paranoidxe
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,315
- Points
- 0
They are up to 32GB capacity now, every other iPod has a search function why is apple too lazy to implement it into the iPod Touch?
Well since playlists are not organized by song alphabetically, there would be no point.dragontit said:I know that. I want that feature in my playlist as well.
Yeah its completely silly that I call them lazy when a search feature has been implemented in the iPods since 2006..but yet it can't be done here. I'll refrain from calling them lazy but they certainly over looked the feature on the iPod Touch.Teechur said:Well since playlists are not organized by song alphabetically, there would be no point.
Of course you can always move into cover flow and find the album and choose the song from there.
I guess it's something that doesn't actually bother me, since I tend to just shuffle my playlists. If I need a specific song, I go to songlist and use the alphabet feature.
I'm all about KISS. I think that the iPod, in all incarnations, is elegant in that it doesn't have 150 barely or rarely used "features". Of course you're never going to please everyone...that's just the way things are. But it does seem silly to call a company "lazy" because they didn't include a feature, into a feature-rich piece of hardware, that you "want".
Well, considering that internally the iPod touch has been built by a completely different development team from the iPhone, it's quite possible that their priorities are different, or it's something that may not have even occurred to them.paranoidxe said:Yeah its completely silly that I call them lazy when a search feature has been implemented in the iPods since 2006..but yet it can't be done here. I'll refrain from calling them lazy but they certainly over looked the feature on the iPod Touch.
It's funny how people are expecting the SDK to be the holy grail that will save the iPod touch from it's present limitations. From what I can tell so far, the reality is that there will be very few ways that the SDK can be used to actually enhance existing features based on Apple's present sandbox restrictions.... People can write whole new apps, but anything that's already there looks like it's going to be largely off-limits, with only a few exceptions for things like contact data.Stay Alive 305 said:Hopefully an SDK application will give us a Search Function.
Having watched multiple gens of iPods come and go, it seems that Apple still can't treat them like a platform versus a one-off consumer electronics product. You'd think a company that writes a pretty good computer OS could handle the division of labor of letting one group handle the low level code that interacts with the hardware and another group write interface code that works regardless of the underlying hardware. You don't need to re-write iTunes for every single different combination of CPUs, hard drive controllers, and soundcards out there, so why is it that every generation change of iPods is clearly written from the ground up and, particularly recently, slipshod and months behind the hardware rollouts.paranoidxe said:Yeah its completely silly that I call them lazy when a search feature has been implemented in the iPods since 2006..but yet it can't be done here. I'll refrain from calling them lazy but they certainly over looked the feature on the iPod Touch.
That's true, and completely irrelevant. You don't have to write a different version of Windows or Mac OS for every single different processor there is becauser there are a fixed number of higher level instructions that are generalised for the OS programmers. All that has to be changed is very low level code that takes the higher level instructions and decodes them to the specific families of supported CPUs. This raises the issue the dubious value of the development costs with designing each iPod model's firmware from the ground to the very top. You know you're always going to want to be able to sort through lists, shuffle according to songs, albums, groups, you know you're always going to want a clock, an alarm clock, etc. etc.DerekVOF said:In some respects, I agree -- they don't look at them as long term products. However, that does make sense because as a consumer electronics product, more likely than not, they'll be dead or upgraded within 2 years... You buy a computer, you expect it to last for 5 years at least, but you buy an iPod, and you figure you're in good shape if it survives all the drops and bobbles and splashes to make it to age 3... I've seen fruit flies with longer life spans...
That makes sense. But I hope they somehow could make that feature an on/off thing.Teechur said:Well since playlists are not organized by song alphabetically, there would be no point.
Of course you can always move into cover flow and find the album and choose the song from there.
I guess it's something that doesn't actually bother me, since I tend to just shuffle my playlists. If I need a specific song, I go to songlist and use the alphabet feature.
I'm all about KISS. I think that the iPod, in all incarnations, is elegant in that it doesn't have 150 barely or rarely used "features". Of course you're never going to please everyone...that's just the way things are. But it does seem silly to call a company "lazy" because they didn't include a feature, into a feature-rich piece of hardware, that you "want".