I don't buy Apple products in general (with only one exception) and I think this presentation was of really poor taste, being in total agreement with the article.

That said ... I have an iPhone 3GS and I couldn't care less that it has lower resolution, a 600 MHz processor and only 256 MB of RAM. I totally prefer it over any Android high-end device available right now, because it runs smoothly, it has all the apps that I need including a couple of cool games, upgrades have been smooth and I haven't had any problems with it.

I don't like the iPad, I don't like their closed iTunes repository.

But I really think more hardware / software companies should be focusing more on functionality, polish, user experience rather than technical specifications.

And here I was hoping that at least one hardware company gets it. And yet I see them entering that same shitty game.

Have you really tried a recent Android device? Many highly technical people (ok, programmers/nerds) prefer it after they dig into it vs an iPhone.

Notifications, Google Nav, 3D + Vectorized Google Maps, Chrome-to-Phone, a real filesystem with SFTP/FTP/HTTP sync apps, widgets, python via SL4A, free dev tools for Windows/Linux/Mac, awesome 3rd party ROMs, swappable batteries, SDCard, bigger screens, tight Google voice integration, WiMax/LTE, Swype, better cameras, faster javascript, $30/mo cheaper plans, etc.. I feel sorry for iPhone4 users who think they're superior because the scrolling on their phone is a little smoother.

My wife has an Desire HD. It is great, and a developer's dream indeed (you can run frikin' Python on it :)). I also think the iPhone 4 is too expensive and doesn't provide enough value for the extra money over the 3GS or over a cheap Android, like LG Optimus One.

I was just making a point that faster processor / bigger RAM doesn't necessarily translate in a better experience; and more companies should focus on experience.

You can get roughly half of those features after you jailbreak your iPhone.

Faster JavaScript is coming in 4.3. As to whether or not it will be faster than Ginger, I haven't used the beta (4.3) yet.

You can get _x_ features if you're willing to wait longer for updates, are willing to potentially be told your warranty is void if your device breaks, and don't have a recently released device.

Versus having said features out of the box.

In part they're "playing the game" because their followers want them to.

But I agree that it should be about how useful the device is, but that runs counter-intuitively to how companies work. The device must make more profit. This might mean being more marketable, or it might mean having a channel for content, or it might mean being better. Sadly, better is the WORST of the three.

"Apple is a religion."

I find the "cult of apple" and "apple is a religion" memes amusing because, including myself, the majority of Apple users that I know are atheists.

Personally, I think "spectator sports" makes for more constructive analogies than religion. People develop very strong associations to their favorite rugby/football/etc team, delight in their team's victories, and bemoan their losses. Some people cheer on favorite tech companies in the same way. It's silly, but no more so than a die-hard Detroit Lions fan.

I wish I could upvote you more. "X is a religion" should only be valid when X categorically resembles a religion--books, worship, in-group perks, rituals, supernatural, the lot. Your sports team analogy is great.

The old testament: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Inside-Macintosh-Volumes-III/dp/...

The new testament: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Macintosh-Apple-Computer-Inc/dp...

The book of common prayer: http://www.amazon.com/Macintosh-Human-Interface-Guidelines-C...

The dead sea scrolls: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Reference-Manual-Computers-030-0...

The Apocrypha: http://www.amazon.com/Newton-2-0-User-Interface-Guidelines/d...

Deuterocanonical: http://www.amazon.com/OpenDoc-Programmers-Guide-Apple-Comput...

Dianetics: http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/ui_guidelines/i...

Religion to me is any kind of belief without questioning, without observable proof.

Books, worship, in-group perks, rituals, supernatural; are just side-effects and the scale of it depends on the ability of its leaders to bullshit people.

I'm not an atheist btw - that also requires belief and too much energy. As I'm too lazy to answer the question "does God exist or not?" guess that makes me an agnostic - and truly I don't give a shit.

But then again, I'm an Ubuntu user that also uses Windows from time to time. And Ubuntu Christian Edition is a few clicks away if I ever make a decision :p

If you cannot honestly make this claim: "I believe in god/s", you are an atheist by definition. You may not be a strong atheist which is someone who would make the claim: "There is/are no god/s", but you are still an atheist (a weak atheist, which anecdotally appears to be the most common variety). Just think about the roots, atheism - without theism.

You're also an agnostic if you can honestly make the claim: "It is unknowable whether or not there is/are god/s".

I used to call myself an agnostic because, for whatever reason, people always assume that if you are an atheist you hold the position that there are no gods (which you also seem to hold given your assumption that atheism is a position that requires belief).

Just as long as you realize you're using uncommon terminology with respect to 'religion'. I'd rather term faith-based thinking as religious-thinking (or religious-esque), but it's certainly not unique to religion, and some irrational atheists also suffer from it... (I'd also ask how many bits of evidence about a belief you require before you take something as proof but that's fairly off-topic..) In regards to the god question, for me I care about being right, and my number of bits for the proposition "the Christian god exists" is at least below -10 so I'm pretty sure it's false. :) If I was presented with a strong piece of evidence in the other direction, I might join you and uninstall Gentoo to use the holy Ubuntu Christian Edition.

You know, the problem with God is that it isn't really a falsifiable notion; but here's something to chew on ...

Do you admit the possibility that tomorrow, based on weird but explainable phenomenons, molecules in the air might collide and materialize a tuna-sandwitch right before your eyes? Think about it - possibility is so close to zero that intuition would tell you that it is impossible.

And yet atheists are ready to admin that this wonderful and full of life world that we live in (which is a lot more complex than a tuna-sandwich btw) - came into being by way of some kind of cosmic accident that we'll never understand, with our universe instantly expanding, forming lots of hydrogen-burning stars and rocks of all shapes and sizes - and somehow on one of these rocks, carbon-based life not only happened, but it also gave birth to sentience.

This story is even more unlikely to happen than a tuna-sandwich integrating right before your eyes tomorrow, or having a man in red suit driving a sleigh with flying reindeers and yet we consider it natural because it already happened.

That's why I said atheism also requires faith.

Eh, I'll spend a little karma. I believe the laws of physics, and it's the laws of physics which make the spontaneity of sandwich-appearance much less likely than the arising of homo sapiens based on billions of years of causality we have determined experimentally and then many many years of the very mathematical process of evolution. The big bang theory has some issues, but the idea that things were once really close together and now are expanding at an accelerating rate is pretty nailed down. Evolutionary theory is similarly nailed down, I believe both those propositions with a fairly high number of bits. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but not by merit of the possibility that I could be wrong. Not all possibilities are equal.

Can you point to some atheists who are as you say? As an atheist I've never considered this a particularly wonderful and full of life world (sure I like it and want to preserve parts of it but there's a lot of improvement to be made) nor have I considered the mysteries of the universe are incomprehensible. We are as Sagan said "the universe trying to understand itself".

You may say our lives coming into being by the known fundamental laws of physics is as unlikely as Santa existing, but here we are, the evidence is actually in front of us, humans and quantum mechanics. I've never seen Santa, yet I've seen humans and studied some QM.

Edit: oh hey, I almost forgot. http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova... "The earliest account I know of a scientific experiment is, ironically, the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal."

books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dap...

worship: http://www.google.de/images?q=steve+jobs+messiah

rituals: the constant plugging in of iphones and ipods into iDevices to recharge/setup

Couldn't resist ;)

Wow, the Spanish Inquisition works quickly! Already down to -4!

I guess you weren't expecting that.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.