Imitation is no match for innovation

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/01/16/imitation_innovation/1.html

 

A year or two back, I remember reading about how the adult industry was among the first to start filing in true high definition. In fact, they are normally the first people to start using new technology that's made for the entertainment sector of business. The article went on to explain about some of the things that the adult industry used which later became the norm for the entertainment industry. We all know that sex sells, but apparently it helps push new standards forward faster.

 

So why did you bother with any coverage of CES? You know that what ever you cover will end up on over popular tech sites so why bother?

The reason most people pick a [tech] site to read and stick to it is because they like something about the site; maybe its the style of wrting, maybe its the stance they take on particular issues, maybe it has the shortest url... Either way, whatever it is I would like the site that I used most to cover stuff I would be interested in. I don't want to be told that "we can't be bothered to cover x or review y as meh.com has already done it". Doing so would essentially make the site a list of links to external sources... reminds me of a search engine; so why would you bother doing such a thing when google already does it?... Get my point?

I for one am more than happy for others to cover stuff. It only makes the top sites such as Engadget work harder to maintain decent content. Without any competition the sites would soon deteriorate.

As for Nano competitors, I am one of those people that doesn't really like the scroll wheel thing and am happy to for companies to give me the features of the Nano with a better UI. The one big advantage the Nano has over its competitors is its size. I've yet to see anything come remotely close (depth wise) and until they do I hope they do keep trying. Admittedly it would be nice for them to have more features to give them one-up on the Nano, but then all I am after is a good sounding MP3 player with decent playlist support and a nice UI. Any other features are likely to be little more than a gimmick I would never use.

p.s. the article did come across a little fanboyish but seeing as the column is just a personal opinion I'm not particularly bothered

Just my $0.02.

 

The thing that most people seem to forget is that MS are doing things a little differently each time and some may like the way MS do it more than Apple.

The other thing is that WPF (previously Avalon) from what I have seen should be very nice to design very cool applications. I haven't seen anything as cool as what can be achieved using WPF in any Mac OS X application. This isn't to say that one doesn't exist just that I haven't seen it.

As for Itunes being the best media player if it is I don't think its by much. There are things that I find dumb about Itunes and the only thing I really like about it is quick search. Other than this feature I find Windows Media Player better and to think that it uses about a quarter of the RAM for the same sized library.

 

Windows may be lagging a bit, but I have just been playing around with a beta version of Office12 and although it looks very different [http://www.xbostudios.co.uk/stuff/word12.png] and horrible at first, it is acutally very nice and much much better/easier to use. There are some features what should have been included long ago like printing to PDF, but in general it is a massive step up and nothing like I have ever seen/used before.

 

sigh, somehow i just knew this was gonna be another 'omg apple and ipod roxors!!!11' article when i saw the title

as long as you can choose apple, am i right?

the only thing in that article i can argree with is the core duo/amd/laptop thing
i am an amd fanboy, but core duo is an absolutely fantastic mobile chip and i wouldnt go with anything else in a laptop

do you think that might possibly be because they're both operating systems?
how about this:
iTunes offers the same functionality as WMP. But 5 years later. And more sexily. (wmp 7 released in 2000, itunes in 2005 according to wikipedia)
sexily?... since when was this relevant? i couldnt give a flying **** if an app was 'sexy' i want it to work efficiently
this is almost certainly why i just dont get on with OSX..

anyway, agree with eek its just your opinion, we all know how hard it is to sway mac fanboys so im not gonna try anymore

 

I'm sorry but if you used osx for more than a few minutes then try vista is nothing but a complete dissapointment. Its just windows xp with a different skin and a search function that actually works thats about it.

The fact osx has been doing it for some time shows just how behind the times windows is. Yes it does it more sexily as well but thats not at the detriment of usability/efficiency its just a nice touch.

I uses both os's side by side and osx never ceases to blow me away. The only thing stopping me doing a full switch is gaming and the fact most of my customers run windows xp so I need to be upto date with its little bugs.

iTunes offers far more the wmp with the iTunes store so you cannot possibly compare them side by side. Personally I prefer the simplicity of winamp and only use wmp or itunes when forced

 

vista isnt finished
yes the vista beta is just xp with a different skin, but vista beta is not vista

i have used osx (granted not tiger but tiger is not all that different anyway) for quite some time, i grew to hate it

a lot of the things in osx that make it 'sexy' are at the detriment to efficiency imo
bouncing dock items, animated minimising/restore etc, these are things that really piss me off
ok you can turn them off but i still just dont get along with osx

wmp and itunes both play music, thats their primary function, osx and vista are both operating systems, thats their primary function
imo you can compare them

 

Winamp or something simple. Not itunes bloatware that installs all kinds of startup ****.

I cannot disagree more about AMD's "long term plan". They way they've not only got into, but WON the performance server market with the opteron brand and hypertransport technology on their K8 architecture. That dual core implementation was as simple as a BIOS flash. Sure, Intel has a bigger market share from OEMs but AMD isnt big enough to dictate market trends like Intel because it doesnt have the OEM backing to make it stick. Intel failed with BTX remember, although it does push forward constantly with DDR2, Integrated southbridges with RAID etc. AMD's aims and Intel's aims are different in how they intend to progress, because AMD more or less just makes CPUs: That's all it's REALLY known for. Whilst intel makes... just about everything in large quantities: chipsets, LAN, wireless, CPUs, etc

The thing is, Apple makes stuff just for Apple. Microsoft makes an OS for EVERYONE, even Apple now. Sure, Tiger is a hell of a lot nicer, but you get the feeling Microsoft spends most of it's time trying to get stuff working as securely as possible (as secure as it can until half a million world wide scriptkiddies pick it apart), and getting all sorts of hardware compatible, as well as all the future DRM n stuff which Apple doesnt have to think about.

I have to agree with Hamish on some of it: stuff that looks "cute n sexy" isnt efficient and becomes annoying after the initial "wooo" has worn of. But having said that, I like the effect Apple employs when hardware enhanced flicking between desktop and current app.

I get what you say about everything else though, copying does not equal innovation and having ten thousand different types of inferior mp3 player is a pain in the arse. If Creative were infact, creative, they could potentially kick apples arse in the alternative market. But they arent.

 

I just have to disagree with that comment! If i didn't like listening to music i'd use iTunes. Otherwise WinAmp and VLC serves all my audio and video needs.

 

Dude you are very controversial, on some of the idea. I agree there are many ipod copier and the reason is that of benchmarking. In making a product, if one company does something and does it good, some times you have no choice but to copy the idea and hope your product will also sell. The nano will always be the same price, unless Apple release anther nano version. But the computers product will drop in price, there product that looks like the nano might be released at the same price point but in less the 6 months that same product will be found for much less. That how they sell. OMG and itunes don’t get me started. I have the new Video iPod, the battery sucks hard, you watch 1h30min moive and the iPod is ready to die. Also there are many little freezing. I don’t mean the freezing that can be fixed but hold the resetting buttons and switching the hold on and off. I mean that type the whole iPod freezes and you must wait till the iPod runs out of battery till you can charge it again. From the 3 weeks I have had it, it has deleted all the info on the iPod twice. All the movies, music, and photos.

All little bit about itunes, it sucks. iTunes runs none stop, when your computer turns on, its on. Also anther service by the name of ipodservies.exe or something like that also runs. I am a gamer and in the quest of running the best gaming settings some process need to be shut down like itunes.

One thing I all ways tell people is that, don’t get ipod just because the hype. Go to the taget, futureshop, bestbuy or what ever you go to and look at the other products with the same price point. They might be better. I have found that Rio, MP3 players have the best drivers, firmware, and software. I love everything about that product. But it will also run, a process by the name of Rio.exe all the time. And some times one called, audiotaxi.exe.

As far as the rest of your article I agree dude.

 

Wow, Apple rocks and everyone else sucks? I would never have imagined that you'd take that stance.

This article just reads as utterly blatant suck-uppery to a company that really doesn't need further lovey love-ins. Journo types love Apple, we get it...we really do.

In my experience and for my pattern of usage iTunes is nowhere close to the top of the pile in terms of media players. However I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was an inference that as a whole bundle of functionality it's got everything. As a PC user of iTunes I find it struggles with my meager 30GB of music, can't handle my podcasts properly and sucks down huge mouthfuls of system resources. It may be better for a Mac, but on the PC I can't imagine many people making that bold a statement with a straight face.

 

Hmm... Intel has a vision! A vision of processors that double as space heaters? Of "Extreme Editions" that are only Extreme in the amount of heat they generate and power they consume (not to mention price)?

Oh yes, and the iPod - from the company that can do no wrong. Sure, this guy has his own opinion and he's welcome to it. Since it was an op-ed piece, I'm not irritated really, but just rather amused. I had no idea Intel fanboys still existed, and I had no idea that Apple fanboys posted on hardware enthusiast sites.

Why not just rent out your Op-Ed space for a handful of ViiV, Core Duo, and iPod ads? It'd have the same message and the same effect.

 

Well I for one totally agree with the article. I'm sick of copycat products that aren't as good as the original. I'm not an apple fanboy by any means, but I do have an iPod. I didn't buy it because it's an iPod, I chose it because I felt it suited my needs best - simple UI, all the features I need (read: plays music, can shuffle it), and by far the easiest syncing ever. I tried to avoid iTunes for as long as I can remember, but there was a point where I just had to switch back to it. I took an afternoon getting all my music imported and tagged correctly, and haven't looked back since. Considering how much I used to bash it, I do love the simplicity of the library and whatnot. I used to be a diehard winamp fan and still use it for movies, but won't go near WMP with a ten-foot pole.

Honestly devs, come up with something original for a change. I'm sick of walking into a store and finding the same-ol, same-ol. Don't put twelve devices in one (which does everything poorly *cough*cellphones*cough*) and call it new - come up with something that actually makes me WANT it. It needs to do thigns BETTER than my current devices, not integrate all the half-assed versions into a cubic centimetre.

 

nothing to see here move on

 

Have you guys taken a new years resolution to post editorials to provoke comments, cause this following the HDTV one are just begging for arguments. I would agree that innovation is superior to imitiation, but your sudden switch to a quarter page Ipod = cool advert, make me a little queasy. I mean the ipod Video, come on the iriver 300 series was playing video way before this came out. As to Itunes, this always provokes a debate, for my point of view I disliked it but used it on OS9 (which was also rubbish) and I hate it even more on XP (oh look I have a found a WMV file on your computer I will now make a copy of this in your itunes folder in my own format). And what was the last part about, are you now trying to kill off your own job and site, there are lots of computer sites and each person likes the style and presentation of certain sites. I like the news reporting of bit-tech, jimbob next to me might not, but on your advice sites should only be publishing exclusives and then references to other sites exclusives if your late.

 

NOO You edited it! Damn you!!

I was gonna quote ya too, the first half read well and I agreed.

Nothing like RATM AMD fanbois to spite in: Intel SUX, Apple SUX, Ipod = sheep/sellout/sucker etc

 

I have to agree with Bindibadgi here.

You make it out as if AMD are a bunch of lost souls, following Intel the apparent visionaire, if anything it be the other way round.

I'm no expert, but just a few months ago were Intel not the people who were emphasing clock-speed and claiming that they be at 4Ghz, like that was all that was mattered. However AMD set Intel straight and enlightened the public that clock-speed isn't the end-all factor. As a result giving birth to the 'focus' on mulitcore processor.

As Bindibadgi stated, was AMD smooth transitions into 64bit and dual core, by as little as a bios flash, not considered 'looking ahead'. As for Intel, I lost count the amount of chipsets and board sockets it has been through in the past months.

If anything Intel are the ones who are jumping on the band-wagon, the concept of a unified 'media home' was not Intel's idea - Microsoft was praising it at last years CES when Intel engineers were still trying to come up with faster and faster clockspeeds. This concept Intel has just very recently adopted. So just because the topic of 'media homes' is popular, Intel decides to jump on and flood the market with its products. Inadditon this concept, as cool as it sounds and as popular as it is, does not suggest that it is the correct and only way forward and that just because Intel was quick to jump on, we should give them a standing ovation becuase it is a step in the right direction, but not the only possible route.

And I can't remember but was AMD not the first processor manufacturer to bring out 64-bit processors and dual core processors into the consumer market - both essential features and what the state of the processor industry are heading for.

EDIT: In conclusion, monopoliser or innovator, suppose it depends how you want to interpret the situation.

 

very true, but they were the first to bring 64bit to mainstream desktop pc's
before that 64bit chips were pretty much exclusive to servers and very specific applications (itanic anyone? )

 

That was in CustomPC Magazine.

In any case, sorry, but Apple does produce some decent products. It would be nice to be able to say so without being lambasted an "Apple fanboy". After all, people also get annoyed with knee-jerk "Windoze sux" remarks.

Actually, the idea is that an OS (or any other device) is transparent and user-friendly. The whole experience of using it should be effortless and intuitive. Some effects are definitely designed for that --windows expanding from and collapsing into folders on the desktop (introduced on the PARC and then Apple Lisa and Apple Mac) is not just gratuitous eye-candy, but a way of conveying where stuff came from or was saved to. It is simply that sometimes designers get carried away and stop thinking about the functionality behind an effect.

Nevertheless we do want some aesthetics. After all, we obsess about the colour of our room (and even that of our PC case). Why not the same on a desktop we stare at all day?