *other* specific task than what is provided by the core applications/functionality. What would happen then if I loaded Opera, Konqueror, Firefox, etc. on the phone. Which one would open my web links? Obviously the one specified in my preferences (which don't exist).
This is where the poster tries to back up his false premise, by making yet another false assumption. It would be no problem implementing such a thing. The mere notion that it would be difficult or hard to implement is - as mentioned - a false assumptions that has no bearing on reality. Hell even my Samsung X820 (it's not 3G) can download and choose the Opera Mini Browser with no difficulties or bloat. There is no reason to believe this would be difficult to implement. And if you notice, the poster doesn't even argue as to WHY that would be hard to implement.
What if I wanted to open this particular link with FireFox this time? I can't right-click and say open link with. Do I have to quit the program, open preferences and temporarily select Firefox?
Ah, yes, that's a real killer. Very hard to implement
I can see a little bit of problem since there are no copy/paste, but really, it's not even close to an argument. In short: There are many ways one could implement this. But in reality, it's not even necessary, if we only talk about how people want to get to choose their own browser. We are talking about how people want a choice of which browser to use, not the implementation of a "dual browser experience". As such, this is a red herring that does not pertain to the problem. As I've said before, it's nothing but apologetic crappola.
I realize that it would be rather simple for Apple to address these issues and add this functionality, but once that camel's nose is under the tent you are now dealing with people demanding a preference and underlying mechanism for modifying the behavior of all the core functionalities. I want Skype to open when I touch a phone number in an email or on a web page (or in my address book), but I only want it to come up when I'm not connected to wireless.
Yet another pseudo argument, or red herring if you will. He's introducing many extras that does not pertain to the real argument at all, all in an effort to disprove the real argument. One might call this strawman argumentation and it would be dead on.
When I'm on wireless I want MyVOIP to make the calls. This also applies to which app you want sending emails, text messages, etc.
None of it applies to anything. It would only apply if people were asking those questions, but they're not. It's a misrepresentation.
While the geek in me can get into this sort of configurability, I've already seen the whole other level of complexity added to the preference system with just the addition of push and Exchange connectivity.
So, what he's saying is that Apple's preferences-design isn't really that well thought. That it sucks even with such simple things as the added exchange and push-panels.
That really is unfortunate, but it really bogs the mind, that instead of addressing that problem, the poster (and those who subscribes to these notions) tries to argue that even the simplest "add-ons" are a no-no. That, again, is a hardcore apologetic idiotic notion.
If users had to go through page after page of preferences just to find the right place to indicate which app they wanted to store their contacts in and have that tie into their Exchange push connection, it would be a nightmare.
See above. "Nightmare", lol.
I don't think the masses are ready for that or even really want it.
This is, of course, based on the above false premises and strawman argumentation, plus the notion that anything more complex than what the iPhone is capable of is off-limits to regular consumers. I guess that's why so many real smartphones have been sold. This is nothing more than an attempt to argue that people are stupid (he excempts himself, though, but still find it a "nightmare" to navigate the preferences), which, obviously is true, but not to the extent he's making it out to be.
That sort of complexity will make the iPhone just like every other smart phone out there.
LOL, I somehow missed that sentence on my previous read-throughs. So now it's a great feature that you don't get a choice?
I guess car companies should take that notion to heart. I bet they can sell more, if only they would begin to use slogans like "We won't give you a stereo, we won't give you a backseat, you will only have three wheels, and there will be no way of putting any of those things in our car. Oh, and it costs the same or more as our more full-featured competitors". Come on! How can anyone subscribe to nonsense like that?
My coworker was bragging up his WinMobile-based smartphone at lunch the other day. He was saying it could do so much more than the iPhone. I don't doubt it, but my god, the gyrations he had to go through to tweak a setting to get it to do things.
Nothing like an anecdote to back up ridiculous nonsense. Further, it's not even close to the truth. But again, it's like reading something someone on these forums would post: Apologetic pseudo argumentation backed up by anecdotes based on pure imagination and no real experience.
Just setting up a new wireless connection or a new IMAP email account seemed ridiculously complex.
No it's not.
He said it was just due to the fact that he'd downloaded other email apps and tools and that each one had a different place to set up some of the preferences.
Oh, so he's downloaded multiple apps, have no clue as to how to go into the prefs, and the posters now tries to drive his entire argument home with this apparently made up anecdote – with no experience of his own. I'm willing to bet the poster haven't even spend half an hour on a real smartphone.
Is there a place for a mobile device that lets a geek configure every possible thing and choose exactly which software performed what tasks? Absolutely. That place should rightly be filled by Android and matched with the particular hardware design that that geek has chosen for their particular needs/fetish. I don't think the iPhone is where it belongs.
What is this? Part of the argumentation? He's apparently trying to argue once again, that the lack of
basic features and a prefs panel that sucks are GREAT features of the iPhone.
It may be the height of irony but I can see the iPhone becoming the phone people refer to when they say "Dammit, all I want in my smart-phone is to be able to make calls, surf the web, email, mapping, music, games and movies! I don't want to have to mess with all that other crap." in the same way purists today say "I just want a phone that makes calls."
Oh, there it was. The end where he tries to speculate based on other groundless speculation.
!)
