Re: Motorola Xoom:Another iPad Killer Bites the Dust

On Feb 11, 3:29 pm, Flint <age...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:56 PM, -hh wrote:

Flint<age...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, -hh wrote:

YMMV, but I'm of the opinion that explictly avoiding the "Industry
Standard" interface works in Apple's favor, by reducing their set of
challenges.

What challenges?

The total amount of work that has to be done in order to make the
product work.

So basically you're saying it _works_ to Apple's advantage because it
was too much _work_ to include industry standard connectors? Very
_easy_ and _inexpensive_ to implement connectors, I might add.

The total scope of the work required to "Do It Right" isn't merely
adding the physical port.

The total scope of the work required also includes compatibility with
every possible device made by anyone in the entire world that a
consumer might try to plug in.

I guess it does work for them if Apple isn't into work...

Its not about being afraid of work: it is about managing the
expectations of the customer.


For example, inclusion of a USB port carries with it the customer
expectation&    attitude that they can plug in any old USB device and it
is expected to work and be compatible, which means more work for Apple
to provide this capability.

The erroneous expections/attitudes is an overblown issue that is
outweighed by the need for a plethora of adapters, the diminished
'convencience' of the device's touted portability/mobility.

All it solves is Apples need to nickel-&-dime consumers for adding
industry standard port usage capability.

No, this is a classic example of how one "AwShit" trumps a dozen
"AttaBoys".



I'm not convinced.  How does a dongle/USB adapter change anything in
the way of any such erroneous customer expections?

This isn't about "dongles".  It is about the question of what hardware
I/O port should be chosen, such as if it should be an iPod 30-pin
port, or if it should be a USB port.

"Should be chosen"?  If the port _type_ required is already determined
by a peripheral, what "choosing" is really necessary?  These are 30
pin-to-<whatever> adapters, no?  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding
something here. Are these not _passive_ adapter devices?

Yes, you're misunderstanding.


Obviously the Apple 30 pin dock connector carries USB, FireWire,
audio, video, and control signal lines. Why don't they finish their
work, and do a _proper_ design implementation of industry standard
port implementation, and not encumber the majority of users because of
the few 'port-clueless'?  Or perhaps you are saying Apple thinks the
majority of it's users are dumb idiots?  Trading off functionality for
Apple's view of proper interconnect usage is a case of 'function
following form' or the tail-wagging-the-dog.

Which will a consumer will be more upset by: (a) the absence of a
feature, or (b) lots of features which only work erratically?

If you don't recognize it, this is the trade-off that underlies the
"It Just Works", which is a nexus of higher customer satisfaction.




But with the iPod port, this expectation
only exists for the far smaller set of peripheral devices that
actually have this interface port.

I would think that requiring a user to potentially wear out or snap
off a dongle adapter is far more likely that having dedicated ports
built in.  Furthermore, the need to swap dongle adapter types between
SD card and USB types would tend to be a more frequent point of
failure if you ask me.

Dongle adapters are a PITA, *period*.

Agreed, but essentially irrelevant to what I was talking about.

But it is what we're talking about.  Unless one is adhering to a
limited original 'software-key' definition of what constitutes a
dongle, these _are_ dongle 'type' adapters I _am_ talking about.

Fine, *you're* talking about encryption dongles. I'm not. Bye.


-hh


Not to mention that the 30-pin dock connector being a _single point_
concentration of various industry standard signals into a _single
point_ common connection, is also an introduction of a _single point_
of _failure_ into the iPad design.  Case in point: look at how many
cell-phones with damaged multipin connectors that constantly get
plugged into by repeated charger use.

Forcing the end user to constantly make use of a single connector for
various interface adapters multiplies the statistical probability of
failure that renders the entire device useless or need of repair
because of said 'dock connector shuffle'.  That's fine if iPads were
truly 'throw away-n-replace' devices, but I suspect consumers won't
see $500+ devices quite that way.  Especially if they get
nickel-&-dimed by the cost of additional accessories to use the iPad's
dock connector.

--
MFB

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Left handed joystick and com port
    ... Is there a connector that will convert this to USB? ... slot adapter look like they match, buy the connector is too wide to ... port this would work too. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Left handed joystick and com port
    ... Is there a connector that will convert this to USB? ... You can order USB to serial port adapter dongles. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Left handed joystick and com port
    ... Is there a connector that will convert this to USB? ... slot adapter look like they match, buy the connector is too wide to ... port this would work too. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: USB to RS-232 Serial Adapter Advice
    ... connector) and he is having a tough time getting it connected to his new ... card serial port or an ExpressCard serial port. ... SeeYou would allow more port options. ... Keyspan USB-to-serial adapter or via the Mac's internal bluetooth ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)
  • Re: Left handed joystick and com port
    ... Is there a connector that will convert this to USB? ... slot adapter look like they match, buy the connector is too wide to ... port this would work too. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)