Mossberg reviews Apple TV: "simple and elegant"
By Thomas Ricker 
posted March 21st 2007 8:08AM
posted March 21st 2007 8:08AM
Only Walt Mossberg's clout can muster up an Apple TV 10 days prior to its launch. So naturally, he and WSJ colleague Katherine Boehret were first-up with a review on Apple's initial living room sally. Their take? Well, they call the "beautifully designed, easy-to-use" Apple TV "classic Apple: simple and elegant." They tested on three Macs and three PCs (yes, running Vista too) running iTunes and successfully streamed data without stuttering over both 802.11n (as you'd hope) and even 802.11g WiFi. Oh sure, there were limitations: for example, you can't control the volume with Apple's remote and only trailers and "previews" of iTunes Store content can be streamed directly from the Apple TV interface. Although Walt expects the latter to change via a "software update" to give users the ability to stream or download a variety of content (like Google Video?) direct from the Internet. Oh, and what about that USB port on the back; that's for slinging additional disk capacity right? Nope, it's apparently only for service and diagnostics. Shame. Still, the Apple TV "worked great" for moving media off the home PC and onto the big (television) screen. As such, Walt and Co "can easily recommend it for people who are yearning for a simple way to show on their big TVs all that stuff trapped on their computers." Update: The Walt and "Katie" video review is now available after the break.
[Via MacRumors]
i dont see why apple made this. why so expensive? its just so limited. if someone described this product to me id be confused and startled when they told me the price. It MIGHT make sense if they were ALOT cheaper,like 50 bucks or so.
Does anyone know if the AppleTV offers any sort of screen saver or anti-burn-in capability for Plasma TVs? I've been thinking about putting one in my living room, but I'm worried about anything that will have lots of static text/images on it all the time.
why is everyone saying it is limited it plays all mp4 and mp3. it is easey to transfer any video to mp4. it is what i do so i can organize my videos in ITS and i do not even have an iPod.
http://www.videora.com/en-us/Converter/iPod/
#1 Falcon @ Mar 21st 2007 10:50AM
Okay, tell me why I can't just hook-up a Mac Mini to my Display/Monitor/TV setup instead?
So my point made plenty of sense... i was telling him he cant just assume that he can hook up a mac mini to his tv because not all tv's support a DVI connection. If that still doesnt make sense take a DVI cable and try to connect it to a TV that doesn't have a DVI video input and tell me how that goes.
"And don't give me that 'TVersity can play everything!!' because TVersity is low resolution and choppy. "
I dunno about that but it's probably only a matter of time before tversity could support apple tv.
"I'm not a huge Apple 'fanboy', but all of your other 'better' solutions are limited in some way, just like Apple TV is. It's simply to get your iTunes stuff on your TV. It's not the end-all solution."
Most of those other solutions (all those Divx files) require people to pirate content or otherwise rip it themselves. Or if they're savvy enough, they can find divx VOD downloads that can work. The itunes content is key. All other solutions mentioned except for the xbox 360 offer no means of downloading content legitimately and playing it back.
AppleTV looks like a very quality, elegent (yes that word does mean something) product that does what it's supposed to do. Yes I'm an Apple fanboy.
BUT... I think this product will not be too successful. It costs WAY too much for what it is, which in all honesty is nothing more than a glorified AV adapter. This type of device should be $150 or less. Apple should sell it at a loss and use their increased movie sales as revenue. I'd buy this for $99. I won't even consider it at $299.
And I still don't understand why you can't just plug a Mac Mini into a TV and use Front Row. People can say AppleTV is easier. Not really. Plug in power, video, audio, network. Same thing for both. I don't get it. A Mac Mini can run on its own without another computer running. A Mac Mini has a hard drive which can store it's own content. A Mac Mini can play DVDs and CDs directly. The idea of spending $299 for an AppleTV when you can get a Mac Mini for just a little bit more is crazy.
Apple TV this or the other way around - what still makes me surprised is why almost everyone seems to digg the small size of the ATV. My DVD carry the common 17" width, and so do my cd-player, my reciever, my MD-deck etc. If I had the opportunity my Xbox would carry the same 17" width and would Apple offer the ATV also in 17" width it would be my primary choice.
Am I the only one wishing they are going to release a Blue-Ray or HD-DVD player for that USB port?
And here comes Apple late to the game with an MP3 player that has a limiting 5gb hard drive? What's that all about... My creative Nomad has been doing this forever and with way more storage - why would I want to buy that stupid "iPod" anyhow...
Valid criticism of the iPod to be sure. If Apple hadn't addressed its shortcomings in future versions the iPod may well have failed. Same goes for Apple's latest and greatest first generation products, only now Apple has larger, more mature competitors than Creative to contend with.
And here comes Apple late to the game with an MP3 player that has a limiting 5gb hard drive? What's that all about... My creative NOMAD has been doing this forever and with way more storage - why would I want to buy that stupid "iPod" anyhow...
"Hilarious .... some of you are so dull and clueless .... (you know who you are)
Comparing this to 'Media Center' ? Can you not read the details? Jeezzz .......
Go ahead, sit back and wait 3 years for Microsoft to clone it, and make it brown. "
This is essentially just a media extender for iTunes. Microsoft has had media extenders out on the market for quite a while. Windows CE has a component called NMD that does streams content off of machines running windows media connect (which is built into WMP 11, or a standalone component pre-11). OEMs have been shipping products using this for some time. Samsung has plasma TVs with this functionality from MS built in (though not in the US market). The 360 streams media in the same fashion as appletTV + lets you buy content directly. The ONLY thing MS is not currently doing that the apple tv does do is allow playback of itunes marketplace content, which I don't see happening soon. So in short, Apple is more cloning existing solutions available from MS than the other way around.
And as others have already intimated, posting a review of an Apple product by Mossberg is pretty useless. You would get the same review from Steve Jobs himself. Mossberg doesn't hide his bias very well, and it makes his reviews worthless. Here Here to the arstechnica shoutout earlier in the thread. That will be your best bet for a trustworthy review of the product.
"Finally, what's the point about "a media center"."
Assuming you have content on your computer, the media center lets you stream it to a TV... presumably a bigger, better screen than your monitor.
"iTunes is simply an app that is integral to the AppleTV. How is that any different that competing products that have existed for years?"
Because those other products for the most part do not enable you to obtain legit content for those devices, and if you do have video content to stream to it, the reliability can be iffy with software updates, codec support and whatnot. Appletv will work with all itunes content.
Personally I think this is overpriced. A 360 with tversity offers different trade offs (not as reliable or pretty but works without needing to manually transcode video to new formats) and if you rely solely on WMP11/Zune software, it's not so good. those nextgear/dlink/linksys streamers offer identical trade offs.
If MS made the Zune software work with the 360 in the same way that itunes works with this device- imagine taking XBLM videos and transferring them to your zune (all 20 of you with a zune) or streaming zune market videos to the 360. This would be very detrimental to the apple tv product.
I don't think you understand. Are we talking about "a media center" generically or are we talking about a "Media Center" as in the Microsoft brand? An appleTV is not a media center in the generic sense nor is it equivalent to a Microsoft Media Center.
"Assuming you have content on your computer, the media center lets you stream it to a TV... presumably a bigger, better screen than your monitor."
What do you mean by "the media center"? I understand the functions of an appleTV since they are the same as a "Media Center Extender", i.e. the Microsoft version. It makes no sense to think of an appleTV as a media center. It's a remote video/audio head for iTunes that uses a TV.
"Because those other products for the most part do not enable you to obtain legit content for those devices..."
That's an arbitrary distinction. Windows Media Center has software that allows you to obtain "legit" content and stream it to its appleTV equivalent. Apple does this within iTunes, the same app that exports the content. MS exports the data with one app and obtains it with another. So what?
"...and if you do have video content to stream to it, the reliability can be iffy with software updates, codec support and whatnot."
Lost me there. What are you trying to say? That the Apple solution is better because you can't extend it? You think that Media Center Extenders are any different? Just because iTunes is involved is no promise that content will be playable unless, of course, you only get content from Apple. No thanks. You can convert your own content using 3rd party tools and export the results into iTunes. In that respect the Apple and MS solutions are identical.
"Appletv will work with all itunes content."
I should hope so.
"If MS made the Zune software work with the 360 in the same way that itunes works with this device- imagine taking XBLM videos and transferring them to your zune (all 20 of you with a zune) or streaming zune market videos to the 360. This would be very detrimental to the apple tv product."
You seem to think that the implementation Apple chooses is somehow superior to the MS approach. Apple has built their server into iTunes whereas MS has not done the same with WMP. That detail is ultimately meaningless. Frankly, I don't care for Microsoft's product nor do I like extenders in general. This Apple version isn't doing anything that MS hasn't already been doing (poorly).
K, I should have expanded on that. Apple didn't invent USB, it had it's own ADB. However, what I was saying, is that Apple was the 'first to bring' USB to personal consumer computers, first with a mouse, first with a GUI, first to NOT have floppies, etc. Apple DID invent Firewire.
Apple was not first to bring USB to personal computers. Microsoft was late providing support for USB but PC manufacturers had been shipping the hardware for the better part of a year prior to Apple's first shipments. USB peripherals that Apple took advantage of were all developed and tested on PCs. Apple took advantage and made good press out of USB, that's all. All the heavy lifting was done by Intel, Dell, etc.
Apple developed firewire but abandoned it. Sony picked it up out of its need for an inexpensive digital solution for its new DV standard. Sony drove its final development and standardization through IEEE. Apple retained the name (firewire) but was not even first to offer IEEE-1394 in a personal computer (although it was first to integrate it). Sorry, but Apple is not primarily responsible for 1394, Sony is. There would be no 1394 without Sony, but there would be an equivalent without Apple.
As for "first to bring" to "personal consumer computers", that sounds like Apple apologencia. If you define a market narrowly enough, anyone can be first. I realize this is a common stategy that Apple and its cheerleaders employ, but it doesn't change history one bit. Apple claims it was the first to ship a personal "supercomputer" and the first to ship multiprocessor personal computers as well. Those, like the others you mentioned, are simply marketing lies.
You're characterization of Apple is a little wrong. Apple never says "we invented this, we invented that". Fans might say that, but Apple doesn't use the word invent when they didn't.
They say they were the first to bring it to the mainstream. "Apple brought you..." You can say that's misleading, but it's really not.
And they're mostly right. USB was not commonplace until the iMac. Firewire devices were not commonplace until Apple made it standard on their machines.
How many families had a dual-processor computer running in their living room before the late model G4s? Seriously. Sure they exitsted in business for high end purposes. But they were not the norm. Now, many years later, Intel Core Duos are the standard in the majority of new machines.
Now look at the iPhone. Jobs is completely right. I've been using HTC phones for years now. Browsing the web is horrible. Listenting to music is painful. I love how customizable the phone is. But rarely use those features. It's just too much work. Now if the iPhone's soft keyboard works as well as they say (we'll have to wait and see), the iPhone will truly be a revolutionary device bringing non-WAP web pages on your phone, and a music browser that is way beyond anything on a phone.
So flash forward 2, 5, 10 years from now, when Apple says "We were the first brought you web browsing on a phone" and someone hear says "Stupid Apple fanboys, I was browsing the web on my Treo years before the iPhone existed". How do you feel about that? Sure, others did it first for SOME people. A very small minority. But if the iPhone works out, Apple will be able to rightfully say they "brought it to you first" where "you" is the mainstream public who never bothered with WAP browsers before because they sucked.
"You're characterization of Apple is a little wrong. Apple never says "we invented this, we invented that". Fans might say that, but Apple doesn't use the word invent when they didn't."
Perhaps you should watch the iPhone instroduction again. "Change the world", "revolutionary", "breakthrough", "Apple reinvents the phone"...this is the hyperbole Apple uses. I haven't mischaracterized Apple, I've understated them. Yes Apple zealots say it too, but Apple carefully nurtures the bullshit.
"USB was not commonplace until the iMac."
That doesn't mean the iMac had anything to do with it. USB would be no different today if Apple had ignored the standard. Apple contributed nothing to USB, it only took from it and now takes credit for all the work done by the PC world.
"Firewire devices were not commonplace until Apple made it standard on their machines."
Again, not true. Firewire became ubiquitous because Sony integrated it into the DV standard. Consumer electronics established firewire, not computers, and there would never have been integrated firewire if there weren't devices that a computer could use through it.
"How many families had a dual-processor computer running in their living room before the late model G4s?"
I did. I owned a Dell DP Pentium medium desktop, a machine designed specifically for desktop use, prior to the existance of the G4. Unlike the dual G4, my machine ran an operating system that could actually use multiple processors, so I actually got benefit from the second proc outside of contrived Photoshop benchmarks. Keep in mind that the dual G4 came into existance only after the PowerPC had hopelessly lost the CPU race and it was the only Apple could do to minimize how badly it was getting stomped.
How many families had dual-processor computers after the dual G4s? Considering Apple's anemic marketshare at the time, the argument is silly. MP machines did not become commonplace until the advent of multicore. The credit for that does not go to Apple despite their, and your, hyperbole.
"Now look at the iPhone. Jobs is completely right...Browsing the web is horrible. Listenting to music is painful."
I don't recall Jobs saying that but I've heard people say Jobs is "completely right" many times. Doesn't make it so. The truly unique thing about the iPhone is the iPod connector. I've never had a problem listening to music on a cell phone, much less have it be painful, and there's no evidence that the iPhone browser is better than what already exists. Nokia has a tremendous browserin their phones. HTC isn't the beginning and end of the cellphone experience and neither is the iPhone.
"Now if the iPhone's soft keyboard works as well as they say..."
Of course they say that. Companies never lie, do they? Ever used a soft keyboard before? How is Apple's different? Did you watch the demos? The answer is "no different".
"I love how customizable the phone is. But rarely use those features. It's just too much work."
Curious that you have couched the iPhone's lack of configurability as an advantage. Adding apps to your HTC is too much work for you? Perhaps you shouldn't be using a cellphone at all then. Jeez...
"How do you feel about that?"
I feel it would be in character for Apple to make an outrageous lie like that.
"Sure, others did it first for SOME people. A very small minority."
Yes, well claiming to be first means there was no one before you, not that you can ignore those who did it before you because it is inconvenient to your lie. Speaking of a very small minority, isn't that who Apple is? What's their cellphone marketshare? Zero, that's what it is, and yet web browsing on cell phones is already established. Are you going to explain to me now how Apple is going to be the first to do it?
"But if the iPhone works out, Apple will be able to rightfully say they "brought it to you first" where "you" is the mainstream public who never bothered with WAP browsers before because they sucked."
That's a big "if" and it's still a lie. It does sound like something an Apple fanboy, which you clearly are, would say. Apple is the first because everyone that did it before them sucked. Never mind that the iPhone is going to suck worse as a text device and web browsing relies on text input.
Keep telling yourself that Apple is the true innovator and that it does everything first. The more you tell a lie the more it's believed, and the more it's believed the more the lie is told. Soon enough it will be adopted as fact by rabid fans into folklore. How else has it come to be known that Apple is responsible for USB when it did nothing to further USB. How else could it be believed that Apple was first with firewire when the interface was ubiquitous for years before Apple offered it. How else could Apple introduce the world's first personal supercomputer and world's first multiprocessor desktop when it did no such thing. How else could Apple claim to have changed the way the world listens to music when the iPod itself was a ripoff of devices that had already existed for years (and used a 3rd party to do it at that!). Now Apple is reinventing the phone even though there is nothing new in the iPhone at all except for the Apple hype.
look at it the other way around: buying movies/series on the iTunes store is potentially interesting for _everyone_. But as long as you can only watch on your computer it's a niche market of geeks.
The Apple TV makes the iTunes store interesting for everyone else.
I am a geek but I am not going to pay for the latest episodes on 24 and then watch them on the tiny laptop screen with tinny speakers. Hooking up the computer to the TV is painful and unsatisfying, makes for an equally crappy experience. Enter Apple TV. Download content. Go to TV later than evening and enjoy it - end of story. It's the only way this can take off really... should be obvious.
Apple TV looks like a winner to me because:
*$300 is a relatively accessible price
*Fits with how people watch TV and use their iPods
*Simple, limited functionality
Simplicity of function can't be overestimated in its importance in disrupting markets. Think about the music business: Apple dominates the download market now. Meanwhile sales of conventional CDs are down 20% year to date. The simplicity of the iPod has a lot to do with that.
There are some weaknesses in Apple TV sure, but check out the details on how it rates an A- on the Disruption Scorecard:
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2007/03/video_apple_tv_.html
Mike
www.OnDisruption.com
Tell you what, give me the names of everybody who wants and Apple TV, and I'll buy an Xbox, install XBMC, add a wireless USB dongle and an IR remote, then pocket half of the $300 they were going to spend. Oh, and it will play DVDs and Xbox games as a bonus.
Here we go.
"Perhaps you should watch the iPhone instroduction again. "Change the world", "revolutionary", "breakthrough", "Apple reinvents the phone"...this is the hyperbole Apple uses. I haven't mischaracterized Apple, I've understated them. Yes Apple zealots say it too, but Apple carefully nurtures the bullshit."
They're usually right. You haven't disputed me. Re-invent is not the same as invent. Revolutionary means just that. It changes the mainstream. Many of their claims are founded. Yes, it over-the-top and arrogant, but it's generally accurate.
"That doesn't mean the iMac had anything to do with it. USB would be no different today if Apple had ignored the standard. Apple contributed nothing to USB, it only took from it and now takes credit for all the work done by the PC world."
What's your point? iMac was the first mainstream PC to use USB. Nobody said USB wouldn't have existed without the iMac. The point they make is they had the foresight and the good sense to jump on it quickly. I'll say one thing. A while back, for an odd reason I needed a USB keyboard and mouse on my PC (yes, I use Windows XP at home - surprised?). For a long while, you could not find a USB keyboard or mouse other than the ones "meant for Macs" (like from Macally and Kennsington). Without iMac's USB, those products wouldn't have been mass-produced. It wasn't till much later MS, Logitech, etc. started making USB keyboards and mice.
"I did. I owned a Dell DP Pentium medium desktop, a machine designed specifically for desktop use, prior to the existance of the G4. Unlike the dual G4, my machine ran an operating system that could actually use multiple processors, so I actually got benefit from the second proc outside of contrived Photoshop benchmarks. Keep in mind that the dual G4 came into existance only after the PowerPC had hopelessly lost the CPU race and it was the only Apple could do to minimize how badly it was getting stomped."
Ok. You had a DP at home. You and.... crickets. It started with the G4. The G5 (which for a brief time was the most powerful processor when it came out) soon became only available as DP. Apple has a right to take some credit for proving that DP is something regular folks would use.
"Curious that you have couched the iPhone's lack of configurability as an advantage. Adding apps to your HTC is too much work for you? Perhaps you shouldn't be using a cellphone at all then. Jeez..."
You don't wanna go there. You're too much of a geek. I am too, but I respect the fact that Apple knows how to make things streamlined and easy for regular people. My Cingular 8525. Let me see. Where to begin. First I had to install Wisebar and Wisebar Desktop so it wouldn't look like a relic from the 90's. It only crashes once in a while. Then I had to install HTC X button so I could actually quit programs without going into the task manager. Too bad it only works when I use the stylus. The BT stack was flawed, so my BT radio shut off everytime I switched from a 3G area to a non-3G area. And the advertised A2P skiped constantly, making it useless for music. The ROM update fixed this, but I had to get it from XDA-Developers since frickin HTC and Cingular haven't made it available yet. The popups telling me I'm connecting are horrible. Pocket IE is unbelievably crippled and slow. Minimo doesn't even work, and Opera is incompatible with many websites. WAP in general is a total joke. Putting the phone in your pocket is a disaster if left on. You'll end up dialing ex-girlfriends and 911. Putting it to sleep is the only option. Too bad if you recieve a call (and leave it in your pocket cause you use BT) then it stays awake even after the call has ended. The list of horrible, horrible design decisions found within WM5 goes on, and on, and on.
The iPhone uses the real www and provides a reasonable method for viewing a full web page on a small screen. It's quick, opens up apps quickly, and is clearly the best music player anywhere, not just on a phone. The scrolling is without a doubt massively superior to wheels and buttons as far as navigating long lists. This IS REVOLUTIONARY. Like it or not. There will be widgets to do almost anything you need, and having a real web browser actually allows much more possibilities than the 3rd party software you can get for WM5. Sure, I could install a POS gameboy emulator that usually crashes on my WM. Probably won't be able to do that on an iPhone. But who cares? I could go to browser based emulator and accomplish the same thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd parties could write java based apps. So I completely fail to see any advantage of my 8525 whatsoever other than 3G (which I'm sure the next iPhone will support).
"Yes, well claiming to be first means there was no one before you, not that you can ignore those who did it before you because it is inconvenient to your lie. Speaking of a very small minority, isn't that who Apple is? What's their cellphone marketshare? Zero, that's what it is, and yet web browsing on cell phones is already established. Are you going to explain to me now how Apple is going to be the first to do it?"
Apple contends that nobody has done it... done it right that is. For all practical purposes, nobody browses the real internet on their phone. And you really can't do it on WM without hacking the registry. Most sites re-direct to the WAP site otherwise. Even with the hack, it's almost impossible to navigate. Many people may check sports scores, stock prices using WAP which is very useful. And yes, email is very common and established - although many people don't even realize they have it cause they think they need a blackberry. But the REAL www, not wap - nobody uses it on a phone. Nobody. You can say you do, and I can say once in a while man bites dog. For all practical purposes, it's fair to say "nobody uses it". The iPhone can and probably will change this, giving you the real internet on a phone, something nobody else has even come close to properly providing. Granted, Opera Mini is an improvement over PIE, but it's an oddball program 999 out of 1000 smartphone users have never even heard of. Even then, it's nowhere near the level of usability that the iPhone's version of Safari appears to accomplish.
"You haven't disputed me."
I offered no diatribe on Apple's use of "invent" in the first place. You're free to buy into Apple's hyperbole. BTW, "reinvent" means to "invent again", so Apple did claim to invent the phone (again). You haven't disputed me either nor proved that I misrepresented Apple.
"What's your point?"
I made that clear.
"iMac was the first mainstream PC to use USB"
No, it wasn't. Dell, HP, IBM, and everyone else using the current Intel chipsets was shipping USB already. It was Microsoft that was late. The iMac was the first "legacy free" PC (but of course it had no legacy to contend with). Calling it the first mainstream one when Apple had 2 percent marketshare is a stretch, but then that wiggle-word is just there for you disqualify any machine that was actually there before the iMac, right?
"For a long while, you could not find a USB keyboard or mouse other than the ones "meant for Macs" (like from Macally and Kennsington)."
Bullshit. That shows how little you know about USB. USB was specifically designed to be cheap and to offer a very low cost solution for keyboards. USB has a specially designed, low data rate mode specifically for those devices and keyboards/mice were the first USB devices in existence (long before the iMac). I should know since I worked in development labs where those devices were tested. Surprised?
What the iMac caused was a market to spring up for brightly colored USB peripherals.
"Ok. You had a DP at home. You and.... crickets. It started with the G4."
Sure, it started with Apple despite evidence to the contrary. You're a true, dedicated fanboy and there's no truth but the Apple truth. I will say this, no PC went DP because it was hopelessly behind in processor power. Apple did invent that. Windows NT was written and running on MP machines from the beginning and I participated in a development proposal for an MP system for Microsoft back in 1988 (for OS/2) and worked on MP 386 machines at my job. Apple's DP G4 was an act of desperation, not innovation, and was by no means first or of any ultimate consequence. Spin that story all you want but it's still a dog.
"Apple has a right to take some credit for proving that DP is something regular folks would use."
No they don't. Apple's OS and their "regular folk" software couldn't take advantage of DP until OS X. PCs had been doing DP for most of a decade by then. Nice try, but you aren't going to get there.
"You don't wanna go there. You're too much of a geek. I am too..."
Not as evidenced by your total lack of understanding of DP and USB. Perhaps you simply haven't seen your 20th birthday and those technologies are too old for you. Doesn't explain why you can't operate a smartphone though.
"...but I respect the fact that Apple knows how to make things streamlined and easy for regular people. "
Sorry, that's an opinion not a fact. Furthermore, you change the subject. Your argument was that smartphones were too hard to customize.
"Then I had to install HTC X button so I could actually quit programs without going into the task manager."
I'm sure you won't need to do that on the iPhone... ;-) OS X has the same policy toward app closure as WM5 does.
"Pocket IE is unbelievably crippled and slow."
It's not "unbelievably" crippled. More like "believably" crippled, and Apple's will be too. Sure they say it will be the first "fully featured" browser but what exactly does that mean? Hell, Safari isn't even good on mac OS X. Meanwhile, there are already good browsers even if your 8525 doesn't have one.
I had an 8525 predecessor once and threw it away because it was so bad. Don't think that's the state of the art. It does have one thing the iPhone won't--a usable keyboard.
"Putting the phone in your pocket is a disaster if left on"
I'm sure Apple has a sure-fire solution to that considering their near-total lack of hard keys. Nothing like a pure touchscreen interface to lock the touchscreen... ;-)
"The list of horrible, horrible design decisions found within WM5 goes on, and on, and on."
You have not used WM5, only one WM5 device. I felt the same way until I tried a Samsung i320 and T-mobile Dash. They are far superior to your device. There are other devices not using WM5 as well. It's a big market and Apple has none of it.
"The iPhone uses the real www and provides a reasonable method for viewing a full web page on a small screen."
Save me the regurgitation of the Apple hype. I've seen the demos and I've heard the Jobs spew. No such thing as "real www" and "reasonable method". Judge the iPhone on its merits when it comes out. It doesn't even exist yet.
"This IS REVOLUTIONARY. Like it or not."
A device that doesn't exist isn't REVOLUTIONARY. When it does, it will be a cell phone with a music player. It won't result in anything better than good marketshare. "Revolutionary" requires a substantial change in how people go about their business. It's an iPod, not a car, and iPods weren't revolutionary when they came out. This isn't even revolutionary for an iPod. If it had a keyboard I'd want one, but that doesn't mean it's special.
"I could go to browser based emulator and accomplish the same thing."
With no user interface controls I'd say you were wrong.
"And I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd parties could write java based apps."
And you'd be wrong again. Apple has made it clear--no 3rd party apps and no java. You need to stop strokin your iPhone hard-on. Apple won't allow 3rd parties to develop since it needs to carefully limit functionality. In other words, it specifically won't do everything you might want to do, VoIP for instance. Where's iChat?
"So I completely fail to see any advantage of my 8525 whatsoever other than 3G (which I'm sure the next iPhone will support)."
So do I. Your device is horrible and not the best the market offers. It doesn't surprise me that you chose it considering your inadequate discriminatory powers.
"Apple contends that nobody has done it... done it right that is."
Yes, they use weasel words, like you, and they are lying. There's already even a webkit-based mobile browser on the market. That would be the same core code that is used by Apple to make their claim in the first place. Is the iPhone going to support flash in their browser? If not, how is that doing it right?
"For all practical purposes, nobody browses the real internet on their phone. And you really can't do it on WM without hacking the registry."
That is complete bullshit! Are lies all you have to offer?
"Most sites re-direct to the WAP site otherwise."
Really? Most sites don't even have WAP redirects.
"Even with the hack, it's almost impossible to navigate."
And Apple has fixed this how?
"But the REAL www, not wap - nobody uses it on a phone."
You are wrong. The big impediments to web usage on a phone are speed and screen size. Apple has not improved the speed but it has address the screen. Of course, there are already WM5/WM6 phones that offer larger, higher resolution screens than the iPhone but let's not let facts rain on the iPhone parade.
"The iPhone can and probably will change this, giving you the real internet on a phone, something nobody else has even come close to properly providing."
Even granting your hallucinations regarding people's usage and your imaginary belief in a "real internet" seperate from the one that ultimately no one uses on phones, just how will the iPhone change this? They're using the same hardware platform as everyone else, they're using a limited codebase, they aren't supporting plugins, they have a more limited UI than other platforms, they have limited memory like everyone else, and they aren't supporting 3G data. Everything indicates that web browsing will suck just as much except that you'll have 2 little screen's worth rather than one. Sorry, but Apple's doing nothing for web browsing that isn't being done by others. The proof is in the result.
"Even then, it's nowhere near the level of usability that the iPhone's version of Safari appears to accomplish."
How do you know? You've never seen the device and no one else has either.
And I forgot, Firewire. You're wrong. I'm not talking about Sony CE devices. You had to buy a firewire card to capture DV on Windows. No x86 machines came with FW. Only Macs came with firewire. And because of it, people made firewire hard drives. You think firewire hard drives would even exist if Macs didn't adopt it? Not a chance. Everyone would have just waited for USB 2.0.
The thing is, you're not looking at the big picture. You're not being pragmatic. You're stuck in a geek world and it bugs you that most people aren't as smart as you to know that these things existed long before Apple made them popular or cool. Hey, I know the feeling. I had a Rio way before the iPod came out. But the reason most people don't realize this stuff is because Apple is very good at successfully bringing these things to the mainstream and making them comfortable using it. Microsoft blows at this. They absolutely blow at it. I applaud many things they do and I'm not some ignorant fan (people who are fans of anything other than sports teams or their kids are complete idiots in my book). I don't make Zune or Vista jokes on blogs like so many other idiots out there. And I do get annoyed when people say you need a new computer for Vista. I own an Xbox 360, use XP at home, and of course I have a WM5 phone which despite all my complaints is a pretty remarkable device. But MS consistently make poor design decisions. Time and time again. They don't understand how to make technology communicate well with people. There are exceptions and they're doing better as of late, but its not the norm for them. Apple on the other hand hardly ever makes a poor design decision. In fact I can't think of one.
"No, it wasn't. Dell, HP, IBM, and everyone else using the current Intel chipsets was shipping USB already. It was Microsoft that was late."
Exactly. No MS support means the iMac functioned with USB first. This gives them the right to say they brought you USB.
"Bullshit. That shows how little you know about USB. USB was specifically designed to be cheap and to offer a very low cost solution for keyboards."
You're the one spewing bullshit. You know exactly what I'm talking about. When USB first arrived, who was making USB keyboards and mice besides Apple, Macally, and Kennsington? Nobody. Macally and Kensington made them specifically for Macs. The keyboards are Mac layouts. The point was that if iMac didn't have the first functional USB, those devices would never have been made with USB. And it would have been a longer wait for the first USB input devices.
""real www" and "reasonable method". Judge the iPhone on its merits when it comes out. It doesn't even exist yet.
Yes there is. Again, you know what I'm talking about but you're just arguing for the sake of it. There's a distinct difference between WAP and regular web sites. The iPhone exists, it hasn't been released yet. It's functionality is clearly demonstrated during the keynote. So there's PLENTY to judge already.
"I'm sure Apple has a sure-fire solution to that considering their near-total lack of hard keys. Nothing like a pure touchscreen interface to lock the touchscreen.."
Yes, they do. It has an ambient light sensor that automatically locks the screen when you put it to your ear or when you put it in your pocket. WM5 is so goddamn stupid about device lock it makes me sick. It's pretty much impossible to do without a stylus.
"Really? Most sites don't even have WAP redirects."
Have fun browsing those on your current phone. You wanna nitpick. Fine, I'll rephrase. Many, many sites which people go to daily have a WAP version. Without installing additional software or providing a reg hack, you can't go to those on phones. You're stuck using the WAP site.
"Apple won't allow 3rd parties to develop since it needs to carefully limit functionality. In other words, it specifically won't do everything you might want to do, VoIP for instance. Where's iChat?"
Well aren't you selective. So it's okay for you to make these judgment calls on a phone that "doesn't even exist yet". We'll see what kind of development is available on the iPhone. Whether Apple allows it or not, I doubt we'll be that limited. One thing I can say is the likely popularity and large community of iPhone owners will vastly increase the likelihood of someone creating workarounds to any limitations. There is an OSX version of Skype. I'm sure people will be hard at work making a hacked version of it that will work on an iPhone.
"That is complete bullshit! Are lies all you have to offer?"
Is that your response? Are you kidding? How exactly is that lying?
"And Apple has fixed this how?"
Watch the keynote smart guy. The iPhone shows a full web page on the screen. You can zoom in and navigate with your fingers using the touchscreen. WM devices, or any other devices don't provide this massive improvement to the experience.
"Of course, there are already WM5/WM6 phones that offer larger, higher resolution screens than the iPhone but let's not let facts rain on the iPhone parade."
Too bad you can't take advantage of them. Scrolling is a bitch if it isn't done right. You should watch the keynote again. Watch how easily he navigates NYT and Fandango.