Thread: ‘First to Do It’ vs. ‘First to Do It Right’

Daring Fireball: 'First to Do It' vs. 'First to Do It Right'

MG Siegler, last week at TechCrunch:

During his keynote address on Monday, Apple CEO Steve Jobs noted that while Apple may not be the first to release features, they do so in a way that’s the best implementation.

Many people view this as absolute bullshit. But what that implies is that they think Apple simply cannot get features done in time — or that they will not do them for some reason. I have a hard time believing either of those is the case.

Jobs cited the iPhone’s cut, copy, and paste functionality as one example of Apple getting a feature right. I have to agree. For two years, everyone complained (myself included) that Apple didn’t have this functionality. Could Apple have done it sooner? Of course. But would it have been half-baked? Probably. Just look at how it works on other devices — or maybe I should say: look at how poorly it works on other devices compared to the iPhone.

This is the heart of the disconnect. Those who see these claims as “absolute bullshit” are only going to see Apple as getting worse over the next few years. I got a few objections from readers after writing the following last week, regarding iOS 4 and iPhone 4 as “catching up” to Android:

The existence of a front-facing camera may fairly be considered a “catch up” feature on iPhone 4. But the ability to use the front-facing camera to actually make video calls is first on the iPhone. That’s one difference between Apple and HTC. Apple isn’t going to include a hardware feature just for the sake of having it. They only include hardware for which they have compelling software to complete the experience.

The objections were based on Qik and Fring. But here’s David Pogue on the front-facing-camera-equipped HTC Evo:

After two days of fiddling, downloading and uninstalling apps, manually force-quitting programs and waiting for servers to be upgraded, I finally got video calling to work — sort of. Sometimes there was only audio and a black screen, sometimes only a freeze-frame; at best, the video was blocky and the audio delay absurd.

To make video calling work, you have to install an app yourself: either Fring or Qik. But we never did get Fring to work, and Qik requires people you call to press a Talk button when they want to speak. The whole thing is confusing and, to use the technical term, iffy.

Here’s the test. Take some normal people, where by “normal” I mean people who have never heard of TechCrunch or Daring Fireball. Give them brand new still-in-the-box iPhone 4’s and HTC Evos. Now ask them to make a video call to one another. With the iPhone 4, they’re going to be able to do it. The only thing that’s technically confusing about FaceTime is that it only works via Wi-Fi (I think many people have little understanding of the difference between Wi-Fi and 3G data — at least insofar as why a feature would work over one but not the other). Otherwise, FaceTime is as easy to use as making a regular voice call. There is no such thing as a “FaceTime account” you need to create or log in to. It doesn’t require the installation of any third-party apps. All you need to know is that the iPhone 4 can make video calls, and that the feature is called “FaceTime”. And I’ll bet the little instructional card inside the iPhone 4 box will make that perfectly clear.

How many normal people even know that Qik and Fring exist? Are Android users supposed to install both apps, so they can make video calls to people who’ve only installed one or the other?

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with Qik or Fring in and of themselves. Nor is it to say that Android doesn’t have its own first-to-do-right features, like, say, the ability to dictate speech-to-text in any text field. It’s about the mindset of the companies that made the phones. Do you include the half-baked stuff, or hold it until it’s fully-baked? Apple wasn’t going to include a front-facing camera until they had software that made it useful in an iPhone-caliber way. HTC is happy to include a front-facing camera and leave its utility (and user experience) in the hands of third-party developers.

Android and iPhone fans will read the preceding paragraph very differently. Android fans will read it and say, “Exactly — give us the hardware and let developers figure out what to do with it.” iPhone fans will read it and say, “I can’t wait to get an iPhone 4.”

Originally Posted by DaringFireball.net

Android and iPhone fans will read the preceding paragraph very differently. Android fans will read it and say, “Exactly — give us the hardware and let developers figure out what to do with it.” iPhone fans will read it and say, “I can’t wait to get an iPhone 4.”

I take a minor exception with the above statement, at least with regard to this forum -- posters like HarryBarracuda, MrFred, et al will simply say "My XYZ phone has had a front facing camera for the past 4 years. Despite the fact that I've never used it and consider the feature, thus, useless, it makes my phones better than an iPhone."

Which is all fine -- my Nokia phones, going back years before the iPhone, have all had front facing cameras -- which, aside from taking low-res self-portraits, have been unequivocally useless.

(The 'camera' cameras, on the rear of the Nokias have been pretty useless until they reached 2 megapixels (N70), and became seriously usable with the N73s 3.2 megapixels and flash (albeit the flash was 'so so').)

Wow! Front facing camera, where do they get all their revolutionary ideas?

Originally Posted by lom

Wow! Front facing camera, where do they get all their revolutionary ideas?

Are you being ironic? This entire thread was about first vs. first to do it right.

Some people have reading comprehension problems, or other learning disabilities, I'm thinking.

Originally Posted by nikster

Originally Posted by lom

Wow! Front facing camera, where do they get all their revolutionary ideas?

Are you being ironic? This entire thread was about first vs. first to do it right.

I think it is about something else..

"If we can't claim the novelty of the invention then lets see what we can claim instead. Aah, yes we claim the better implementation"

Wow! Apple have Video Calls! And they do it right! (As long as you have wifi!).

Cue Starbucks full of iTards shouting at each other's iPhones talking to someone across the room so everyone knows they've queued up, while mastubrating furiously, to be one of the first to get their new toy.

The major obstacle to video calling is bandwidth. The reason no-one else has touted it as a wifi feature is because it's a waste of time doing it only on wifi - it's just a gimmick.

Still, it will be easy to spot Daffy; he'll be the one in the hotspot going "Yeah, see this is what I was talking about on Teakdoor, and no-one would believe me".

(Of course he won't be able to read this as I am on his ignore list, so he'll either have to reply because we know he reads anyway, or he'll have to ask one of his mates to comment on it so he can claim to have "just noticed" the message).

Originally Posted by lom

I think it is about something else..

"If we can't claim the novelty of the invention then lets see what we can claim instead. Aah, yes we claim the better implementation"

I don't know about you, but I would rather have a feature I can *USE* instead of a feature I can claim I had first, but have never been able to use.

Obviously, you seem to disagree.

How often have you used video calling on your phone (which, I assume, has a front facing camera).

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

(Of course he won't be able to read this as I am on his ignore list, so he'll either have to reply because we know he reads anyway, or he'll have to ask one of his mates to comment on it so he can claim to have "just noticed" the message).

Oh no, buddy, you're not back on ignore -- you're far too amusing and entertaining to see you make a fool of yourself, over and over again. Comedy gold, indeed.

So, how's that video calling on your Android phone going?

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

How often have you used video calling on your phone (which, I assume, has a front facing camera).

How often have you on your iPhone?

Ant,

It's going to be great for all those grannies that want to talk to their grandchildren (assuming they have a computer and wifi at home).

It will be simple and childlike, so once they're shown how to do it, they can keep doing it.

Of course, the fact that they could have done it on Skype, Messenger or a host of other programs will be beyond their simple comprehension.

Another plus for the iPhone 4. Grannies will love it.

Brilliant, brilliant, marketing.

Getting idiots to pay 500+ bucks for something they can already do on their computer.

You have to stand in awe - at the sheer gullibility of some people.

Heck I have just realized that I am on a long list of posters that Duckie dislikes, I feel much better now.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Take some normal people

which is why I would never buy an i anything

I do admire some of the apple hardware , but I like to be able to really do things with the hardware I own.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh no, buddy, you're not back on ignore -- you're far too amusing and entertaining to see you make a fool of yourself, over and over again. Comedy gold, indeed.

Really, onanist duck, I am not your "buddy".

Oh yes, you are, 'buddy'.

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Take some normal people

which is why I would never buy an i anything

I do admire some of the apple hardware , but I like to be able to really do things with the hardware I own.

Exactly my point - for tinkerers, and those who like to expand, and really get into their hardware, the 'i' products are less useful - by all means, stick with whatever platform and hardware you prefer -- that's the whole point about choice.

For everyone else, particularly the kind of people that have no previously been doing a lot of the things they can now do with apps, and iProducts, that's who they are for.

... and for those technical enough to understand that, at the core of it all, they just want to get work done.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh no, buddy, you're not back on ignore -- you're far too amusing and entertaining to see you make a fool of yourself, over and over again. Comedy gold, indeed.

Really, onanist duck, I am not your "buddy".

Oh yes, you are, 'buddy'.

Suit yourself, Duck Head. Whatever helps your medication.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Suit yourself, Duck Head. Whatever helps your medication.

Glad you feel that way, buddy.

^ he probably wants to replace the motherboard, or CPU, or add new hardware to it, or the kind of stuff that technical tinkerers do -- I can sympathize, I used to do that as well, thinking I was saving money doing it that way, until I realized that I spent way more money, and especially time, on the homebrewn systems, than just buying a well-made system that already had what I needed for at least 1-2 years (3-5 years, in the case of servers), and moving on.

So, instead I use Macs, iDevices, and buy my servers from Dell - haven't had any problems since then. When I compare it to the frequent and regular threads on this forum about PC/Windows issues people are having....

(though, in all fairness, 90% of those problems would go away if the same people just jettisoned Windows and installed Ubunto Linux, or some other Linux). I don't think Baldrick runs Windows.

(though, in all fairness, 90% of those problems would go away if the same people just jettisoned Windows and installed Ubunto Linux, or some other Linux). I don't think Baldrick runs Windows.

Yes my "buddy", but then so would 90% of the functionality Windows provides.

Which would be rather self-defeating, don't you think, my "buddy"?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes my "buddy", but then so would 90% of the functionality Windows provides.

Which would be rather self-defeating, don't you think, my "buddy"?

Hey, buddy, glad you're on board.

What 'functionality' would that be?

Oh, let me guess, you don't actually know what that 'Linux' thing that we're talking about, actually is - right?

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes my "buddy", but then so would 90% of the functionality Windows provides.

Which would be rather self-defeating, don't you think, my "buddy"?

Hey, buddy, glad you're on board.

What 'functionality' would that be?

Oh, let me guess, you don't actually know what that 'Linux' thing that we're talking about, actually is - right?

Oh my "buddy" surely you can do better than that pitiful retort?

So, we agree then? You don't actually know what the Linux thing is?

Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.

Let's not dwell on your insecurities.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

So, we agree then? You don't actually know what the Linux thing is?

Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.

Let's not dwell on your insecurities.

No my "pal", what is this strange and wondrous "Linux" thing of which you speak?

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

you don't actually know what that 'Linux' thing that we're talking about, actually is - right?

Calling Linux a "thing" shows me your knowledge level of it.

Similar thing like Mac -- technology you wouldn't understand, yet which you unwittingly keep using all the time.