Posted on 07/04/2007 10:25:42 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Do you know what item the science fiction writers DIDN'T predict? The personal computer.
Read more. You've obviously missed some...
“P.P.S. — And by the way, I do have the iPhone and it’s the best thing out there for the kind of product that it is.”
You have to define what “kind of product” means - It is certtainly not the most technically advanced in terms of hardware capabilities, except for I believe, the two finger touch. In every other catagory it is at best equal to others, and inferior to many.
As afr as suggestiions for improving their product - don’t you think pointing out where it is deficient is a suggestion where improvement could be made ?
Apple was not simply stupid when they left out streaming audio, IM and VOIP - they know that these things exist, people use them, and may expect them in a “breaktrough” device. Being software based it costs effectively nothing to include them in the product. They left them out purposely.
The “kind of product” — well, that’s a phone with an iPod in it and Mac OS X, along with “Multi-touch technology” and interface, along with those other miscellaneous things that they’ve put in there. That “kind of product”....
I suppose that the kind of “category” that some people have put the product into — is called a “smart phone” and I guess it’s useful for evaluation from that standpoint. And I was reading that just on that basis (of being a smart phone) that with the Apple iPhone being just introduced — it has already blown away three other major competitors in that market-space — leaving only one more to surpass, and it’s expected to surpass them soon. So, Apple is expected to be Number 1 in that market-space in short order, coming out of nowhere — whereas all four of these other major competitors have been at it for years and have not hardly done anything like Apple’s iPhone...
As far as improving the product, Apple always does with all its products. That’s one thing that the Apple users always count on with Apple. They always come through. And Apple also has a web page for inputting those kinds of suggestions. And it will listen to the users and put things in there, according to the demand.
A lot of things people talk about wanting or something that they wish were not left out — is simply related to a “version 1” product. But, for being a “version 1” product and blowing away three major competitors in that market-space, while expecting to surpass the one additional and remaining one, relatively quickly is absolutely outstanding for Apple...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I doubt it... I've been reading science fiction for over 48 years.
Are you suggesting those were missed by SF writers before their reality came about?
Here’s a link to an article about the smart phone market...
http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/40264
Now you are just being deliberately obtuse.
I hate that. It's dishonest.
“The “kind of product” — well, that’s a phone with an iPod in it and Mac OS X, ...”
You’ve summed it up right there - you require an ipod rather then a music player and Mas OS X to be in the catagory of “kind of product” ... the iphone cannot possibly NOT have 100% of the that market for that “kind of product”
Your “kind of product” includes an ipod and OSX on a mobile platform with internet connectivity, yet it gives you NO way to use those to obtain music - how absurd !
“whereas all four of these other major competitors have been at it for years and have not hardly done anything like Apple’s iPhone...”
Simply not true - As I have pointed out, there are many phones on the market that exceed the technical capability of the iphone.
No, I am not. Nor am I being dishonest. I made the statement that Science Fiction writers failed to predict the personal computer. You then, in reply, list:
The Datasphere, personal terminals, virtual reality, human consciuosness in electronic form...
as those had also been missed, and then commented:
Read more. You've obviously missed some...
I merely questioned if you thought those had been missed by Science Fiction writers, which is what you implied. Had you said "yes" I was intending to direct you to some writing that included some of those on the list... written prior to their development... for your enjoyment.
And no, things like "personal terminals" ect... were in fact predicted long before it was thought technology would ever beb able to come up with such things. L. Neil Smith predicted the Internet a decade and a half before the public knew what a personal computer was.
Never saw Forbidden Planet did you? Star Trek? Frank Herberts Dune and the prohibition on "machines that think as men do". Metropolis.And no, things like "personal terminals" ect... were in fact predicted long before it was thought technology would ever beb able to come up with such things. L. Neil Smith predicted the Internet a decade and a half before the public knew what a personal computer was.
Yes, I have seen Forbidden Planet... both in the theater (actually it was at a drive in) when it was first released in 1956 and numerous other times on TV, tape, or laserdisk. The Krell were long dead and it was their left behind machines that increased the IQ and mental abilities of the humans who used them but did not improve their primitive emotional Id. . . as it did in the Krell which resulted in the Krell's extinction.
I see no "personal computers" unless you are referring to Robby the Robot... in which case we can go back Isaac Asimov's I, Robot (1950), to Metropolis (1927), which you mention, or even farther back to R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) (1921)... or all the way back to the Golem of Jewish folklore. None of the presage the ubiquitous personal computer of today.
By the way, did you know that you could own one of the 10 limited edition remakes of a working Robby the Robot? Click here, if you've got a spare $50,000 to spend.
I've seen Star Trek (1966)... where are the personal computers? Tri-corders? The ship's computer that petulantly flirted with Captain Kirk?
1965's Dune? "Machines that think as men do" does not imply personal computers... it implies self aware machines.
L. Neil Smith predicted the Internet a decade and a half before the public knew what a personal computer was.
That's just dead wrong, Dead.
Where did Neil predict this 15 years before the personal computer???
L. Neil Smith's first published work, The Probability Broach (I have a signed first edition copy), was published in December 1979... that would make the first personal computer dated to 1994. I don't think so. I also don't recall any "Internet" in that story. I was programming my first Commodore PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) in 1977. The Apple II was also debuted in 1977.
As for the Internet... the precursors of the World Wide Web were in place in 1969 with ARPANET.
Personal terminals were not personal computers but dumb keyboard/screens that linked to larger computers located elsewhere.
As for Virtual Reality and real human thought in computers, I suggest you might enjoy reading Similacron-3 written in 1963 by Daniel F. Galouye and published in 1964 (I have a first edition paperback in its original title The Counterfeit World as well as the later edition under the Similacron-3 name). This novel is probably the first description of a virtual reality existing entirely in the memory banks of a computer.
You are engaging in Sophistry. I have no time for it.
So... because someone didn't slap a Dell label on the side of it, it doesn't equate? Because it's called a "terminal", or a "telecom link" it isn't a PDA or the Internet?
The above comment is the logical fallacy of putting up a strawman so you can chop it down through ridicule. I never asserted anything of the kind. It also fails because of false premises.
I worked for years with terminals... I've installed them, connected them, serviced them... and they are NOT personal computers. Period. A terminal is an input/output peripheral that usually has little to no native computing power. Without a connection to a computer, a terminal is incapable of doing anything. A personal computer can emulate a terminal, but a terminal cannot be a personal computer. A "telecom link" is another peripheral that operates between devices. So, Dead, no, they "Don't equate."
Find for me in Science Fiction literature, a novel, short story, or film, the use of personally owned, stand alone computers prior to their invention in the 1970s. This does not count a "terminal" that connects to a central computer that is merely a peripheral. It has to be autonomous.
I am still waiting for you to tell me where L. Neil Smith predicted the internet 15 years before the average person knew what a personal computer was. That was an assertion of fact you trotted out to prove your case... but you have not supported it. I on the other hand have shot it down with more facts. Mainly the fact that L. Neil Smith published his first effort at Science Fiction in December of 1979, TWO YEARS after the personal computer was being sold to consumers.- and TEN YEARS after the foundation for the World Wide Web had been laid in 1969. Prove your assertion, Dead.
You are engaging in Sophistry. I have no time for it.
You make up "facts" and I refute your false assertions with facts and you insult me by accusing me of engaging in sophistry? The only one participating in "false argument with the intent to deceive" around here is you.
By the way, accusing a debating opponent of sophistry is a form of argumentum ad hominem... another form of logical fallacy.
It has become extremely obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. . . either in personal computers or Science Fiction. That's an observation. May I suggest you spend some time with a good dictionary? Words mean things... and definitions are important.
Not if it fits the definition. Now you are engaging in the intellectual equal of "No I didn't, you did" common on so many playgrounds throughout the world.
So... as I said...
Also, if you read Smith's books, the Telecom is pretty damn close to what we are getting out of the Internet today. Especially with the iPhone filling in the nitch of a pocket "terminal".
AS I ORIGINALLY STATED.
But then you had to go off on a tangent about personal computers or whatever else you were frothing over.
Sorry. You are wrong. I have read all of L. Neil Smith's books. You keep attributing ignorance to me with no evidence. I will grant L. Neil Smith's Telecom... but it was not 15 years before the internet or similar services. It was pretty much contemporaneous. And it was certainly not 15 years before the public knew about personal computers as you asserted.
You are a nit picker you... Still proves my point and makes you look fairly silly...
I won't even grant you that, Dead.
You asserted, as a fact, that "L. Neil Smith predicted the internet a decade and a half before the public knew what a personal computer was".
In fact, Dead, he did not.
He could not have.
Your "12 years" would put the introduction of the Personal Computer and the public's awareness of it into 1991. False on its face.
As much as I like L. Neil Smith's science fiction, I cannot move it back in time to make him appear more prescient that he is, as you want to do. He started publishing his writing in December of 1979, two years to three years after the introduction of the first personal computers in 1976 and 1977. Time Magazine named the Personal Computer the Person of the Year in 1982. . . which suggests the public was quite aware of what a Personal Computer was.
Therefore your evidence is false and does not "prove your point." ;p> You are a nit picker you... Still proves my point and makes you look fairly silly...
That is not "nitpicking" and posting facts does not make me "silly." In a debate, only facts count... your fantasies and wishful thinking do not.
I would bet that most people reading this would think that your position is the by far the weakest and, in fact, untenable.
WWW opened up to the public. 1993.
You can do math can't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.