Well.... that's a reasonably strange argument. I mean, if she wants a pen, rotary phone and a phonograph then I don't see how she's going to be happy with a computer and a smartphone of any ilk. Maybe a Nokia 1100, a notebook and a walkman might be better. Personally I rather think that it is.

But anyway.

You almost make a fair point about iPhoto being the tool to take photos off the phone, whereas putting them on is done through itunes. Except that no-one puts photos on their phone in this way - you just use photostreams and icloud. The syncing of photos using itunes only remains in itunes so that it can continue to support the ipod classic.

I don't wish to suggest that the way in which functionality is distributed between some of these applications is perfect - but I really don't believe it's as bad as you say. For instance, you used your iphone to take some photos. If icloud is set up at both ends, then the photos are already on the mac, so there's nothing to do. If you plug in your iphone and there's new photos on it, then iphoto just pops up for you, so that's not so hard either. In fact, it's exactly the same as if you plugged in your digital camera - so it doesn't seem all that bad.

Regarding apps, you don't buy apps for your iphone through itunes. I mean, you can, but since we're discussing your grandmother's use of the device, wouldn't it be simpler for her to buy the app directly on the phone? Isn't that what you do on an Android device?

And contacts. You sync your contacts using icloud, and they don't have to be transferred - it all just happens for you in the background. I'm sure Android does the same thing too. Syncing contacts has been removed from itunes (not sure when), so this is the only way to do it.

Fair's fair though - putting videos that you didn't buy through itunes (yes, I know, it's called itunes and it does more things that just tunes. I get it. But I'm sure you're not just hating on the name, right?) on the phone is a bit of a pain. They have to be properly encoded, and then you have to import them into itunes - annoying because who uses itunes to watch torrented content? - and thence drag them onto the device.

Of course, your grandmother the leet haxxor would probably install something like Extreme Player HD (how's that for a silly name...) and download them into her phone from an SMB share.

I don't really understand posts like this.

Ok - I have a music player in my pocket. Under the hood I have no doubt that its operating system knows all about 'files and folders'. I happen to know all about them too, I have countless thousands on my computer to worry about.

I don't miss them on my device. I can't stand the damn things. Folders within folders within folders. I just want a good database-like filesystem that works by automatically tagging things. But that's a whole other story.

Anyway:

I also have thousands upon thousands of MP3 files on my computer - but they do not belong in 'files and folders'. Because it makes no sense whatsoever to organise them in this way. Instead, most computer systems today come with software that organises your music collection for you. Windows has some, Linux has many, and OSX has one too.

I assume from your post that you too, like any sensible person, has their MP3 collection organised in this software. So now, you plug in your iphone. And either;

1) Tick 'sync my music' - all the music is copied onto the device. Done.
2) Likely it won't fit though, in which case just drag the music you want from your library onto the device. Also done.
3) If you prefer, you can tick 'sync my music', and then select particular artists or albums or whatever and tick those instead of the 'entire library' option.

How did you spend an hour fucking about with that? I sincerely don't mean any disrespect - I'm just interested in how none of the three above options matched your use case.

I don't know - it's never something I've had any trouble with. You can even set up your iphone to sync over wifi, and you don't even have to plug it into USB anymore - other than to charge it. You can buy music on your phone, and lo-and-behold it downloads onto your PC - and vice-versa too. The only thing you can't easily do, is get music *off* the phone. This is almost certainly a concession to the music labels, but I concede that it is a bit annoying. I even went as far as to write some software to do bi-directional syncing of music on an iPod, but in the end it was just easier to have a single music library and stop being so OCD about the whole thing.

It seems to me that your chief complaint about iTunes is its name.

I don't disagree that iTunes is a bit clunky in some respects - but why would you want to use more than one app to manage the content on your phone? And since some of that content is music, and some is video, then why wouldn't you extent the media management app in OSX to sync to the phone also?

Look at is this way - it's perfectly possible now to own and use an iphone without touching iTunes. It's also perfectly possible to own a mac and an iphone, and still not use iTunes to manage your phone. iTunes is entirely optional, but if one does choose to use it, isn't it better that all of this device and content management is centralised into a single application?

It's also slightly unfair to suggest that every version has completely different interface. It has changed quite a bit over the years, but it's hardly completely different. And in any case, wouldn't it be worse to evolve the music library management application (iTunes was never just a 'music player' - that was the whole point of it) and not change its interface?

True, but those clip-together cases are cheaper to manufacture and assemble - which is something that translates into cheaper products. SMD components are also cheaper, and save on board size - cheaper again.

It's not like this is a conspiracy - it's just that people prefer cheap stuff.

Now be fair - normally the phone craps out before the battery dies anyway :)

We had an earthquake. Power didn't work, phone didn't work, internet (ADSL) didn't work. Cellphone worked. Just saying'.

Yes, but are they shooting arrows, riding a horse and listening to vinyl all at the same time??

Very likely. I know I am.

That is all total nonsense. CD can be compressed, but the compression required when mastering vinyl is normally more than mastering a CD due to the limited physical space for the grooves. Extremely high frequencies (whatever that means, presumably you mean greater than 20kHz - which, no matter what you say, you can't hear) are removed when mastering too. Unless the recording engineer has gone out of their way to make the CD sound terrible, it will always sound better than the vinyl.

Much ink has been spilt on the subject of sound quality - but the reality is that it simply doesn't matter very much at all. Most of us are completely terrible at measuring sound quality anyway, and even more of us don't really care that much.

And Bang and Olufsen? The 80's called, they want their high end audio back.

But vinyl looks nicer, and has better (well, bigger) artwork. No-one's buying vinyl because it sounds better (well, some probably are, but I don't think that explains the upswing in sales) - people are buying it because it's just a nice thing to own. Like real books, for instance. No-one has ever really cared about 'sound quality', because unless you sit in the sweet spot in your carefully adjusted room, or use very good headphones, it simply doesn't matter.

Perhaps perhaps - apparently (some of) Daft Punk's Random Access Memories was recorded on analog tape. And without wishing to present opinion as fact, that is the best sounding album of the year.

Of course, the final thing is delivered to you on a CD (well, you can get the vinyl, but I happen to have the CD) and it sounds amazing. And I think that is just down to talented musicians playing and talented engineers engineering and so-on, and all of them caring deeply about creating something that sounds incredible. And crucially, not creating something that just sounds good on FM radio.

I know - similarly people who claim that their tube amp sound better, when there were probably upwards of a hundred opamps in the recording and mixing chain before it hit their tubes.

Record are wonderfully cool objects, and anyone who still plays them does it because they love them. In my home town, people still record onto 7" singles, and release them locally, and I buy them because if you're listening to a band like this one then the crackles and pops add immeasurably to the experience.

First, you're just talking about compression, which is fine and is used in recording regularly.

Second, I agree completely.

Third, transients. In recording, the compression and subsequently the mastering should take care of these. When recording with 24 bit audio, the headroom is astronomical. In playback, where would they come from?

Fourth, also quite true. But no longer.

Yes, if you want to hear a mosquito and a jackhammer at the same time. Not sure what music you're listening to, but I'm sure glad I'm not your neighbour.

That doesn't mean you are hearing ultrasonics - there are modulation effects and other audible frequencies that are generated by 'ultrasonic' transducers that are produced as well as the ultrasonics. It's certainly quite a claim to suggest that you could year 27kHz signals - what was generating them?

Can software be art?

Sounds like you're pigeonholing yourself here - just keep going until you fail, and then pick yourself up and start again. I good friend of mine makes work that might be thought of as 'technological'. Worrying about whether or not other people will like his work hasn't stopped him, and it shouldn't stop you.