"iPod" or Computing Platform?

[Surf Monkey]

I've been taking a lot of flack over this issue. Turns out, Apple's COO agrees with my viewpoint:

"Saying that the iPhone is “a platform not a product,” Cook said that he thinks the SDK will “broaden the platform more, to the point where the only limit will be people’s imagination.”"

link

 

[PG4G]

I have been sticking up for you. I whole heartedly agree.

 

[bobb-mini]

Semantic. Fine. Is a platform. Why do the other ppl have problem with it? (am sure gonna regret I asked).

 

[jasoncordelle]

Surfmonkey - you've been taking flack for the way that you argue the point...not the point itself.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Surfmonkey - you've been taking flack for the way that you argue the point...not the point itself.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. From my POV, people tend to over react to what are nothing more than innocuous comments on my part. And in point of fact, many of the posters in this forum have been VERY negative towards even the hint of a suggestion that iPod Touch isn't really an iPod, regardless of how I presented that idea.

 

[Dim]

Semantic. Fine. Is a platform. Why do the other ppl have problem with it? (am sure gonna regret I asked).

Allow me to make you regret. In fact, nobody argued that these aren't computing platforms, but somebody had to insist they aren't iPods. Again, it's all semantics and not everyone will agree, but why some people have to insist on comparing two totally different things is beyond me. The title of the thread shows this. Why can't it be both?

 

[kylo4]

I think my points were being misconstrued. What I meant was that it is an iPod by name (as evidenced by the engraving on the back) but by iPod standards it is completely different and does appear to be a Newton like device. If they drop the iPod name (which Surf Monkey says they won't due to brand recognition) than it can't be called an iPod. Whether it be marketing or not, it is still called iPod touch and therefore is an iPod, but I agree with the point that it is basically a mini computer device.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Allow me to make you regret. In fact, nobody argued that these aren't computing platforms, but somebody had to insist they aren't iPods. Again, it's all semantics and not everyone will agree, but why some people have to insist on comparing two totally different things is beyond me. The title of the thread shows this. Why can't it be both?

I argued they're not iPods... because they're not iPods.

Once again, let's consider:

1) No dedicated iPod hard button control. All the interface elements are generic, especially on the iPod Touch, which doesn't even have volume buttons.

2) A broad range of functions, the iPod software being only one of them. Not only does iPod functionality only exist in the virtual world, it's arguably harder to use in the Touch format than it is with dedicated hard buttons.

3) Of the two existing Touch platform devices, only one of them is branded iPod, and it's marketed as a connected device more aggressively than it is as a music/media player.

You can say that it's all semantics, but it's not. Real, hard evidence strongly suggests that neither Touch nor iPhone is an iPod any more from an engineering and function perspective than a Palm Pilot with a music player is. You don't have to agree with that viewpoint, but simply ignoring the evidence I'm basing my argument on and saying that it's nothing more than semantics is to dodge the entire issue.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I think my points were being misconstrued. What I meant was that it is an iPod by name (as evidenced by the engraving on the back) but by iPod standards it is completely different and does appear to be a Newton like device. If they drop the iPod name (which Surf Monkey says they won't due to brand recognition) than it can't be called an iPod. Whether it be marketing or not, it is still called iPod touch and therefore is an iPod, but I agree with the point that it is basically a mini computer device.

Touch will keep the iPod name. That's a virtual certainty. iPhone never had it, and the new Touch based Internet appliance that we're all expecting soon won't be called iPod either. Basically what we have here is "Touch with iPod", "Touch with Phone", and at some future date "Touch with Internet". It's a matter of targeting to different markets more than it is engineering a device that's clearly an iPod. These devices are engineered as Touch Platform devices and then marketed as iPods, Phones and eventually Internet Tablets.

 

[Dim]

I argued they're not iPods... because they're not iPods.

Once again, let's consider:

1) No dedicated iPod hard button control. All the interface elements are generic, especially on the iPod Touch, which doesn't even have volume buttons.

2) A broad range of functions, the iPod software being only one of them. Not only does iPod functionality only exist in the virtual world, it's arguably harder to use in the Touch format than it is with dedicated hard buttons.

3) Of the two existing Touch platform devices, only one of them is branded iPod, and it's marketed as a connected device more aggressively than it is as a music/media player.

You can say that it's all semantics, but it's not. Real, hard evidence strongly suggests that neither Touch nor iPhone is an iPod any more from an engineering and function perspective than a Palm Pilot with a music player is. You don't have to agree with that viewpoint, but simply ignoring the evidence I'm basing my argument on and saying that it's nothing more than semantics is to dodge the entire issue.

None of your "evidence" means anything because it's all based on a false assumption: That the word ipod is a defined noun/object. It isn't. It's a brand, whose definition has always been defined by Apple. It's clear you won't ever admit to this, but it's a fact. Your argument is similar to saying the Eagle Talon was no longer an Eagle Talon when it became a sports car. Sure, it's a sports car where it was a mid-sized sedan, but it's still a Talon.

Your argument is backed by nothing that has anything to do with branding. iPod = brand, computing platform = noun/object. The ipod touch is both because these simply aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[kylo4]

None of your "evidence" means anything because it's all based on a false assumption: That the word ipod is a defined noun/object. It isn't. It's a brand, whose definition has always been defined by Apple. It's clear you won't ever admit to this, but it's a fact. Your argument is similar to saying the Eagle Talon was no longer an Eagle Talon when it became a sports car. Sure, it's a sports car where it was a mid-sized sedan, but it's still a Talon.

Your argument is backed by nothing that has anything to do with branding. iPod = brand, computing platform = noun/object. The ipod touch is both because these simply aren't mutually exclusive.

Thank you Dim, this is exactly what I meant as well. Dim put it very nicely.

 

[jasoncordelle]

I said it in another thread - if Apple say it's an iPod - it's an iPod.

If they say it's it's a flying monkey, then that is exactly what it is. I like the idea of an iFlyingmonkeypod.

It's about marketing and branding.

Touch is a platform. iPod touch is an iPod. iPhone is a phone.

Do we say a Sonyericsson P1 is NOT a phone because it has a touch screen and internet access and a whole lot of non-phone-specific applications and the ability to play 3D games etc?
No. It's a phone because that's what SE say it is.

Just like Apple. iPod touch is an iPod. iPhone is a phone.

 

[Surf Monkey]

None of your "evidence" means anything because it's all based on a false assumption: That the word ipod is a defined noun/object. It isn't. It's a brand, whose definition has always been defined by Apple.

See, this is where you're so full of it, Dim. You're accusing me of engaging in semantic games, when that's exactly what you're doing. There's nothing wrong with the points I listed. I notice, for example, that you've chosen not to try and refute any single one of them. What I'm doing is asking you to consider some specific aspects of the devices, and you're coming back with "Apple defines iPod, therefore you're wrong". Not only is that irrelevant to the point I was making, it's contradictory to the statements of Apple's own COO, who says that the devices aren't phones and iPods, but something bigger: a full fledged computing platform that's capable of telephony, multimedia playback and a lot more.

It's clear you won't ever admit to this, but it's a fact.

You also love to suggest that I make unwelcome, snippy comments. So, how do you define the comment above? If you want the level of discourse to rise, I suggest you start by refraining from posting your own needlessly insulting comments.

Your argument is similar to saying the Eagle Talon was no longer an Eagle Talon when it became a sports car. Sure, it's a sports car where it was a mid-sized sedan, but it's still a Talon.

This shows exactly how you're not understanding my position.

Your argument is backed by nothing that has anything to do with branding. iPod = brand, computing platform = noun/object. The ipod touch is both because these simply aren't mutually exclusive.

Wrong again. And by the way, Dim, I'm a commercial artist. My bread and butter is branding. I'm disinclined to take any schooling on the matter from you very seriously.

 

[Dim]

See, this is where you're so full of it, Dim. You're accusing me of engaging in semantic games, when that's exactly what you're doing.

Wrong. I never accused you of semantic games. I simply stated that you and I differ on the semantics of "ipod".

There's nothing wrong with the points I listed. I notice, for example, that you've chosen not to try and refute any single one of them.

That's because I don't disagree with them, even though I don't feel they disprove my point either. Like I've said numerous times, I agree with the ipod touch being a computing platform. But I also consider it an ipod.

What I'm doing is asking you to consider some specific aspects of the devices, and you're coming back with "Apple defines iPod, therefore you're wrong".

Again, I'm not disputing the obvious differences between the touch and other ipods, or even that they're very different devices altogether. In fact, nobody has done that.

Not only is that irrelevant to the point I was making, it's contradictory to the statements of Apple's own COO, who says that the devices aren't phones and iPods, but something bigger: a full fledged computing platform that's capable of telephony, multimedia playback and a lot more.

He's telling us to think of these things as being much bigger devices than just ipods and phones. More marketing, of course, but I don't disagree.

You also love to suggest that I make unwelcome, snippy comments. So, how do you define the comment above? If you want the level of discourse to rise, I suggest you start by refraining from posting your own needlessly insulting comments.

Oh, nut up, Monkey. Isn't that what you said? I can't join in on the veiled insults now?

This shows exactly how you're not understanding my position.

Actually, it shows exactly how you're not understanding my position. I understand yours.

Wrong again. And by the way, Dim, I'm a commercial artist. My bread and butter is branding. I'm disinclined to take any schooling on the matter from you very seriously.

Then how can you deny the simple FACT that the word ipod is a brand name that doesn't appear in any dictionary and can only be defined by the creator? This makes your disregard of this fact even more puzzling. Eh, maybe not so puzzling after all.

 

[kylo4]

Was this thread started for an argument to commence? The troll keeps growing and growing from the food. Right now it's at 2,272 and counting.

It's both an iPod and computing platform, how's that?