> A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
> The iPhone wasn't successful because of its beautiful design. It was because it packed everything we needed every day—phone calls, music, internet, photos, maps—into a single device.
Have to disagree here. There were many devices before (and after) the iPhone that offered this package but it stands above the rest because of its design and polish.
I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch. I think the first time I saw an iPhone in person was in France maybe around 2007/2008 or something, and at that point it didn't even have the AppStore I'm fairly sure, just had the apps it came with.
And most of the discussion I had with the owner wasn't about how it was "all-in-one package", but rather how much smoother the UI was compared to other touch devices at the time, how accurate it was and how it felt in the hand.
I had the OG iPod Touch, which had the same software (minus the phone, camera, and GPS parts).
It did web browsing very well.
And it came with Maps (which, at that time, used Google's data).
It was initially amusing back then when the world was commonly filled with wide-open 802.11 networks to pull out that little pocket computer, connect to a nearby network (if it hadn't already connected to "Linksys"), and browse an online map -- from about anywhere with a building nearby.
Wifi-based geolocation was also spooky-good at that time.
Anyway, it didn't do much else that I found useful. It was generally lacking features that I'd been using for years with a Handspring Visor (which itself ran on a pair of alkaline batteries for months).
Early IOS didn't even have a clipboard to cut and paste with.
So I jailbroke it. I added multitasking, an app "store," a clipboard and a bunch of other fun stuff long before Apple allowed those functions.
I think I even had a good bit of the Debian userland installed at one point.
After that, I used it all the time for stuff (until the OG Motorola Droid replaced it in 2009, which was easy as pie to root: just dump a special su on there and run it).
When Jobs first announced the iPhone, he really sold the idea that it was running a real web browser like on a desktop. Up to that point, there was a special mobile internet that really sucked.
I remember WAP, GPRS and the newly invented 2G all too well :) But seems my memory wasn't perfect regarding a browser being on the iPhone initially or not, thanks for the correction.
I miss WAP browsing. By necessity, it stripped out all the "advanced" design bullshit that made web pages suck. Just a couple links and buttons is fast and reliable.
Yeah, me to in a way, browsing pages where every link is centered, shit quality porn ads everywhere and deep down in the pages you could finally find that .jar link to the cracked game you were out after. Trying to remember any of the WAP websites I frequented at the time, but seem to recall any by name or address...
Weirdly enough, I think a weather report website was my most frequented WAP site. And maybe Slashdot? And I guess downloading .wav clips of South Park quotes. Later on, a social media site called BrightKite, where you'd submit your location and talk to other people who'd been there, post pictures of the place (via MMS-to-Email). There wasn't a whole lot to do on the 00's internet.
> There wasn't a whole lot to do on the 00's internet
Maybe depends on the country but 00's in Sweden on the internet was OK, lots of social places and other nerdery going on that was easy to get into, granted you had an internet connection. LunarStorm (originally "Stajlplajs" I think) must have been popular around 2002 already, and I remember that from my teenage age group, most of them were signed up to Lunarstorm, even though most of us were still on modems, 240p webcams and white/yellow desktop computers.
The problem wasn't the special mobile internet but the operating systems. Most phone OS before iOS just couldn't run full Gecko/Trident/WebKit/what-have-you. The phones could reach any external IPv4 addresses, but there weren't much to do with neither browser nor an app store.
You could run things like IRC clients, dedicated text chat apps, and server rendered browsers on live Internet. But downloading full webpages was too much for the hardware.
> Building on Openwave's HDML, Nokia's "Tagged Text Markup Language" (TTML) and Ericsson's proprietary markup language for mobile content, the WAP Forum created the WML 1.1 standard in 1998. WML 2.0 was specified in 2001, but has not been widely adopted. It was an attempt at bridging WML and XHTML Basic before the WAP 2.0 spec was finalized. In the end, XHTML Mobile Profile became the markup language used in WAP 2.0.
> I don't recall if the iPhone actually even had internet and maps at launch
It did. Jobs famously said on stage [0] "An iPod, a Phone, and an Internet Communicator. An iPod, a Phone... are you getting it? These are not 3 seperate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it iPhone" at the launch. It also did come with maps that used Google Maps.
It had internet, back then one of the big bits of news tangential to the iphone releasing was how Jobs decided on no Flash player on their mobile devices, which was the mortal wound to official support of that format. More generally though, I think the iphone (or smartphones in general) work as a good example of bundling capabilities and doing it well. Phones before then could do many of the things smartphones could, some could play games, could play music, some had cameras, and there were separate devices that specialized in those and did them better, but smartphones collected them all up and started an arms race in doing them great.
> things smartphones could, some could play games, could play music, some had cameras, and there were separate devices that specialized in those and did them better
But even Sony Ericsson phones way before the iPhone could all do those things in one phone too, some of them really good for their time. Yet they never kind of changed the technology scene as much as the iPhone.
When I first saw the iPhone I remember thinking how silly it was that a device calling itself a "phone" only had the phone function as of many apps. Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.
The iPhone felt more like a general portable computing device that happened to also function as a phone.
Even the Blackberry up to that point still felt more like an "email/phone device" primarily (though funny enough, I never had a Blackberry myself until after the iPhone came out).
The irony now, and I suspect many people are like this, is my "phone" is barely ever used as an actual phone. It's a computer with a data plan. I am way more likely to use some kind of internet-based voice/video chat than make or take a phone call.
My phone icon is still on my home screen, but only because it is something I want to be able to get at quickly in an emergency. I'm certain it's the least-used icon on the screen, though.
> Other phones had internet and other features, sure, but their "home" screen, so to speak, was a phone UI. You had to hit "Menu" or something else to see the other apps, which were clearly secondary to the primary phone function.
There were also other “phones” that only had the phone function as one of many apps.
Case in point, Safari. I used Blackberry before the iPhone as well as multiple other "mobile browsers" on PocketPC, Palm, and even WAP browsers on flip phones (maybe also Opera Mini? My memory is fuzzy on when that came out).
Nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to Safari on the iPhone. It was in a league of its own. It was dog-slow over Edge but it was a _real_ browser instead of what had come before.
agree. as a heavy user of smartphones pre-iPhone, the actually usable browser was the biggest advantage the iPhone had at introduction. I'd even put it above the capacitive/multi touch capabilities, as these did not enable new functionality but merely made it a nicer experience.
Imho the iphone could have been a literal stinking 1kg brick and as long as it kept the same UI people would carry them around on a carrying handle and it would still have been a success.
Its the screen (size) that mattered. While screens make terrible input devices, for content consumption they are king. And that is the dividing line between blackberry/iphones. An argument can also be made for "boring business blackberry" vs "fun" iphone.
The apps were worse, but you had that HUGE screen to look at. And compared to other non-blackberry phones where you were limited to T9 text input, it was a game changer.
I've seen this argument thrown around but I'm not sure I understand how it holds up. Why didn't android just completely copy apple's marketing, then? What did apple do differently,marketing wise, that android couldn't emulate?
There is some value to the idea as Apple was a single manufacture with a somewhat high end image vs Android being on every random company, some who were decidedly budget/low end. So we seem some real tacky advertising for Android devices vs more polished ads for iPhone. But there is more to the story than just this factor
Their whole marketing campaign was basically "You've never seen anything like this before, no one has made a phone capable of all this". You can't really copy that marketing if you're the second company making such a product unless you want to be laughed at.
It's interesting that Anthropic maintains current prices for prior state of the art models when doing a new release. Why offer a model with worse performance for the same price? What incentives are they trying to create?
One obvious explanation is that pricing is strongly related to the price to them, and that their only incentive is for people to use an expensive model of they really need it.
I forget which one of the GPT models was better, faster, and cheaper than the previous model. The incentive there is obviously, "If you want to use the old model for whatever reason, fine, but we really want you to use the new one because costs us less to run."
I'm guessing it's mostly for legacy reasons. When 3.7 came out many people were not happy with it and went back to 3.5; I guess supporting older models for a while makes sense.
I remember watching a video some years back where the researcher thought he had developed such a test.
As I recall (it's been many years; likely over a decade since I saw it) he tested it with a woman who was believed to have tetrachromatic vision. She could reliably tell the difference.
As a control, he tested it with a man who was trained as a graphic artist.
He too could reliably tell the difference.
That result strongly implied the test did not work as expected.
Do you know anything about this previous work? I tried reading the paper but was immediately out of my depth.
This is so cool. For your figures, how did you decide the RGB colors of the 4D colorspace? Or did you convince ACM to print your paper with special inks? :)
Definitely not the latter as the paper mentions "The digits are faintly visible in this photograph, because the camera’s color response differs from a human’s."
afaik not based on standard RGB displays. All widespread technology for digital color reproduction is based on RGB primaries, i.e. a 3D space of color, or rather a 3D submanifold of spectra inside the effectively infinite-dimensional space of spectra. It is feasible to test for color deficient vision (deficiency or absence of one or more cones, reducing color perception to a 2D or 1D space) because it is easy to sample 3D RGB space and behaviorally detect if colors that are different in 3D are conflated because in some viewer they project to the same location in their 2D or 1D "color" sub-submanifold.
But we'd need a convenient way to sample a 4D space of colors (perhaps with 4 monochromatic sources?), and thereby generate different spectra that normal trichromats see as the same color (called "metamers"), but that tetrachromats could recognize as distinct. And, how the 4D space is sampled would have to be pretty carefully optimized to generate distinct spectra that have the same response with the M (medium or "green") and L (long or "red") cones (which are actually quite similar already!) while also generating different responses for the putative tetrachromat's additional code between M and L. And that isn't possible with any conventional display device.
On the contrary, RGB displays should be excellent tools to determine if somebody has vision which differ from normal. Ask the person to adjust the color settings so that real world footage on the display looks like how they experience the real world. Then you will see if there's any divergence in color perception, since display images are direct light while real world vision is reflected light.
Whether via direct or reflected light, spectra in trichromat's eyes are still projected down to a 3D space (the responses of the S, M, L cones). What you describe would still require a standardized and reliable way to probe an extra degree of freedom in spectra that conventional RGB displays can't access. The paper shared by varunneal explains it better than I can.
If we assume that digital video/film recording will compress the spectrum to images which are composed of three colors, somewhere in the processes between the light hitting the camera and the light being emitted from a display to the viewer, that means any tetrachromatic person will notice a difference between the images and the real world.
Sure, but noticing a difference between the images and the real world also happens with us trichromats too, e.g. colors online don't match those in the real world if the illuminant isn't correctly controlled. The intrinsic difficulty of color reproduction is not the same as detecting tetrachromacy. The nuance here is in generating stimuli that reliably and specifically detect the difference between projecting from an infinite-D space of spectra down to 3D (via metamers like the "keef" and "litz" described in the paper linked above), versus projecting down to 4D.
The difference between display and real world will be at most slight to a trichromat, while it would be extraordinarily obvious to a tetrachromat.
It's not very uncommon for people to be colour blind, dichromats. If media on screens would be dichromatic while the world around me is trichromatic, I would certainly notice at once.
I suggest trying to quantify "extraordinarily", using the actual spectral response curve for the tetrachromat's fourth cone, called "Q" in the paper shared by varunneal. Most people casually equate the short (S), medium (M), and long (L) cones with blue, green, and red, with the idea that these are all as different as can be, but the M and L cones are very similar to each other, compared to S. The L, M, S curves are independent but far from orthogonal in the way you may be thinking as you say "extraordinarily". The Q curve is just another wide bump, with a peak in between that of M and L, so again, very far from being orthogonal. Whatever 4th dimension of color perception is accessed by the Q curve, it is a relatively cramped dimension, so reliably detecting perception along it requires some carefully designed stimuli.
Simple? No. My understanding is that the perceptual difference is much less significant than for colorblindness and while visual tests exist they are less reliable and less obvious than the visual tests for colorblindness.
Maybe if colors on a monitor or photographs don't match colors in real life? Like how a how black and white displays don't match. This would probably be pretty subtle differences.
Although you could use a backup USB cellular modem, plugged directly into the Mac!
At some I imagine I'll inherit or acquire a cheap older M1 Macbook Air, which will be perfect!
I also have whole home battery backup and solar, so I technically have a UPS for everything!
Where I live the power tends to go out from time to time!
I monkeyed around with cheap ex-lease Dell Micro PCs with Intel 8th Gen to 11th Gen CPUs. But they not as performant as I'd like, and once you've experienced modern CPUs like Apple's M series, you dont really want to go back!
reply