Re: Things we remember...
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> Perhaps erilar has a phone like the one on my downstairs phone table,
> with a dozen programmable number memories and a paper label on which
> names can be written. (That one's also an answering machine, but I
> turned off that function years ago when I got an all-digital
> answerer.) That was certainly much easier to program than my cell
> phone. (Although the cell is getting quite elderly now; I shall
> probably need to replace it before its ninth birthday. Sadly, nothing
> made today is likely to last as long as that StarTAC.)
Interesting. I've had phones like you describe, but they've always been
hell on wheels to program compared to any halfway-decent cell phone.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Jesper Lauridsen
> In article <hd4jbn$20bs$3...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
>> Perhaps erilar has a phone like the one on my downstairs phone table,
>> with a dozen programmable number memories and a paper label on which
>> names can be written.
> Interesting. I've had phones like you describe, but they've always been
> hell on wheels to program compared to any halfway-decent cell phone.
Doing anything complicated with a landline phone is a bitch. I don't
understand why they can't make one with a decent screen (a typical office
phone has a dotmatrix display with room for 2x20 (or so) characters)
so it can be operated through a menu system. Instead you have to consult
a cheat-sheet and go through an arcane sequence of key punches to listen
to your messages or whatever.
Garrett Wollman
Jesper Lauridsen <uselastname...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Doing anything complicated with a landline phone is a bitch. I don't
>understand why they can't make one with a decent screen (a typical office
>phone has a dotmatrix display with room for 2x20 (or so) characters)
>so it can be operated through a menu system. Instead you have to consult
>a cheat-sheet and go through an arcane sequence of key punches to listen
>to your messages or whatever.
Huh?
To listen to my messages, I press the "play" button.
To program a speed dial on the old phone I mentioned upthread, I would
press the "program" button, dial the number, and then press the memory
button I wanted to use. Then I could pull out the little label card
and write in the new name.
On my current landline, I press "program", use the jog dial to select
"directory", enter the name (using the jog dial again -- the most
complicated part of the whole process), click on "number", dial the
number, and click on "pgm". Only slightly more difficult than setting
a digital clock. (And no, I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone has
difficulty doing that, or worse, would admit to it in public.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Mike Ash
Jesper Lauridsen <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
I bet a major factor is simply cost. People are willing to pay a lot
more for a cell phone than for a land line, especially since the cell
carriers will subsidize the cost if you agree to a service contract. I
have two phones sitting on my desk at the moment. The one with the cable
coming out of it cost me, I think, $10. It has a three-line alphanumeric
LCD screen. The one without the cable coming out of it cost me $200 and
cost AT&T an additional $400 on top of that. It, of course, has a big,
bright, full-color screen that makes up a decent chunk of that $600 cost.
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> Only slightly more difficult than setting
> a digital clock. (And no, I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone has
> difficulty doing that, or worse, would admit to it in public.)
That's what I find really odd about the "I am unable to figure out how
to use a cell phone" camp. Not only do they admit it, but they actually
seem to go out of their way to call attention to it.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>In article <hd5efc$29eu$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
>> Only slightly more difficult than setting
>> a digital clock. (And no, I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone has
>> difficulty doing that, or worse, would admit to it in public.)
>
>That's what I find really odd about the "I am unable to figure out how
>to use a cell phone" camp. Not only do they admit it, but they actually
>seem to go out of their way to call attention to it.
It's not a question of how to push which buttons when. I could
probably learn that if I had some reason to. But I hold the
thing up to my face and I can't hear the other guy, or he can't
hear me, or both. Go figure.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Wayne Throop
: It, of course, has a big,
Given that a big 17-in lcd display with touchscreen capability costs maybe
300 retail (iirc from the last "displays cost huge bucks" dustup), I kind
of doubt a 5-in screen is, by itself, going to contribute to anything
more than 100 of those dollars probably less. Indeed, if things scaled
as square of linear dimenion as they "ought", it'd be more like 25 bucks.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
: It's not a question of how to push which buttons when. I could
: probably learn that if I had some reason to. But I hold the
: thing up to my face and I can't hear the other guy, or he can't
: hear me, or both. Go figure.
I find these work well with cellphones:
http://www.ablecomm.com/ourexopbrbin.html
That's expensive, but it has features that compete with
plantronix rigs that corporations buy their employees
costing much more.
I am not suggesting, of course, that this proves that you
should go out and order a cellphone and one of these. Merely
that a nice binaural headset with a microphone that actually
reaches the mouth really works better than a little 3-inch bar
that's either at your ear or your mouth but not both.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : It, of course, has a big,
> : bright, full-color screen that makes up a decent chunk of that $600 cost.
>
> Given that a big 17-in lcd display with touchscreen capability costs maybe
> 300 retail (iirc from the last "displays cost huge bucks" dustup)
The last discussion showed, I*I*RC, that the "$300" was for "old
fashioned" touchscreen, not the iPhone type which is VERY different,
much newer, and much more expensive.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mike Ash
wrote:
First, as Sea Wasp pointed out, this capability is not the same.
Second, your assumption that things scale with the square of the linear
dimensions is wrong. The phone's screen has much higher pixel density
than your $300 17" screen does. Fewer pixels, which makes it cheaper,
but packed much more closely together, which makes it more expensive.
It's also much brighter and has better contrast than a cheap 17"er.
Third, even $25 would be enough to price it out of the normal
wired-phone market.
Fourth, the screen by itself doesn't do squat. You need a CPU and
graphics hardware powerful enough to actually take advantage of it.
These aren't cheap either.
Mike Ash
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <mike-2F5C9E.0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> >In article <hd5efc$29eu$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> > wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >
> >> Only slightly more difficult than setting
> >> a digital clock. (And no, I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone has
> >> difficulty doing that, or worse, would admit to it in public.)
> >
> >That's what I find really odd about the "I am unable to figure out how
> >to use a cell phone" camp. Not only do they admit it, but they actually
> >seem to go out of their way to call attention to it.
>
> It's not a question of how to push which buttons when. I could
> probably learn that if I had some reason to. But I hold the
> thing up to my face and I can't hear the other guy, or he can't
> hear me, or both. Go figure.
Well, cell phones work for other people and aren't that hard to use,
thus:
1) Either you create some kind of cell-phone destructo field.
2) Any cell phones you've tried have been defective.
3) Or, you're doing something wrong.
#1 seems unlikely. The chances of #2 depend on how many you've tried and
whether other people had success with that particular unit.
#3 seems like the right one, so it still falls under "unable to figure
out how to use a cell phone".
Wayne Throop
: The last discussion showed, I*I*RC, that the "$300" was for "old
: fashioned" touchscreen, not the iPhone type which is VERY different,
: much newer, and much more expensive.
My memory says the discussion was about ereaders (specifically netbook
sized keyboardless ereaders), and any touchscreen at all. The topic of
multitouch sensors and iphones came up, but wasn't really the point.
If you have information that multitouch sensors do worse than doubling the
price of touch sensors, I'd be delighted to hear of it. In the meantime,
I'll most likely assume it's less than twice as expensive, so I'd still
be surprised to learn the screen contributed more than 100 to the 600
dollar price.
FWIW, the few prices I can find for similar systems
with and without multitouch don't seem that much different.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
> : The last discussion showed, I*I*RC, that the "$300" was for "old
> : fashioned" touchscreen, not the iPhone type which is VERY different,
> : much newer, and much more expensive.
>
> My memory says the discussion was about ereaders (specifically netbook
> sized keyboardless ereaders), and any touchscreen at all. The topic of
> multitouch sensors and iphones came up, but wasn't really the point.
>
> If you have information that multitouch sensors do worse than doubling the
> price of touch sensors, I'd be delighted to hear of it. In the meantime,
> I'll most likely assume it's less than twice as expensive, so I'd still
> be surprised to learn the screen contributed more than 100 to the 600
> dollar price.
600 dollar price is the final retail. If I have to pay $100 for the
screen in a OEM format, I'll be charging $300 for the screen in the
final retail. (the camera chip used in the iPhone costs about $9-10 in
the quantities apple uses. It's been generally said that it's considered
to account for $30-$50 of the $600; this gives us a markup of 3-5x.)
Wayne Throop
::: It, of course, has a big, bright, full-color screen that makes up a
::: decent chunk of that $600 cost.
: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
: even $25 would be enough to price it out of the normal wired-phone market.
I still wouldn't count five percent as "a decent chunk of that $600 cost".
: the screen by itself doesn't do squat. You need a CPU and graphics
: hardware powerful enough to actually take advantage of it.
If that's what you meant, then I agree. I would have had a slightly
smaller chance of misunderstanding with some phrase like "implies",
"leads to" or "requires" instead of "makes up".
But even then, the facts that 1) the ipod touch has exactly the same
screen and is doing the same squat with it, but is considerably less than
half that price, and 2) other ipods without the screen still cost some
nontrivial fraction of the remainder, lead me to conclude that even then,
it's not all "that" decent a chunk.
W. Citoan
Here, why don't you guys argue over some knowledgable estimates instead
of your guesses: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/38186.php
If I'm summing it right (Display Module + Touch Screen Assembly), they
put the display about $36; quite a bit under that $100.
- W. Citoan
--
Whatever you choose, do not seek to carry out easy tasks.
-- Adolf Von Baeyer
Wayne Throop
: screen in a OEM format,
Sigh. This again. I'm talking about comparing retail prices of
comparable products differing only in touch vs multitouch. As should
be evident by the fact that I mentioned retail prices of products with
touch vs multitouch as part of my rationale.
In other words, I'd be mildly surprised to find the *oem* price of the
sensors to be more than 20 bucks or so, and possibly less than that.
Wayne Throop
: Here, why don't you guys argue over some knowledgable estimates
: instead of your guesses: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/38186.php
:
: If I'm summing it right (Display Module + Touch Screen Assembly), they
: put the display about $36; quite a bit under that $100.
Thanks.
And indeed the display and touch sensors are the second and third most
expensive components on that list. But adding up all the rest, less
than a quarter of the final components price. Inflating it to account
for markup means the display and sensors might be said to account for
120 of the 600 dollars, slightly more than I'd have thought. The touch
sensors, 54. Multitouchness of the sensors compared to merelytouchness,
unknown, but likely quite small.
So I'm guesing the markup on the ipod touch is noticeably less?
Mike Ash
wrote:
> ::: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> ::: It, of course, has a big, bright, full-color screen that makes up a
> ::: decent chunk of that $600 cost.
>
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : even $25 would be enough to price it out of the normal wired-phone market.
>
> I still wouldn't count five percent as "a decent chunk of that $600 cost".
Well, it all depends on what "decent chunk" means. :)
> : the screen by itself doesn't do squat. You need a CPU and graphics
> : hardware powerful enough to actually take advantage of it.
>
> If that's what you meant, then I agree. I would have had a slightly
> smaller chance of misunderstanding with some phrase like "implies",
> "leads to" or "requires" instead of "makes up".
>
> But even then, the facts that 1) the ipod touch has exactly the same
> screen and is doing the same squat with it, but is considerably less than
> half that price, and 2) other ipods without the screen still cost some
> nontrivial fraction of the remainder, lead me to conclude that even then,
> it's not all "that" decent a chunk.
The chunk is decent enough to price it out of reasonableness for a wired
phone, that's all I really care about for the purposes of this
discussion.
Mike Ash
Except that Apple sells a device which contains the *exact* same screen,
CPU, and graphics hardware for only $230, so any analysis which gives
you $300 for just the screen in the final retail cost is blatantly wrong.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <12577...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> ::: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
>> ::: It, of course, has a big, bright, full-color screen that makes up a
>> ::: decent chunk of that $600 cost.
>>
>> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
>> : even $25 would be enough to price it out of the normal wired-phone market.
>>
>> I still wouldn't count five percent as "a decent chunk of that $600 cost".
>
> Well, it all depends on what "decent chunk" means. :)
>
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!