On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:01:19 -0700, in
<4c7843ee$0$1598$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
>
>"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
>phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
>creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
>and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone, since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
of smartphone platforms), since touch screen essentially goes back to
Palm, since smartphone goes back to Nokia and Sony Ericsson, since a
Verizon iPhone might well have been a net downer for Apple, since Droid
isn't the only measure of Android success, since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
"New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
Summarizes the situation pretty well.
--
John
If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
In article <dvjg76hmao55udk548egqqjags4oa3r9i5@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
> >
> >"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
> >phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
> >creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
> >and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
>
> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
> copy of iPhone,
yes it is, in many, many ways.
> since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
> of smartphone platforms),
not of the same class they haven't.
> since touch screen essentially goes back to
> Palm,
resistive screens that required a stylus. blech. the iphone and android
are huge advancements over that.
> since smartphone goes back to Nokia and Sony Ericsson, since a
> Verizon iPhone might well have been a net downer for Apple,
eh?
> since Droid
> isn't the only measure of Android success,
it's a major one. the droid family are the best selling android phones.
> since the real issue holding
> back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
only keep up.
> and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
> with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
>
> "New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
> Summarizes the situation pretty well.
For complete weeks*since 23 June, the average weekly number of
Android device users accessing*programmes*from the BBC iPlayer was
1,106, peaking at 1,896*in the week commencing 26 July*2010.*
In July 2010 there was an*average of 230,016 Apple*mobile devices
users accessing programmes via*the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
at*248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.*
just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
that's *two* orders of magnitude higher for iphone.
android may be eating lunch but it sure isn't the iphone's lunch it's
eating.
nospam wrote on [Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:26:28 -0400]:
> In article <dvjg76hmao55udk548egqqjags4oa3r9i5@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
>> >
>> >"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
>> >phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
>> >creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
>> >and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
>>
>> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
>> copy of iPhone,
>
> yes it is, in many, many ways.
many, many ways.
>> since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
>> of smartphone platforms),
>
> not of the same class they haven't.
Did Palm have 638 fart apps?
> that depends on which report.
>
> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
> /3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
>
> For complete weeksÂ*since 23 June, the average weekly number of
> Android device users accessingÂ*programmesÂ*from the BBC iPlayer was
> 1,106, peaking at 1,896Â*in the week commencing 26 JulyÂ*2010.Â*
>
> In July 2010 there was anÂ*average of 230,016 AppleÂ*mobile devices
> users accessing programmes viaÂ*the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
> atÂ*248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.Â*
>
> just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
> android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
>
> that's *two* orders of magnitude higher for iphone.
>
> android may be eating lunch but it sure isn't the iphone's lunch it's
> eating.
Talk about (no pun intended) comparing Apples and Oranges. This study
you are quoting is talking about the UK, the other one is the US.
Which one is the bigger market?
Also, how many of those iOS accesses are from a non iPhone?
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:58:18 -0700, in
<4c792437$0$1593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>Android would never have had such enormous success.
Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).
>An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity.
Your usual speculation presented as fact, followed by a meaningless
(probably made-up) anecdote.
>[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
[childish newsgroup removal restored]
--
John
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
In article <76ci76thu7l4siokahlvr4iaac9832u22b@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
> >of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
> >Android would never have had such enormous success.
>
> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>
> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
> facts (history).
yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.
On 8/28/2010 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<76ci76thu7l4siokahlvr4iaac9832u22b@4ax.com >, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>>> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>>> Android would never have had such enormous success.
>>
>> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
>> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>>
>> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
>> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
>> facts (history).
>
> yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
> you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
> that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
> as much.
Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
embedded devices. Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and
Embedded XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers. You'd
think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but
because of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.
In article <4c793a86$0$1591$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
> many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
> not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
> the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
> embedded devices.
apple started on the iphone/ipad in the early to mid 2000s (steve jobs,
all things d, a few months ago). the point is that android now looks
more like an iphone than it did in its original incantation.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:33:29 -0700, in
<4c793a86$0$1591$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 8/28/2010 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<76ci76thu7l4siokahlvr4iaac9832u22b@4ax.com >, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>>>> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>>>> Android would never have had such enormous success.
>>>
>>> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
>>> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>>>
>>> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
>>> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
>>> facts (history).
>>
>> yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
>> you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
>> that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
>> as much.
Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.
>Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
>many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
>not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
>the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
>embedded devices.
Nice scramble. I'm guessing you did some checking and discovered you'd
made another big gaffe (quoted above).
>Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and
>Embedded XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers. You'd
>think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
>integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
>(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but
>because of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.
Irrelevant to the erroneous claim you made, an obvious attempt to divert
attention from your scramble.
If you'd take the time to check _before_ speaking you could avoid
putting your foot in your mouth so often.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
In article <5uti76t224a3k2ompqfoe3bt0tamlie3e9@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>>> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
> >>>> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
> >>>> Android would never have had such enormous success.
> >>>
> >>> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
> >>> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
> >>>
> >>> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
> >>> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
> >>> facts (history).
> >>
> >> yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
> >> you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
> >> that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
> >> as much.
>
> Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
> redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.
in other words, they *are* copying a lot of what makes the iphone
popular.
nospam wrote on [Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:18:11 -0400]:
> In article <5uti76t224a3k2ompqfoe3bt0tamlie3e9@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>> >>>> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>> >>>> Android would never have had such enormous success.
>> >>>
>> >>> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
>> >>> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>> >>>
>> >>> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
>> >>> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
>> >>> facts (history).
>> >>
>> >> yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
>> >> you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
>> >> that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
>> >> as much.
>>
>> Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
>> redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.
>
> in other words, they *are* copying a lot of what makes the iphone
> popular.
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late " 
Linear Mode
