While a % of vocal Apple fans actually feel proud to be associated with being first in the queue to lay hands on their product, often camping outside shops for hours together, a significant % hate being called fanboys. And, yet, the way they eulogise and deify the firm leaves far less for imagination. The self proclaimed fans are lot easier to deal with and understandable than the subtle kind, who neither want to form objective views nor seem to let other people make so. I call them iSupplicants.
Take for instance, this blog entry. What an unconcealed arrogance in saying >>The obvious, and most direct, contrast is between Apple and Google (and their hardware minions); lately played out in the tablet arena as the battle between the iPad and Motorola Xoom<<
Mr.Marko, the minions (err.. did you want to say menials ? you may as well have in less complicated times!) you have talked about are indeed the same who supply your high priests at Apple too, with their much needed components.
So, how exactly does all this mumbo jumbo about ‘User Experience’ pan out; let’t have a common sense take on this.
For one, yes, let’s admit the fact that Apple have indeed, time and again, proved their credentials in terms of minimalist/ elegant design, creating products that most people may deem beautifully crafted. No denying that credit. They have been thought leaders in design.
However, have they always hit the ground running, with just good looks and so called user experience without path breaking specs to boot ? Are there parts of that user experience – let’s say, speed/ responsiveness, that’s not just a outcome of design & code, but also the processor and RAM that lie behind the scene ? Of course, yes.
When the original iPhone launched, what sort of processors were competition using ? Let’s say, Nokia N95 ? Did ‘speed’ not count as much as the attractive layout of icons on dark background ?
The fact still remains that, besides all the thought process that goes into building a great interface, specs does matter. It has always mattered. Apple has been quite keen to thump desk if they break record of sorts – like Retina Display. Who on earth would have thought it necessary to pack in so many pixels for a 3.5″ display screen. Well, because Apple thought it necessary (perhaps an easy, unnecessary quick-win!) to invent terms like that and go great lengths extolling its virtue ad nauseum.
Have a look at this link, from a person with more balanced view than above.
>> have to wonder if any of these people complaining have ever used a tablet to take a picture. It’s the most awkward activity ever. Tablets are way too huge and gawky to use as a camera. Apple put the cameras on the iPad not so people could capture award-winning video, but so its FaceTime application could help bring people together<<
Oh, really, Mr.Zeman. Till what point. mmmm … let me guess, till iPad 3, or perhaps iPad 4, when Mr.Jobs would proudly declare from the dias the inclusion of 5.75 MP front facing camera (since it's Apple they can define where pixels end) that would, by virtue of unassailable pixel density, beam FaceTime images to Apple TV. In the same vein, he may also announce 10 MP rear camera with a 'Killer App' (not in Android) that transforms HD Video capture from moribund 2. 5 – 4" LCD display from players like Panasonic, JVC, 'unleashing' the genius of all those cursed with gadgets devised by Neanderthals !
iPad 2 boasts the ability to connect to HDMI TV, via.. what else, an adapter that Apple sells. Forget DLNA etc. – those are protocols meant for normal mortals. When a man can afford Apple products, he should, perforce, make a beeline to 'accessory ecosystem' – an euphemism for channels/products that can fleece more money ! Well, coming back to the port, it can be of great help to showcase 0.3 MP (640 X 480) video on large TV Screen. Well, what if the iPad user does not want to connect via FaceTime and instead chooses Tango or Skype. If the other person beams his/her video via say, Samsung Galaxy S II or even Galaxy S smartphone, picture will appear razor sharp thanks to their 1.3 MP/ 2 MP front cameras on phone. iPad 2 user should, however, forewarn them not to do the same at their end. Else, a measly VGA image will discredit Apple !
To the likes who believe FaceTime is the be-all, end-all Video Calling experience (trouble isn't that it's only on WiFi, it's that, it's only for Apple to Apple), it will be vain to expect consideration of such possibilities.
Those of you in disbelief needn't look further than Apple site – who else would have the temerity to talk of resolution of front facing camera while talking only of Video capability of the rear camera ! Hmm.. admitting it’s just 0.9 MP or 2 MP wouldn't sound dignified in 2011. Isn't it ?
Back camera: Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still camera with 5x digital zoom
Front camera: Video recording, VGA up to 30 frames per second with audio; VGA-quality still camera
To summarise, the 10th commandment on the unwritten (Apple) Tablet says – Thou shall not ask for specs; if the demigods get it better, they shall reveal”!