Comments on: ipodtouch.ajaxian.com?

By: tapetynapulpit

tapetynapulpit — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:41:44 +0000

I’m actually adding this from an iPod touch, laying in bed and I really can’t complain. My biggest dissapointment in this thing was that my safari bookmarks did NOT transfer when I synced. I figured that would have been a given. However, not having to go get my laptop to check engadget,and risk waking my girlfriend, priceless.

By: kaspergo

kaspergo — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:32:19 +0000

I love mp3 players and ipods. I`m happy when I listen music. Music is my life. I have got creative zen player, it is very good.

By: Tapety

Tapety — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:53:55 +0000

This technology is crazy. 10 years ago I bought mp3 player called DivaMP3. It had 256 mb. It costed 300$. Now I can have better one for 25$. It is funny.

By: indiatadalafil

indiatadalafil — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:45:48 +0000

I use ipod.ajaxian.com i agree that there is only one iPod with wifi

By: phil

phil — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:47:31 +0000

The reason we are building an “i” optimized site is to impress our investor (he requested it). Fact is mobile safari is growing like crazy and the user experience far surpasses any of the competition. To me, it looks like a huge % of mobile market share is headed toward apple. Why do it half assed when you can optimize for a richer experience.

Don’t forget, from an apple user standpoint this is a definite winner. That’s what really matters, isn’t it?

BTW, we are also doing a generic mobile version and it’s just not as elegant as the “i” site.

By: LKM

LKM — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:25:48 +0000

@xxdesmus: But Opera is perfectly capable of showing all web pages, and is usually used on devices with big screens. What would you write for Opera that you would not also write for other “big” browsers?

By: xxdesmus

xxdesmus — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:48:00 +0000

@LKM

That’s not entirely true. i*-oriented pages are sometimes fairly advanced pages that likely took a good chunk of time to create for i* related mobile browsers.

It would be like designers spending a good chunk of time on designing for Opera. I say Opera because it still has a VERY tiny chunk of the marketplace as does the i* products.

BTW, I think we could start a new trend with this ” i* products” thing…it’s got a nice ring to it.

By: Christian Decker

Christian Decker — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:25:59 +0000

@Jep: I perfectly agree with you that some sort of optimization for smaller screens might be usefull, what I do have a problem with is the whole iCrazyness. Safari is pretty good, but it’s not the only player in this market. People just shouldn’t lock in too tightly by optimizing for it.

By: LKM

LKM — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:42:16 +0000

>The iPod Touch and the iPhone are the worst
> thing to happen to the web in the past 10 years.

Wow, you must have been sleeping for the better part of that timespan. You sure missed a lot of bad things.

I don’t see the harm in creating secondary i*-oriented pages. This is not comparable to the Explorer issue because Explorer-optimized sites often did not run on other browsers at all, and generally gave Explorer users a better, yet non-standard experience. The iPhone sites, on the other hand, are generally just stripped-down versions of the main site, so it’s not like you’re missing anything by not having an iPhone.

By: xxdesmus

xxdesmus — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:24:11 +0000

This whole i-craze is pretty pathetic, and not to mention a tremendous waste of time/effort/resources.

Design for all mobile devices, period.

The iPod Touch and the iPhone are the worst thing to happen to the web in the past 10 years.

By: Jep Castelein - Backbase

Jep Castelein - Backbase — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:43:45 +0000

@ Christian: this was also my opinion until I bought a smartphone myself. Even with a decent browser (Opera 8.6 in my case) the display is way too small to view regular web pages. Even with the nifty Nokia S60 browser it's not great. Web pages that are optimized for the 320x240 resolution work so much better. iPhone has 480x320. In my opinion it would be a better idea to optimize web apps for screen size. And if you add some Ajax features, make sure they degrade gracefully on older mobile browsers such as Pocket IE: this avoids having to build sites specific to one device.

By: Christian Decker

Christian Decker — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:28:48 +0000

iWhatever specific sites are just like the IE specific sites a while back, by now everybody agrees that having a standardized web is the way to go, so why start the whole discussion again? I have to agree that the iPhone is disruptive but others will follow soon and we should not limit ourselfs by becoming Apple-Junkies…
So thumbs up for all the developers staying open for alternatives :-)

By: Jase

Jase — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:09:41 +0000

If somebody is willing make an iPhone/iPod/iWhatever-optimized site that presumably has streamlined content, less sidebars, narrower widths, and less advertisements (or maybe no ads?) that will hamper the mobile user experience — why aren’t you willing to make those same optimizations for all browsers?

By: Andy Kant

Andy Kant — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:05:21 +0000

m.*.com for mobile and if you really *need* iPhone/iPod specific, then i.*.com. That shouldn’t really be needed for blogs like this one though, just stick with mobile.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:51:08 +0000

I love the idea of i. for iPhones and iPods and m. for mobile sites. Clever conventions.

By: Peter Hanley

Peter Hanley — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:47:26 +0000

What about downplaying the Apple branding and labeling it for what it is? Like msafari.domain.tld or mwk.domain.tld. (mwk = mobile webkit)

Or maybe I like even better: mr.domain.tld for mobile rich (supports so-called “rich” content — ajax, dom, etc.) and ml.domain.tld for mobile limited (straight html rendering).

The advantage there is you can just detect the feature you need rather than hard coding specific values, so that as other mobile browsers add DOM or whatever your ip/hone/od page requires, it will work.

Stuff like that.

By: Pi

Pi — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:39:22 +0000

The challenge is interesting though. We keep designing websites that have to be rendered in different browsers, different systems, and we talk about making the design such that it looks nice on all, if not equally accurate. So interestingly, could someone now come up with design aesthetics that make a site look good in a browser universe that includes the iphone/ipod safari? My initial guess is that websites would become more minimalistic, liquid-ish, and the dependence on javascript in building webapps is going to transform a bit.

Or, everyone’s going to throw their hands up in the air and say f**k it, let’s just make device specific domains. And they’re going to get bumped wshen eventually, say in 3 years, the form factor for the ipod/iphone changes again.

Aargh, that’s gonna suck.

By: LKM

LKM — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:32:12 +0000

>Why limit yourself to a thin sliver of the mobile web market.

Because that sliver consists of people who might actually *use* the browser on their mobile device.

By: Helge Laurishc

Helge Laurishc — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:12 +0000

[...]Also, for those who want the phone, it is $200 cheaper. I think it is safe to say that there will be many iP* devices hitting the web come holiday time.[...]

they lowered the price for the iPhone from 599 to 399
read this: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&node=home/iphone/iphone

By: scriptkiddie

scriptkiddie — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:14:37 +0000

use “i” for iPhone and iPod

use “m” for other mobile devices in obsolescence