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 8/27/2010 5:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> 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.
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.
>> 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.
There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
already use for other products. It's the issue of the iPhone only being
on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
about those issues. The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
integrates with other products and services is something the Android
needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
rather a hassle.
>> 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.
>
> that depends on which report.
>
> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
> /3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
>
> 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.
An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
and capacity problems.
[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
In article <4c792437$0$1593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
> >> copy of iPhone,
> >
> > yes it is, in many, many ways.
>
> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
> of the iPhone.
absolutely, especially when you look at what android was early on and
compare it to what it is now. the iphone had a *lot* of influence on it
and still does.
> If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
> Android would never have had such enormous success.
maybe yes, maybe no. it's impossible to know what might have happened.
> >> 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.
>
> There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
> demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
> already use for other products.
it's not that simple. it could also be parts shortages, such as the lcd
panel that the ipad uses. the fact is that apple is supply constrained.
if they could simply sign up another manufacturer, don't you think they
would?
> It's the issue of the iPhone only being
> on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
> some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
> specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
> replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
> about those issues.
competition is good. the iphone does not have to be the *only* platform.
> The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
> integrates with other products and services is something the Android
> needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
> could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
> hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
> rather a hassle.
deposit by phone ****ing rocks. if only people would send me more
checks to deposit.
> An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
> know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
> people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
> chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
> NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
> transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
> to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
> and capacity problems.
there's no question that at&t is a problem, and one that will cease to
be an issue one day. both at&t and apple have said the exclusive will
end at some point.
meanwhile apple is selling all that they can make, so even if the
iphone was available on verizon and other carriers, they wouldn't be
selling much more.
On 8/28/10 10:58 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 8/27/2010 5:26 PM, nospam wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
> demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
> already use for other products. It's the issue of the iPhone only being
> on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
> some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
> specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
> replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
> about those issues. The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
> integrates with other products and services is something the Android
> needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
> could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
> hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
> rather a hassle.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> that depends on which report.
>>
>> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
>> /3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
>>
>> 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.
>
> An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
> know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
> people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
> chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
> NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
> transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
> to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
> and capacity problems.
>
> [alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
The Android phones are in a "younger" stage of development than the
iPhones and there are a number of manufacturers pushing Android
development.
Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
very worthy competitors.
> Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
> out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
> phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
> waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
> need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
> very worthy competitors.
The Incredible is very impressive. And how many people with Android
phones are going to just decide to stick with an OS and user interface
that they're familiar with even when the iPhone does make it to other
carriers. Apple probably had no idea how incredibly popular the iPhone
would be, or how incredibly unprepared AT&T was to handle such
popularity, when they signed that long-term exclusivity agreement.
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
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:35:58 -0700, in
<4c792d0c$0$1649$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 8/28/2010 8:21 AM, Secular Humanist wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
>> out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
>> phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
>> waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
>> need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
>> very worthy competitors.
>
>The Incredible is very impressive. And how many people with Android
>phones are going to just decide to stick with an OS and user interface
>that they're familiar with even when the iPhone does make it to other
>carriers. Apple probably had no idea how incredibly popular the iPhone
>would be, or how incredibly unprepared AT&T was to handle such
>popularity, when they signed that long-term exclusivity agreement.
So Apple is smart, or Apple is not so smart (as you of course)?
Which is it? At least keep your silly stories straight.
--
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.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c793a86$0$1591$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> 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.
Windows Mobile licenses, athough neither MS or OEMs will discuss them in
exact terms, are estimated to be around $10. (MS will confirm vague numbers
like "around $10" or "under $12," etc. Presumably each OEM negotiates their
own figures so MS wouldn't want to disclose what HTC is paying, if Samsumg
is paying more.) Compare the cost of developing your own smartphone OS, and
suddenly $8/unit doesn't seem so bad. $0 (Android) is better still, but if
the OS brings advantages to the table, the cost is justified (else we'd be
seeing a lot more Linux PCs from HP and Dell!)
> 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.
Yes and no- given that until the announcement of Windows Phone 7, (and the
coming apparent abandonment of "old" Windows Mobile by MS) scared off both
buyers and OEMs in droves from the WM6.x platform, MS was still steadily
selling 4-5 million or so WinMo licenses each quarter in a post-iPhone
world, despite the moldy UI and wildly uneven user experience on the various
phones sporting the WinMo software.
I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty disadvantages in
return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
morning!
Pre-iPhone, Palm has thrown in the towel on PalmOS and was building WinMo
devices, and the new focus on security, indroduced in WM5 (and really
improved in 6) was letting WinMo start taking a bit of ground from RIM's
huge lead in the enterprise. What Microsoft didn't know at the time, of
course, was that businesses will talk a good game about security, but if a
device is easy-to-use, fun, and is popular enough with employees or
management, they will let security standards slide, as evidenced by the
adoption of the iPhone in many formerly Blackberry-only shops. (Apple's
iPhone security implementations are decent, but very weak by RIM's
standards.)
It wasn't the $8 that killed WinMo- it was MS's infighting between
divisions, a lack of resources devoted to the mobile space (which was
considered unimportant) and a certain disbelief that the smartphone category
would amount to much other than a niche product for business users and
geeks- two groups who'd "never" buy from companies like Apple anyway. MS
chose to skate by with essentially the same OS and UI they'd been milking
since April 2000 when Pocket PC was released (infused with the trademark MS
feature/code bloat that made modern devices require 128MB RAM and 512MHz
processors to match the performance of the 16MB/133MHz devices Compaq and
Casio pumped out at the turn of the century.)
Unfortunately, IMO, MS is making a huge blunder with WP7- something I'll
call the "Gore Effect." (If you recall, in his bid for the presidency, Al
Gore resisted any campaign help from Bill Clinton in fear he'd be "tainted"
by association, forgetting that those voters who'd hold the Clinton support
against him, weren't his voters anyway.) MS is building WP7 from ground up
(a very good thing, since the moldy old code had been piling up in WinMo for
quite a while) but to completely distance itself from old WM, which it
apparently now sees as an embarrassment, rather than a flawed, but effective
OS it managed to market semi-successfully for a decade, MS has broken all
compatibility with WM6.x code, making life hard for the thousands of devs
who've supported WinMo to this point, with some excellent apps in the more
than 30K available, as well as the millions of users who use those apps, and
has copied Apple's closed-ecosystem approach, rather than the open approach
used by Android (doubly ironic, because the "open source" Android is, in
some ways, more "closed" than old-school WinMo WRT developer's access to the
device hardware.
However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
promote their tires as a reason to buy the car. With WP7, you can expect MS
to advertise the heck out of it- probably as an extension of those "My Idea"
ads for Windows 7.
(I can already see a parody ad in my head- an ad showing no cut and paste,
no multitasking, all apps downloaded from a central store, and an energetic,
greying man in a black turtleneck smiling impishly while saying "Windows
Phone 7- it was MY idea!")
> However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
> had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
> any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
> had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
> were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
> of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
> hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
> crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
> promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.
Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
with XBOX, but not with Zune. It doesn't require that they manufacture
it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to be
able to design and market it.
The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.
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]
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:31:30 -0600, in
<gCceo.84309$lS1.25878@newsfe12.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>Windows Mobile licenses, athough neither MS or OEMs will discuss them in
>exact terms, are estimated to be around $10. (MS will confirm vague numbers
>like "around $10" or "under $12," etc. Presumably each OEM negotiates their
>own figures so MS wouldn't want to disclose what HTC is paying, if Samsumg
>is paying more.) Compare the cost of developing your own smartphone OS, and
>suddenly $8/unit doesn't seem so bad. $0 (Android) is better still, but if
>the OS brings advantages to the table, the cost is justified (else we'd be
>seeing a lot more Linux PCs from HP and Dell!)
The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
Need I cite the cases?
>Yes and no- given that until the announcement of Windows Phone 7, (and the
>coming apparent abandonment of "old" Windows Mobile by MS) scared off both
>buyers and OEMs in droves from the WM6.x platform, MS was still steadily
>selling 4-5 million or so WinMo licenses each quarter in a post-iPhone
>world, despite the moldy UI and wildly uneven user experience on the various
>phones sporting the WinMo software.
I've heard Microsoft folk say privately they now know in retrospect that
Win7Mo should have been a new product fork instead of a replacement.
>I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
>and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty disadvantages in
>return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
>user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
>particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
>morning!
The integration they actually really cared about was what RIM provided
with BlackBerry, a major missed opportunity for Microsoft as it clung to
the Exchange dinosaur. The other aspects of desktop integration weren't
as important because everyone was carrying laptops.
I do largely agree with your other points.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:52:34 -0700, in
<4c795b20$0$1677$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 8/28/2010 11:31 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
>> had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
>> any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
>> had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
>> were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
>> of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
>> hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
>> crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
>> promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.
>
>Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
>iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
>hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
>with XBOX, but not with Zune. It doesn't require that they manufacture
>it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to be
>able to design and market it.
Another nice scramble, albeit a day late and a dollar short.
>The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.
Wrong again(tm): Too late for that now. The market is showing little
interest in integration apps available. While employees are happy to
_communicate_ on mobile devices, they want larger screens and keyboards
for _productivity_ tasks. Witness the iPad.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
At 28 Aug 2010 11:52:34 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 8/28/2010 11:31 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old
WinMo never
> > had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never
gave WM
> > any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs,
who
> > had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung
or HTC
> > were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in
spite
> > of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the
brand of
> > hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is
about as
> > crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to
prominently
> > promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.
>
> Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
> iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
> hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
> with XBOX, but not with Zune.
The Zune is "manufactured" by MS (OEM'd, but sold under the MS brand. I
don't know who builds them now, but apparently my original Zune 30s are
made by Toshiba.)
> It doesn't require that they manufacture
> it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to
> be able to design and market it.
They're trying to straddle a new line w/WP7- allow OEMs to design and
manufacture, but only within a narrow set of specs- screen res, hardware
buttons and placement, CPU types and speed, RAM and storage minimums,
etc. The old WinMo only had a very low (frankly, far too low) minimum spec,
than OEMs could add anything they wanted.
The advantage, is that the user experience should be very similar between
devices, but the disadvantage, obviously , is that OEMs have very little
room to differentiate or innovate, which gives them less incentive to
remain licensees, particularly if one OEM, say, HTC, has success at the
expense of others. Personally, I think MS should create a branded device
to "set the bar" and let OEMs go above and beyond.
> The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.
Office integration has been part of WinMo since 2000 gave us "Pocket PC."
If that was all it took for success in the mobile space, WinMo wouldn't
be in the crapper today. WP7 adds support for Office Live's cloud
storage (a la Google Docs,) but I feel that's probably more of a nod to
the Enterprise saying "see, we haven't abandoned you entirely!"
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:19:36 -0600, in
<odfeo.5371$LX.1821@newsfe13.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>At 28 Aug 2010 11:52:34 -0700 SMS wrote:
>> The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.
>
>Office integration has been part of WinMo since 2000 gave us "Pocket PC."
> If that was all it took for success in the mobile space, WinMo wouldn't
>be in the crapper today. WP7 adds support for Office Live's cloud
>storage (a la Google Docs,) but I feel that's probably more of a nod to
>the Enterprise saying "see, we haven't abandoned you entirely!"
I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices. Microsoft needs to
_lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
technology startups to put lipstick on it.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
In article <gCceo.84309$lS1.25878@newsfe12.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
> and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty disadvantages in
> return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
> user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
> particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
> morning!
you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of **** that you
actually had to do that?
> They're trying to straddle a new line w/WP7- allow OEMs to design and
> manufacture, but only within a narrow set of specs- screen res, hardware
> buttons and placement, CPU types and speed, RAM and storage minimums,
> etc.
Sounds just like Microsoft!
I worked on the Microsoft tablet reference design and the first
commercial product based on it. Microsoft had also set strict hardware
requirements for OEMS, including weight and battery life but performance
also. They were very difficult requirements to meet. If you met the
battery life requirement it was too heavy or the performance was too
low. If you used a more powerful processor the performance was fine but
you needed a larger battery so it exceeded the weight limit. And there
was no mass market for tablets, though they sold fairly well into
vertical markets.
Apple realized that a tablet couldn't be a general purpose computer and
remain light enough with good enough battery life to appeal to the
masses. The iPad is very impressive.
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.
At 28 Aug 2010 14:09:19 -0700 John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:31:30 -0600, in
> <gCceo.84309$lS1.25878@newsfe12.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> >Windows Mobile licenses, athough neither MS or OEMs will discuss them
in
> >exact terms, are estimated to be around $10. (MS will confirm vague
numbers
> >like "around $10" or "under $12," etc. Presumably each OEM negotiates
their
> >own figures so MS wouldn't want to disclose what HTC is paying, if
Samsumg
> >is paying more.) Compare the cost of developing your own smartphone OS,
and
> >suddenly $8/unit doesn't seem so bad. $0 (Android) is better still,
but if
> >the OS brings advantages to the table, the cost is justified (else
we'd be
> >seeing a lot more Linux PCs from HP and Dell!)
>
> The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
> Need I cite the cases?
Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.
> >Yes and no- given that until the announcement of Windows Phone 7, (and
the
> >coming apparent abandonment of "old" Windows Mobile by MS) scared off
both
> >buyers and OEMs in droves from the WM6.x platform, MS was still
steadily
> >selling 4-5 million or so WinMo licenses each quarter in a post-iPhone
> >world, despite the moldy UI and wildly uneven user experience on the
various
> >phones sporting the WinMo software.
>
> I've heard Microsoft folk say privately they now know in retrospect that
> Win7Mo should have been a new product fork instead of a replacement.
The official line from MS _is_ that it's a new fork, and WinMo 6.x will
be sold and supported for as long as there's market demand. The reality
of that, of course, is that WinMo is dead, because MS doesn't support
WinMo end-users directly, only OEMs, and OEMs will have even less
interest after WP7 drops than they have now. MS even silently turned
over small-volume licensing (for companies that want to make vertical
market WinMo devices like Symbol inventory scanners, or ruggedized
devices) of WinMo to an old Windows CE software house called BSquare
before the WP7 announcement. That was seemingly MS' way of saying "we're
done, unless you really want to build tens of thousands of units, then
we'll take WinMo out of mothballs..."
> >I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS
products
> >and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty
disadvantages in
> >return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime
WinMo
> >user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in
case!"
> >particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
> >morning!
>
> The integration they actually really cared about was what RIM provided
> with BlackBerry, a major missed opportunity for Microsoft as it clung to
> the Exchange dinosaur.
You mean the same "Exchange dinosaur" feeding RIM's BES middleware at
most firms?
Exchange is actually an excellent technology, and allows for Blackberry
functionality without handing over all your data to a third-party.
Where MS stumbled was not taking security and push email seriously. Why
used middleware like BES when you already run Exchange? Simple- WinMo
didn't offer push email until 2004, OTA configuration and remote wipe
until late 2005, or storage card encryption/storage card wipe until 2007,
and still lacks many (admittedly less used) BB security features to this
day. And, as I said, WinMo just wasn't easy or fun enough to put up with
the weaker security, though it did have advantages in terms of LOB apps
and built-in Exchange support (both recently equalled or bested by iOS.)
Though, MS was making inroads prior to the iPhone/Android 1-2 punch- RIM
had even lowered BES licensing fees to counter MS's anti-middleware
argument.
> The other aspects of desktop integration weren't
> as important because everyone was carrying laptops.
That's where the in-fighting at MS sabatoges MS products. WinMo,
although probably capable of beng an effective laptop replacement, was
relegated to PC peripheral status, since its MS overlords wouldn't want
$8 WinMo licenses to cannibalize $30 98/XP/Vista laptop licenses. It was
probably no coincidence that old-school WinMo improvements petered out
just as netbooks became a killer category for MS. Why encourage the
future of mobile computing to become WinCE smartphone-based when it could
be XP netbook-based?
At the risk of raising the ire of the iOS fans, many of the iOS
restrictions seemingly have a similar goal- to be useful enough people
want one as an additional device, but not so useful it could replace a
laptop for most users.
In the end, there's plenty of room for a Microsoft smartphone in an
iPhone and Android world- users can pick their ideal smartphone to
"match" their choice of preferred services- those in the
Apple/iPod/iTunes/MobileMe ecosystem would choose iOS, Gmail/GooCal users
could adopt Android, and MS Live/Office/XBox/Exchange users, (as well as
all seventeen Zune owners!) would gravitate to WP7.
At 28 Aug 2010 18:16:45 -0400 nospam wrote:
> In article <gCceo.84309$lS1.25878@newsfe12.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS
products
> > and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty
disadvantages in
> > return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime
WinMo
> > user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in
case!"
> > particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
> > morning!
>
> you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of **** that you
> actually had to do that?
No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."
> Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
> Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
> their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.
Oh g-d, don't get me started on Linux and trying to support six
different versions each with multiple versions of the kernel.
Sure, we'd be happy to hire six more Linux gurus at a burdened cost of
$250,000 per year to write drivers for you--after all you're buying 1000
devices. Would you like some custom silicon to go with that? How about
of bowl of chili?
Those that claim it was some sort of market power conspiracy against
Linux are extremely clueless. Linux is free if time has no value.
At 28 Aug 2010 14:40:06 -0700 John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:19:36 -0600, in
> <odfeo.5371$LX.1821@newsfe13.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> >At 28 Aug 2010 11:52:34 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
> >> The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.
> >
> >Office integration has been part of WinMo since 2000 gave us "Pocket
PC."
> > If that was all it took for success in the mobile space, WinMo
wouldn't
> >be in the crapper today. WP7 adds support for Office Live's cloud
> >storage (a la Google Docs,) but I feel that's probably more of a nod to
> >the Enterprise saying "see, we haven't abandoned you entirely!"
>
> I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
> But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
> in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
> dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
> reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
> but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices.
Perhaps, but I think it's more of trying to keep their "old-guard"
products relevant longer. Have you used Office Live? Very slick,
integrates well with "on site" Office, and overall has a better "real
app" feel than Google Docs. (To be fair, GooDocs hasn't seen a major
update in a while- I suspect Google has some leapfrogging up their sleeves
which makes things better for we consumers.)
> Microsoft needs to
> _lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
> time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
> sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
> most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
> technology startups to put lipstick on it.
I disagree- RIM is dangerously close to becoming a niche player without a
major overhaul (and the increased fragmention that brings.) MS already
had one of those with WinMo- two if you include Sidekick.
MS is giving WP7 some very exciting XBox integration if that's your thing
(it isn't mine!) integrated social networking features (yawn) and a Kin-
like cloud mirroring of device data (laugh at Kin all you want, but the
seamless cloud backup was pretty slick- almost Android-on-steroids.)
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:50:54 -0600, in
<Bpgeo.76243$1F6.62053@newsfe01.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>At 28 Aug 2010 14:40:06 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>> I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
>> But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
>> in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
>> dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
>> reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
>> but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices.
>
>Perhaps, but I think it's more of trying to keep their "old-guard"
>products relevant longer.
Sure. But that's defending the past at the expense of the future.
>Have you used Office Live? Very slick,
>integrates well with "on site" Office,
I agree. I think it would have been killer say 5 years ago, but now is
a symptom of Microsoft reacting to increasingly less relevant old
battles instead of leading on new battles, like the French reinforcing
the Maginot line instead of developing mobile armor and artillery and
air defenses.
>and overall has a better "real
>app" feel than Google Docs. (To be fair, GooDocs hasn't seen a major
>update in a while- I suspect Google has some leapfrogging up their sleeves
>which makes things better for we consumers.)
I think Google Docs was in large part a diversionary tactic that drew
Microsoft away from the things it really needed to do.
>> Microsoft needs to
>> _lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
>> time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
>> sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
>> most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
>> technology startups to put lipstick on it.
>
>I disagree- RIM is dangerously close to becoming a niche player without a
>major overhaul (and the increased fragmention that brings.) MS already
>had one of those with WinMo- two if you include Sidekick.
RIM still has a dominant market share lead, and a pretty loyal base,
which I think you may be underestimating.
>MS is giving WP7 some very exciting XBox integration if that's your thing
>(it isn't mine!) integrated social networking features (yawn) and a Kin-
>like cloud mirroring of device data (laugh at Kin all you want, but the
>seamless cloud backup was pretty slick- almost Android-on-steroids.)
I'm not sure there's still room for another player (which WinMo7 is by
virtue of abandoning WinMo6), and I think Microsoft is going about this
in a way that's doomed to fail. I think the only real hope of saving
WinMo7 would be to immediately announce app compatibility with WinMo6,
and then figure out how to do it quick quick. If Windows 7 had been the
same kind of complete break with Windows Vista, then I think it would
still be struggling now.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:16:47 -0700, in
<4c798aad$0$1669$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 28/08/10 2:19 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> They're trying to straddle a new line w/WP7- allow OEMs to design and
>> manufacture, but only within a narrow set of specs- screen res, hardware
>> buttons and placement, CPU types and speed, RAM and storage minimums,
>> etc.
>
>Sounds just like Microsoft!
>
>I worked on the Microsoft tablet reference design and the first
>commercial product based on it. Microsoft had also set strict hardware
>requirements for OEMS, including weight and battery life but performance
>also. They were very difficult requirements to meet. If you met the
>battery life requirement it was too heavy or the performance was too
>low. If you used a more powerful processor the performance was fine but
>you needed a larger battery so it exceeded the weight limit. And there
>was no mass market for tablets, though they sold fairly well into
>vertical markets.
>
>Apple realized that a tablet couldn't be a general purpose computer and
>remain light enough with good enough battery life to appeal to the
>masses. The iPad is very impressive.
To the masses.
--
John
If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in
<W1geo.31383$co1.17565@newsfe11.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>At 28 Aug 2010 14:09:19 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>> The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
>> Need I cite the cases?
>
>Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
>Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
>their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.
Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.
>> The integration they actually really cared about was what RIM provided
>> with BlackBerry, a major missed opportunity for Microsoft as it clung to
>> the Exchange dinosaur.
>
>You mean the same "Exchange dinosaur" feeding RIM's BES middleware at
>most firms?
Yep. RIM put lipstick on that pig.
>Exchange is actually an excellent technology, and allows for Blackberry
>functionality without handing over all your data to a third-party.
I disagree, have got way too many Exchange scars. Exchange evolved
willy nilly over time into a kludge that's workable only with great
effort. If it was so good, WinMo would have trounced RIM.
>> The other aspects of desktop integration weren't
>> as important because everyone was carrying laptops.
>
>That's where the in-fighting at MS sabatoges MS products. WinMo,
>although probably capable of beng an effective laptop replacement, was
>relegated to PC peripheral status, since its MS overlords wouldn't want
>$8 WinMo licenses to cannibalize $30 98/XP/Vista laptop licenses. It was
>probably no coincidence that old-school WinMo improvements petered out
>just as netbooks became a killer category for MS. Why encourage the
>future of mobile computing to become WinCE smartphone-based when it could
>be XP netbook-based?
The smart company realizes it's better to eat your own children than to
have them eaten by others, does the best new product it can, and lets
the chips fall where they may. The dumb company fights to keep its
children from getting eaten, a losing and counterproductive battle in
the long run. This sadly is more Ballmer than Gates, not to mention
Paul Allen. Had Allen stayed healthy and involved, I think Microsoft
might well be a much better company today.
>At the risk of raising the ire of the iOS fans, many of the iOS
>restrictions seemingly have a similar goal- to be useful enough people
>want one as an additional device, but not so useful it could replace a
>laptop for most users.
Yep, and it may well prove to be Apple's undoing in time.
>In the end, there's plenty of room for a Microsoft smartphone in an
>iPhone and Android world-
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.
>users can pick their ideal smartphone to
>"match" their choice of preferred services- those in the
>Apple/iPod/iTunes/MobileMe ecosystem would choose iOS, Gmail/GooCal users
>could adopt Android, and MS Live/Office/XBox/Exchange users, (as well as
>all seventeen Zune owners!) would gravitate to WP7.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice users tend to cluster to
1 or 2 big winners, just as in the desktop OS and server OS battles.
Remember Novell? Is that what you mean by "plenty of room"?
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:49:18 -0700, in
<4c79929c$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 8/28/2010 3:25 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
>> Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
>> their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.
>
>Oh g-d, don't get me started on Linux and trying to support six
>different versions each with multiple versions of the kernel.
>
>Sure, we'd be happy to hire six more Linux gurus at a burdened cost of
>$250,000 per year to write drivers for you--after all you're buying 1000
>devices. Would you like some custom silicon to go with that? How about
>of bowl of chili?
>
>Those that claim it was some sort of market power conspiracy against
>Linux are extremely clueless. Linux is free if time has no value.
Linux is hard to support only if expertise is absent. You must not know
how to do it, but that doesn't mean everyone else is so handicapped.
--
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
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late " 
Linear Mode
