On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 05:35 , Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
> Many gadgets incorporate rather bad implementations of
> an otherwise good gadget, ie, crappy camera in phone,
> MP3 in a device that hasn't got space for more than two
> songs etc.
>
> Plus, you pay more. Indeed, many are the times I've
> bought a multifunction device and only ever used the
> core function. The magic of marketing rules all.
I've been following a different school of thought.
As the saying goes ... Buy nice or buy twice !
> I prefer well designed devices attuned to the actual
> needs of the majority, not the faddish few.
So do I.
I'd rather have a real camera. Of course every child knows that a *real*
camera is defined by the presence of German optics. No German optics -
No real camera. ;-) [exceptions are very rare]
So, to me that rules out a camera in the phone and also an MP3 player in
the phone. For the avoidance of doubt: Not that I would want an MP3
player with German optics either ;-)
However, I don't think it adds any value to the design or the quality of
implementation if the very same remote control facility is replicated in
seven remote controls, all lined up on your coffee table. I'd rather
have one remote control for everything that is remote controllable and
programmable. And as telemetry isn't exactly a technical challenge, I
think it would make sense to stick that one-remote-for-all facility into
a mobile phone. This would also allow for some synergy such as
auto-muting the volume on your TV or stereo when you pick up a call.
Same goes for the cordless phone.
And while we are at it, I don't see the sanity in sticking a camera or
MP3 player into a mobile phone while at the same time cordless and
mobile phones are still separated into two different devices. That
doesn't make any sense at all - Somebody has got their priorities wrong
***big time***.
regards
benjamin
Received on Sat Jul 27 08:59:27 2002