Gender: Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 1226 Status: User Location: A valley full o' Pioneer.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject:
Its_The_Sneak!!! wrote:
Der wrote:
Oh no, I was just giving an example of two products I know are basically the same except for the badge and price tag.
Does a Camry park itself?
That would be the LS460, which retails (base!) for a full $30,000 more than the base ES350. The Advanced Parking Guidance System, or whatever they're calling it, is, as far as I've read, not available on the ES, although the somewhat less spectacular Intuitive Parking Assist is. I believe it's technically a $500 option, but you need to include a minimum of $1,200 worth of other options to actually get it, and the smallest options package Lexus offers that includes it is about $7,400. Basically, it tells you when you're getting too close to the curb or some other object. So, no, the Camry does not park itself, and neither does the ES, although it will tell you how to park for about $7,400 on top of its base price.
(Not that I've looked or anything. . .) _________________ Married to Terri.
Gender: Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 586 Status: User Location: New Finland
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject:
Der wrote:
Its_The_Sneak!!! wrote:
Der wrote:
Oh no, I was just giving an example of two products I know are basically the same except for the badge and price tag.
Does a Camry park itself?
That would be the LS460, which retails (base!) for a full $30,000 more than the base ES350. The Advanced Parking Guidance System, or whatever they're calling it, is, as far as I've read, not available on the ES, although the somewhat less spectacular Intuitive Parking Assist is. I believe it's technically a $500 option, but you need to include a minimum of $1,200 worth of other options to actually get it, and the smallest options package Lexus offers that includes it is about $7,400. Basically, it tells you when you're getting too close to the curb or some other object. So, no, the Camry does not park itself, and neither does the ES, although it will tell you how to park for about $7,400 on top of its base price.
(Not that I've looked or anything. . .)
they had that on geekologie! _________________
and the cheat will hit stuff with a golf club! SEE-GEE-IN-YOU.
Gender: Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 321 Status: Administrator
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject:
Overall, I'm not very impressed with the iPhone. For a phone coming out in mid-2007, it just seems a little backwards. Between the lack of 3G support and the restrictive third-party app policy, I don't know if it would even qualify as a smartphone. It's a shame since, physically, it does look very nice, I just don't see spending $600 for a Cingular phone that doesn't even support HSDPA/UMTS, yet advertises itself as a "Breakthrough Internet Device"... For that price, you can get a real smartphone that will let you run whatever app you want -and- use Cingular's 3G network.
It's too early to tell exactly how the approved third-party application library will look, but if it's anything like Verizon's BREW/GIN library, it's a wonderful way to screw paying customers out of more money. But I'm hoping Apple is better than Verizon when it comes to this. It would, in fact, be hard -not- to be better than Verizon's BREW set up...
Conclusion:
It looks nice, but in terms of functionality, you'd honestly be better off with a similarly priced WM5 based smartphone. Usability is impossible to judge since the phone is far from being out, but the shots of the menu look rather similar to Motorola phones.
3.5/5 for lack of third-party support and lack of 3G. Other than that, looks like a nice, if a bit expensive, phone.(But those two are rather major selling points for me...)
Edit: fixed one occurrence of braindeadness... interface looks like Motorola, not WM5. _________________
Last edited by beyonder on Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Gender: Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Status: Moderator
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject:
Apple must be being blinded by the shininess of their products, 'cause they keep showing prodigious lack of foresight.
Like all the lawsuits they've walked straight into. Do they think the owners of the toes they're deliberately stepping on just won't care? Apple Records made some agreement with them never to get into the music industry, and they did with iTunes, so Apple Records sued. They failed to file a patent on time for the iPod, and by the time they did, it was rejected, 'cause it tread on two patents. Creative and Microsoft were nice about it for a while, but they both sued eventually. Apple could've just changed the iPod so that wouldn't happen, but they didn't. And now this. Cisco sued as soon as Apple tried to infringe on their trademark. Every Apple message board or news site has been saying for months "oh no, they can't call it the iPhone 'cause Cisco already owns that," but Apple didn't care. They marched right into it.
And it seems like they only add features they think consumers will think are "cool," while ignoring the ones that matter. The reason you can't close the laptop lid may be so Apple didn't have to put in vents around the side of the MacBook. That's stupid... venting through the keyboard is a liability, not only 'cause you can't close the lid, but you know how people are... who's to say that some idiot won't cover their keyboard to keep it clean or something? And Apple's made vents look sleek in the past... they just seem to care about look over function, and it bothers me how so many people seem to just eat it up and deal with the consequences by rationalizing them.
I've said it before, but almost every Apple product I touch shows its flaws to me within the first 5 minutes of my using it. I can't be the only one who notices, but it bothers me that it looks like I am. Am I just too critical of Apple? Would I accept the flaw if the device was made by another company? Maybe, but I don't think so. My gripes are pretty large as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't put up with a device that behaved in that manner. I guess I expect something out of my electronics that Apple designers don't anticipate me to expect, but most other designers do. _________________ Come into my den let me hear you cluck
You can be my hen and we can f(Bu-GAWK)
A bite to the leg, it's time to play
Baby, let me be your egg that needs to get laid.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Chicken of Lust"
Gender: Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 1226 Status: User Location: A valley full o' Pioneer.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:19 am Post subject:
Its_The_Sneak!!! wrote:
who's to say that some idiot won't cover their keyboard to keep it clean or something?
In my wanderings of the internet I have found that someone with a MacBook has been doing this for a while. So far, so good, apparently. I don't think it's a good idea, necessarily, but it hasn't killed it yet. _________________ Married to Terri.
Gender: Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Status: Moderator
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:20 am Post subject:
Carlo Von Sexron wrote:
What exactly didn't you like about the iPod?
Its_The_Sneak!!! wrote:
And my grandmother got an iPod Nano for Christmas, and she wanted me to set it up for her. I did, and despite what most of you must think, I didn't sabotage it.
But I did try to pull down on the click wheel before I realized you have to draw circles to scroll. I also couldn't find any easy or intuitive way to set it to shuffle... my Nomad has a "Play Mode" option in both the Main menu and the Now Playing menu, but I couldn't find a way to do it on the current playlist... Seems like it would only shuffle through the entire contents of the device and not one playlist.
Oh yeah, and how it throws a fit if you try to sync it to a different computer... my cousin and I had a "fun" time fighting with it to get all the music on there she wanted. Now I have it sync with her iTunes, though, so all she has to do is get the songs in there... and iTunes loves to eat music, so that's easy.
"If you want to start syncing the iPod with this computer, all your music will be erased!"
screw you, Apple. You suck.
Carlo Von Sexron wrote:
Which you can use to share music with the two other people who bought a Zune.
Hey, the only way you can share music on an iPod is if you let someone else use the other earbud.
_________________ Come into my den let me hear you cluck
You can be my hen and we can f(Bu-GAWK)
A bite to the leg, it's time to play
Baby, let me be your egg that needs to get laid.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Chicken of Lust"
Gender: Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 2135 Status: User Location: goodness I have dropped the constitution
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:30 am Post subject:
I'm not going to argue with you (it'd be fruitless) but I hardly see how those are pretty large gripes.
Honestly, I think every issue you have bar sharing headphones (personally if I wanted someone to hear a song I would just hook my iPod up to speakers) could be easily worked around by reading the fucking manual.
That's a pretty patchy solution, though, god forbid that things are so unintuitive you have to read the documentation.
Gender: Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Status: Moderator
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:39 am Post subject:
Carlo Von Sexron wrote:
I hardly see how those are pretty large gripes.
of course you don't, 'cause you own an iPod.
And no, I'm not going to read any manuals. RTFM is for unix programs, not MP3 players. If the iPod is really as intuitive as everyone says it is, nobody should have to read the manual. _________________ Come into my den let me hear you cluck
You can be my hen and we can f(Bu-GAWK)
A bite to the leg, it's time to play
Baby, let me be your egg that needs to get laid.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Chicken of Lust"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
