Post a Comment
that may be true, but like it or not the iphone (like the ipod before it) have put touch interfaces in the radar of joe average. so in a sense, its become the new baseline that one will compare everything to, even if there where similar devices before it.
hell, if one look at the DAP market, creative had the first devices out. but they where to large compared to the storage they had. i recall one such device that someone in the local area had. it was as large as a cd player, with 1/3 the song capacity or there about.
that may be true, but like it or not the iphone (like the ipod before it) have put touch interfaces in the radar of joe average. so in a sense, its become the new baseline that one will compare everything to, even if there where similar devices before it.
In USA, maybe. In Europe SonyEricsson UIQ-based smartphones are common even for the average Joe, so touchscreen interface is nothing new here.
the number of people waiting for an iphone in europe will diminish faster than OS/2 warp users if they dont get 3G.
mobile tech in europe and asian regions is far more advanced and in the hands of more average joes than in the US.
Most people here wont pay over £200 if it doesn't have a reasonably fast network connection (not including wifi) why would they be prepared to pay £500? (and yes, even fanbois have a limit)
But they did invent a user interface style that is a huge leap in usabilty. Feature for feature you could say it's been done but, for example, the Google Maps on the iPhone can tell you what you need to know in the time you have waiting at a stop light where on other phones you would spend all your time navigating.
So if you compare use cases rather than just features, you'll see the real payoff.
But, to get back to the topic, the problem is no one wants to pay for QT or rather, force commercial devs to pay for QT to use their platform. This means you're stuck with GTK. Which leads to a bigger issue: if you want an open source project to take a huge shift, you had better have the developers to back it up. You can't freeload. Look at WebKit, Apple didn't try to convince the khtml devs to do it for them, they applied their own resources to the project and let the community build around the fork.
Edited 2007-08-14 20:57
The comment seems to apply to the successor to PalmOS Cobalt, the never officially named "PalmOS for Linux" that Palmsource was working on when Access bought them and changed the direction of the product.
This is not to be confused with either the Linux variant that Palm is using on the Foleo, or the Linux deal that Palm has just announced with Wind River.
don't like the interface at all. looks very unpolished, amateurish and unprofessional. it does look like they "borrowed" from the iPhone but unsuccessfully imo.
other than apple, microsoft and some sony ericssons i haven't really seen good interfaces on other devices like that... i don't get it - it's such a huge market and everybody puts out interfaces that look like they've been put together by their geeky developers and are usually very ugly and unintuitive. how many millions of units need to be sold before they start making devices that are actually usable...
After seeing ugly themes time and time again, it seems to me that it is a limitation of the underlying UI framework that is difficult for a theme to cover up. The only exception is the SLED theme but even that falls back on the awful default Yes/No buttons with aliased icons.




