OMG iPhone 3G!

[Durandal]

I think it's less to do with hatred of Apple products, and more to do with hatred of Apple fanboys. If Apple came out with a wristwatch made from Steve Jobs ejaculate priced at $99.99, there are a lot of people on the internet who would immediately go buy one, proclaim it the greatest wristwatch ever made, and suggest it to everyone who might be looking for a wristwatch along with everyone who isn't. If I saw someone doing that, I probably wouldn't be able to resist pointing out "It's not that much better then other watches! In fact, it might be a little worse since it's made of semen!"

Oh please.

How do you suggest people compare two products? Buy both of them? When I prepare to make a purchase, I look at what all of the possible choices can do, then make a list of what I want mine to be able to do, then choose a price point, then go with the item at that price point that has the most features from that list.

Uh, use them? There is more to a product than a list of features, like usability and design. Proportionally, more iPhone users actually use the Internet capabilities on their phones, even though it only supports EDGE currently and countless other phones have browsers and 3G radios. There's a reason for that, and it's because those capabilities are more accessible and better-exposed to the user. You could browse the Internet on phones before the iPhone, but it was an utterly awful experience. Other phones do have touch screens, but a lot of them just suck. (And yes, I've used the Voyager. The touch screen blows, and the interface is a cheap iPhone knock-off.)

All the features in the world don't do you any good if they're too much of a pain in the ass to use.

[Stark]

Bah, instaposted.

To follow on from what Durandal said, the ease of use + wireless means I'm very interested to use features I'd have, but barely use on a similar regular phone. I've used 'do every thing' phones, and it's nothing like the effortless style of use on an iPhone - and that's after hours of using a regular, and five minutes of using an iPhone.

With the enterprise stuff like Exchange added, it does pretty much everything I'd want a laptop to do, but is cheaper. Sounds good to me.

[Dominus Atheos]

I think it's less to do with hatred of Apple products, and more to do with hatred of Apple fanboys. If Apple came out with a wristwatch made from Steve Jobs ejaculate priced at $99.99, there are a lot of people on the internet who would immediately go buy one, proclaim it the greatest wristwatch ever made, and suggest it to everyone who might be looking for a wristwatch along with everyone who isn't. If I saw someone doing that, I probably wouldn't be able to resist pointing out "It's not that much better then other watches! In fact, it might be a little worse since it's made of semen!"

Oh please.

Oh please yourself. There's some hyperbole in there, but it's a valid statement. I'm sure if the Apple iClock clock radio ever comes out, the Fanbois will react the way I just described above.

How do you suggest people compare two products? Buy both of them? When I prepare to make a purchase, I look at what all of the possible choices can do, then make a list of what I want mine to be able to do, then choose a price point, then go with the item at that price point that has the most features from that list.

Uh, use them?

How exactly do you expect me to use something before I buy it? Buy one of each of the things I'm considering and then return all the one's I decide against?

There is more to a product than a list of features, like usability and design.

I don't think how pretty something is or how easy it is to not get to do a goddamn thing is a very important when making a purchase. When I was looking into getting a PVP, I managed to narrow my choices down to the iPod Touch, the Cowan A3, and the Archos 605(the thing Apple ripped off when the created the Touch). After reading the reviews for each product, the only thing the Touch had over both the others was how cool it looked, and how easy it was to use. It lost out in every other category. In addition to being half again as expensive and the other two, it wouldn't play DivX encoded files or anything in the .avi container format, to say nothing of Vorbis, Flac, or Matroska, all of which the A3 did beautifully. It's Wifi internet browser wasn't flash capable, I couldn't stream video content from my computer to it, then output to my tv, and the capacity was only for the $500 version was only 32GBs, while the 605 can do all of that and the 80GB version can be had for $300. (And I ended up passing on both of them because each of them could only do half of what I wanted, so don't call me a fanboy.)

Proportionally, more iPhone users actually use the Internet capabilities on their phones, even though it only supports EDGE currently and countless other phones have browsers and 3G radios. There's a reason for that, and it's because those capabilities are more accessible and better-exposed to the user. You could browse the Internet on phones before the iPhone, but it was an utterly awful experience. Other phones do have touch screens, but a lot of them just suck. (And yes, I've used the Voyager. The touch screen blows, and the interface is a cheap iPhone knock-off.)

The Voyager? I think I've heard of that. Verizon Wireless keeps sending flyers to me to try to convince me to buy it. I just keep telling them I'm happy with my LG 8350. You know what killer feature inspired me to buy it? IT MAKES PHONE CALLS!!!!! Pretty cool right? I bet the iPhone can't do that.

All the features in the world don't do you any good if they're too much of a pain in the ass to use.

All the usability in the world won't do you any good if you can't do anything with it.

[Praxis]

Oh please yourself. There's some hyperbole in there, but it's a valid statement. I'm sure if the Apple iClock clock radio ever comes out, the Fanbois will react the way I just described above.

...
Archos 605(the thing Apple ripped off when the created the Touch)
...
IT MAKES PHONE CALLS!!!!! Pretty cool right? I bet the iPhone can't do that.
...
All the usability in the world won't do you any good if you can't do anything with it.

Logical fallacies, generalizations and exaggurations.
Who's the fanboy here?

[Zac Naloen]

I like the Iphones interface I like that the picture of the person calling is full screen for one.

I can get by without the keypad, although my fingers are a little greasy.

I use an N95 because of the Media capabilities and the Sat Nav. (which helps a lot when I'm driving somewhere unknown without a map reader beside me)

If the Iphone was available on Vodafone, I have such a good deal with them as my provider I don't want to leave otherwise my phone bill is going to shoot up, I'd be sorely tempted to get this model. If it's affordable.

[Durandal]

Oh please yourself. There's some hyperbole in there, but it's a valid statement. I'm sure if the Apple iClock clock radio ever comes out, the Fanbois will react the way I just described above.

Yes, Apple's fanboys always react the same to every product they come out with. That's why the original iPhone "SDK" went over like a lead balloon, why the auditorium was completely silent when Steve Jobs originally announced .Mac would be replacing the formerly free iTools, why the G4 Cube didn't sell, why the iPod HiFi was discontinued, why the first incarnation of the AppleTV was widely regarded as a failure, etc.

But all of this is irrelevant to the overall point that disliking a company's products because some of its fans are whack-jobs is stupid. If you want to insult Apple customers, please start your own thread.

How exactly do you expect me to use something before I buy it? Buy one of each of the things I'm considering and then return all the one's I decide against?

No, you retard. Go to a god damn store and try it out. They do have those things now.

I don't think how pretty something is or how easy it is to not get to do a goddamn thing is a very important when making a purchase. When I was looking into getting a PVP, I managed to narrow my choices down to the iPod Touch, the Cowan A3, and the Archos 605(the thing Apple ripped off when the created the Touch).

The iPod touch is an iPhone minus the phone. If it's a rip-off of anything, it'd be the iPhone.

After reading the reviews for each product, the only thing the Touch had over both the others was how cool it looked, and how easy it was to use. It lost out in every other category. In addition to being half again as expensive and the other two, it wouldn't play DivX encoded files or anything in the .avi container format, to say nothing of Vorbis, Flac, or Matroska, all of which the A3 did beautifully. It's Wifi internet browser wasn't flash capable, I couldn't stream video content from my computer to it, then output to my tv, and the capacity was only for the $500 version was only 32GBs, while the 605 can do all of that and the 80GB version can be had for $300. (And I ended up passing on both of them because each of them could only do half of what I wanted, so don't call me a fanboy.)

I didn't say that user experience was the only relevant category; I said dismissing it entirely is stupid, as is relegating it to a "nice to have" category. Apple puts it as a priority; lots of other companies just kind of bolt it on after they've finished adding all the features plus the kitchen sink.

There are some mission-critical features out there, but in general, people don't really give a shit about DivX playback or Matroska or Ogg Vorbis or FLAC or whatever. Look at how many people have bought iPhones despite it not having a Flash-capable browser (which frankly, I consider to be a feature). If people can be made to buy a phone whose browser doesn't support Flash, I doubt they'd have much of an issue with not supporting Ogg Vorbis.

The Voyager? I think I've heard of that. Verizon Wireless keeps sending flyers to me to try to convince me to buy it. I just keep telling them I'm happy with my LG 8350. You know what killer feature inspired me to buy it? IT MAKES PHONE CALLS!!!!! Pretty cool right? I bet the iPhone can't do that.

... what?

Oh right, I get it. You're one of those quasi-luddite nerds who thinks that technological convergence is stupid and pointless, so you pump yourself up by looking down on those who embrace it. What's next? "Why, in my day, we didn't have mobile phones! We had to go to the governor's mansion to even see a telephone! And that phone didn't have a camera either! To take a picture, we had to go to the rich man's house and stand still for 3 hours while someone painted us!"

All the usability in the world won't do you any good if you can't do anything with it.

Congratulations on missing my point entirely. Unlike you, I understand that there are people out there whose needs don't match mine. What you don't get is that your needs are not representative of the entire market. The Archos 605 is probably a great player for the Linux crowd, but it doesn't offer anything of value over the iPod to a regular person who doesn't care about format acronyms and names like "FLAC" or "Ogg Vorbis".

So, to sum up, here's your argument. "Apple fanboys always say that Apple products are the best ever, at anything, so I can never resist telling them that they suck. And now I'll finish off with some hyperbole about semen and wristwatches." Okay, great. We get it. You don't like Apple fans. Feel like contributing anything useful to this thread?

[Zac Naloen]

On the technological convergence point : -

In one device that fits in my pocket I have a sat nav, a phone, sms, access to the internet, access to my emails, a video player, a music player and a camera capable of taking photo's like this : -



Technological convergence? I say, yes please. You don't realise how convenient having everything in one device is until you get it.

How good is the iPhones camera for that matter? I actually find myself taking quite a few photo's on a whim so it's actually a big selling point for me (and one of the main reasons I have an N95).

[Durandal]

Eh, it's not that great, frankly. It's a 2 MP camera (they didn't bump it for the 3G version, bummer), and it really sucks in low-light conditions. For quick, one-off shots, it's okay, but it's no replacement for even a $99 digital camera.

EDIT: Oh, sorry. According to Dominus Atheos, I was supposed to say that the iPhone's camera is way better than any north-of-$10,000 professional camera on the market today because it has Steve Jobs' semen in it or something. So uh yeah, I guess it rocks.

[Dominus Atheos]

Oh please yourself. There's some hyperbole in there, but it's a valid statement. I'm sure if the Apple iClock clock radio ever comes out, the Fanbois will react the way I just described above.

Yes, Apple's fanboys always react the same to every product they come out with. That's why the original iPhone "SDK" went over like a lead balloon, why the auditorium was completely silent when Steve Jobs originally announced .Mac would be replacing the formerly free iTools, why the G4 Cube didn't sell, why the iPod HiFi was discontinued, why the first incarnation of the AppleTV was widely regarded as a failure, etc.

Try googling those 4 things you just mentioned. All of them have devoted fanbases even now of people who think they are the greatest thing ever, and try to convince others that that fact.

But all of this is irrelevant to the overall point that disliking a company's products because some of its fans are whack-jobs is stupid. If you want to insult Apple customers, please start your own thread.

You asked why discussions of apple products always garner this much hate. I'm explaining to you that the reason is the fanboys. Even in this thread, the very first negative post was a response to Praxis explaining how the iPhone was way, way better then the Blackberry because it could play video games with graphics on par with a PSP.

How exactly do you expect me to use something before I buy it? Buy one of each of the things I'm considering and then return all the one's I decide against?

No, you retard. Go to a god damn store and try it out. They do have those things now.

That's stupid. Playing with a floor model for 5 minutes won't give me anywhere near a good idea of whether or not I'm going to like it once I get it home and start using it everyday.

I don't think how pretty something is or how easy it is to not get to do a goddamn thing is a very important when making a purchase. When I was looking into getting a PVP, I managed to narrow my choices down to the iPod Touch, the Cowan A3, and the Archos 605(the thing Apple ripped off when the created the Touch).

The iPod touch is an iPhone minus the phone. If it's a rip-off of anything, it'd be the iPhone.

After reading the reviews for each product, the only thing the Touch had over both the others was how cool it looked, and how easy it was to use. It lost out in every other category. In addition to being half again as expensive and the other two, it wouldn't play DivX encoded files or anything in the .avi container format, to say nothing of Vorbis, Flac, or Matroska, all of which the A3 did beautifully. It's Wifi internet browser wasn't flash capable, I couldn't stream video content from my computer to it, then output to my tv, and the capacity was only for the $500 version was only 32GBs, while the 605 can do all of that and the 80GB version can be had for $300. (And I ended up passing on both of them because each of them could only do half of what I wanted, so don't call me a fanboy.)

I didn't say that user experience was the only relevant category; I said dismissing it entirely is stupid, as is relegating it to a "nice to have" category. Apple puts it as a priority; lots of other companies just kind of bolt it on after they've finished adding all the features plus the kitchen sink.

There are some mission-critical features out there, but in general, people don't really give a shit about DivX playback or Matroska or Ogg Vorbis or FLAC or whatever. Look at how many people have bought iPhones despite it not having a Flash-capable browser (which frankly, I consider to be a feature). If people can be made to buy a phone whose browser doesn't support Flash, I doubt they'd have much of an issue with not supporting Ogg Vorbis.

The lack of flash support is one of the biggest complaints against the iPhone. If Apple hadn't included full support for all Youtube videos, it could very well have relegated the device to the same ignoble fate as the G4 Cube. But at least Apple has an excuse for that, so it's forgivable. They can't include flash support until Adobe gives them a version of the flash plugin that works on the iPhone.

And if you think no one cares about DivX/Xvid support, you're a fucking moron. Almost every video you can download of the internet is in that format. I don't think I've ever seen a video that's in the .mp4 container.

The Voyager? I think I've heard of that. Verizon Wireless keeps sending flyers to me to try to convince me to buy it. I just keep telling them I'm happy with my LG 8350. You know what killer feature inspired me to buy it? IT MAKES PHONE CALLS!!!!! Pretty cool right? I bet the iPhone can't do that.

... what?

Oh right, I get it. You're one of those quasi-luddite nerds who thinks that technological convergence is stupid and pointless, so you pump yourself up by looking down on those who embrace it. What's next? "Why, in my day, we didn't have mobile phones! We had to go to the governor's mansion to even see a telephone! And that phone didn't have a camera either! To take a picture, we had to go to the rich man's house and stand still for 3 hours while someone painted us!"

Exactly, which is why I was looking for a portable media player and ended up passing on one because despite being hands down the best media player available, it did not have a touch screen or wifi or an internet browser. The reason I posted that response to you was because you were obviously assuming I thought my phone was better then the iPhone. I don't care about premo phones. I'm perfectly happy with my free phone, but I completely understand that some people would like an all-in-one device. I'd kill for one, I just can't find it.

All the usability in the world won't do you any good if you can't do anything with it.

Congratulations on missing my point entirely. Unlike you, I understand that there are people out there whose needs don't match mine. What you don't get is that your needs are not representative of the entire market. The Archos 605 is probably a great player for the Linux crowd, but it doesn't offer anything of value over the iPod to a regular person who doesn't care about format acronyms and names like "FLAC" or "Ogg Vorbis".

Mind explaining to me how support for the mp4 and apple lossless formats offers something of value over, while support for Matroska or Vorbis wouldn't, beside that at least some people actually use the latter? The support for AAC files that are restricted by Apple's proprietary DRM is obviously important, but those files might as well be in a different format anyway, so AAC support itself isn't.

So, to sum up, here's your argument. "Apple fanboys always say that Apple products are the best ever, at anything, so I can never resist telling them that they suck. And now I'll finish off with some hyperbole about semen and wristwatches."

Yeah, that's a pretty good summery.

Okay, great. We get it. You don't like Apple fans. Feel like contributing anything useful to this thread?

You were the one asking why discussions of Apple products always cause such a negative reaction. I was just giving an answer.

[Dominus Atheos]

Oh please yourself. There's some hyperbole in there, but it's a valid statement. I'm sure if the Apple iClock clock radio ever comes out, the Fanbois will react the way I just described above.

...
Archos 605(the thing Apple ripped off when the created the Touch)
...
IT MAKES PHONE CALLS!!!!! Pretty cool right? I bet the iPhone can't do that.
...
All the usability in the world won't do you any good if you can't do anything with it.

Logical fallacies, generalizations and exaggurations.
Who's the fanboy here?

Now there's an excellent question. Out of the two of us, who's the bigger Pro-apple/Anti-apple fanboy? I don't own a single thing that competes against any Apple product, besides my PC and my MP3 player. I dual-boot Linux and Vista because neither of them do everything I want out of an operating system, and if I could, I'd go purchase a copy of OSX and start tri-booting my system, if only to see that all the fuss is about. My MP3 player cost $30, and if the Shuffle had been competitively priced, I probably would have bought that instead.

You on the other hand own several Apple products and have expressed interest in buying the few that you don't, if only they weren't so expensive. And most tellingly, when asked if the new iPhone's features put it on par with another brand of phone, your response was "Far, far above" because it "has similar enterprise features and is way ahead in the rest" despite not actually having used it (which some people think is important to do before buying an apple product) and having only seen what amounts to a commercial for it. Though my personal favorite reason you gave for why it was the best phone ever was " 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP." Really, there can only be one response to that:

[Stark]

I think 'has used previous version and is aware of new features' is a little more grounded than 'never used it but automagically know it's not worth whatever the premium is'.

PS, holy fuck Opera 9.5 can fuck off and die. It hates the fold-out quick reply window, and thinks the fucking banner ad is still there.

[Durandal]

Try googling those 4 things you just mentioned. All of them have devoted fanbases even now of people who think they are the greatest thing ever, and try to convince others that that fact.

And? When it came to the important vote of support (i.e. voting with their wallets), where were they? And if you Google for those items, you'll see a lot more Apple customers talking about what huge failures those products were.

You asked why discussions of apple products always garner this much hate. I'm explaining to you that the reason is the fanboys. Even in this thread, the very first negative post was a response to Praxis explaining how the iPhone was way, way better then the Blackberry because it could play video games with graphics on par with a PSP.

Ever consider that maybe graphics horsepower matters more to Praxis than RIM's Exchange support? You yourself were saying that the Archos 605 was better than the iPod because it could play esoteric media formats like Matroska and FLAC. You're both guilty of focusing on certain features to the exclusion of all others; the difference is that you use your preferences as a club to insult people rather than as a method of product comparison.

That's stupid. Playing with a floor model for 5 minutes won't give me anywhere near a good idea of whether or not I'm going to like it once I get it home and start using it everyday.

... seriously? You'd rather exclude personal usage entirely as a datapoint because playing in-store isn't the same as owning it? Do you not test-drive cars before you buy them?

The lack of flash support is one of the biggest complaints against the iPhone.

Depends on your perspective. Given how often I see "com.Adobe.Flash Player.plugin" in the backtraces of my Safari crash logs on the desktop, I don't think I want it on the iPhone. And Flash on the Mac is a performance nightmare and battery glutton as it is. From a pure quality perspective, Flash would make the iPhone user experience worse.

If Apple hadn't included full support for all Youtube videos, it could very well have relegated the device to the same ignoble fate as the G4 Cube. But at least Apple has an excuse for that, so it's forgivable. They can't include flash support until Adobe gives them a version of the flash plugin that works on the iPhone.

No, they need a version of it that works well. Adobe can't even provide that on the Mac OS X desktop, which offers them upwards of 8 CPUs and practically unlimited wattage.

And if you think no one cares about DivX/Xvid support, you're a fucking moron. Almost every video you can download of the internet is in that format. I don't think I've ever seen a video that's in the .mp4 container.

Uh, no. The sweeping majority of video on the Internet is encoded in Flash video, which is the On2 VP3 codec, and Adobe recently added MPEG-4 support to Flash streams in an effort to standardize their video presentation. And despite lack of support for this format, the iPhone is doing just fine. Personally, I barely ever run into DivX or XviD. I always seem to run into bog-standard MPEG-1 (yes, it's still the best lowest common denominator), WM9, MPEG-4 and QuickTime (super-set of MPEG-4). DivX and XviD may be the preferred codecs among video pirates, but believe it or not, your average computer user doesn't actually download a lot of stuff from BitTorrent.

This isn't to say that DivX and XviD are bad or useless or unpopular. But they're not terribly popular formats among the iPhone's target market.

Mind explaining to me how support for the mp4 and apple lossless formats offers something of value over, while support for Matroska or Vorbis wouldn't, beside that at least some people actually use the latter?

Are you seriously suggesting that Matroska and Ogg Vorbis are more popular than MPEG-4? You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

You were the one asking why discussions of Apple products always cause such a negative reaction. I was just giving an answer.

And it's a stupid answer. Thanks for playing.

[Stark]

Xvid is still the standard for pirate media, which is pretty sad. When I rip my TV shows, etc, I get smaller files with far better quality using a simple h.264 encoder like Handbrake with no real idea of what I'm doing. However, the 'scene' is all about using Xvid to make 350mb files with huge blocking artefacts, so that's what 95% of torrented TV is, regardless of it's technical inferiority. As to proliferation, h.264 is so widespread it's supported by platforms as closed as 360s and PS3s, and they can do it ostensibly for legitimate content!

Every encoder I've used in the last year has a profile for popular portable devices, like PSP, iPod and iPhone.

[Dominus Atheos]

Try googling those 4 things you just mentioned. All of them have devoted fanbases even now of people who think they are the greatest thing ever, and try to convince others that that fact.

And? When it came to the important vote of support (i.e. voting with their wallets), where were they? And if you Google for those items, you'll see a lot more Apple customers talking about what huge failures those products were.

I said the fanboys would "proclaim it the greatest (device) ever made, and suggest it to everyone who might be looking for a (device) along with everyone who isn't." I never said they had to be successful in getting people to buy it.

You asked why discussions of apple products always garner this much hate. I'm explaining to you that the reason is the fanboys. Even in this thread, the very first negative post was a response to Praxis explaining how the iPhone was way, way better then the Blackberry because it could play video games with graphics on par with a PSP.

Ever consider that maybe graphics horsepower matters more to Praxis than RIM's Exchange support? You yourself were saying that the Archos 605 was better than the iPod because it could play esoteric media formats like Matroska and FLAC. You're both guilty of focusing on certain features to the exclusion of all others; the difference is that you use your preferences as a club to insult people rather than as a method of product comparison.

That's not the point. The point is he said it's going to have graphics approaching the PSP. While explaining why the iPhone was better then another phone, he blatantly lied about it's capabilities. That's standard idiot fanboy behavior.

That's stupid. Playing with a floor model for 5 minutes won't give me anywhere near a good idea of whether or not I'm going to like it once I get it home and start using it everyday.

... seriously? You'd rather exclude personal usage entirely as a datapoint because playing in-store isn't the same as owning it? Do you not test-drive cars before you buy them?

Of course I test drive cars before I buy them, but by that time it's a mere formality. I've already decided what car I'm going to buy before I walk into the dealer. You'd have to be an idiot not to. And beside, if it's a new car, it's probably going to be different to drive then your old one. If you try to stick to cars that all the controls laid out in the same place, you may end up getting one that's otherwise not as good as another one with different controls. I'd rather get the best product in my price range, even if it has a learning curve.

The lack of flash support is one of the biggest complaints against the iPhone.

Depends on your perspective. Given how often I see "com.Adobe.Flash Player.plugin" in the backtraces of my Safari crash logs on the desktop, I don't think I want it on the iPhone. And Flash on the Mac is a performance nightmare and battery glutton as it is. From a pure quality perspective, Flash would make the iPhone user experience worse.

If Apple hadn't included full support for all Youtube videos, it could very well have relegated the device to the same ignoble fate as the G4 Cube. But at least Apple has an excuse for that, so it's forgivable. They can't include flash support until Adobe gives them a version of the flash plugin that works on the iPhone.

No, they need a version of it that works well. Adobe can't even provide that on the Mac OS X desktop, which offers them upwards of 8 CPUs and practically unlimited wattage.

Like I said, it's completely forgivable.

And if you think no one cares about DivX/Xvid support, you're a fucking moron. Almost every video you can download of the internet is in that format. I don't think I've ever seen a video that's in the .mp4 container.

Uh, no. The sweeping majority of video on the Internet is encoded in Flash video, which is the On2 VP3 codec, and Adobe recently added MPEG-4 support to Flash streams in an effort to standardize their video presentation. And despite lack of support for this format, the iPhone is doing just fine. Personally, I barely ever run into DivX or XviD. I always seem to run into bog-standard MPEG-1 (yes, it's still the best lowest common denominator), WM9, MPEG-4 and QuickTime (super-set of MPEG-4). DivX and XviD may be the preferred codecs among video pirates, but believe it or not, your average computer user doesn't actually download a lot of stuff from BitTorrent.

This isn't to say that DivX and XviD are bad or useless or unpopular. But they're not terribly popular formats among the iPhone's target market.

Then what exactly is the point of a PVP? I mean, I guess you could just rip your own DVDs (though depending on who you ask, that's just as illegal as piracy), but unless you have a very large collection, that seems like it would get boring very fast.

Mind explaining to me how support for the mp4 and apple lossless formats offers something of value over, while support for Matroska or Vorbis wouldn't, beside that at least some people actually use the latter?

Are you seriously suggesting that Matroska and Ogg Vorbis are more popular than MPEG-4? You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

Mpeg-4 isn't a format you idiot. It's the 4th collection of standards (called "Parts") created by the Moving Picture Experts Group. Divx, XviD and Quicktime are compatible with Mpeg-4 Part 2, which is also known as ASP, which the iPod Touch doesn't support. The Mpeg-4 Part 10 "AVC" standard encompasses H.264. There is also Mpeg-4 Part 14 which is the .mp4 container, which is what I was referring to. The Touch can open the .mp4 container, but if it contains anything other then H.264 or Quicktime, it can't play it. Please do some goddamn research before posting, dumbass.

[Durandal]

I said the fanboys would "proclaim it the greatest (device) ever made, and suggest it to everyone who might be looking for a (device) along with everyone who isn't." I never said they had to be successful in getting people to buy it.

If you want to play forum wars, I'll refer you to the Apple discussion forums when a Mac OS X update comes out. According to those, Apple has never released a stable update that has been problem-free for a sweeping majority of users.

What can we take from this? That forum posters aren't representative of an entire community of customers.

That's not the point. The point is he said it's going to have graphics approaching the PSP. While explaining why the iPhone was better then another phone, he blatantly lied about it's capabilities. That's standard idiot fanboy behavior.

I asked why Apple products garnered so much hate, not why discussions about them did. Discussions about anything can get heated. But you and a lot of other people seem to treat the behavior of fanboys as an indicator of the quality of a product.

Of course I test drive cars before I buy them, but by that time it's a mere formality. I've already decided what car I'm going to buy before I walk into the dealer. You'd have to be an idiot not to.

No, you'd have to be an idiot to make a decision to buy a car without ever having driven it.

And beside, if it's a new car, it's probably going to be different to drive then your old one. If you try to stick to cars that all the controls laid out in the same place, you may end up getting one that's otherwise not as good as another one with different controls. I'd rather get the best product in my price range, even if it has a learning curve.

Part of what determines the "best" product is its learning curve. If you have two otherwise equal products, the one that's easier to use is more desirable.

Then what exactly is the point of a PVP? I mean, I guess you could just rip your own DVDs (though depending on who you ask, that's just as illegal as piracy), but unless you have a very large collection, that seems like it would get boring very fast.

This may shock you, but you can actually buy video content legally from, say, the iTunes Store and sync it to your iPhone or iPod.

Mpeg-4 isn't a format you idiot. It's the 4th collection of standards (called "Parts") created by the Moving Picture Experts Group. Divx, XviD and Quicktime are compatible with Mpeg-4 Part 2, which is also known as ASP, which the iPod Touch doesn't support. The Mpeg-4 Part 10 "AVC" standard encompasses H.264. There is also Mpeg-4 Part 14 which is the .mp4 container, which is what I was referring to. The Touch can open the .mp4 container, but if it contains anything other then H.264 or Quicktime, it can't play it. Please do some goddamn research before posting, dumbass.

Nice non-reply, but I'll correct you on your misconceptions about MPEG-4. The MPEG-4 file format is part of the MPEG-4 standards (part 14, as you yourself mentioned), and it's a subset of the QuickTime file format. Jesus Christ, even when you're chest-beating your knowledge about something, you can't do it without looking like a complete retard. You literally go "It's not a format dumb-ass!!!!! hur hur hur!!!!" and then say "The format is specified in part 14". You literally did all the work of refuting yourself for me.

And by the way, if we're going to get pedantic about file formats, MPEG-4 files can't "contain QuickTime". QuickTime is a file format and multimedia framework, not a video codec. So please, do some god damn research before posting, dumb-ass.

Moving on, my comment was ...

Mind explaining to me how support for the mp4 and apple lossless formats offers something of value over, while support for Matroska or Vorbis wouldn't, beside that at least some people actually use the latter?

Are you seriously suggesting that Matroska and Ogg Vorbis are more popular than MPEG-4? You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

So let's review. Matroska is a file format that basically no one uses and is not supported by the iPhone. Ogg Vorbis is an audio codec that basically no one uses and is not supported by the iPhone. DivX is both a codec (or series of codecs, some of which conform to MPEG-4 and some of which don't) and file format (yes, the DivX people developed their own container). XviD is a codec.

What does any of this have to do with what I said, again?

[Praxis]

But you and a lot of other people seem to treat the behavior of fanboys as an indicator of the quality of a product.

Durandal, don't be so quick to assume that he's right about my post. He completely skewed my statements and used that to generate the fanboy label.

You asked why discussions of apple products always garner this much hate. I'm explaining to you that the reason is the fanboys. Even in this thread, the very first negative post was a response to Praxis explaining how the iPhone was way, way better then the Blackberry because it could play video games with graphics on par with a PSP.

Ever consider that maybe graphics horsepower matters more to Praxis than RIM's Exchange support? You yourself were saying that the Archos 605 was better than the iPod because it could play esoteric media formats like Matroska and FLAC. You're both guilty of focusing on certain features to the exclusion of all others; the difference is that you use your preferences as a club to insult people rather than as a method of product comparison.

That's not the point. The point is he said it's going to have graphics approaching the PSP. While explaining why the iPhone was better then another phone, he blatantly lied about it's capabilities. That's standard idiot fanboy behavior

You're accusing me of lying?

Please provide evidence that I am lying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=psypKKu1WUY

That's a game with TWO WEEKS of development time. Fully 3D. It's definitely better than anything on the Nintendo DS, I'd say it's fair to say that approaches a first-gen PSP title. And I suggest comparing the iPhone and PSP's specs.

So you accuse me of being a fanboy, then when pressed for why I'm being a fanboy, you baselessly accuse me of lying.

Stop being an idiot.


This next bit'll be fun.

Now there's an excellent question. Out of the two of us, who's the bigger Pro-apple/Anti-apple fanboy? I don't own a single thing that competes against any Apple product, besides my PC and my MP3 player. I dual-boot Linux and Vista because neither of them do everything I want out of an operating system, and if I could, I'd go purchase a copy of OSX and start tri-booting my system, if only to see that all the fuss is about. My MP3 player cost $30, and if the Shuffle had been competitively priced, I probably would have bought that instead.

My desktop PC is a Hackintosh- not Apple branded, home built, but running OS X because I like OS X. It's dual booted with Windows Vista, and running Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux in a Virtual Machine. My secondary PC is a Sony VAIO. I do not own an Apple desktop, only a MacBook, which I felt was competitively priced.

I own an iPhone, but held off from buying it initially because I felt it was:
A) Too expensive
B) I was unwilling to switch to AT&T.

I finally bought an iPhone after a $200 price drop from Apple and after stable hacks allowed me to unlock it to T-Mobile.

You on the other hand own several Apple products and have expressed interest in buying the few that you don't, if only they weren't so expensive.

Isn't this the opposite of fanboyism? I said, "Hey, the AppleTV is nice, but I'm not willing to pay $300 for it." A fanboy would have blindly purchased it.

And most tellingly, when asked if the new iPhone's features put it on par with another brand of phone, your response was "Far, far above" because it "has similar enterprise features and is way ahead in the rest" despite not actually having used it

You do realize that the STANDARD work phone at my workplace is a Blackberry? I have used piles of it.

Further, your response has been nothing more than, "Well, I think the graphics aren't QUITE as good as you say, this you're lying and the Blackberry is better".

(which some people think is important to do before buying an apple product)

Indeed, I think it is very important. Which is why I have used blackberries extensively.

and having only seen what amounts to a commercial for it.

Blatant lie.

Though my personal favorite reason you gave for why it was the best phone ever was " 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP." Really, there can only be one response to that:

Are you stupid or just a liar?
I posted:
"GPS, being able to open Word, Excel, and Powerpoints, a full desktop web browser with JavaScript and all that, 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP..."

I didn't even get into the superior video playback, ability to output to a TV, ability to purchase music legally online which can be burned to a CD when you get home, greater storage (at least compared to the Blackberries I've seen), etc, etc.


Stop being a moron. You are making blatant assumptions about my experience with products, and claiming I said things I did not (saying I only posted one reason and singling out a minor reason I listed).

So, who's the greater fanboy? The person who self-admittedly has used no Apple products and hates them all, or the person who has used them all and only buys the ones that fit his needs?

Save yourself the embarrassment of replying.

[Dominus Atheos]

I said the fanboys would "proclaim it the greatest (device) ever made, and suggest it to everyone who might be looking for a (device) along with everyone who isn't." I never said they had to be successful in getting people to buy it.

If you want to play forum wars, I'll refer you to the Apple discussion forums when a Mac OS X update comes out. According to those, Apple has never released a stable update that has been problem-free for a sweeping majority of users.

What can we take from this? That forum posters aren't representative of an entire community of customers.

This discussion started when you asked why "Apple products seem to invoke (so much) hate." I answered it it has "less to do with hatred of Apple products, and more to do with hatred of Apple fanboys." That was my very first post in this thread. This whole discussion has been about Apple fanboys. Stop moving the goal posts.

That's not the point. The point is he said it's going to have graphics approaching the PSP. While explaining why the iPhone was better then another phone, he blatantly lied about it's capabilities. That's standard idiot fanboy behavior.

I asked why Apple products garnered so much hate, not why discussions about them did. Discussions about anything can get heated. But you and a lot of other people seem to treat the behavior of fanboys as an indicator of the quality of a product.

Of course I test drive cars before I buy them, but by that time it's a mere formality. I've already decided what car I'm going to buy before I walk into the dealer. You'd have to be an idiot not to.

No, you'd have to be an idiot to make a decision to buy a car without ever having driven it.

And how do you propose giving it a test drive without going to a dealer? I don't like going to a store to look at a product until I know it's what I want, because I don't want to impulse buy. Hope that someone I know has one? And what if one of the options I'm looking at isn't available in any local store and is only available online?

And beside, if it's a new car, it's probably going to be different to drive then your old one. If you try to stick to cars that all the controls laid out in the same place, you may end up getting one that's otherwise not as good as another one with different controls. I'd rather get the best product in my price range, even if it has a learning curve.

Part of what determines the "best" product is its learning curve. If you have two otherwise equal products, the one that's easier to use is more desirable.[/quote]

No question, but the problem starts when the two products are otherwise not equal. This in purely subjective, but I'd accept a learning curve to get an otherwise superior product.

Then what exactly is the point of a PVP? I mean, I guess you could just rip your own DVDs (though depending on who you ask, that's just as illegal as piracy), but unless you have a very large collection, that seems like it would get boring very fast.

This may shock you, but you can actually buy video content legally from, say, the iTunes Store and sync it to your iPhone or iPod.

Yes that did shock me actually. Due to my support for free (as in speech) open source software, I don't purchase anything or use any service that has DRM. So until you just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten you could do that. I still wouldn't buy an iPod Touch though, and would discourage others from doing so. Support for DRM or proprietary formats is a bad reason to buy something.

Mpeg-4 isn't a format you idiot. It's the 4th collection of standards (called "Parts") created by the Moving Picture Experts Group. Divx, XviD and Quicktime are compatible with Mpeg-4 Part 2, which is also known as ASP, which the iPod Touch doesn't support. The Mpeg-4 Part 10 "AVC" standard encompasses H.264. There is also Mpeg-4 Part 14 which is the .mp4 container, which is what I was referring to. The Touch can open the .mp4 container, but if it contains anything other then H.264 or Quicktime, it can't play it. Please do some goddamn research before posting, dumbass.

Nice non-reply, but I'll correct you on your misconceptions about MPEG-4. The MPEG-4 file format is part of the MPEG-4 standards (part 14, as you yourself mentioned), and it's a subset of the QuickTime file format. Jesus Christ, even when you're chest-beating your knowledge about something, you can't do it without looking like a complete retard. You literally go "It's not a format dumb-ass!!!!! hur hur hur!!!!" and then say "The format is specified in part 14". You literally did all the work of refuting yourself for me.

Mpeg-4 Part 14 is not a video format you fucking moron. It's a container file. It bundles together a video format, usually either an implementation of ASP or AVC; an audio format, usually either Mpeg-1 layer 3 or Mpeg-4 Part 3 also known as "AAC"; and sometimes a subtitle, usually Mpeg-4 Part 17 "Timed Text". It's not a video format in and of itself. The Touch doesn't support Part 2 ASP so DivX and XviD won't work on it. I'm not actually sure if it will play Nero's new Part 10 AVC implementation, but I wouldn't count on it.

And by the way, if we're going to get pedantic about file formats, MPEG-4 files can't "contain QuickTime". QuickTime is a file format and multimedia framework, not a video codec. So please, do some god damn research before posting, dumb-ass.

Then maybe you can explain why Apple's web page explaining Mpeg-4 has a description of Quicktime's Mpeg-4 Part 2 codec developed by Apple called "Simple Profile".

Moving on, my comment was ...

Mind explaining to me how support for the mp4 and apple lossless formats offers something of value over, while support for Matroska or Vorbis wouldn't, beside that at least some people actually use the latter?

Are you seriously suggesting that Matroska and Ogg Vorbis are more popular than MPEG-4? You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

So let's review. Matroska is a file format that basically no one uses and is not supported by the iPhone. Ogg Vorbis is an audio codec that basically no one uses and is not supported by the iPhone. DivX is both a codec (or series of codecs, some of which conform to MPEG-4 and some of which don't) and file format (yes, the DivX people developed their own container). XviD is a codec.

Yes, and the iPod Touch doesn't play any of those. I still haven't heard why support for the .mp4 CONTAINER FORMAT benefits customers more then support for the much, much more popular .avi or .mkv containers does, let alone ASP or Mpeg-2 support.

What does any of this have to do with what I said, again?

You said it was stupid to compare products on their features. I told you it wasn't and gave an example (which included an Apple product to keep it relevant to the discussion) where I ended up not buying anything because the feature list on all three sucked. You've been trying to convince me I made a mistake and that because the Apple product was easier to use, I should have bought that.

[Resinence]

That's a game with TWO WEEKS of development time. Fully 3D. It's definitely better than anything on the Nintendo DS, I'd say it's fair to say that approaches a first-gen PSP title. And I suggest comparing the iPhone and PSP's specs.

The PSP has a 333mhz single width 128bit cpu, the iphone has a 633mhz ARM clocked at 433 with a PowerVR MBX graphics chipset. Aside from full-blown pocketPC I don't think there is a more powerful handheld device performance wise. The Nokia N95 uses the same chipset but has a much slower arm processor. There is valid things to complain about regarding the iphone, that it lacks performance isn't one of them.

I think we can expect to see much better games for the iphone eventually, I doubt that demo even came close to pushing the hardware.

//disappears into the shadows until it's time to be nerdy again//

[phongn]

The PSP uses a 32-bit MIPS CPU; the 128-bit path is for vector and not integer instructions.

[Resinence]

Indeed, I appear to have misread that. Regardless, the iphone hardware is a lot newer than that of the PSP.

[phongn]

Yes that did shock me actually. Due to my support for free (as in speech) open source software, I don't purchase anything or use any service that has DRM. So until you just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten you could do that. I still wouldn't buy an iPod Touch though, and would discourage others from doing so. Support for DRM or proprietary formats is a bad reason to buy something.

That's a non-sequitur. You support open-source software (which is fine and dandy) but how does non-support of DRM-encoded media follow from that? And a bad reason? If the content is only widely available in some sort of protected format (as most - legally - was until Amazon's MP3 store opened) then what?

Then maybe you can explain why Apple's web page explaining Mpeg-4 has a description of Quicktime's Mpeg-4 Part 2 codec developed by Apple called "Simple Profile".

Do you understand what you're reading? Apple is saying that they've developed an MPEG-4 Part 2 codec in the QuickTime framework.

Yes, and the iPod Touch doesn't play any of those. I still haven't heard why support for the .mp4 CONTAINER FORMAT benefits customers more then support for the much, much more popular .avi or .mkv containers does, let alone ASP or Mpeg-2 support.

AVI is problematic because it lacks proper support for VBR audio, for one. It's a hack to put it in, it's old, and has problems with large file sizes. Virtually everyone that matters abandoned AVI as soon as they could. And Matroska? Are you kidding me? You know as well as I do the primary user of that format, and it ain't for legal ones either. Why should Apple support it? As for supporting ASP or MPEG-2, Apple is clearly trying to get people to use H.264 on the iPod Touch.

[Durandal]

Okay, you've answered the question of why people hate Apple products. It's apparently not because of any inherent flaw, but because Apple devotees are ignorant. I'll accept that. On to the tangential parts of the discussion.

Yes that did shock me actually. Due to my support for free (as in speech) open source software, I don't purchase anything or use any service that has DRM.

Would you like a medal?

So until you just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten you could do that. I still wouldn't buy an iPod Touch though, and would discourage others from doing so. Support for DRM or proprietary formats is a bad reason to buy something.

... k.

Mpeg-4 Part 14 is not a video format you fucking moron. It's a container file.

Indeed, and I never said it was a video format. Here's a thought for you. What makes a container file an MPEG-4 container file, specifically? Could it be ... its format? Before you continue arguing with me about this, I'd like you to think about something. Of the two of us, one has written file format parsers. It's not you.

It bundles together a video format, usually either an implementation of ASP or AVC; an audio format, usually either Mpeg-1 layer 3 or Mpeg-4 Part 3 also known as "AAC"; and sometimes a subtitle, usually Mpeg-4 Part 17 "Timed Text". It's not a video format in and of itself. The Touch doesn't support Part 2 ASP so DivX and XviD won't work on it. I'm not actually sure if it will play Nero's new Part 10 AVC implementation, but I wouldn't count on it.

Translation: "Look! Over here! Acronyms! I know what I'm talking about! No seriously!"

Then maybe you can explain why Apple's web page explaining Mpeg-4 has a description of Quicktime's Mpeg-4 Part 2 codec developed by Apple called "Simple Profile".

Apple implemented an MPEG-4 codec in the QuickTime media framework. Just like the DivX people implemented their codec in the QuickTime framework. Or the XviD people. Or Sorenson. Or whoever. It's pretty simple. Ever wonder why video codecs are generally implemented as plug-ins? They kinda have to plug into something.

Look, at this point, it's obvious that you're just regurgitating a Wikipedia page without any real understanding of what's on it. Do yourself a favor and just admit that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Yes, and the iPod Touch doesn't play any of those. I still haven't heard why support for the .mp4 CONTAINER FORMAT benefits customers more then support for the much, much more popular .avi or .mkv containers does, let alone ASP or Mpeg-2 support.

And to answer that question, I suggest you seriously ponder what's a more popular file format: MPEG-4 or MKV. You never mentioned AVI before, but if you want me to go on a rant as to why support for it should be dropped by anyone encoding video, I'd be happy to oblige you.

Indeed, I appear to have misread that. Regardless, the iphone hardware is a lot newer than that of the PSP.

The PSP's GPU, if memory serves, has a far higher fillrate than the PowerVR MBX. It can also has a far higher theoretical peak polygon rate. The PSP's hardware lies somewhere between the PSX and PS2 in terms of capability and speed. The iPhone, though, has more RAM, more VRAM and greater resolution (not terribly greater, but it still has to push around more pixels for a scene).

[Dominus Atheos]

Yes that did shock me actually. Due to my support for free (as in speech) open source software, I don't purchase anything or use any service that has DRM. So until you just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten you could do that. I still wouldn't buy an iPod Touch though, and would discourage others from doing so. Support for DRM or proprietary formats is a bad reason to buy something.

That's a non-sequitur. You support open-source software (which is fine and dandy) but how does non-support of DRM-encoded media follow from that?

I strongly support free (as in speech) software and open standards. I believe that the current path technology and media are going down of companies trying to forcibly control how people use their products to maximize their own profits, even to the detriment of their customers, is the wrong one. An example is MPAA mandating DRM on all of their movies, and trying to get the broadcast flag implemented, despite the fact that those methods have long since been proven to be ineffectual in stopping piracy, for a myriad of reasons.

We in the free software movement (the real members, not the pretenders and trolls like Slashdot) have long since figured out that their goal is not to stop piracy, but to try to prevent legitimate users from using the product the paid for in ways that they might otherwise have paid more money for. In other words, Hollywood wants customers to watch a TV show and pay for that through the cable bill and by watching the commercials, purchase one copy of the show for use with a DVD player, and one copy for use with their iPhone, so they get paid 3 times for one product.

After this realization, it became clear we customers must try to steer the industries off this course. Unfortunately the ways to do this are limited. The best option we have is to speak with our wallets.

If the content is only widely available in some sort of protected format (as most - legally - was until Amazon's MP3 store opened) then what?

If, and only if, no legal means are available, alternate means become acceptable. I believe I've made posts to this effect before.

Then maybe you can explain why Apple's web page explaining Mpeg-4 has a description of Quicktime's Mpeg-4 Part 2 codec developed by Apple called "Simple Profile".

Do you understand what you're reading? Apple is saying that they've developed an MPEG-4 Part 2 codec in the QuickTime framework.

It's definitely possible I'm misreading it. But the page talks about how:

"Apple has developed two of its own ISO-compliant video codecs, MPEG-4 part 2 (a.k.a. MPEG-4 simple profile) and MPEG-4 part 10 (a.k.a. H.264)" and makes reference to "The QuickTime MPEG-4 codec"

But maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Yes, and the iPod Touch doesn't play any of those. I still haven't heard why support for the .mp4 CONTAINER FORMAT benefits customers more then support for the much, much more popular .avi or .mkv containers does, let alone ASP or Mpeg-2 support.

AVI is problematic because it lacks proper support for VBR audio, for one. It's a hack to put it in, it's old, and has problems with large file sizes. Virtually everyone that matters abandoned AVI as soon as they could.

You forgot it's lack of support for b-frames, subtitles/closed captions, or secondary audio streams. I wish nothing but death on avi as well, but for now at least any serious media player should at least play it back.

And Matroska? Are you kidding me? You know as well as I do the primary user of that format, and it ain't for legal ones either. Why should Apple support it?

Like I said, I support open standards. Matroska is free (as in speech and as in beer) for anyone to implement with no licensing hassles to worry about, for playback or even muxing. There's even libraries out there that will run on OSX, free to use, licensed under the LGPL, that will enable playback on the iPhone/Touch.

As for supporting ASP or MPEG-2, Apple is clearly trying to get people to use H.264 on the iPod Touch.

Which is fine, I don't really care. I was just responding to Durandal's claim that supporting those wouldn't "offer anything of value" to most customers.

[Dominus Atheos]

But you and a lot of other people seem to treat the behavior of fanboys as an indicator of the quality of a product.

Durandal, don't be so quick to assume that he's right about my post. He completely skewed my statements and used that to generate the fanboy label.

Ever consider that maybe graphics horsepower matters more to Praxis than RIM's Exchange support? You yourself were saying that the Archos 605 was better than the iPod because it could play esoteric media formats like Matroska and FLAC. You're both guilty of focusing on certain features to the exclusion of all others; the difference is that you use your preferences as a club to insult people rather than as a method of product comparison.

That's not the point. The point is he said it's going to have graphics approaching the PSP. While explaining why the iPhone was better then another phone, he blatantly lied about it's capabilities. That's standard idiot fanboy behavior

You're accusing me of lying?

Please provide evidence that I am lying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=psypKKu1WUY

That's a game with TWO WEEKS of development time. Fully 3D. It's definitely better than anything on the Nintendo DS, I'd say it's fair to say that approaches a first-gen PSP title. And I suggest comparing the iPhone and PSP's specs.

So you accuse me of being a fanboy, then when pressed for why I'm being a fanboy, you baselessly accuse me of lying.

Stop being an idiot.

And I have absolutely no doubt the game will actually look that good when it actually comes out. Just like Killzone 2, right?

Even if it looks that good, it was not "approaching PSP graphics." That's not even close to psp. It's arguable whether or not it's even better then the DS, which cost's about a third the price before the subsidy you get for signing a two year contract with AT&T.

This is what a first generation PSP game looks like. Notice how much better it looks then the "gameplay" video you posted? No, you probably don't because you're blinded by your fanboyness.

This next bit'll be fun.

Now there's an excellent question. Out of the two of us, who's the bigger Pro-apple/Anti-apple fanboy? I don't own a single thing that competes against any Apple product, besides my PC and my MP3 player. I dual-boot Linux and Vista because neither of them do everything I want out of an operating system, and if I could, I'd go purchase a copy of OSX and start tri-booting my system, if only to see that all the fuss is about. My MP3 player cost $30, and if the Shuffle had been competitively priced, I probably would have bought that instead.

My desktop PC is a Hackintosh- not Apple branded, home built, but running OS X because I like OS X. It's dual booted with Windows Vista, and running Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux in a Virtual Machine. My secondary PC is a Sony VAIO. I do not own an Apple desktop, only a MacBook, which I felt was competitively priced.

I own an iPhone, but held off from buying it initially because I felt it was:
A) Too expensive
B) I was unwilling to switch to AT&T.

I finally bought an iPhone after a $200 price drop from Apple and after stable hacks allowed me to unlock it to T-Mobile.

You on the other hand own several Apple products and have expressed interest in buying the few that you don't, if only they weren't so expensive.

Isn't this the opposite of fanboyism? I said, "Hey, the AppleTV is nice, but I'm not willing to pay $300 for it." A fanboy would have blindly purchased it.

Even a fanboy isn't stupid enough to bankrupt himself.

And most tellingly, when asked if the new iPhone's features put it on par with another brand of phone, your response was "Far, far above" because it "has similar enterprise features and is way ahead in the rest" despite not actually having used it

You do realize that the STANDARD work phone at my workplace is a Blackberry? I have used piles of it.

Further, your response has been nothing more than, "Well, I think the graphics aren't QUITE as good as you say, this you're lying and the Blackberry is better".

(which some people think is important to do before buying an apple product)

Indeed, I think it is very important. Which is why I have used blackberries extensively.

and having only seen what amounts to a commercial for it.

Blatant lie.

I was talking about the iPhone 3g. You haven't used it and have only seen a 5 day long advertisement for it.

Though my personal favorite reason you gave for why it was the best phone ever was " 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP." Really, there can only be one response to that:

Are you stupid or just a liar?
I posted:
"GPS, being able to open Word, Excel, and Powerpoints, a full desktop web browser with JavaScript and all that, 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP..."

I didn't even get into the superior video playback, ability to output to a TV, ability to purchase music legally online which can be burned to a CD when you get home, greater storage (at least compared to the Blackberries I've seen), etc, etc.

Yeah, the blackberry sucks pretty bad, especially compared to the iPhone. But you didn't have to make shit up about the iPhone's capabilities. It's only going to make people disappointed when it actually comes out.

Stop being a moron. You are making blatant assumptions about my experience with products, and claiming I said things I did not (saying I only posted one reason and singling out a minor reason I listed).

So, who's the greater fanboy? The person who self-admittedly has used no Apple products and hates them all, or the person who has used them all and only buys the ones that fit his needs?

Save yourself the embarrassment of replying.

Did you miss the part where I said I would go out and buy OSX if I had hardware it would run on? I don't hate Apple products, I just find them to be more expensive then other similarly featured products. The only other complaint I have about their products is they are way too closed.

[Dominus Atheos]

Okay, you've answered the question of why people hate Apple products. It's apparently not because of any inherent flaw, but because Apple devotees are ignorant. I'll accept that. On to the tangential parts of the discussion.

Pretty much. I don't think I've ever seen a Apple product that had hardware that could be described as anything less then solid. The only "inherent flaws" I find in most Apple products are: (A) What a closed platform they are. That's why the App Store has got so many people excited. It's just something you've been able to do on every other smartphone OS for years. (B) They're usually more expensive then other comparable products. But that's capitalism: a product is worth whatever it's purchaser is willing to pay for it.

Who knows? Maybe the App Store will come out with a program you can use to play the Matroska or Vorbis formats. Hell, with that and a price cut, I'd be actually willing to purchase one.

Mpeg-4 Part 14 is not a video format you fucking moron. It's a container file.

Indeed, and I never said it was a video format. Here's a thought for you. What makes a container file an MPEG-4 container file, specifically? Could it be ... its format? Before you continue arguing with me about this, I'd like you to think about something. Of the two of us, one has written file format parsers. It's not you.

It bundles together a video format, usually either an implementation of ASP or AVC; an audio format, usually either Mpeg-1 layer 3 or Mpeg-4 Part 3 also known as "AAC"; and sometimes a subtitle, usually Mpeg-4 Part 17 "Timed Text". It's not a video format in and of itself. The Touch doesn't support Part 2 ASP so DivX and XviD won't work on it. I'm not actually sure if it will play Nero's new Part 10 AVC implementation, but I wouldn't count on it.

Translation: "Look! Over here! Acronyms! I know what I'm talking about! No seriously!"

I'm not going to lie, I've never written anything that can encode or decode or mux or demux, but I been posting on the Doom9 forums picking the brains of the people who actually have long enough to daresay I know more about the issue then you.

Then maybe you can explain why Apple's web page explaining Mpeg-4 has a description of Quicktime's Mpeg-4 Part 2 codec developed by Apple called "Simple Profile".

Apple implemented an MPEG-4 codec in the QuickTime media framework. Just like the DivX people implemented their codec in the QuickTime framework. Or the XviD people. Or Sorenson. Or whoever. It's pretty simple. Ever wonder why video codecs are generally implemented as plug-ins? They kinda have to plug into something.

That's what I was talking about jackass. You claimed the Touch supported Mpeg-4. I told you it doesn't, it just supports the container format. If it did support Mpeg-4, it would be able to play Divx's implementation of it, Xvid's implementation of it, and Quicktime's implementation of it. Since it only supports Quicktime's implementation, it doesn't support mpeg-4 video.

Look, at this point, it's obvious that you're just regurgitating a Wikipedia page without any real understanding of what's on it. Do yourself a favor and just admit that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I wish you would go read the Wiki page instead of making shit up as you go along.

But no, everything I've posted has come from the culmination of over a year spent discussing these things with the people who are trying to implement them, including technical specifications, problems, and comparisons. I'd be happy to explain to you why one of the biggest advancements for H.264 was support for non-square block sizes, which you won't find on the Wiki.

Yes, and the iPod Touch doesn't play any of those. I still haven't heard why support for the .mp4 CONTAINER FORMAT benefits customers more then support for the much, much more popular .avi or .mkv containers does, let alone ASP or Mpeg-2 support.

And to answer that question, I suggest you seriously ponder what's a more popular file format: MPEG-4 or MKV.

Before or after the iPod came out? When it first came out, it was almost completely unheard of. The few people who use it now only use to make iPod compatible videos. If it had only supported the .mov container, .mp4 would still be non-existent, and the .mov container would be the format of choice for everyone using handbrake and iPod converters. If they had chosen Matroska, it probably would have created a new industry standard and completely eclipsed every other container by now.

You never mentioned AVI before, but if you want me to go on a rant as to why support for it should be dropped by anyone encoding video, I'd be happy to oblige you.

Trust me, I'm right there with you.