Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

Hey! I've been at one of Dr Hawking's conferences. He's funny, and I'm not talking about his voice synthesizer.

So you're actually offending Dr Hawking, by comparing his wit with the absence of aforementioned in the Nokia drones.

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

HaHa. Yea right. After what Apple and Nokia/Symbian did this year, and if Linux-based Intel MIDs go as planned next year, Windows doesn't have a chance of dominating the mobile device market.

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

What do you mean by this? Yes, they are going slow, but that is just a consequence of their strategy and not the objective in and of itself. What is the rationale? Is it that they are unwilling to pour $$$ into SW development for fear of no ROI? Is it that they think there is not a profitable market yet? (see http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/...ks-2008-mobile for WiMax analogy) Is it that they are unwilling to do advertising and marketing? Nokia DOES, when it wants to, develop and roll out products very quickly. So why not the IT?

As to some of the other comments (good thread btw), you seem to be measuring success, and right or wrong, merely by number of units sold. Probably the correct measure for most people, but for those of us who look at innovation for innovation's sake, the correlation between commercial success and innovation is notoriously low. As of right now, my inclination is to say that (not taking away from one earlier brilliant design which I will not name) Nokia innovated and proved the viability of touchscreen mobile devices with the 7700 in 2003 and the 770 in 2005. This is the case whether they sold 1,000 in a year or 1,000,000 in a quarter. And, no offense intended to their good work,Apple's first sale was 18 months later and noteworthy merely as a better implementation of the touchscreen UI.

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

No, it actually is an objective.

You'd have to work here, I guess... :rolleyes:

I've actually come to at least understand the rationale I've been given, but that doesn't constitute full agreement. I think there's a better approach, but then, I'm just a pissant tech guy. ;)

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

The Finns should make all their presentations in June. You'd be amazed at the difference when warm sunlight finally hits them. It's like... flowers opening. Balloons expanding. Musical notes crescendo-ing. Crazy stuff. You'd think you were in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. Months of frozen, pent-up frustration vents like male 40 year old virgins in a free whorehouse.

I'd recommend July as even better, but the whole friggin' country goes on mass vacation, leaving us nose-grinding Americans to run things for a month.

Hmmm... I just had an evil thought... :D

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

Two days after the fact, I know, but I could not agree more.

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

The phone is relevant in terms of platform control, something Apple have been very clear about from day one yet it hasn't stopped them selling product like hot cakes. The phone - or in actuality, the business model of kick backs which underlies the Apple iPhone business model - is the reason Apple have to apply constraints on the functionality that is allow to appear on the platform. Perhaps this will hurt Apple in the long term, perhaps not. Time will tell but I honestly doubt the lack of IM will hurt iPhones sales much if at all, even assuming Apple attempt to prevent IM which is by no means clear (we're just guessing here).

At the end of the day, the Apple restrictions thus far haven't stopped iPhones becoming successful, which to me just goes to show that open platforms won't be successful simply because they are open - well designed closed platforms can and will beat most open platforms quite comfortably, particularly badly designed open platforms. Why? Because *most* people don't care about open platforms. They just see good design and bad design, and choose with their wallets accordingly.

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

In an unprecedented recent community action, the release of a proprietary VM layer with an unclear license and a time bomb (May 30th) with no direct interoperability to the Maemo OS, is received with great fanfare as NIT users are exposed to the 12 years old PalmOS.

Despite not taking advantage of the NIT's main physical advantage, namely the crisp high resolution screen, users seem to be able to look past that and sees the practical aspects of Palm OS apps.

I wonder if this has any impact on the development of NIT apps. Will they emulate their Palm OS predecessor more? Will some projects cease to move or slows down considerably due to the appearance of a working alternative? One of the biggest motivation for non-commercial project is for the creator to scratch their particular itch. Well, the Palm OS has scratched the itches of millions of users for the last decade.

PS: In other news, flying pigs were spotted near Des Moines this morning.

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

i think there are a whole lot of experienced palm users in the itt community, thats all...

Re: iPod Touch (threads merged)
 

Sure; because that way you get both good apps (with low-res) where none were available, and good apps (with high-res) where they are available... I don't think many people are planning on doing web browsing, or photo viewing, from in GVM; mapping is probably split, if the GPS works with any mapping programs in GVM, and PIM will be largely accomplished with GVM.
No; nothing here is about any superiority of Palm OS; it's about the existing apps.
Probably, particularly PIM; maybe some other stuff too.Yes, but Palm OS, with the devices it runs on, has some serious deficiencies. Emulating Palm OS can help reduce some of the device deficiencies, but impairs performance somewhat right now. The itches that were well and truly scratched are likely to come over with the GVM; but a lot of stuff was crammed into the Palms because that was the only reasonable hand-held platform for the authors, but may have still been cramped and sub-optimal. These things, if the N800 is a better fit, will probably be ported or reimplemented. (If they aren't already.)

People are happy with dosbox, VGBA, etc., but they don't abandon native game programming/ports. Instead, people are more concerned with porting Q2, ROTT, etc. instead of frogger et al.; why should this emulator be any different?

And a substantial part of any effort diverted from one project on account of a replacement is likely to go to some other open-source project. Programming isn't the sort of thing where you just pick it up because something annoys you enough, and then stop when the annoyance departs; open-source developers are developers; they've made the investment to be able to program, and will probably continue working on projects that scratch lower itches.
That would be unexpected; people being just as excited about a GVM release with full-screen mode and better performance as they were about the initial release is not.